The “Wolves” of Conflict Management

February 19 - March 3, 2006
By Roselle C. Tenefrancia

Roselle C. Tenefrancia

In February this year, I had the privilege of attending an annual seminar on conflict management sponsored by the International Academy on Leadership (IAF). Participated in by representatives from countries in Eastern Europe, Africa, Middle East, Latin America and Asia, our group was as diverse as how IAF wanted us to be. The differences were only superficial though, because after two weeks of intensive lectures and workshops, and our daily casual and social interactions, we discovered many of our similarities. Thereafter, our batch became known as the “Gummersbach wolves.”

Why wolves? We had a game during our trip to Berlin that involved wolves and villagers. It was a game of strategy, analysis and cooperation. The main objective was for the villagers to kill the wolf before it would kill everyone else. The problem was, no one was supposed to know who the wolf is except the wolf himself, the Seer and the facilitator. But not one of them could divulge any information, not even their own identities. So, it’s up to the villagers to discuss among themselves, knowing that among them was a wolf. Every night, the wolf killed a villager. Every daytime, the villagers had to decide who the wolf was. The player they chose would have to be killed by the villagers. If that player was the wolf, then the game was over. But if the player chosen was not the wolf, the wolf remained alive and continued to kill the next victim for the night. Only one villager could be killed by the wolf per night. And only one player could be accused of being the wolf per day.

The wolves’ game is a game of analysis. All the players must be able to listen to what everyone is saying and what everyone is not saying. It is important to analyze from the players’ behavior who among them is trying to protect whom, who among them actually knows the truth, and most importantly, who the wolf is so he may be killed. Conflict management as we have learned from the seminar is much like this game of analysis. In any conflict, it is important to identify who the key players are and what their roles are. When we discussed the different tracks of conflict management in the seminar, a big factor is identifying who the actors are for each track. What their potentials are and what they are actually doing need to be identified and distinguished in order to come up with a strong and effective strategy of managing a specific conflict.

How big or small the conflict is in different aspects also needs to be determined to measure the extent of the role of the conflict manager in the given situation. In the wolves’ game, the wolf may be very powerful and wise that he can even get everyone killed. In games where there are two wolves who conspire to kill someone, the killing of the whole village may likely happen as they can support each other. It is now a heavier burden for the villagers to analyze the patterns of the killings before the wolf tries to kill again. In the same way, the degree of severity of a conflict should be considered. The Conflict Barometer of 2005 by the Heidelberg Institute illustrates how severity of conflicts can be measured. This serves as basis for the tools and tracks to use in managing a given conflict.

The wolves’ game is also a game of strategy. The villagers can protect the Seer, or the one who knows who the wolves are but cannot divulge his or her identity, from being killed by the wolf. While trying to identify the Seer, it is also important to make sure that the wolf does not identify who the Seer is. Because once the wolf kills the Seer, it becomes more difficult for the villagers to identify the wolf. At the same time, the wolf, in order to kill more, should be able to observe from the villagers’ discussion who among them is already able to identify him as the wolf. The next time the villagers sleep, he can kill that player to prevent him from identifying him. All this can happen in every village discussion. The same goes with conflict management. The discussions on the use of the different tools of conflict resolution, such as mediation, arbitration, conciliation, embargos, sanctions, violence or force, also involved the use of strategies in applying these tools. Negotiation is a way to form strategies or it can be a strategy in itself, as exemplified by the reports that the different workshop sessions in our seminar came up with. Discussions on issues may just be a small step to conflict management, but it is a significant step into moving towards a more comprehensive and more effective conflict management strategies.

Finally and most importantly, the wolves’ game is a game of cooperation. The villagers have to protect themselves. It is a matter of survival. But to ensure survival, they have to identify the wolf before it starts to kill more. For every mistake they make in deciding who the wolf is, they pay for it with two lives in the village: the first one is the life of the villager they accused, and the next one is the life of the villager the wolf is able to kill again. The essence of the game is for the villagers to listen to each one of them, and to make a vote on who to kill after having heard from each one. The essence of conflict management is to be able to listen to the voice of all the stakeholders in the conflict. Although limitations and constraints are inevitable, cooperation among the participants is of utmost importance. This is one of the most significant learnings and insights that I have received from the seminar. Aside from the theories and the workshops during the seminar proper, the sharing of experiences of the participants in the seminar and stories that each one had to tell about what’s happening in their countries and what are being done, was a very valuable exercise of cooperation. We represented countries, societies and cultures that are very different from each other. There were debates --- emotional and otherwise --- that ensued in most of the sessions of the seminar. But we all knew it was an exercise of cooperation. After all, we were invited in the seminar to discuss conflict management, and the least we can do is to be participants to the discussion in the most peaceful manner and atmosphere.

Most of the participants in our seminar, I learned later on, had significant roles in the leadership of their home countries. I am humbled by their own humility as to their responsibilities in effecting political and social change in their countries. But what stuck to me was that everyone has a story to tell and everyone has learned from the stories of everyone else. There are many things I have learned from the seminar that I can use in my present work and share with my colleagues, and many stories and friendships that I will always cherish. I believe that the seminar was able to increase the empathy and sympathy among all of us to things that are happening in the different corners of the world. As one of the participants has remarked, “I now read and listen to the world news with renewed interest.” (And maybe even with renewed concern.)

The facilitators and resource persons have proven to be very open-minded and humble, and have exerted every effort to keep the balance in all the discussions. The whole process of cooperation could also be seen in how the academy has maintained standards to make sure the seminar would go as smooth as possible.

The cold and wintery days in Gummersbach are over for us, as our lives continue in our own homes, our own societies, our own countries. The short seminar only provided us a peek to a greater scheme of complexities of conflict management. But the seminar and the different experiences shared will prove to be useful in our professions and the work that we do for our own countries and societies.

The “Gummersbach wolves” (and that includes our facilitators) will hopefully continue to share and communicate with each other, and build upon the foundations of this seminar an enduring and long-term cooperation among us and the countries and cultures that we represent, whether in the political, socio-economic, academic and personal aspects of our lives.