題目：Resolving Conflicts and Possible Outcomes

There are many ways through which people can resolve conflicts between warring factions. These warring factions can be as few as two individuals， or they might be large people groups like countries. However， the ways of resolving conflicts do not all work in any one given situation？ A person or groups of people ought to decide upon which the best way of resolving a given conflict. A model of dual concern might be assumed where an individual tries to strike a balance between the concern he has for other people and the concern he has for himself. On the one hand he may choose to be assertive and have things done his way. On the other hand， he may choose to be empathetic， and do things according to the way the other person feels things ought to be done.

When engaged in a conflicting situation， some people might decide to resolve the conflict by staying aloof of the problem. To these people staying aloof is the best way of letting things get resolved. They prefer no active participation in seeing to it that the situation is resolved. They do not care much about what other people feel in the circumstances. They do not think much about their personal feelings either. High conflict situations are not best resolved with this kind of approach， however， because things can easily run out of control.

An example of such a situation is when group of employees go on strike and the management sits back to see what might happen， without taking any active role in what is going on. The strike might escalate into such bad situations as burning of company assets by the disgruntled employees or even roughing up of the employers. A bad situation grows worse in that case， because the employees feel that the aloofness of the management does not address their concerns. The management， however， feels that the assertiveness of the employees ought to have been toned down. If consensus could be reached between the two parties it would be at the point where the management has taken an active role in addressing the employees' grievances. The employees， on the other hand， ought not to be greatly aggrieved， seeing that at least their cries are being heard by a management that cares for them. It is rather unfortunate that a number of people who fall into this trap are the so called faithful. They let things be， and say to themselves and to others that things shall be sorted out by divine intervention. However， things ought to be done differently， because not everyone has the same beliefs or religious leanings. Many people sere different deities and some believe in a deity that asks them to help themselves before deity comes to their aid. Therefore， instead of their faith being a source of respite， it fuels the flames of conflict foursome people.

Another way of resolving conflict is by adorning a compromising attitude. Such an attitude says to oneself and to others that it is good to be fair to both sides of the conflict. Such people are ready to listen to the arguments on both sides and to yield a bit to the demands of the other side. They also expect the other side of the conflict to yield to some of their demands， hence being fair. In the case study above， for example， the employees would be expected to yield to some of the demands of management while the management also gives in to some of the demands of its employees. Ideally， not all demands from each side shall be met， but a balance can be struck wherein some of the wants from each side shall be addressed. Liken the previous case， the more assertive of the two groups will be expected to yield a bit， by being conciliatory. This will be expected of the employees who hold the management in ransom by their actions. Being fair would not see the employees flare up into a fracas situation of burning and looting. Being firewood also see the management taking an active role in the resolution of the conflict rather than sitting back and watching as situation change from bad to worse.

Conflict does not have to be a bad thing or a nasty experience. Where there are two or more people interacting with different interests at heart， disagreements are inevitable. However， such disagreements might be a source for better understanding of each other and even greater cohesion. In the workplace scenario above， conflict might have arisen out of one employee's obsession with letting the management know about everything that goes on while they are not being watched. The conflict of interests comes in with the other employees being opposed to close supervision. It is further aggravated by the fact that one of their peers would like to make good name for oneself by making the rest of them look bad in the presence of their superiors.

Solving such a conflict might require one to have high levels of assertiveness as well as empathy. With these traits he can easily cooperate with his contenders to reach an amicable solution to their conflict. Such an individual is not only interested in his own welfare but has a heightened interest in the welfare of the people he contends with， as well. He shall cooperate with the other people to find a solution with which they shall all be agreeable. His cooperation might tend to favor the side of the fellow employees， or it might be in favor of the management. However， what would a person caught in the middle of such a conflict do？ Through discussion with both parties， people get to be aware of the points of views that their contenders have. In effect， they do not undermine the goals of each other.

There are three possible outcomes to any conflict resolution endeavor. Each of these outcomes depends on how the conflict resolution exercise is carried out. In the first place， a conflict resolution exercise might work in favor of both sides concerned. Since both parties win in the end， this is called a win-win situation. The first type of conflict resolution that was mentioned in this dialogue would never amount to a win-win situation. Not both parties win in the end. This is because one of the parties stays aloof from the goings on of the resolution process.

Since its stand is neither here nor there， it becomes rather difficult to tell whether things are going the way they should for this group of people. Whether they win or lose is not the issue for this group， but rather， they only want tranquility in the end. They want peace but they are not ready to work or to fight for it. Maybe， therefore， one might be right in assuming that when peace prevails in the end， then that is a win situation for the people who do not want to stand up for what they believe in. It may be rightly opined that these people are cowards who do not have enough spine with which to face up to other people， even though they might be transgressed against.

A win-win result of conflict resolution is the best result that one can achieve. It results in greater cohesion among group members than before the conflict caused a rift between them. They also get to learn more about each other's way of thinking and what things can cause them to be drawn apart. In future， they will not fear conflicting situations， but they would rather strive to keep away from those things that divide them. They will strive for those things that cause them to be drawn closer together as a single unit.

The other result of a conflict resolution is where one side wins and the other loses. In such a case， no workable consensus has been reached. One side of the conflict is way too aggressive while the other is too empathetic. The aggressive side is bound to have its way over the empathetic side. Thus， the aggressive side wins while the empathetic side loses. This example of a scenario is called a win-lose situation because one side wins while the other side loses. It would be likened to an employer-employee conflict situation in which the employee has a field day over the employer， with all the employee's demands being met. The employer’s demands， on the other hand are not heeded to. Otherwise， the employer might be too high handed towards the employee. Following such situation， the employer ends up sacking the employee for reasons such as insubordination.

（注：首屆許淵沖翻譯大賽英譯漢英文原文）

譯文：

題目：化解沖突和可能產生的結果

人們可以通過多種方法解決交戰各方的沖突問題。這些交戰派少則兩人互相敵對，多則可能會形成國與國這樣的大團體之間的敵對?；鉀_突的方式很多，但是對于一個既定的沖突案例，這些方法不見得都有效吧？無論是個人還是群體都應該針對當前的沖突問題選擇最佳的解決方法?？梢约僭O一個雙重關切模式：無論是對他人的關切還是對自身的問切，人們會試圖在二者之間取得平衡。一方面，他可能會固執己見，繼續按照自己的方式去做。另一方面，他也會感同身受，考慮按照他人應以為常的方式去做。

當沖突發生的時候 ，一些人可能選擇置身事外化解沖突。對這些人而言，回避即是解決沖突的最佳辦法。他們寧愿沖突不解決，也不愿主動參與其中。他們并不關心沖突事件中其他人的感受。對于自身亦是如此。但是，這樣的解決方法在沖突嚴重的情況下算不得最佳方式，因為事情很容易失控。

沖突嚴重情況下的一個典型案例：當一群員工舉行罷工的時候，管理層并沒有采取任何積極的措施干預正在發生的罷工事件，只是坐下來看看可能會發生什么。罷工局面變得更為糟糕，心懷不滿的員工燒毀公司資產甚至毆打雇主。此類情況下，糟糕的局面只會愈演愈烈，因為員工覺得管理層過于冷漠，根本不會解決他們的問題。然而，管理層卻認為是時候該好好消磨消磨員工們高傲的氣焰。如果沖突雙方達成了共識，一方面必是管理層在解決員工不滿方面起到了積極作用。而另一方面，員工們也無需感到憤憤不平，因為他們至少知道領導們會關切他們，傾聽他們內心的呼喊。十分不幸的是，許多人落入這個陷阱卻是因為所謂的對神的忠貞。他們選擇順其自然，并對自己和他人說，事情就應該通過神的干預來解決。然而，我們還需因事而異。因為并不是每個人都有相同的信仰或宗教傾向。許多人都信不同的神，而有些人也只信一個神，神告訴人們在祂給予幫助之前，人們應該自助。因此，對神的信仰非但不會緩解沖突，反而會推波助瀾，加劇四方沖突。

采取妥協的態度也是解決沖突的方式之一。于自身和他人而言，沖突雙方均采取妥協的態度是很公平的。這些人愿意聽取雙方的觀點，并根據對方提出的要求作出一些讓步。他們還希望對方對于他們自身提出的要求也作出退讓，因此這么做是公平的。例如，在上面的案例研究中，管理層希望員工對于一些要求作出讓步，同時員工也希望管理層對他們提出的某些要求作出妥協。理想的情況下，并不是所有的要求都能得到滿足，但是如果沖突雙方各自的某些所需得到了解決，這樣平衡還是可以實現的。例如此前的案例，通過持續調解，讓兩組成員中更加強勢的一方作出一點讓步。根據員工的行為表現決定誰有望執掌管理層。一旦實現了公平，便不會看到員工們陷入情感困惑，爆發燒殺搶掠的事件?；鹈绫幌缫惨娮C了管理層在解決沖突方面起到了積極作用，而不只是坐在后方看著形勢越變越糟。

沖突不一定就是壞事或令人生厭的經歷。如果有兩個或兩個以上的人站在不同的利益方，分歧是不可避免的。然而，這種分歧可能是為了讓沖突雙方加深對彼此的了解，以實現更強的凝聚力。在上述提到的工作場所中的情況，一些員工一直想讓管理層知道員工們在沒有被監視情況下的狀態，可是這些事并未受到關注，沖突由此而生。而其他員工則一直反對密切監督，所以二者之間出現了利益沖突。這種利益沖突進一步加劇，因為其中一名同事為了給自己創造好名聲抬高自己而在上級面前貶低他人。

解決這種沖突可能需要高度自信和對他人的同情。具備了這些特點，便可以很容易與競爭者達成合作，友好地解決沖突。不僅關心自身福利，也會對競爭對手的利益高度重視。會與別人合作，找到一個彼此都能滿意的解決方法?？赡軆A向于與支持自己的同事合作，也可能與管理層合作。然而，什么樣的人會陷入這種沖突呢？雙方通過爭論，開始明白對方的觀點。實際上，他們并不會減損彼此的目標利益。

任何沖突的努力解決可能會產生三個結果。這些結果取決于沖突解決方法在實踐中的應用。首先，解決方案可能有利于雙方的利益。最終雙方都獲勝，這就是所謂的“雙贏”局面。本文提到的第一種沖突解決方案決不會達到雙贏的局面。最終沒有實現雙贏。是因為其中一方沒有按照解決方案走。

由于沖突雙方的立場很分明，這群人很難分辨他們是否真的應該遵循方案走。這群人關心的不是最后誰勝誰敗的問題，而是最終能否得到安寧。他們想要安寧，卻不付諸行動，也不為之爭取。也許，人們想的是對的：最終安寧了，對那些不想為自己的信仰而站起來的人來說，他們最終也是贏了。可以理所當然地認為這些人是懦夫，因為即便他們可能遭到侵犯也沒有足夠的骨氣面對他人。

“雙贏”當然是最好的結果。群體成員之間的凝聚力比沖突發生前更強了。他們更加了解彼此的思維方式，懂得什么樣的事情會分離他們。未來，他們不再害怕沖突的出現，但他們寧愿努力遠離那些分裂他們的東西。他們會努力爭取那些使他們更緊密地聯系在一起成為一個整體的東西。

另一種一種結果就是一方勝，另一方敗。這種情況下，雙方未能達成共識。其中一方過于氣勢洶洶，而另一方則一味遷就。氣勢強的一方必然讓氣勢弱的一方遵循自己的方式。因此，前者勝而后者輸。這種情況的例子就被稱為“輸贏”局面，因為一方贏，另一方輸。這就好比雇主和雇員之間的沖突，一方面員工輕易地就讓老板滿足了他所有的需求。而另一方面老板的要求就被忽略了。否則，就顯得老板對員工過于專橫。以此下去，老板最終只能以員工不服從上級為由解雇員工。