Military-Madrasa-Mullah

A Global Threat 153

Article Complex 153

Formulating a New Three Journal of Human Values

20(2) 153–165
Energy Framework of Personality © 2014 Management Centre
for Human Values
for Conflict Analysis and Resolution SAGE Publications
Los Angeles, London,
based on Triguna Concept of New Delhi, Singapore,
Washington DC
Bhagavad Gita DOI: 10.1177/0971685814539415
http://jhv.sagepub.com

Satish Modh

SE
Abstract

U
Theories of interpersonal conflict analysis and resolution originate from sociology, social psychology

L
and political science. These theories took shape during twentieth century after World War I and World

IA
War II. Some of the prominent conflict resolution theories are Burton’s ‘human needs theory’, Roger
Fisher’s ‘principled-negotiation’ and Lederach’s ‘Conflict transformation’. Conflict is an inevitable part
C
of living because it is related to situations of scarce resources, division of functions, power relations and
ER
role-differentiation. In the organizational environment, awareness of each employee’s nature is critical
to success. When such employees are self-aware, workplace conflict can be minimized and can become
M

productive to the organization.

M

  This study develops a new three energy framework of personality for conflict analysis and resolution.
This framework is based on the ‘guna’ concept of Bhagavad Gita, an ancient Hindu scripture. The term
O

‘guna’ indicates the ‘inherent energy’ with which the human mind functions. These three energies
C

are: Positive Energy (sattva), Dynamic Energy (rajas) and Potential Energy (tamas). People work under
R

influence of these three energies all the time and go through various physical, emotional and intellectual
FO

experiences. The quality and quantity of these experiences determines their personality, pattern of
behaviours and conduct.
T

Keywords
O

Conflict analysis, conflict resolution

N

Current Approaches to Conflict Analysis and Resolution

Conflict has been broadly defined as the perceptions held by the parties involved, in that they hold
discrepant views or have interpersonal incompatibilities (Jehn, 1995). Conflict can also be defined as a
situation in which two or more parties have incompatible objectives and in which their perceptions and
behaviour are commensurate with that incompatibility (Deutsch, 2002).

Satish Modh, Associate Dean (Technology Management) and Professor in Business Strategy, NMIMS University,
Mumbai, India. E-mails: satishmodh@gmail.com; satish.modh@nmims.edu
India Quarterly, 66, 2 (2010): 133–149
154 Satish Modh

According to John Burton (1990) there is a conceptual difference between disputes and conflicts:
‘while a dispute evolves around conflicting, but negotiable interests, conflict develops around nonnego-
tiable issues of basic human needs deprivation’. Dispute settlement implies negotiated or arbitrated solu-
tions. The purpose of conflict resolution is to promote conditions for peaceful transformation of the
societies towards social harmony (Burton, 1993).
According to Galtung, a conflict consists of behaviour, attitudes and contradictions. While the behav-
iour component is manifest, both attitudes and contradictions are latent. Conflicts take the form of a
triangle and there are flows and interactions between the three corners of the triangle which illustrates
the dynamic nature of conflicts (Galtung, 1996, p. 72).
The conflict perspective ‘views society as composed of diverse groups with conflicting values and
interests’ (Thompson & Hickey, 2005, p. 20). It ‘sees society as constantly changing in response to
social inequality and social conflict’ (Tischler, 2004, p. 21).

SE
Social conflict is naturally created by humans who are involved in relationships. Once conflict occurs,
it transforms those events, people, and relationships that created the initial conflict (Lederach, 1995).

U
When left alone conflict can have destructive consequences. However, the consequences can be modified
or transformed so that self-images, relationships and social structures improve as a result of conflict

L
instead of being harmed by it (Burgess, Burgess, Glaser & Yevsyukova, 1997).

IA
C
ER
Conflict Handling
M

There are three distinct approaches to conflict handling: ‘Conflict Management’, ‘Conflict Resolution’
M

and ‘Conflict Transformation’ (Miall, 2004). In the words of Bloomfield and Reilly (1998, p. 18):
‘Conflict management addresses the more realistic question of managing conflict: how to deal with it
O

in a constructive way, how to bring opposing sides together in a cooperative process, how to design a
C

practical, achievable, cooperative system for the constructive management of difference.’

R

‘Conflict transformation’ approach encourages constructive results from conflict for all parties
(Vayrynen, 2000). Conflict transformation is a process of engaging with and transforming the relation-
FO

ships, interests, discourses and the very constitution of society that supports the continuation of
violent conflict (Miall, 2004, p. 4). Bercovitch and Jackson emphasize that traditional approaches—
T

international negotiation, conflict mediation, arbitration and adjudication, UN conflict resolution and
O

peacekeeping—must evolve to meet the needs of the modern world (Bercovitch & Jackson, 2009).
N

Conflict resolution is about how parties can move from zero sum, destructive patterns of conflict to
positive-sum constructive outcomes. ‘The aim is to develop processes of conflict resolution that appear
to be acceptable to parties in dispute, and effective in resolving conflict’ (Azar & Burton 1986, p. 1). This
is the approach used in Mahabharata War where Krishna, who is skilled to fight the war but has decided
not to participate in the war, tries to resolve the conflict.

Conflict Analysis and Resolution

Theories of conflict resolution originate from sociology, social psychology and political science. Paul
Sites (1973) defined eight essential needs whose satisfaction was required in order to produce ‘normal’

Journal of Human Values, 20, 2 (2014): 153–165

Formulating a New Three Energy Framework of Personality for Conflict Analysis and Resolution 155

(non-deviant, non-violent) individual behaviour. According to Sites, these included the primary needs
for consistency of response, stimulation, security, and recognition, and derivative needs for justice,
meaning, rationality and control.
Burton’s ‘human needs theory’ operates on the premise that a pre-condition for the resolution of con-
flict is that fundamental human needs be met (Burton & Denis, 1986). In Burton’s view, the needs most
salient to an understanding of destructive social conflicts were those for identity, recognition, security
and personal development (Burton, 1990).
Roger Fisher adopted an approach called ‘principled-negotiation’, which aims to resolve conflict by
deferring judgement to a moral principle. Such an approach advocates the need for interest-based nego-
tiations in contrast to those based on a ‘position’. Fisher also defines the most powerful interests as
human needs, which he identifies as security, economic well-being, a sense of belonging, recognition
and control over one’s life (Fisher & Ury, 1991).

SE
U
Conflict Handling in Organizations

L
IA
Research of conflict handling in organizations can be divided into two categories: normative and

C
descriptive. Normative approaches reflect attitudes and beliefs which identify all conflicts as destructive
and promote conflict-elimination as the formula for organizational success (Kelly, 1969). Descriptive
ER
approaches accept conflict as inevitable and consider its proper management the primary responsibility
of all administrators (Mac, 1965).
M

Blake and Mouton (1964) introduced a five-category scheme for classifying interpersonal conflict-
M

handling modes into the five modes of competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding and accom-
O

modating. In a study of the interpersonal dynamics of confrontation (conflict) versus support in a

laboratory setting, Kilmann and Taylor (1974) found that the Jungian dimensions (Jung, 1923) of observe
C

(perceive), assess (judge) and enact (introversion, extraversion) were exceedingly useful in predicting
R

and explaining the effects of individual personality differences.

FO

The main methods of needs-based conflict resolution are integrative bargaining based on Roger
Fisher’s principled negotiation, (Fisher & Ury, 1991); analytic or interactive problem-solving (Burton,
1990; Kelman, 1986) and the human relations workshops (Doob & Foltz, 1973).
T

Thomas and Kilmann developed an instrument—Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument

O

(TKI)—which assesses an individual’s behaviour in conflict situations—that is, situations in which the
N

concerns of two people appear to be incompatible (Pat Sample, 2010). TKI places the most emphasis on
the way in which the participants themselves handle conflict situations.
The integrative bargaining process respects individual differences while helping people avoid
becoming too entrenched in a fixed position. This process, also called principled negotiation, involves
negotiation in which the focus is on merits of the issues and the parties try to enlarge the available ‘pie’
rather than stake claims to certain portions of it (Wood, Wallace & Zeffane, 2001). That is integrative
bargaining involves both concession making and searching for mutually profitable solutions. Integrative
bargaining tries to move beyond position-based bargaining and determine underlying interests (Cross &
Rosenthal, 1999).
Interactive or analytic problem-solving is a form of third-party consultation or informal mediation. It
is a needs-based approach to resolving conflict. It begins with an analysis of the political needs and fears.

Journal of Human Values, 20, 2 (2014): 153–165

156 Satish Modh

This approach was pioneered by John Burton, and extended by Herbert Kelman. It is a non traditional,
nongovernmental approach emphasizing analytical dialogue and problem-solving (Kelman, 1990).
Alternative approaches to needs-based conflict resolution include the ‘power-based’ and the ‘rights-
based’ approaches. Both these approaches are highly adversarial, and generally result in a win/lose
situation (Mills, 2006).

Approach of the Gita in Conflict Resolution

Gita is right in the middle of the Mahabharata war. The conflict in Mahabharata is a conflict between the
Pandavas and the Kauravas—brothers in a unitary family. The war happened because of the ‘intractable’
nature of the conflicts between the two parties. According to Burges and Burges intractability occurs due

SE
to ‘irreconcilable moral differences’, ‘high-stake distributional issues’ and domination or ‘pecking order’
conflicts (Burgess & Burgess, 2003). It was a conflict of personalities, values, beliefs and diverse inter-

U
ests. Huge armies were arrayed on both sides (Krishnananda, 2012). The causes of conflict were similar

L
to Burton’s view on destructive social conflicts: identity, recognition, security and personal development

IA
(Burton, 1990).
The Gita talks about resolving four types of conflict (Table 1). In the first chapter of the Gita, Arjuna,
C
the commander of Pandava army, suddenly decides not to fight the war. He is faced with an ‘intrapersonal
ER
conflict’ about the cause and effect of this Great War. He cites the reasons of ‘interpersonal conflict’ and
tries to justify his action by discussing the futility of ‘conflict of man with the whole world’ and ‘conflict
M

of universal and absolute’.

M

The first type of conflict is a ‘conflict with other people’, that is, interpersonal conflict. This was the
reason of this Mahabharata war. Interaction between individuals with different attitudes, values and
O

needs can produce conflict behaviour (Bercovitch, 1983).

C

The second type of conflict mentioned in the Gita is a conflict within one’s own self, that is,
R

intrapersonal conflict. This is the conflict Arjuna faces at the beginning of the war—to fight or not to
FO

fight. Intrapersonal conflict is internal to the individual is perhaps the most difficult form of conflict to
analyze and manage. Intrapersonal conflict is basically a conflict between two incompatible tendencies
(Brown, 1967; Sanford, 1961).
T

The third type of conflict mentioned in the Gita is the conflict between man and the Nature. It is
O

the conflict between the individual and the world as a whole in the form of this vast creation.
N

McKee postulates, that there is a connection between human population growth and biodiversity loss.

Table 1. Types of Conflict in the Gita: From Individual to Universal

Types of Conflict Conflict Extent

Type 1 Interpersonal conflict - ‘conflict with other people’
Type 2 Intrapersonal conflict – ‘conflict within one’s own self’
Type 3 Between man and the environment – ‘conflict between man and the Nature or the world
as a whole’
Type 4 Between the Universe and the Absolute – ‘conflict between scientific and religious modes
of perceiving the world’

Journal of Human Values, 20, 2 (2014): 153–165

Formulating a New Three Energy Framework of Personality for Conflict Analysis and Resolution 157

‘People need space and resources, as do all living beings. Humans and other organisms often compete
for these commodities.’ (Mckee, 2005, p. 2).
The fourth conflict mentioned in the Gita is the conflict between the Universe and the Absolute.
This is the conflict between scientific and religious modes of perceiving the world. ‘Antagonism may
arise because the naturalistic explanations of science dispense with the metaphysical presuppositions of
theology, or because particular scientific theories contradict the literal reading of passages in the Bible,
or because religious dogma and authority interfere with scientific research’ (Turner, 1993, p. 172).

Formulating a Three Energy Framework of Conflict Resolution

The Gita provides a ‘guna framework’ for the analysis of human conduct. At individual level the guna

SE
indicates the ‘inherent energy or tendency’ with which the human mind functions (Sharma, 1996).
Chakraborty (1988) called this theory the ‘Guna Dynamics’—an Indian psycho-philosophical theory of

U
human conduct and behaviour.
These three gunas are sattva, rajas and tamas. Sattva is positive energy. It enhances the spiritual

L
IA
quality and helps in building our knowledge framework. Rajas is dynamic energy. It helps us in achieving
our goals. Tamas is potential energy. It is the material quality and represents inertia. At any given time,
C
one guna dominates our behaviour depending on circumstances and natural inclinations (Kapadia, 2004).
ER
We may find our distinct individual qualities manifesting themselves through guna when we act
(Prabhavananda & Isherwood, 1953).
M

Combination of sattva–tamas (S/T) represents mental activity. It is the source of ideas and creativity.
M

The combination of rajas–tamas (R/T) deals with relations with people and environment. This quality
combination results into acquiring name and fame. The combination of sattva–rajas (S/R) gives rise to
O

our self-esteem or pride. The combination of sattva–rajas–tamas (R/S/T) represents our value and
C

beliefs systems. Figure 1 represents the nature of these three gunas and their combinations. Various
R

characteristics of rajas, sattva and tamas gunas and their combinations can be compared. These com-
parisons are given in Table 2.
FO
T

Classification of Sources of Conflict

O
N

In his book, The Mediation Process, Christopher Moore (1987) outlines five sources of conflict as: Value
conflicts, Relationship conflicts, Data conflicts, Interest conflicts and Structural conflicts. According to
the three energy framework seven sources of conflict can be postulated. These are:

1. Conflict of Ownership
2. Conflict of Ideas
3. Conflict of Knowledge
4. Conflict of Goals
5. Conflict of Feelings
6. Conflict of Ego
7. Conflict of Values and Beliefs

Journal of Human Values, 20, 2 (2014): 153–165

158 Satish Modh

SE
U
Figure 1. Sattva (positive), Rajas (dynamic) and Tamas (potential) Energies and Their Qualities

L
Notes: S/R–Sattva/Rajas Combination, S/T–Sattva/Tamas Combination, R/T–Rajas/Tamas Combination, and R/S/T–Rajas/

IA
Sattva/Tamas Combination).

C
ER
Table 2. Comparison of Attributes of Three Gunas (Energies)

Guna and Their Combinations Dominant Quality Source of Conflict

M

Sattva ‘Spiritual quality’ Capable of vast knowing and deep understanding, inherent
M

(The positive energy) desire to be good and caring, understands the difference
between desirable and undesirable, dutiful and undutiful
O

action
C

Rajas ‘Active quality’ Imbued with passion, pays homage to wealth and power
(The dynamic energy) and strives hard to acquire it, easily jubilant or depressed
R

and is ruthless, in pursuit of one’s goal, motives for actions

FO

are self-importance, fame, honor and admiration

Tamas ‘Material quality’ Acts in self-interest, wants more and more possessions,
(The potential energy) pays homage to external factors, luck, and outside forces,
T

gives rise to carelessness, revengeful, wants to win by

O

demolishing others
N

Sattva and Rajas
(positive + dynamic
energy)
Sattva and Tamas
(positive + potential energy)
Rajas and Tamas
(dynamic + potential energy)
Sattva, Rajas and Tamas
(positive + dynamic +
potential energy)
‘Spiritually active Drive by self pride and ego, combines selfish action with
quality’ conscientiousness of higher self, ambition with sympathy
and anger with reason, willing to sacrifice comfort and
face persecution for truth, principles and beliefs
‘Intellectually Full of ideas, can visualize the larger perspective
active quality’ (the big picture) of surroundings, creative, inspiring
and experimental
‘Materially Driven by emotions and feelings, ability to deal with
active quality’ people and events, helps in building relationships
‘Perspective A distinct perspective on various issues, clear point
quality’ of views, values and beliefs

Journal of Human Values, 20, 2 (2014): 153–165

Formulating a New Three Energy Framework of Personality for Conflict Analysis and Resolution 159

SE
U
Figure 2. Sources of Conflict Based on Sattva, Rajas and Tamas Energy

L
Notes: S/R–Sattva/ Rajas Combination, S/T–Sattva/Tamas Combination, R/T–Rajas/Tamas Combination, and R/S/T–Rajas/

IA
Sattva/Tamas Combination).

Table 3. Sources of Conflict Based on Three Energy Framework C

ER
Guna and Their Combinations Dominant Quality Sources of Conflict
M

Sattva ‘Spiritual quality’ Conflict of Knowledge—due to capability

M

(The positive energy) of vast knowing and deep understanding

Rajas ‘Active quality’ Conflict of Goals—due to passionate
O

(The dynamic energy) pursuit of goals

C

Tamas ‘Material quality’ Conflict of ownership—due to desire

(The potential energy) to possess more and more
R

Sattva and Rajas ‘Spiritually active quality’ Conflict of Ego—due to righteousness

FO

(positive + dynamic energy) of ethical and noble thought

Sattva and Tamas ‘Intellectually active quality’ Conflict of Ideas—due to active
(positive + potential energy) intellectual mind full of ideas
T

Rajas and Tamas ‘Materially active quality’ Conflict of feelings—due to pressure

O

(dynamic + potential energy) of maintaining and building relationships

N

Sattva, Rajas and Tamas ‘Perspective quality’ Conflict of Values and Beliefs—due
(positive + dynamic to differing points of view, values
+ potential energy) and beliefs

Conflict of Ownership
Conflicts over ownership and entitlement are pervasive in the whole animal kingdom. We are constantly
fighting over territory, sexual partners, food or any other resources that are scarce and have to be shared
(Rochat, 2010). Human cultures evolved common principles and laws (institutions) that try to harness
the raw dynamic of the jungle’s law. Culture tries to regulate possession according to explicit principles

Journal of Human Values, 20, 2 (2014): 153–165

160 Satish Modh

that enforce the distribution of resources. All human cultures prescribe what are the rights and privileges
of ownership (who ‘ought’ to own what).

Conflict of Ideas
A conflict of ideas is a clash of visions, concepts and images, and their interpretation. As Antulio, Direc-
tor of Research for the U.S. Army War College, suggests—‘Wars of ideas can assume many forms, but
they tend to fall into four general categories: (a) intellectual debates, (b) ideological wars, (c) wars over
religious dogma, and (d) advertising campaigns. All of them are essentially about power and influence’
(Antulio, 2008, p. 3). Diversity of political ideas has generated many conflicts of the last century. Some
of these ideas are capitalism, communism, secularism, fascism, imperialism and Islamism.

SE
U
Conflict of Knowledge

L
Knowledge refers to the ‘fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experi-

IA
ence or association’. The power of knowledge is, fundamentally, the power of leverage and influence
derived from the provision, access, diffusion and expansion of knowledge—as well as its utilization.
C
This composite leverage is contingent on the interaction between the content of knowledge and the value
ER
of knowledge (Nazli Choucri, 2007).
Knowledge is understood primarily in terms of theoretical and observational insights gained by
M

theorists or experts in a field. Most common sources of conflict of knowledge are the struggle for control
M

over knowledge resources, types of knowledge (content or context), and creation sharing and use of
O

knowledge (Smith, 2001).

C
R

Conflict of Goals
FO

Conflict may occur because people are pursuing different goals. Conflict may occur because they may
want the same thing or conflict may occur because the goals are different. When one person perceives a
T

block to achieving his or her goal, conflict occurs. Conflict may also occur on the methods to achieve
O

them. Since each goal requires an investment of time, effort and some sacrifice, one goal cannot be
N

pursued without sacrificing the other to some extent (Wilmot & Hocker, 2011).

Conflict of Feelings
Emotions are both a source and escalator of conflict, and positive feelings among the parties are often a
key component of resolution. Lack of detailed attention paid to emotions and their role in relationships
limits our understanding of conflict and that more work needs to be done to remedy this (Retzinger &
Scheff, 1995). Strong emotions, for example, anger, distrust, disappointment, frustration, confusion,
worry or fear, are many times a cause of conflict. These emotions may arise in a situation that has
recently taken place or is in the process of being unfolded. Conflicts may occur because people ignore

Journal of Human Values, 20, 2 (2014): 153–165

Formulating a New Three Energy Framework of Personality for Conflict Analysis and Resolution 161

their own or others’ feelings and emotions. Other conflicts may occur when feelings and emotions differ
over a particular issue.

Conflict of Ego
Ego can be understood as a sense of one’s own proper dignity or value. ‘The concept of the ego is only
meaningful if one acknowledges the concept of a more real, more valuable, and more natural self. We
know this ‘other self’ indirectly, through the relationship with our self’ (Ventegodt, Andersen & Merrick,
2003, p. 1281).
Alexander Sebald and Markus Walzl (2010) analyzed the dependence of an agent’s behaviour, optimal
contracts and social welfare on the agent’s sensitivity towards ego-threats, the nature of conflict created

SE
by the agent and the quality of subjective performance evaluations. They demonstrated that an increase
in the level of conflict that the agent can impose on the principal or the sensitivity of the agent towards

U
ego-threats enhances welfare if the effort of the agent is sufficiently valuable. However, ego can create
conflicts in some situations. Ego-threat is particularly difficult to address, as the reaction triggered is

L
extremely strong and even the skewed point of view is taken as quite rational.

IA
C
ER
Conflict of Values and Beliefs
M

When two people have different values and beliefs, they may act and react differently to a given situation.
M

Recognizing differences in values can bring about an understanding of why certain areas or issues create
conflict. Such conflicts tend to result from a clash between differing worldviews. One group’s most
O

fundamental and cherished assumptions about the best way to live may differ radically from the values
C

held by another group (Pearce & Littlejohn, 1997, p. 49). Parties may have different standards of
rightness and goodness and give fundamentally different answers to serious moral questions (Bartos &
R

Wehr, 2002, p. 41).

FO

Conflict may arise from different values and belief systems. There are examples of such conflicts in
the newspaper and media reports on national and international conflicts between religious groups
T

(Christians and Muslims), bordering nations (India and Pakistan), political parties and even within
O

scientific theories (evolution or creation). When more than one explanation, belief, orientation or opinion
N

exists, conflict can occur.

Dominant Conflict Modes

The question whether these three gunas act on the mind all at a time or each separately at different points
of time is answered in Gita (14.10). It says that these gunas act at different times—each one of them
becoming powerful at any one point of time. At a given time human personality works under the influence
of one predominant guna when the other two gunas get subdued but not totally absent. Thus when sattva
predominates over rajas and tamas, it produces on the mind its own nature of happiness and knowledge;
when rajas predominates over the other two, it produces passions, desires, attachments and actions.

Journal of Human Values, 20, 2 (2014): 153–165

162 Satish Modh

When tamas is prominent over sattva and rajas, it shrouds discrimination and makes the mind unaware
of its nobler duties (Kaur & Sinha, 1992; Kejriwal & Venkat, 2004).
Therefore, the three energy framework of sattva (positive energy), rajas (dynamic energy) and tamas
(potential energy) provides an insight into the various dimensions of a personality and its conflict
handling modes. Hence when the sattva (positive energy) is dominant a person may be emphasizing on
the aspects of knowledge, ideas and driven by perceived ego-threats. When the tamas (potential energy)
is dominant a person may be emphasizing on feelings, ideas and ownership issues. Similarly when the
rajas (dynamic energy) is dominant, the same person may be influenced by the need to achieve goals,
giving emphasis to feelings and ego-threats. Values and belief system is the only constant in all the three
different dominant conflict modes (Figure 3).

SE
Further Research

U
The first purpose of this study was to investigate the current approaches to interpersonal conflict analysis
and resolution based on various studies of political, social and cultural turmoil and conflicts reported by

L
various researchers in the field. The second purpose was to build a new personality framework using

IA
C
ER
M
M
O
C
R
FO
T
O
N

Figure 3. Dominant Conflict Behaviour Based on Sattva, Rajas and Tamas Energy

Journal of Human Values, 20, 2 (2014): 153–165

Formulating a New Three Energy Framework of Personality for Conflict Analysis and Resolution 163

the three energy framework presented in the ancient Hindu text the Gita and use it for interpersonal
conflict analysis.
There have been various approaches to conflict analysis and resolution (Scimecca, 1987). These
approaches were further developed and discussed by many researchers (Fisher & Ury, 1991; Wood et al.,
2001; Bercovitch & Jackson, 2009). This study gives a new insight into the sources of interpersonal
conflict and groups them on the basis of positive, dynamic and potential energies and their combinations.
The three energy framework provides a new approach to understand the conduct of a person by identifying
three distinct dominant energies which influences the human needs, personalities and three distinct
modes of dominant conflict handling behaviour.
Further research can be conducted to find out the composition of these three energies in an individual
and a reliable instrument can be developed. The characteristics of these three energies have been
explained in detail in the Gita and a couple of research papers have been published on the subject (Kaur

SE
& Sinha, 1992; Kejriwal & Venkat, 2004; Narayanan & Krishnan, 2003). Based on future research an
energy score of an individual can be ascertained which may resolve the mystery of contradictory behav-

U
iour in similar situations. This can be explained by the presence of a dominant energy at a given time.
The knowledge of the Three Energy Scores would also help in understanding the personalities,

L
making everyone involved in the conflict aware of the reality on ground and bridging the gap. The

IA
process of knowing oneself would begin when one consciously explores ‘who I am’ (Three Energy

C
composition) and this will also help in understanding why the way people behave the way they behave
ER
with others.
If we need to resolve a conflict, we cannot talk about human nature in abstract terms. Focusing on
M

sources of conflict rather than personalities, makes it possible to come up with better conflict resolution
strategies. This tells us why people appear to take such opposite stands; even though they may have com-
M

mon interests.
O

It is a difficult task to identify the motives of a conflict. People may not even be aware why they are
C

in a conflict situation. Further research may help in identifying the sources of conflict as they are discov-
ered in the people involved. This will help in understanding the reasons of a conflict—either due to
R

different dominant gunas (energies) or the individuals’ tendency to enter into a conflict due to its high
FO

score on a particular source of conflict.

In the organizational environment, awareness of each employee’s nature is critical to success, at least
those who are in key performance and decision-making positions. When such employees are self-aware,
T

workplace conflict can be minimized and can become productive to the organization. But when these
O

employees are not aware of their nature these conflicts can become destructive for the individual as well
N

as for the organization. In the end it is the way an organization, a business unit or a team handles
interpersonal conflict decides the future of an organization.

References
Antulio, J.E. (2008). Wars of ideas and the war of ideas. Strategic Studies Institute of the US Army War College,
Carlisle, 53 pages.
Azar, E. & Burton, John W. (1986). International conflict resolution: Theory and practice. Boulder: Lynne Rienner
and Wheatsheaf.
Bartos, Otomar J. & Wehr, Paul. (2002). Using conflict theory (Vol. 41). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bercovitch, J. (1983). Conflict and conflict management in organizations: A framework for analysis. The Asian
Journal of Public Administration, 5(2), December, 104–124.

Journal of Human Values, 20, 2 (2014): 153–165

164 Satish Modh

Bercovitch, J. & Jackson, R. (2009). Conflict resolution in the twenty-first century: Principles, methods and
approaches. Ann Arbor: Michigan University Press.
Blake, R.R. & Mouton, J.S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf Publications.
Bloomfield, D. & Reilly, Benjamin (1998). The changing nature of conflict and conflict management. In Peter
Harris & Ben Reilly (Eds), Democracy and deep-rooted conflict (Vol. 18, pp. 7–28). Stockholm: Institute for
Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA).
Brown, J.S. (1967). Principles of intrapersonal conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1(2), 135–154.
Burgess, H., Burgess, G., Glaser, T. & Yevsyukova, M. (1997). Transformative approaches to conflict. Conflict
Research Consortium. Boulder: Colorado State University.
Burgess, Heidi & Burgess, Guy M. (2003). What are intractable conflicts? In Guy Burgess & Heidi Burgess (Eds),
Beyond intractability. Conflict Information Consortium. Boulder: University of Colorado. Retrieved November
2003, from http://www.beyondintractability.org/bi-essay/meaning-intractability
Burton, John (1990). Conflict: Basic human needs. New York: St. Martins Press.

SE
Burton, John W. (1993). Conflict resolution as a political philosophy. In Dennis J.D. Sandole & Hugo van der
Merwe (Eds), Conflict resolution theory and practice: integration and application (pp. 55–64). Manchester and

U
New York: Manchester University Press.
Burton, John W. & Sandole, Dennis J.D. (1986). Generic theory: The basis of conflict resolution. Negotiation

L
Journal, 2(4), October.

IA
Chakraborty, S.K. (1988). Guna dynamics can enrich transactional analysis. Vikalpa, 13(3), July–September, 39–50.
Choucri, Nazli (2007). The politics of knowledge management. The UNESCO forum on higher education, research
C
and knowledge. Retrieved 10 November 2012, from http://portal.unesco.org/pv_obj_cache/pv_obj_id_53FC24
ER
4D1D05DEAFAF4BBA8EDF8512CC33ED0000/filename/Choucri.pdf
Cross, Susan & Rosenthal, Robert (1999). Three models of conflict resolution: Effects on intergroup expectancies
M

and attitudes. Journal of Social Issues, 55(3), Fall, 561–580.

Deutsch, Morton (2002). Social psychology’s contributions to the study of conflict resolution. Negotiation Journal,
M

18(4), 308.
O

Doob, Leonard & Foltz, W.J. (1973). The Belfast workshop: An application of group techniques to a destructive
conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1973, 17(3), 489–512.
C

Fisher, Roger & Ury, William. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating an agreement without giving (2nd ed.). London,
R

Sydney, Auckland and Bergvlei: Business Books Limited.

FO

Galtung, Johan (1996). Peace by peaceful means: Peace and conflict, development and civilization. International
Peace Research Institute Oslo, London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Jehn, K.A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative
T

Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282.

O

Jung, C.G. (1923). Psychological types. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Kapadia, Mala (2004). Emotional intelligence: A workbook for beginners. India: BPI Pvt Ltd.
N

Kaur, Parvinder & Sinha, Arvind K. (1992). Dimensions of Guna in organizational setting. Vikalpa, 17(3), July–
September 27–32.
Kejriwal, Aditi & Venkat, R. Krishnan (2004). Impact of Vedic worldview and Gunas on transformational leadership.
Vikalpa, 29(1), January–March, 29–40.
Kelly, J. (1969). Organizational behaviour. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Kelman, Herbert (1986). Resolution of international conflict: An interactional approach. In S. Worchel & W.G.
Austin (Eds), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 323–342). Chicago: Hall.
——— (1990). The Israeli-Palestinian case. In Burton (Ed.) Conflict: Human needs theory (p. 284). London:
Macmillan Press.
Kilmann, R.H. & Taylor, T. (1974). A contingency approach to laboratory learning: Psychological types versus
experiential norms. Human Relations, 1974, 27(8), 891–909.

Journal of Human Values, 20, 2 (2014): 153–165

Formulating a New Three Energy Framework of Personality for Conflict Analysis and Resolution 165

Krishnananda, Swami (2012). The Gospel of the Bhagavadgita—resolution of the fourfold conflict. The Divine Life
Society. Retrieved 9 August 2012, from http://www.dlshq.org/religions/gita_kr
Lederach, John Paul (1995). Preparing for peace: Conflict transformation across cultures (pp. 3–23). New York:
Syracuse University Press.
McKee, Jeffrey K. (2005). Sparing nature: The conflict between human population growth and earth’s biodiversity.
New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 31-Jan-2005.
Miall, Hugh. (2004). Conflict transformation: A multi-dimensional task, in the Berghof handbook for conflict
transformation. Retrieved 10, November, 2012, from http://www.berghof-handbook.net/
Mills, Stewart (2006). Introduction to conflict resolution. Retrieved 4 November 2012, from http://palestine
israelresolutionscrt.blogspot.in/
Moore, C. (1987). The mediation process: Practical strategies for resolving conflict. London: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Narayanan, J. & Krishnan, V. (2003). Impact of Sattva and Rajas Guna on transformational leadership and Karma
Yoga. Journal of Indian Psychology, 21(2), July.

SE
Pat Sample. (2010). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument: Profile and Interpretive Report, CPP Inc.
Pearce, Barnett & Littlejohn, Stephen W. (1997). Moral conflict: When social worlds collide. Thousand Oaks, CA:

U
SAGE Inc.
Prabhavananda, Swami & Isherwood, Christopher. (1953). The Yoga Aphorisms of Patanjai. Sri Ramakrishna Math,

L
Vedanta Society of Southern California, Madras: Sri Ramakrishna Math.

IA
Retzinger, S. & Scheff, T. (1995). Emotion, alienation, and narratives: Resolving intractable conflict. Retrieved
10 November 2012, from http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/faculty/scheff/16.html
C
Rochat, P. (2010). Possession and morality in early development. Department of Psychology, Emory University,
ER
Atlanta, Georgia 30322, USA. Retrieved 10 November, 2012 from http://events.psych.missouri.edu/pdfs-docs/
Rochat4Feb10.pdf
M

Sanford, R. Nevitt (1961). Individual conflict and organizational interaction. In Ann Arbor, Conflict management in
organization (pp. 4–5). Michigan: Foundation for Research on Human Behavior.
M

Scimecca, J.A. (1987). Conflict resolution: The basis for social control or social change. In S. Sandole & I. Sandole
O

(Eds), Conflict management and problem solving: interpersonal to international applications (pp. 30–33).
New York: New York University Press.
C

Sebald, Alexander & & Walzl, Markus. (2010). Subjective performance evaluations, self-esteem, and ego-threats in
R

principal-agent relations. Discussion Papers, Department of Economics, University of Copenhagen. Retrieved

FO

10 November 2012, from http://www.econ.ku.dk/english/research/publications/wp/dp_2010/1018.pdf/

Sharma, Subhash (1996). Management in new age: Western windows Eastern doors (2nd revised and extended
edition, 2006). New Delhi: New Age International Publishers.
T

Sites, Paul. (1973). Control: The basis of social order. New York: Associated Faculty Press.
O

Smith, Elizabeth A. (2001). The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 5(4), 311–321.
N

Thompson, W.E. & Hickey, J.V. (2005). Society in focus. Boston: Pearson.
Turner, Frank M. (1993). Contesting cultural authority: Essays in Victorian intellectual life. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Vayrynen, R. (2000). From conflict resolution to conflict transformation: A critical review. In Ho-Won Jeong (Ed.),
The new agenda for peace research (pp. 135–160). Aldershot, England: Ashgate Publishing.
Ventegodt S, Andersen N.J. & Merrick J. (2003). The life mission theory II. The structure of the life. The Scientific
World Journal, 3, 1277–1285.
Wilmot, W.W. & Hocker, J. (2011). Interpersonal conflict (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wood, Jack, Wallace, Joseph & Zeffane, Rachid (2001). Organizational behaviour: A global perspective (2nd ed.,
p. 553). Brisbane, New York and Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Australia.

Journal of Human Values, 20, 2 (2014): 153–165

N
O
T
FO
R
C
O
M
M
ER
C
IA
L
U
SE