Conflict Management and Resolution Training
Conflict Management and Resolution Training is a new but vital training program provided by the Department of Social Cohesion. Originally, it was touted as a second level training program to be carried out after the Unity in Diversity training program would have been completed and served as an avenue to create meaningful projects and programs for the communities and organizations benefitting from the initial training. However, it can and has been utilized as a pre-Unity in Diversity Training in communities where divisions across various diversities were deep enough to render the training ineffective.
The Conflict Management and Resolution training program aims to achieve the following:
- Provide a framework for successful conflict resolution, and
- Provide communication skills for consensus building
There are two major components of the program:
- Mending Fences (A Guide to resolving Conflict) – this session basically explores the causes of conflicts and the internal biases and perceptions responsible for leaders and members of communities to advocate vociferously for certain programs while dismissing the ideas and suggestions of other interested parties or stakeholders. It provides a framework for allowing the introduction of ideas that are different from the participants.
- Are You Listening? (Communication for Community Building) – this session explores the possibility of not only allowing the tabling of ideas contrary to the participants, it also provides a space for the debating and ranking of these ideas so that the entire group can decide on priority ideas or projects that would lead to a great proportion of the community extracting some amount of benefit from the projects.
After these sessions, the participants would then be placed into random groups and asked to share community development ideas, which would be ranked and discussed by the groups. These ideas then feedback to the Unity in Diversity Training Program and will aid in the successful implementation of these projects and as community ownership of the projects would have been secured.