LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

Leadership development refers to any activity that enhances the quality of leadership within an individual or organization. These activities have ranged from MBA style programs offered at university business schools to action learning, high-ropes courses and executive retreats. Developing Individual Leaders Traditionally, leadership development has focused on developing the leadership abilities and attitudes of individuals. Just as people are not all born with the ability or desire to play football (soccer) like Zinedine Zidane or sing like Luciano Pavarotti, people are not all born with the ability to lead. Different personal traits and characteristics can help or hinder a person's leadership effectiveness[1] and require formalized programs for developing leadership competencies [2] Yet everyone can develop their leadership effectiveness. Achieving such development takes focus, practice and persistence more akin to learning a musical instrument than reading a book. Classroom-style training and associated reading is effective in helping leaders to know more about what is involved in leading well. However, knowing what to do and doing what you know are two very different outcomes; management expert Henry Mintzberg is one person to highlight this dilemma. It is estimated that as little as 15% of learning from traditional classroom style training results in sustained behavioral change within the workplace. The success of leadership development efforts has been linked to three variables • Individual learner characteristics • The quality and nature of the leadership development program • Genuine support for behavioral change from the leader's supervisor Military officer training academies, such as the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, go to great lengths to only accept candidates who show the highest potential to lead well. Personal characteristics that are associated with successful leadership development include leader motivation to learn, a high achievement drive and personality traits such as openness to experience, an internal focus of control, and self-monitoring. Development is also more likely to occur when the design of the development program: • Integrates a range of developmental experiences over a set period of time (e.g. 6–12 months). These experiences may include 360 degree feedback, experiential classroom style programs, business school style coursework, executive coaching, reflective journaling, mentoring and more. • Involve goal setting, following an assessment of key developmental needs and then evaluate the achievement of goals after a given time period. Among key concepts in leadership development one may find: • Experiential learning: positioning the individual in the focus of the learning process, going through the four stages of experiential learning as formulated by David A. Kolb: 1. concrete experience 2. observation and reflection 3. forming abstract concept 4. testing in new situations. • Self efficacy: The right training and coaching should bring about 'Self efficacy' in the trainee, as Albert Bandura formulated: A person's belief about his capabilities to produce effects • Visioning: Developing the ability to formulate a clear image of the aspired future of an organization unit. A good personal leadership development program should enable you to develop a plan that helps you gain essential leadership skills required for roles across a wide spectrum from a youth environment to the corporate world. These characteristics include: • Taking responsibility • Gaining focus • Developing life purpose • Starting action immediately • Developing effective and achievable goals and dreams. Developing Leadership at a Collective Level More recently, organizations have come to understand that leadership can also be developed by strengthening the connection between, and alignment of, the efforts of individual leaders and the systems through which they influence organizational operations. This has led to a differentiation between leader development and leadership development.[7] Leader development focuses on the development of the leader, such as the personal attributes desired in a leader, desired ways of behaving, ways of thinking or feeling. In contrast, leadership development focuses on the development of leadership as a process. This will include the interpersonal relationships, social influence process, and the team dynamics between the leader and his/her team at the dyad level, the contextual factors surrounding the team such as the perception of the organizational climate and the social network linkages between the team and other groups in the organization. One practical example of developing leadership specifically so as to influence an organization's safety culture is described by Burman & Evans.[8] Both forms of development may mutually influence each other, as exemplified in the concept of "Deep Change" in Robert E. Quinn [1]'s 1996 book of the same title. Leadership development can build on the development of individuals (including followers) to become leaders. In addition, it also needs to focus on the interpersonal linkages between the individuals in the team. In the belief that the most important resource that an organization possesses is the people that comprise the organization, some organizations address the development of these resources (even including the leadership). In contrast, the concept of "Employeeship" recognizes that what it takes to be a good leader is not too dissimilar to what it takes to be a good employee. Therefore, bringing the notional leader together with the team to explore these similarities (rather than focusing on the differences) brings positive results. This approach has been particularly successful in Sweden where the power distance between manager and team is small. Succession Planning The development of "high potentials" to effectively take over the current leadership when their time comes to exit their positions is known as succession planning. This type of leadership development usually requires the extensive transfer of an individual between departments. In many multinationals, it usually requires international transfer and experience to build a future leader. Succession planning requires a sharp focus on organization's future and vision, in order to align leadership development with the future the firm aspires to create. Thus successive leadership development is based not only on knowledge and history but also on a dream. For such a plan to be successful, a screening of future leadership should be based not only on "what we know and have" but also on "what we aspire to become". Persons involved in succession planning should be current leadership representing the vision and HR executives having to translate it all into a program. According to Meir Jacob and Amit Cohen (1995) three critical dimensions should be considered: 1. Skills and knowledge 2. Role perception and degree of acceptance of leading role 3. Self-efficacy (Albert Bandura). These three dimensions should be a basis of any leadership succession programme. References Cromwell & J. Kolb 2004, “An examination of work-environment support factors affecting transfer of supervisory skills training to the work place”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 449-71. Baldwin, T. & Ford, K. (1988), "Transfer Of Training: A Review And Directions For Future Research', Personnel Psychology, Spring, Vol. 41 Issue 1, p63-105 Organizational Behavior, 4th ed, by Stephen Robbins, Bruce Millet & Terry Waters-Marsh, published by Prentice Hall The Leadership Development Handbook, Center for Creative Leadership; and David V. Day (2000) Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581-614. Burman, R. & Evans, A.J. (2008) Target Zero: A Culture of safety, Defence Aviation Safety Centre Journal 2008, 22-27. http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres

religion as a double edged sword; a source for conflict and a resource for peace.

Introduction It is general knowledge world over that all human beings yearn for peace. What is not always very clear, however, is what each person’s interpretation of peace is and how it is understood to be achieved and consolidated. Religion and peace have been almost natural companions in the minds of humans in time and space, and in different cultures of the world. This is simply because, although far too many adherents and leaders of different religions in the world have disrupted peace in society by promoting violence and wars, the vast majority of believers still hold that true religion is a source and guarantor of individual and societal peace. Invariably, religion influences the cultural behaviours and perceptions of individuals and groups, to varying degrees to the extent that people who get involved in violent conflicts often declare that they fight and kill others in defence of their culture and identity, political beliefs and religion. Take a casual glance at the state of the world today and one is almost forgiven for suggesting that, in the last two decades, religion has been at the heart of most violent conflicts. For instance, by taking a glimpse at the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Nigeria and Sri Lanka, one would likely conclude that, indeed, religious differences are the epicentre of these conflicts. As observed by Mohammed Abu-Nimer, since the end of the Cold War, many scholars have argued that most conflicts are driven by clashes of community identity based on race, ethnicity and religious affiliation. Essentially, conflicts based on religion tend to become dogged, tenacious and brutal types of wars, and a threat to the meaning of life. When conflicts are couched in religious terms, in most cases they become transformed into value conflicts. Since time immemorial, some religious contributions to social evolution have been characterised by intolerance, divisiveness and resistance to change. Thus, sometimes religious convictions have become too absolutist, to the extent that compromise has been rendered useless. In such instances, it is all too often a reality that religion has been used as a badge of identity, which is usually employed to fuel or abate conflict for political ends. More so, as a major source of soft power, religion has been used or misused by religions and governmental organisations to pursue their interests, to a greater extent. Yet religion’s ability to inspire violence is intimately related to its equally impressive power as a resource for peace, especially in the growing number of conflicts around the world that involve religious claims and religiously inspired combatants. One strange phenomenon, noted by Scott Appleby, “is that terrorists and peacemakers may grow up in the same community and adhere to the same religious tradition. The killing carried out by one and the reconciliation fostered by the other indicates the range of dramatic and contradictory responses to human suffering by religious actors. Douglas Johnston buttresses this point and concludes that religion is a double-edged sword, in that it has the capacity to cause conflict and abate it. Nevertheless, it remains a tremendous resource for the creation of a just and egalitarian society that the world seeks to achieve. Religion as a Source of Conflict In the contemporary discourse, many of the intractable conflicts appear at least on face value to be driven and/or motivated by religion. Although this may appear to be minimalist in interpretation and analysis, there is a dominant school of thought that traces religion as a source of conflict all the way back to the religious wars that ravaged seventeenth century Europe. Embedded in this polemic is an established fact that religious warfare was and still is a theme that runs throughout human history, notwithstanding that all religious traditions are built around the concept of peace. Arguably, there are some aspects of religion that make it susceptible to being a latent source of conflict. Notably, all religions have their accepted dogma, or articles of belief, that followers must accept without question. This has, oftentimes, led to inflexibility and intolerance in the face of other beliefs. After all, if it is the word of God, how can one compromise it? At the same time, scripture and dogma are often vague and open to interpretation. Conflict can, therefore, arise over whose interpretation is the correctone – and this conflict cannot be solved because there is no arbiter. The winner generally is the interpretation that attracts the most followers, who ultimately must also be motivated to action. Although, almost invariably, the majority of people of any faith hold moderate views, they are often more complacent, whereas extremists are motivated to bring their interpretation of God’s will to fruition. Almost inevitably, religious extremists can contribute to conflict escalation. More often than not, they see radical measures as necessary to fulfilling God’s wishes. Fundamentalists of any religion tend to take a Manichean view of the world in that, if the world is a struggle between good and evil, it is hard to justify compromising with the devil. Any sign of moderation, thus, can be decried as selling out, more importantly, of abandoning God’s will. And, of course, religion is a contentious issue. Where eternal salvation is at stake, compromise can be difficult or even sinful. Therefore, as a central part of many individuals’ identity, any threat to one’s beliefs is a threat to one’s very being. This is the primary motivation for ethno-religious nationalists. In virtually every heterogeneous society, religious differences serve as a source of potential conflict. Since individuals are often ignorant of other faiths, there is some potential tension – although it does not usually follow that conflict will result. Although religion is not necessarily conflictual, it serves – as with ethnicity or race – as a way to distinguish one’s self and one’s group from another. Often, the group with less power – be it political or economic – is more aware of the tension than the privileged. When the privileged group is a minority, however – such as the Jews historically were in much of Europe – they are often well aware of the latent conflict. Many religions also have significant strains of evangelism – a phenomenon that has gripped Africa of late – which is potentially conflictual. Believers are called upon to spread the word of God and increase the numbers ‘in the flock’. For example, the effort to impose Christianity on people was an important part of the conflict surrounding European colonisation. Similarly, a group may seek to deny other religions the opportunity to practise their faith – the suppression of Christianity in China and Sudan being two contemporary examples. Looking at religion as a resource for peace some scholars have advanced various ideas in support of the same. For instance in proposing his concept of the ambivalence of the sacred, Appleby makes a critical contribution to the understanding of the way religion reinforces the human psychological construct, where we are all capable of love and creativity but also hatred and destructiveness. Although the great world religions vary widely in their substantive differences, as Appleby says, “One can trace a moral trajectory challenging adherents to greater acts of compassion, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Sadly though, a scan through most of the literature on religion in the contemporary world relates to the negative aspects of religion and its contribution to instability across the globe. What many scholars have often overlooked is the positive role that religion plays in preventing and resolving conflict. Religion has the capacity to bring parties together, based on the increased trust that it can introduce in certain situations. Certainly in the case of Mozambique, the religious group Community of Sant’Egidio played a cardinal role in resolving an intractable conflict between the two feuding parties, Frente de Liberação de Moçambique (FRELIMO) and Resistência Nacional Moçambicana (RENAMO). There are many other such examples in the world where religion and religious bodies were responsible for building trust between protagonists in conflict. Although the peacemaking potential of religion is still a debatable issue – more particularly in Western policymaking circles – it has (in other parts of the world) been central as a defining element of national security and, hence, is far too important to be marginalised. In many conflicts, it would be important to understand the religious dynamics at play, if any, so as to deal effectively with their confrontational aspects – orperhaps most importantly, to capitalise effectively on their harmonising elements. To unpack this dichotomous polemic, a few questions would help direct the discourse. If this is the dilemma that confronts religion, how have the institutions and actors transcended this problem? How have they been able to contribute meaningfully to conflict resolution and peacebuilding? What tools have they employed to achieve this seemingly monumentous task? These are questions that require careful interrogation in the discourse on religion and its potential to build lasting peace. In the latter half of the 1990s, one of the favoured discussions in the peace discourse was the reflection on the role and importance of civil society in the area of conflict prevention and transformation. Comparative advantages and challenges were noted and it was argued that a new culture of peace needed to be established, encompassing a broad-based alliance of government actors, international organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other civil society organisations (CSOs). A decade later, the centrality of CSOs in the field of conflict prevention and transformation is no longer a matter of principled discussion but the locus of most successful peacebuilding initiatives. In the same vein, religious institutions working in the area of peace have since grown, with a greater percentage of them extending their mandate from relief and development to peace and conflict resolution. As Cynthia Sampson acknowledges, although the religious sector’s contribution was largely unknown, it has become the most expanding in the field of international conflict analysis and transformation in the contemporary world. She observed that: “What for decades was the untold, unnoticed story behind the news, the undocumented history of religiously motivated peacemaking and reconciliation efforts – has now begun to grab the attention of scholars, journalists, diplomats, various governmental and non-governmental agencies, and funding organisations as these efforts have become more numerous, more visible and more needed. In a greater percentage of the conflicts that ravaged Africa after the Cold War, civil society, NGOs, inter-governmental organisations, the church and other religious institutions have continued to play a critical role in resolving conflicts and building peace. A plethora of examples are quite evident throughout the length and breadth of the African continent from the world-acclaimed roles played by the Community of Sant’Egidio in Mozambique; the Council of Churches in South Africa; the Catholic Church in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, Zambia, Burundi and Rwanda; the Acholi Religious Forum in Northern Uganda; Christian–Muslim Dialogue in Nigeria; and the Community of Sant’Egidio in Algeria. These examples indicate that civil society – particularly religious institutions – have continued to play a fundamental role in ending hostilities on the continent, cementing the argument that religion is indeed a resource for peace. Conclusion Although religion can be referred to a double-edged sword, the various religious doctrines are premised on peace. In many of the intractable conflicts around the globe, religion has continued to play a pivotal role in the resolution of these disputes. The role of religious leaders in creating spaces for interfaith and inter-religious dialogue cannot be overemphasised in this regard. Hence, the creation of an environment where genuine debate is possible is important. Extremist rhetoric clearly flourishes best in an environment not conductive to rational deliberation. Needless to say, extremist rhetoric is very difficult to maintain in a discursive environment in which positions taken or accusations made can be challenged directly by rebuttal, counter-propositions, cross-examinations and the presentation of evidence. Without a change in the environment of public discourse within and between religious organisations, demagogy and rhetorical intolerance will prevail. Key to this observation is the erasure of ignorance, which is fertile ground for intolerance and extremism. REFERENCES Abu-Nimer, M. (2000): Conflict Resolution, Culture and Religion: Toward a Training Model of Interreligious Peacebuilding. Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 685–704. 3 Ibid. Reychler, Luc (1997): Religion and Conflict. The International Journal of Peace Studies, Vol. 2 No. 1. Appleby, R. Scott (2000) The Ambivalence of the Sacred: Religion,Violence and Reconciliation. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.. Van Tongeren, Paul et al. (2005) People Building Peace II: Successful Stories of Civil Society. Boulder, London: Lynne Reinner. Sampson, Cynthia (1997): Religion and Peacebuilding. In Zartman, I. William and Rasmussen. www. globalcrisis.info/peace_negotiation.html/11/09/2012 www.worldpeacefestival.org/11/09/2012

Conflict resolution

Conflict resolution Conflict resolution is conceptualized as the methods and processes involved in facilitating the peaceful ending of conflict. Often, committed group members attempt to resolve group conflicts by actively communicating information about their conflicting motives or ideologies to the rest of the group (e.g., intentions; reasons for holding certain beliefs), and by engaging in collective negotiation. Ultimately, a wide range of methods and procedures for addressing conflict exist, including but not limited to, negotiation, mediation, diplomacy, and creative peace building. It may be important to note that the term conflict resolution may also be used interchangeably with dispute resolution, where arbitration and litigation processes are critically involved. Furthermore, the concept of conflict resolution can be thought to encompass the use of nonviolent resistance measures by conflicted parties in an attempt to promote effective resolution Theories and models Dual concern model of conflict resolution The dual concern model of conflict resolution is a conceptual perspective that assumes individuals’ preferred method of dealing with conflict is based on two underlying themes or dimensions. 1. A concern for self (i.e. assertiveness), and 2. A concern for others (i.e. empathy). According to the model, group members balance their concern for satisfying personal needs and interests with their concern for satisfying the needs and interests of others in different ways. The intersection point between these two dimensions ultimately lead individuals towards exhibiting different styles of conflict resolution (Goldfien & Robbennolt, 2007). The dual model identifies five conflict resolution styles/strategies that individuals may use depending on their dispositions toward pro-self or pro-social goals. 1. Avoidance conflict style Characterized by inaction and passivity, avoidance conflict style is typically used when an individual has reduced concern for their own outcomes as well as the outcomes of others. During conflict, these avoiders adopt a “wait and see” attitude, often allowing conflict to phase out on its own without any personal involvement (Bayazit & Mannix, 2003). Unfortunately, by neglecting to address high-conflict situations, avoiders risk allowing problems to fester out of control. 2. Yielding conflict style In contrast, yielding or “accommodating” conflict styles are characterized by a high concern for others while having a low concern for one’s own self. This passive pro-social approach emerges when individuals derive personal satisfaction from meeting the needs of others and have a general concern for maintaining stable, positive social relationships. When faced with conflict, individuals with a yielding conflict style tend to give into others’ demands out of respect for the social relationship (e.g., to maintain group unity) because they believe being “agreeable may be more important than winning” (Goldfien & Robbennolt, 2007). 3. Competitive conflict style Competitive or “fighting” conflict style maximizes individual assertiveness (i.e., concern for self) and minimizes empathy (i.e., concern for others). Groups consisting of competitive members generally enjoy seeking domination over others, and typically see conflict as a “win or lose” predicament. Fighters tend to force others to accept their personal views by employing competitive, power tactics (e.g., argue; insult; accuse; violence) that foster feelings of intimidation (Morrill, 1995). 4. Cooperation conflict style Characterized by an active concern for both pro-social and pro-self behavior, cooperation conflict style is typically used when an individual has elevated interests in their own outcomes as well as in the outcomes of others. During conflict, cooperators collaborate with others in an effort to find an amicable solution that satisfies all parties involved in the conflict. Individuals with this type of conflict style tend to be highly assertive and highly empathetic at the same time. By seeing conflict as a creative opportunity, collaborators willingly invest time and resources into finding a “win-win” solution. According to the literature on conflict resolution, a cooperative conflict resolution style is recommended above all others (Sternberg & Dobson, 1987; Jarboe & Witteman, 1996) 5. Conciliation conflict style Conciliation or “compromising” conflict style is typical of individuals who possess an intermediate-level of concern for both personal and others’ outcomes. Compromisers value fairness and, in doing so, anticipate mutual give-and-take interactions. By accepting some demands put forth by others, compromisers believe this agreeableness will encourage others to meet half-way, thus promoting conflict resolution (van de Vliert & Euwema, 1994). This conflict style can be considered an extension of both “yielding” and “cooperative” strategies. Culture-based Conflict resolution as both a professional practice and academic field is highly sensitive to culture. In Western cultural contexts, such as Canada and the United States, successful conflict resolution usually involves fostering communication among disputants, problem solving, and drafting agreements that meet their underlying needs. In these situations, conflict resolvers often talk about finding the win-win solution, or mutually satisfying scenario, for everyone involved (see Fisher and Ury (1981), Getting to Yes). In many non-Western cultural contexts, such as Afghanistan, Vietnam, and China, it is also important to find "win-win" solutions; however, getting there can be very different. In these contexts, direct communication between disputants that explicitly addresses the issues at stake in the conflict can be perceived as very rude, making the conflict worse and delaying resolution. Rather, it can make sense to involve religious, tribal or community leaders, communicate difficult truths indirectly through a third party, and make suggestions through stories (see Vinod Swami (1992), Conflict Mediation Across Cultures). Intercultural conflicts are often the most difficult to resolve because the expectations of the disputants can be very different, and there is much occasion for misunderstanding. In animals Conflict resolution has also been studied in non-humans, like dogs, cats, monkeys, snakes, elephants, and primates (see Frans de Waal, 2000). Aggression is more common among relatives and within a group than between groups. Instead of creating a distance between the individuals, however, the primates were more intimate in the period after the aggressive incident. These intimacies consisted of grooming and various forms of body contact. Stress responses, like an increased heart rate, usually decrease after these reconciliatory signals. Different types of primates, as well as many other species who are living in groups, show different types of conciliatory behaviour. Resolving conflicts that threaten the interaction between individuals in a group is necessary for survival and hence has a strong evolutionary value. These findings contradicted previous existing theories about the general function of aggression, i.e. creating space between individuals (first proposed by Konrad Lorenz), which seems to be more the case in conflicts between groups than it is within groups. In addition to research in primates, biologists are beginning to explore reconciliation in other animals. Until recently, the literature dealing with reconciliation in non-primates have consisted of anecdotal observations and very little quantitative data. Although peaceful post-conflict behavior had been documented going back to the 1960s, it wasn’t until 1993 that Rowell made the first explicit mention of reconciliation in feral sheep. Reconciliation has since been documented in spotted hyenas,[8][9] lions, dolphins,[10] dwarf mongoose, domestic goats, and domestic dogs. Conflict resolution is an expanding field of professional practice, both in the U.S. and around the world. The escalating costs of conflict have increased use of third parties who may serve as a conflict specialists to resolve conflicts. In fact relief and development organizations have added peace-building specialists to their teams. Many of the major international non-governmental organizations have seen a growing need to hire practitioners trained in conflict analysis and resolution. Furthermore, this expansion of the field has resulted in the need for conflict resolution practitioners to work in a variety of settings such as in businesses, court systems, government agencies nonprofit organizations, government agencies and educational institutions serving throughout the world. Education Universities worldwide offer programs of study pertaining to conflict research, analysis, and practice. The Cornell University ILR School houses the Scheinman Institute on Conflict Resolution, which offers undergraduate, graduate, and professional training on conflict resolution. Eastern Mennonite University's Center for Justice and Peacebuilding offers a BA and MA with a focus on practical applications in conflict-affected communities and regions. Additional graduate programs are offered at Georgetown University, and Trinity College Dublin. George Mason University’s Institute of Conflict Analysis and Resolution offers undergraduate, certificate and masters programs in Conflict Analysis and Resolution and a Ph.D. program in The Philosophy in Conflict and Conflict Resolution. Nova Southeastern University offers a Ph.D. in Conflict Analysis & Resolution which trains students in the skills and techniques of practice, interdisciplinary research, policy and program development, historical critique, cultural analysis, and theoretical foundations of the field. It is offered in both online and on-campus formats. Many students completing a doctoral program enter the field as researchers, theorists, analysts, policy makers and professors in higher education. Furthermore, the Pax Ludens Foundation based in the Netherlands is an organization that puts together conflict resolution simulations set in an International Relations scenario to help students learn about the intricacies of where conflict emerges in the world of international politics. Conflict resolution is a growing area of interest in UK pedagogy, with teachers and students both encouraged to learn about mechanisms that lead to aggressive action, and those that lead to peaceful resolution. Tel Aviv University offers two graduate degree programs in the field of conflict resolution, including the English-language International Program in Conflict Resolution and Mediation, affording students to learn in a region which is the subject of much research on international conflict resolution. Conflict management Conflict management refers to the long-term management of intractable conflicts. It is the label for the variety of ways by which people handle grievances—standing up for what they consider to be right and against what they consider to be wrong. Those ways include such diverse phenomena as gossip, ridicule, lynching, terrorism, warfare, feuding, genocide, law, mediation, and avoidance. Which forms of conflict management will be used in any given situation can be somewhat predicted and explained by the social structure—or social geometry—of the case. Conflict management is often considered to be distinct from conflict resolution. In order for actual conflict to occur, there should be an expression of exclusive patterns, and tell why the conflict was expressed the way it was. Conflict is not just about simple inaptness, but is often connected to a previous issue. The latter refers to resolving the dispute to the approval of one or both parties, whereas the former concerns an ongoing process that may never have a resolution. Neither is it considered the same as conflict transformation, which seeks to reframe the positions of the conflict parties. Counseling When personal conflict leads to frustration and loss of efficiency, counseling may prove to be a helpful antidote. Although few organizations can afford the luxury of having professional counselors on the staff, given some training, managers may be able to perform this function. Nondirective counseling, or "listening with understanding", is little more than being a good listener—something every manager should be. Sometimes the simple process of being able to vent one's feelings—that is, to express them to a concerned and understanding listener, is enough to relieve frustration and make it possible for the frustrated individual to advance to a problem-solving frame of mind, better able to cope with a personal difficulty that is affecting his work adversely. The nondirective approach is one effective way for managers to deal with frustrated subordinates and coworkers. There are other more direct and more diagnostic ways that might be used in appropriate circumstances. The great strength of the nondirective approach (nondirective counseling is based on the client-centered therapy of Carl Rogers), however, lies in its simplicity, its effectiveness, and the fact that it deliberately avoids the manager-counselor's diagnosing and interpreting emotional problems, which would call for special psychological training. Listening to staff with sympathy and understanding is unlikely to escalate the problem, and is a widely used approach for helping people to cope with problems that interfere with their effectiveness in their place of work. REFERENCES Augsburger, D. (1992). Conflict mediation across cultures. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster / John Knox Press. Bannon, I. & Paul Collier (Eds.). (2003). Natural resources and violent conflict: Options and actions. Washington, D.C: The World Bank. Ury, F. & Rodger Fisher. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York, NY: Penguin Group. Wilmot,W. & Jouyce Hocker. (2007). Interpersonal conflict. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Companies. Bercovitch, Jacob and Jackson, Richard. 2009. Conflict Resolution in the Twenty-first Century: Principles, Methods, and Approaches. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Waal, Frans B. M. and Angeline van Roosmalen. 1979. Reconciliation and consolation among chimpanzees. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 5: 55–66. de Waal, Frans B. M. 1989. Peacemaking Among Primates. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Judge, Peter G. and Frans B. M. de Waal. 1993. Conflict avoidance among rhesus monkeys: coping with short-term crowding. Animal Behaviour 46: 221–232.