It is believed that a conflict can be effectively resolved only if people search for the solution that can benefit both sides. Furthermore, decisiveness is often viewed as a negative force that only harms a person involved in a conflict or dispute. However, there are cases when decisiveness is the only morally responsible choice that an individual can take. This argument is applicable to those situations when a person has to compromise ones ethical values. As a rule, this compromise will not yield the expected results. Moreover, it can limit the freedom of this individual.
The discussion can be important for negotiators and people who try to resolve conflicts. They have to determine when and why decisiveness can be appropriate. First of all, one should note that conflicts usually occur when people have opposing views, goals, values, or priorities. In most cases, such disputes can be explained by the fact that people have different perceptions of the same problem of question. For instance, a conflict can arise when co-workers propose different ways of achieving the same goal. Such disputes can also occur in a family when parents have different perceptions about the education of their children. In such cases, decisiveness is not appropriate because it usually prevents people from finding the most optimal solution. As a rule, it will harm both sides of the argument.
Moreover, an individual can make concessions without compromising ones ethical values. This is why decisiveness is often regarded as a negative phenomenon. Nevertheless, there are circumstances when decisiveness is the only appropriate approach. In particular, one can refer to the situations when a person or organization is forced to abandon ones values, ideals and moral principles. The most eloquent examples of such situations can be found in history.
In 1938 England and France consented to the demands of Germany and tried to appease the leadership of the Third Reich. At that time, many people thought that this compromise had been the most optimal solution. However, it turned out that these concessions did not bring peace to Europe. More likely, they only contributed to the outbreak of the war. It seems that in that case, decisiveness was the only responsible approach but it was not adopted. Additionally, one can refer to the situation when a person is forced to make concessions that can limit his/her freedom and ability to take independent decisions. Very often people are made to withhold some of their rights. Such situations are widespread in the world of business, politics, and law.
It is possible to mention those cases when employees are not forbidden to disclose any information regarding the policies of a company. The problem is that sometimes these activities can run against the law or ethics. Workers, who accept these requirements of the employer, agree to limit their freedom. Overall, negotiation and conflict resolution can hardly be possible unless both sides seek constructive or win-win solutions. However, there are exceptions to this rule. One of them is the necessity to compromise ones principles or restrict ones liberty. A person who faces such situations should choose decisiveness, rather than the search of a compromise. It should be noted that negotiators can play a central role when resolving such conflicts.
Their task will be to determine what kind of strategy a person should choose in order to succeed.