• Tools and Resources
  • Customer Services
  • Affective Science
  • Biological Foundations of Psychology
  • Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
  • Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
  • Developmental Psychology
  • Educational/School Psychology
  • Forensic Psychology
  • Health Psychology
  • History and Systems of Psychology
  • Individual Differences
  • Methods and Approaches in Psychology
  • Neuropsychology
  • Organizational and Institutional Psychology
  • Personality
  • Psychology and Other Disciplines
  • Social Psychology
  • Sports Psychology
  • Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Conflict management.

  • Patricia Elgoibar , Patricia Elgoibar University of Barcelona
  • Martin Euwema Martin Euwema Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
  •  and  Lourdes Munduate Lourdes Munduate University of Seville
  • https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.5
  • Published online: 28 June 2017

Conflicts are part of nature and certainly part of human relations, between individuals, as well as within and between groups. Conflicts occur in every domain of life: family, work, and society, local and global. Conflict management, therefore, is an essential competency for each person. People differ largely in their emotional and behavioral responses to conflict and need to learn how to behave effectively in different conflict situations. This requires a contingency approach, first assessing the conflict situation, and then choosing a strategy, matching the goals of the party. In most situations, fostering cooperative relations will be most beneficial; however, this is also most challenging. Therefore, constructive conflict management strategies, including trust building and methods of constructive controversy, are emphasized. Conflict management, however, is broader than the interaction of the conflicting parties. Third-party interventions are an essential element of constructive conflict management, particularly the assessment of which parties are intervening in what ways at what escalation stage.

  • cooperation
  • competition
  • conflict behavior
  • conglomerate conflict behavior
  • constructive conflict management
  • conflict resolution strategies

Definition of Conflict

Conflicts are part of nature, and certainly part of human relations. People experience conflict with other persons, in teams or in groups, as well as between larger entities, departments, organizations, communities, and countries. Conflicts appear at home, at work, and in our spare-time activities with friends, with people we love and with people we hate, as well as with our superiors and with our subordinates and coworkers. Parties need to accept conflicts as part of life dynamics and learn to deal with them effectively and efficiently. Conflict management refers to the way we manage incompatible actions with others, where others can be a person or a group.

Conflict is a component of interpersonal interactions; it is neither inevitable nor intrinsically bad, but it is commonplace (Coleman, Deutsch, & Marcus, 2014 ; Schellenberg, 1996 ). In the 20th century , Lewin ( 1935 ) concluded that an intrinsic state of tension motivates group members to move toward the accomplishment of their desired common goals. Later on, Parker Follett ( 1941 ) explored the constructive side of conflict and defined conflict as the appearance of difference, difference of opinions or difference of interests. Deutsch ( 1949 ) developed this line of thought and analyzed the relation between the way group members believe their goals are related and their interactions and relationships.

A common definition of conflict argues that there is a conflict between two (or more) parties (individuals or groups) if at least one of them is offended, or feels bothered by the other (Van de Vliert, 1997 ; Wall & Callister, 1995 ). Traditionally, conflict has been defined as opposing interests involving scarce resources and goal divergence and frustration (Pondy, 1967 ). However, Deutsch ( 1973 ) defined conflict as incompatible activities: one person's actions interfere, obstruct, or in some way get in the way of another's action. Tjosvold, Wan, and Tang ( 2016 ) proposed that defining conflict as incompatible actions is a much stronger foundation than defining conflict as opposing interests, because conflicts also can occur when people have common goals (i.e., they may disagree about the best means to achieve their common goals). The key contribution of Deutsch’s ( 1973 ) proposal is that incompatible activities occur in both compatible and incompatible goal contexts. Whether the protagonists believe their goals are cooperative or competitive very much affects their expectations, interaction, and outcomes as they approach conflict (Tjosvold et al., 2016 ).

Characteristics of Conflict

Euwema and Giebels ( 2017 ) highlighted some key elements of conflict.

Conflict implies dependence and interdependence. Parties rely to some extent on the other parties to realize their goals (Kaufman, Elgoibar, & Borbely, 2016 ). This interdependence can be positive (a cooperative context), negative (a competitive context), or mixed. Positive interdependence is strongly related to cooperative conflict behaviors, while negative interdependence triggers competitive behaviors (Johnson & Johnson, 2005 ). Interdependence also reflects the power difference between parties. A short-term contractor on a low-paid job usually is much more dependent on the employer than vice versa. Many conflicts, however, can be seen as “mixed motive” situations.

Conflicts are mostly mixed motive situations because parties have simultaneous motives to cooperate and motives to compete. Parties are, on the one hand, dependent on each other to realize their goal, and, on the other hand, they are at the same time competitors. For example, two colleagues on a team are cooperating for the same team result; however, there is competition for the role as project leader. In a soccer team, the players have a team goal of working together to win, but they can be competing to be the top scorer. The mixed motive structure is very important to understand conflict dynamics. When conflicts arise, the competitive aspects become more salient, and the cooperative structure often is perceived less by parties. Interventions to solve conflict, therefore, are often related to these perceptions and the underlying structures.

Conflict is a psychological experience. Conflict is by definition a personal and subjective experience, as each individual can perceive and manage the same conflict in a different manner. Conflict doesn’t necessarily have an objective basis (Van de Vliert, 1997 ). It depends on the perception of the specific situation, and the perception is by definition subjective and personal.

Conflict concerns cognitive and affective tension. When someone perceives blocked goals and disagreements, he or she can also, although not necessarily, feel fear or anger. Many authors consider that conflict is emotionally charged (Nair, 2007 ; Pondy, 1967 ; Sinaceur, Adam, Van Kleef, & Galinky, 2013 ), although the emotion doesn’t need to be labeled necessarily as a negative emotion. Some people actually enjoy conflict. Emotional experiences in conflict are also scripted by cultural, historical, and personal influences (Lindner, 2014 ).

Conflict can be unidirectional. One party can feel frustrated or thwarted by the other while the second party is hardly aware of, and doesn’t perceive the same reality of, the conflict.

Conflict is a process. Conflict is a dynamic process that does not appear suddenly, but takes some time to develop and passes through several stages (Spaho, 2013 ). Conflict is the process resulting from the tension in interpersonal interactions or between team members because of real or perceived differences (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003 ; Thomas, 1992 ; Wall & Callister, 1995 ).

Type of Conflict: Task, Process, and Relationship Conflict

Early conflict and organizational research concluded that conflict interferes with team performance and reduces satisfaction due to an increase in tension and distraction from the objective (Brown, 1983 ; Hackman & Morris, 1975 ; Pondy, 1967 ; Wall & Callister, 1995 ). Jehn ( 1995 ) differentiated between task and relational conflict, and later also included process conflict (De Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012 ). Task conflict refers to different opinions on content (Jehn & Mannix, 2001 ). Examples of task conflict are conflict about distribution of resources, about procedures and policies, and judgment and interpretation of facts (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003 ). Process conflict refers to how tasks should be accomplished (Jehn, Greer, Levine, & Szulanski, 2008 ). Examples are disagreements about logistic and delegation issues (Jehn et al., 2008 ). Finally, relationship conflict refers to “interpersonal incompatibility” (Jehn, 1995 , p. 257). Examples of relationship conflict are conflict about personal taste, political preferences, values, and interpersonal style (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003 ). All three types of conflict—task, process, and personal (relational) conflicts—are usually disruptive, especially personal conflict, which is highly disruptive (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003 ; Jehn, 1995 , 1997 ). A review and meta-analysis by De Wit et al. ( 2012 ) showed that, under specific conditions, task conflict can be productive for teams. Moreover, conflict can wreck a team’s efforts to share information and reach a consensus (Amason & Schweiger, 1994 ). Therefore, research supporting the benefit of task and relationship conflict is not conclusive and each situation varies. What seems to be clear is that managing conflict efficiently to avoid escalation is a priority for teams.

Conflict Behavior, Conflict Management, and Conflict Resolution

Conflict behavior, conflict management, and conflict resolution are different layers of a conflict process and therefore should be distinguished. Conflict behavior is any behavioral response to the experience of frustration, while conflict management is the deliberate action to deal with conflictive situations, both to prevent or to escalate them. Also, conflict management is differentiated from conflict resolution, which is specific action aimed to end a conflict.

Conflict Behavior

Conflict behavior is the behavioral response to the experience of conflict (Van de Vliert et al., 1995 ). Conflict behavior is defined as one party’s reaction to the perception that one’s own and the other party’s current aspiration cannot be achieved simultaneously (Deutsch, 1973 ; Pruitt, 1981 ; Rubin, Pruitt, & Kim, 1994 ). It is both what people experiencing conflict intend to do, as well as what they actually do (De Dreu, Evers, Beersma, Kluwer, & Nauta, 2001 ; Van de Vliert, 1997 ). In conflict situations people often respond primarily, following their emotions, more or less conscientiously.

Many factors affect how people respond to the experience of conflict. Social psychology shows the processes are largely unconscious (Wilson, 2004 ). For example, how people respond to intimidating behavior by their supervisor might be primarily influenced by the context and individual perception, as well as previous relations with persons in authority, including parents and teachers (Gelfand & Brett, 2004 ; Van Kleef & Cote, 2007 ). These natural behavioral responses are also referred to as “conflict styles.” They are rooted in our personality and can differ in context. Some people will naturally respond by being friendly and accommodating, where others will start arguing or fighting (Barbuto, Phipps, & Xu, 2010 ; Kilmann & Thomas, 1977 ; Van Kleef & Cote, 2007 ).

Conflict behavior becomes more effective once we are more aware of our natural tendencies and are also able not to act upon them, and instead to show flexibility in behavioral approaches. This is where conflict behavior becomes conflict management. Therefore, one can be a naturally highly accommodating person who will spontaneously give in to others who make demands, but one will be more effective after learning to assess the situation at hand and to carefully decide on a response, which might be quite different from the natural or spontaneous reaction.

Dual-Concern Model

The dual-concern model holds that the way in which parties handle conflicts can de described and is determined by two concerns: concern for self (own interests) and concern for others (relational interests) (Blake & Mouton, 1964 ; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986 ; Rahim, 1983 ; Thomas, 1992 ; Van de Vliert, 1999 ) (see Figure 1 ). Usually, the two concerns define five different conflict behaviors: forcing, avoiding, accommodating, compromising, and problem solving or integrating. These behaviors are studied at the level of general personal conflict styles, closely connected to personality, as well as at the level of strategies and tactics (Euwema & Giebels, 2017 ).

The different conflict styles have been studied intensively, with three approaches. A normative approach, wherein integrating (also known as problem solving) is seen as the preferred behavior for conflict resolution; a contingency approach, exploring conditions under which each of the behaviors is most appropriate; and a conglomerate approach, focusing on a combination of the behaviors (see “ Conglomerate Conflict Behavior ”).

Figure 1. Dual-concern model.

In forcing, one party aims to achieve his or her goal by imposing a solution onto the other party. Concern for one’s own interests and own vision is what matters. There is little attention and care for the interests and needs of the other party, or the relationship with the other (Euwema & Giebels, 2017 ). This style is appropriate when the outcome is important for one party but trivial to the opponent, or when fast decision making is necessary. It becomes inappropriate when issues are complex, when both parties are equally powerful, when the outcome is not worth the effort for one party, or when there is enough time to make a collective decision. Moreover, forcing decisions can seriously damage a relationship and contribute to bullying in the workplace (Baillien, Bollen, Euwema, & De Witte, 2014 ); however, normative forcing, which is referring to rules and imposing them, can be effective (De Dreu, 2005 ). Note that some alternative terms that have been used for forcing in the literature are competitive , contending , or adversarial behavior .

With avoiding, one party aims to stay out of any confrontation with the other. This behavior prevents efforts to yield, to negotiate constructively, or to compete for one’s own gains. The conflict issue receives little attention, usually because the avoiding party thinks he or she won’t gain from entering into the conflict (Euwema & Giebels, 2017 ; Van de Vliert, 1997 ). Avoiding may be used when the benefits of resolving the conflict are not worth confronting the other party, especially when the problem is trivial or minor; when no good solutions are available for now; or when time is needed (Van Erp et al., 2011 ). An important motive for avoiding also is to prevent loss of face and to maintain the relationship. This is particularly true in collectivistic cultures, particularly in Asian societies (Oetzel et al., 2001 ). Avoiding is inappropriate when the issues are important to a party, when the parties cannot wait, or when immediate action is required (Rahim, 2002 ). Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim ( 1994 ) distinguished between long-term avoidance, which is a permanent move to leave the conflict, and short-term avoidance, defined as temporary inaction.

Accommodating

Accommodating is giving in or going along with the ideas, wishes, and needs of the other party. Accommodating usually is the result of a low concern for one’s own conflictive interests combined with a high concern for the interests and needs of the other party. Giving in often is related to a strong need for harmony and a sensitivity to the needs of the other. Accommodation is useful when a party is not familiar with the issues involved in the conflict, when the opponent is right, when the issue is much more important to the other party, and in order to build or maintain a long-term relationship, in exchange for future consideration when needed. Giving in also can be an educational strategy, giving space to the other to find out what the effect will be. Accommodating is less appropriate when the issue is of great concern, when accommodation creates frustration, or when accommodation reinforces dynamics of exploitation (Spaho, 2013 ). Note that an alternative term for this concept that can be found in the literature is yielding .

Compromising

Compromising involves searching for a middle ground, with an eye on both one’s own interest and the interest of the other. The premise is that both parties must find a middle ground where everyone receives equal consideration, meaning that each party makes some concession (Van de Vliert, 1997 ). Compromising is appropriate when a balance of forces exists and the goals of parties are mutually exclusive (Buddhodev, 2011 ). Compromise leads to a democratic solution; however, it may prevent arriving at a creative solution to the problem and a limited effort to increase resources before distributing them (Spaho, 2013 ).

Problem Solving or Integrating

Problem solving is a win–win strategy aimed at “optimizing rather than satisfying the parties” (Van de Vliert, 1997 , p. 36). Great value is attached to one’s own interests and vision, but also a lot of attention is given to the needs, ideas, and interests of the other. One looks for open and creative solutions that meet both interests. Problem solving or integrating is useful in dealing with complex issues, and it allows both parties to share skills, information, and other resources to redefine the problem and formulate alternative solutions. It is, however, inappropriate when the task is simple or trivial, and when there is no time. Also, it is more difficult to develop when the other party does not have experience in problem solving or when the parties are unconcerned about the outcomes (Pruitt & Rubin, 1986 ). Note that some alternative terms that can be found in the literature for this concept are cooperation and collaboration .

The dual-concern model is used as a contingency model, describing which conflict behaviors are used best under what conditions (Van de Vliert et al., 1997 ), and also as a normative model, promoting integrating behaviors as the most effective style, particularly when it comes to joined outcomes and long-term effectiveness. Forcing, in contrast, is often described as a noncooperative behavior, with risk of escalated and unilateral outcomes (Blake & Mouton, 1964 ; Burke, 1970 ; Deutsch, 1973 ; Fisher & Ury, 1981 ; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986 ; Rahim, 2010 ; Thomas, 1992 ). As a result, authors define forcing and integrating as two opposed behavioral approaches (Tjosvold, Morishima, & Belsheim, 1999 ). Following this model, many scholars during the 1970s and 1980s proposed that individuals use a single behavior in conflict, or that the behaviors should be seen as independent. Therefore, the antecedents and effects of different conflict behaviors are often analyzed separately (Tjosvold, 1997 ; Volkema & Bergmann, 2001 ). However, parties usually try to achieve personal outcomes, and try to reach mutual agreements by combining several behaviors in a conflict episode (Van de Vliert, 1997 ). This is the basic assumption of the conglomerate conflict behavior (CCB) theory (Van de Vliert, Euwema, & Huismans, 1995 ), which established that conflict behaviors are used in a compatible manner, sequentially or simultaneously.

Conglomerate Conflict Behavior (CCB)

In the dual-concern model, a contrast is made between forcing (contending with an adversary in a direct way) and integrating (reconciling the parties’ basic interests) as two opposed behavioral approaches (Tjosvold et al., 1999 ). However, the CCB framework assumes that individual reactions to conflict typically are complex and consist of multiple components of behavior (Van de Vliert, 1997 , Van de Vliert et al., 1995 ). The CCB theory covers the idea that behavioral components may occur simultaneously or sequentially and that the combination drives toward effectiveness (Euwema & Van Emmerik, 2007 ; Medina & Benitez, 2011 ). The theory has been supported in studies analyzing conflict management effectiveness in different contexts, such as in managerial behavior (Munduate, Ganaza, Peiro, & Euwema, 1999 ), in military peacekeeping (Euwema & Van Emmerik, 2007 ) and by worker representatives in organizations (Elgoibar, 2013 ).

The main reason that people combine different behaviors is because conflicts are often mixed-motive situations (Euwema, Van de Vliert, & Bakker, 2003 ; Euwema & Van Emmerik, 2007 ; Walton & McKersie, 1965 ). Mixed-motive situations are described as situations that pose a conflict between securing immediate benefits through competition, and pursuing benefits for oneself and others through cooperation with other people (Komorita & Parks, 1995 ; Sheldon & Fishbach, 2011 ). Therefore, a person's behavior in a conflict episode is viewed as a combination of some of the five forms of conflict behaviors. An example of sequential complex behavior is to first put the demands clearly (forcing), followed by integrating (searching for mutual gains, and expanding the pie), and finally compromising, where distributive issues are dealt with in a fair way. An example of serial complexity can be found in multi-issue conflict, when for some issues conflict can be avoided, while for high priorities, demands are put on the table in a forcing way. Another CCB pattern is the conglomeration of accommodating and forcing. This pattern is sometimes referred to as “logrolling” (Van de Vliert, 1997 , p. 35), and it is a classic part of integrative strategies, to maximize the outcomes for both parties. Logrolling behavior consists of accommodating the high-concern issues of the other party and forcing one’s own high-concern issues. This approach is usually helpful in multi-issue trade negotiations; however, it requires openness of both parties to acknowledging key interests.

How to Explore Your Tendency in Conflict

The most famous and popular conflict behavior questionnaires are:

MODE (Management of Differences Exercise). MODE, developed in 1974 by Thomas and Killman, presents 30 choices between two options representing different conflict styles.

ROCI (Rahim's Organizational Conflict Inventory). The ROCI is a list of 28 items that measures the five styles of conflict behavior described.

Dutch Test of Conflict Handling. This list of 20 items measures the degree of preference for the five styles (Van de Vliert & Euwema, 1994 ; De Dreu et al., 2001 , 2005 ). It has been validated internationally.

Conflict management is deliberate action to deal with conflictive situations, either to prevent or to escalate them. Unlike conflict behavior, conflict management encompasses cognitive responses to conflict situations, which can vary from highly competitive to highly cooperative. Conflict management does not necessarily involve avoidance, reduction, or termination of conflict. It involves designing effective strategies to minimize the dysfunctions of conflict and to enhance the constructive functions of conflict in order to improve team and organizational effectiveness (Rahim, 2002 ).

Conflicts are not necessarily destructive (De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008 ; Euwema, Munduate, Elgoibar, Pender, & Garcia, 2015 ), and research has shown that constructive conflict management is possible (Coleman, Deutsch, & Marcus, 2014 ). The benefits of conflict are much more likely to arise when conflicts are discussed openly, and when discussion skillfully promotes new ideas and generates creative insights and agreements (Coleman et al., 2014 ; De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008 ; Euwema et al., 2015 ; Tjosvold, Won, & Chen, 2014 ). To make a constructive experience from conflict, conflict needs to be managed effectively.

Deutsch’s classic theory of competition and cooperation describes the antecedents and consequences of parties’ cooperative or competitive orientations and allows insights into what can give rise to constructive or destructive conflict processes (Deutsch, 1973 , 2002 ). The core of the theory is the perceived interdependence of the parties, so that the extent that protagonists believe that their goals are cooperative (positively related) or competitive (negatively related) affects their interaction and thus the outcomes. Positive interdependence promotes openness, cooperative relations, and integrative problem solving. Perceived negative interdependence on the other hand, induces more distance and less openness, and promotes competitive behavior, resulting in distributive bargaining or win–lose outcomes (Tjosvold et al., 2014 ).

Whether the protagonists believe their goals are cooperative or competitive very much affects their expectations, interactions, and outcomes. If parties perceive that they can reach their goals only if the other party also reaches their goals, the goal interdependence is positively perceived and therefore parties will have higher concern for the other’s goals and manage the conflict cooperatively (De Dreu et al., 2001 ; Tjosvold et al., 2014 ). On the contrary, if one party perceives that they can reach their goals only if the other party fails to obtain their goals, the interdependence becomes negatively perceived and the approach to conflict becomes competitive (Tjosvold et al., 2014 ). Goals can also be independent; in that case, conflict can be avoided (the parties don’t need to obstruct each other’s goals to be successful). Therefore, how parties perceive their goals’ interdependence affects how they negotiate conflict and whether the conflict is constructively or destructively managed (Alper et al., 2000 ; Deutsch, 1973 ; Johnson & Johnson, 1989 ; Tjosvold, 2008 ).

Successfully managing conflict cooperatively requires intellectual, emotional, and relational capabilities in order to share information, to contribute to value creation, and to discuss differences constructively (Fisher & Ury, 1981 ; Tjosvold et al., 2014 ). In contrast, a competitive-destructive process leads to material losses and dissatisfaction, worsening relations between parties, and negative psychological effects on at least one party—the loser of a win–lose context (Deutsch, 2014 ).

Deutsch’s theory proposes that emphasizing cooperative goals in conflict by demonstrating a commitment to pursue mutually beneficial solutions creates high-quality resolutions and relationships, while focusing on competitive interests by pursuing one’s own goals at the expense of the other’s escalates conflict, resulting in imposed solutions and suspicious relationships (Tjosvold et al., 2014 ).

In summary, Deutsch’s theory states that the context in which the conflict process is expressed drives parties toward either a cooperative or a competitive orientation in conflicts (Alper et al., 2000 ; Deutsch, 2006 ; Johnson & Johnson, 1989 ). In other words, a cooperative context is related to a cooperative conflict pattern, and a competitive context is related to a competitive conflict pattern. When parties have a cooperative orientation toward conflict, parties discuss their differences with the objective of clarifying them and attempting to find a solution that is satisfactory to both parties—both parties win (Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992 ). On the contrary, in competition, there is usually a winner and a loser (Carnevale & Pruitt, 1992 ) (see Table 1 ). In the CCB model, the patterns can include cooperative (i.e., integrating) and competitive (i.e. forcing) behavior; however, the cooperative pattern will be dominated by integrating while the competitive pattern will be dominated by forcing (Elgoibar, 2013 ).

Table 1. Characteristics of Cooperative and Competitive Climates

Source : Coleman, Deutsch, and Marcus ( 2014 ).

How to Manage Conflicts Constructively

The need for trust.

Trust is commonly defined as a belief or expectation about others’ benevolent motives during a social interaction (Holmes & Rempel, 1989 ; Rousseau et al., 1998 ). Mutual trust is one important antecedent as well as a consequence of cooperation in conflicts (Deutsch, 1983 ; Ferrin, Bligh, & Kohles, 2008 ). As Nahapiet and Ghoshal pointed out, “Trust lubricates cooperation, and cooperation itself breeds trust” ( 1998 , p.255). There is ample evidence that constructive conflict and trust are tightly and positively related (Hempel, Zhang, & Tjosvold, 2009 ; Bijlsma & Koopman, 2003 ; Lewicki, Tonlinson, & Gillespie, 2006 ).

Successful constructive conflict management requires maximal gathering and exchange of information in order to identify problems and areas of mutual concern, to search for alternatives, to assess their implications, and to achieve openness about preferences in selecting optimal solutions (Bacon & Blyton, 2007 ; Johnson & Johnson, 1989 ; Tjosvold, 1999 ). Trust gives parties the confidence to be open with each other, knowing that the shared information won’t be used against them (Zaheer & Zaheer, 2006 ). Various studies revealed that trust leads to constructive conglomerate behaviors and to more integrative outcomes in interpersonal and intergroup conflicts (Lewicki, Elgoibar, & Euwema, 2016 ; Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998 ; Ross & LaCroix, 1996 ).

How can trust be promoted? Developing trust is challenging (Gunia, Brett, & Nandkeolyar, 2014 ; Hempel et al., 2009 ). Numerous scholars have noted that trust is easier to destroy than to create (Hempel et al., 2009 ; Meyerson et al., 1996 ). There are two main reasons for this assertion. First, trust-breaking events are often more visible and noticeable than positive trust-building actions (Kramer, 1999 ). Second, trust-breaking events are judged to have a higher impact on trust judgments than positive events (Slovic, 1993 ). Furthermore, Slovic ( 1993 ) concluded that trust-breaking events are more credible than sources of good news. Thus, the general belief is that trust is easier to destroy than it is to build, and trust rebuilding may take even longer than it took to create the original level of trust (Lewicki et al., 2016 ).

However, there is room for optimism, and different strategies have been shown to promote trust. As held in social exchange theory (Blau, 1964 ), risk taking by one party in supporting the other party has been found to signal trust to the other party (Serva et al., 2005 ). Yet, fears of exploitation make trust in conflict management and negotiation scarce. Therefore, the use of trust-promoting strategies depends on the specific situation, and parties need practical guidance on how and when to manage conflict constructively by means of promoting mutual trust.

How does the possibility of trust development between parties depend on the conflict context? Based on this practical question, some strategies for trust development have been proposed (Fisher & Ury, 1981 ; Fulmer & Gelfand, 2012 ; Gunia, Brett, & Nandkeolyar, 2012 ; Lewicki et al., 2016 ). In relationships where trust is likely, the following strategies can help: assume trustworthiness, prioritize your interests and give away a little information about them, engage in reciprocity (concessions), highlight similarities and spend time together, get to know your counterpart personally and try to be likable, behave consistently and predictably, and paraphrase your counterpart’s positions. In relationships where trust seems possible: emphasize common goals; focus on the subject, not on the people; look to the future and find a shared vision; mix questions and answers about interests and priorities—the fundamental elements of information sharing—with making and justifying offers; take a break; suggest another approach; call in a mediator; and forgive the other party’s mistakes. In relationships where trust is not possible, more cautious strategies can help: make multi-issue offers; think holistically about your counterpart’s interests; engage in reciprocity (concessions); express sympathy, apologize, or compliment your counterpart; and look for preference patterns in your counterpart’s offers and responses.

Constructive Controversy

C onstructive controversy is defined as the open-minded discussion of conflicting perspectives for mutual benefit, which occurs when protagonists express their opposing ideas that obstruct resolving the issues, at least temporarily (Tjosvold et al., 2014 ). Indicators of constructive controversy include listening carefully to each other’s opinion, trying to understand each other’s concerns, and using opposing views to understand the problem better. These skills are considered vitally important for developing and implementing cooperative problem-solving processes successfully and effectively.

Deutsch ( 2014 ) stated that there haven’t been many systematic discussions of the skills involved in constructive solutions to conflict, and he proposed three main types of skills for constructive conflict management:

Rapport-building skills are involved in establishing effective relationships between parties (such as breaking the ice; reducing fears, tensions, and suspicion; overcoming resistance to negotiation; and fostering realistic hope and optimism).

Cooperative conflict-resolution skills are concerned with developing and maintaining a cooperative conflict resolution process among the parties involved (such as identifying the type of conflict in which the parties are involved; reframing the issues so that conflict is perceived as a mutual problem to be resolved cooperatively; active listening and responsive communication; distinguishing between effective relationships between parties and positions; encouraging, supporting, and enhancing the parties; being alert to cultural differences and the possibilities of misunderstanding arising from them; and controlling anger).

Group process and decision-making skills are involved in developing a creative and productive process (such as monitoring progress toward group goals; eliciting, clarifying, coordinating, summarizing, and integrating the contributions of the various participants; and maintaining group cohesion).

Tjosvold et al. ( 2014 ) and Johnson et al. ( 2014 ) also elaborate on the skills needed for facilitating open-minded discussions and constructive controversy. They developed four mutually reinforcing strategies for managing conflict constructively:

Developing and expressing one’s own view. Parties need to know what each of the others wants and believes, and expressing one’s own needs, feelings, and ideas is essential to gaining that knowledge. By strengthening expression of their own positions, both parties can learn to investigate their position, present the best case they can for it, defend it vigorously, and try at the same time to refute opposing views. However, expressing one’s own position needs to be supplemented with an open-minded approach to the other’s position.

Questioning and understanding others’ views. Listening and understanding opposing views, as well as defending one’s own views, makes discussing conflicts more challenging but also more rewarding; therefore, the parties can point out weaknesses in each other’s arguments to encourage better development and expression of positions by finding more evidence and strengthening their reasoning.

Integrating and creating solutions. The creation of new alternatives lays the foundation for genuine agreements about a solution that both parties can accept and implement. However, protagonists may have to engage in repeated discussion to reach an agreement, or indeed they may be unable to create a solution that is mutually acceptable, and then they can both learn to become less adamant, to exchange views directly, and to show that they are trying to understand and integrate each other’s ideas so that all may benefit.

Agreeing to and implementing solutions. Parties can learn to seek the best reasoned judgment, instead of focusing on “winning”; to criticize ideas, not people; to listen and understand everyone’s position, even if they do not agree with it; to differentiate positions before trying to integrate them; and to change their minds when logically persuaded to do so.

Conflict Resolution

Conflict resolution processes are aimed at ending a conflict. So, while conflict management can also include escalation, conflict resolution searches for a way of ending the conflict. The difference between resolution and management of conflict is more than semantic (Robbins, 1978 ). Conflict resolution means reduction, elimination, or termination of conflict.

To find a resolution, parties have to bring an extra piece of information, relate the information they have differently, or transform the issue, change the rules, change the actors or the structure, or bring in a third party (Vayrynen, 1991 ). The most popular conflict resolution processes are: negotiation, mediation, conflict coaching, and arbitration (Rahim, 2002 ). Conflict resolution can also be accomplished by ruling by authorities. Integration of the different techniques sequentially or simultaneously has been shown to support optimal conflict resolution (Jones, 2016 ).

Negotiation

Negotiation is a process in which the parties attempt to jointly create an agreement that resolves a conflict between them (Lewicki & Tomlinson, 2014 ). Walton and McKersie ( 1965 ) were the first to identify the two polar yet interdependent strategies known as distributive and integrative negotiation. Distributive negotiation means that activities are instrumental to the attainment of one party’s goals when they are in basic conflict with those of the other party. Integrative negotiation means that parties’ activities are oriented to find common or complementary interests and to solve problems confronting both parties. Other scholars also focused on the opposite tactical requirements of the two strategies, using a variety of terms, such as contending versus cooperating (Pruitt, 1981 ), claiming value versus creating value (Lax & Sebenius, 1987 ), and the difference between positions and interests (Fisher & Ury, 1981 ).

If a distributive strategy is pursued too vigorously, a negotiator may gain a greater share of gains, but of a smaller set of joint gains, or, worse, may generate an outcome in which both parties lose. However, if a negotiator pursues an integrative negotiation in a single-minded manner—being totally cooperative and giving freely accurate and credible information about his/her interests—he or she can be taken advantage of by the other party (Walton & McKersie, 1965 ). The different proposals that have been formulated to cope with these central dilemmas in negotiation are mainly based on a back-and-forth communication process between the parties, which is linked to the negotiators’ interpersonal skills (Brett, Shapiro, & Lytle, 1998 ; Fisher & Ury, 1981 ; Rubin et al., 1994 ).

Mediation is process by which a third party facilitates constructive communication among disputants, including decision making, problem solving and negotiation, in order to reach a mutually acceptable agreement (Bollen, Munduate, & Euwema, 2016 ; Goldman, Cropanzano, Stein, & Benson, 2008 ; Moore, 2014 ). Using mediation in conflict resolution has been proven to prevent the negative consequences of conflict in the workplace (Bollen & Euwema, 2010 ; Bollen et al., 2016 ), in collective bargaining (Martinez-Pecino et al., 2008 ), in inter- and intragroup relations (Jones, 2016 ), and in interpersonal relations (Herrman, 2006 ). However, mediation is not a magic bullet and works better in conflicts that are moderate rather than extreme, when parties are motivated to resolve the conflict, and when parties have equal power, among other characteristics (Kressel, 2014 ).

Conflict Coaching

Conflict coaching is a new and rapidly growing process in the public as well as private sector (Brinkert, 2016 ). In this process, a conflict coach works with a party to accomplish three goals (Jones & Brinkert, 2008 ): (a) analysis and coherent understanding of the conflict, (b) identification of a future preferred direction, and (c) skills development to implement the preferred strategy. Therefore, a conflict coach is defined as a conflict expert who respects the other party’s self-determination and aims to promote the well-being of the parties involved. Giebels and Janssen ( 2005 ) found that, when outside help was called in, parties in conflict experienced fewer negative consequences in terms of individual well-being than people who did not ask for third-party help.

Sometimes, the leader of a team can act as conflict coach. A study by Romer and colleagues ( 2012 ) showed that a workplace leader’s problem-solving approach to conflicts increased employees’ perception of justice and their sense that they had a voice in their workplace, as well as reduced employees’ stress (De Reuver & Van Woerkom, 2010 ; Romer et al., 2012 ). In contrast, the direct expression of power in the form of forcing behavior can harm employees’ well-being (Peterson & Harvey, 2009 ). A forcing leader may become an additional party to the conflict (i.e., employees may turn against their leader; Romer et al, 2012 ).

Conflict coaching and mediation are different processes. First, in conflict coaching, only one party is involved in the process, while in mediation, the mediator helps all the parties in conflict to engage in constructive interaction. Second, conflict coaching focuses on direct skills instructions to the party (i.e., negotiation skills). In that, conflict coaching is also a leadership development tool (Romer et al., 2012 ). There is a growing tendency to integrate conflict coaching and workplace mediation, particularly in preparation for conflict resolution, because the coach can help the coached party to investigate options and weigh the advantages of the different options (Jones, 2016 ).

Arbitration

Arbitration is an institutionalized procedure in which a third party provides a final and binding or voluntary decision (Lewicki, Saunders, & Barry, 2014 ; Mohr & Spekman, 1994 ). Arbitration allows the parties to have control over the process, but not over the outcomes. Therefore, arbitration differs from negotiation, mediation, and conflict coaching, in which the parties decide the agreement themselves (Posthuma & Dworkin, 2000 ; Lewicki et al., 2014 ). In arbitration, the third party listens to the parties and decides the outcome. This procedure is used mainly in conflicts between organizations, in commercial disputes, and in collective labor conflicts (Beechey, 2000 ; Elkouri & Elkouri, 1995 ).

Decision Making by Authorities

The strategies of negotiation, mediation, conflict coaching, and arbitration have in common that the parties together decide about the conflict process, even when they agree to accept an arbitration. This is different from how authorities resolve conflict. Decision making by authorities varies from parents’ intervening in children’s fights to rulings by teachers, police officers, managers, complaint officers, ombudsmen, and judges. Here, often one party complains and the authority acts to intervene and end the conflict. This strategy is good for ending physical violence and misuse of power. However, the authorities’ decisive power is limited, and therefore in most situations authorities are strongly urged to first explore the potential for conflict resolution and reconciliation among the parties involved. The authority can act as an escalator for the process, or as a facilitator, and only in cases of immediate threat can intervene or rule as a last resort. Authorities who employ this strategy can improve the learning skills of the parties and can impose upon the parties an acceptance of responsibility, both for the conflict and for the ways to end it.

It is important to emphasize the natural and positive aspects of conflict management. Conflict occurs in all areas of organizations and private lives and its management is vital for their effectiveness. Through conflict, conventional thinking is challenged, threats and opportunities are identified, and new solutions are forged (Tjosvold et al., 2014 ). Therefore, when conflict occurs, it shouldn’t be avoided but should be managed constructively.

Further Reading

  • Coleman, P. , Deutsch, M. , & Marcus, E. (2014). The handbook of conflict resolution . Theory and practice . San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
  • De Dreu, C.K.W. , Evers, A. , Beersma, B. , Kluwer, E. , & Nauta, A. (2001). A theory—based measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 22 (6), 645–668.
  • Elgoibar, P. , Euwema, M. , & Munduate, L. (2016). Trust building and constructive conflict management in industrial relations . Springer International.
  • Lewicki, R. J. , McAllister, D. J. , & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationship and realities. Academy of Management Review , 23 , 438–458.
  • Pruitt, D. G. & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement . New York: McGraw Hill.
  • Van de Vliert, E. , Euwema, M.C. , & Huismans, S.E. (1995). Managing conflict with a subordinate or a superior: Effectiveness of conglomerated behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology , 80 (2), 271–281.
  • Wall, J. A. , & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management , 21 , 515–558.
  • Alper, S. , Tjosvold, D. , & Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychology , 53 , 625–642.
  • Amason, A. C. , & Schweiger, D. M. (1994). Resolving the paradox of conflict: Strategic decision making and organizational performance. International Journal of Conflict Management , 5 , 239–253.
  • Bacon, N. , & Blyton, P. (2007). Conflict for mutual gains. Journal of Management Studies , 44 (5), 814–834.
  • Baillien, E. , Bollen, K. , Euwema, M. , & De Witte, H. (2014). Conflicts and conflict management styles as precursors of workplace bullying: A two-wave longitudinal study. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 23 (4), 511–524.
  • Barbuto, J. E. , Phipps, K. A. , & Xu, Y. (2010). Testing relationships between personality, conflict styles and effectiveness. International Journal of Conflict Management , 21 (4), 434–447.
  • Beechey, J. (2000) International commercial arbitration: A process under review and change. Dispute Resolution Journal , 55 (3), 32–36.
  • Bijlsma, K. , & Koopman, P. (2003) Introduction: Trust within organizations. Personnel Review , 32 (5), 543–555.
  • Blake, R. R. , & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial GRID . Houston: Gulf.
  • Blau, E. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life . New York: Wiley.
  • Bollen, K. , Euwema, M. , & MĂĽller, P. (2010). Why Are Subordinates Less Satisfied with Mediation? The Role of Uncertainty. Negotiation Journal , 26 (4), 417–433.
  • Bollen, K. , & Euwema, M. (2013). Workplace mediation: An underdeveloped research area. Negotiation Journal , 29 , 329–353.
  • Bollen, K. , Munduate, L. , & Euwema, M. (2016). Advancing workplace mediation: Integrating theory and practice . Springer International.
  • Brett, J. M. , Shapiro, D. L. , & Lytle, A. L. (1998). Breaking the bonds of reciprocity in negotiations. Academy of Management Journal , 41 (4), 410–424.
  • Brinkert, R. (2016). An appreciative approach to conflict: Mediation and conflict coaching. In K. Bollen , M. Euwema , & L. Munduate (Eds.), Advancing workplace mediation: Integrating theory and practice . Springer International.
  • Brown, L. D. (1983). Managing Conflict at Organizational Interfaces. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  • Buddhodev, S. A. (2011). Conflict management: making life easier. The IUP Journal of Soft Skills , 5 (4), 31–43.
  • Burke, R. J. (1970). Methods of resolving superior-subordinate conflict: The constructive use of subordinate differences and disagreements. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 5 , 393–411.
  • Carnevale, P. J. , & Pruitt, D. G. (1992). Negotiation and mediation. Annual Review of Psychology , 43 , 531–582.
  • Coleman, P. , Deutsch, M. , & Marcus, E. (2014). The handbook of conflict resolution. Theory and practice . San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
  • De Dreu, C. K. (2005). Conflict and conflict management. Wiley Encyclopedia of Management , 11 , 1–4.
  • De Dreu, C. K. , & Gelfand, M. J. (2008). Conflict in the workplace: Sources, functions, and dynamics across multiple levels of analysis . New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  • De Dreu, C. K. W. , Evers, A. , Beersma, B. , Kluwer, E. , & Nauta, A. (2001). A theory-based measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 22 (6), 645–668.
  • De Dreu, C. K. W. , & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 (4), 741–749.
  • De Reuver, R. , & Van Woerkom, M. (2010). Can conflict management be an antidote to subordinate absenteeism? Journal of Managerial Psychology , 25 (5), 479–494.
  • De Wit, F. R. , Greer, L. L. , & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 97 (2), 360–390.
  • Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations , 2 , 129–151.
  • Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  • Deutsch, M. (1983). Conflict resolution: Theory and practice. Political Psychology , 4 , 43–453.
  • Deutsch, M. (2002). Social psychology’s contributions to the study of conflict resolution. Negotiation Journal , 18 (4), 307–320.
  • Deutsch, M. (2006). Cooperation and competition. In M. Deutsch , P. Coleman , & E. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution . San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Deutsch, M. (2014), Cooperation, competition and conflict. In P. Coleman , M. Deutsch , & E. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and Practice . San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
  • Deutsch, M. , & Marcus, E. (Eds.). (2014). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (3d ed., pp. 817–848). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Elgoibar, P. (2013). Worker representatives' conflict behavior in Europe with a focus on Spain (PhD diss., University of Leuven, Belgium, and University of Seville, Spain).
  • Elkouri, F. , & Elkouri, E. A. (1995). How arbitration works . ABA: Section of labour and employment law.
  • Euwema, M. , & Giebels, E. (2017). Conflictmanagement en mediation . Noordhoff Uitgevers.
  • Euwema, M. , Munduate, L. , Elgoibar, P. , Garcia, A. , & Pender, E. (2015). Promoting social dialogue in European organizations: Human resources management and constructive conflict behavior . Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Verlag.
  • Euwema, M. C. , & Van Emmerik, I. J. H. (2007). Intercultural competencies and conglomerated conflict behavior in intercultural conflicts. International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 31 , 427–441.
  • Euwema, M. C. , Van de Vliert, E. , & Bakker, A. B. (2003). Substantive and relational effectiveness of organizational conflict behavior. International Journal of Conflict Management , 14 (2), 119–139.
  • Ferrin, D. L. , Bligh, M. C. , & Kohles, J. C. (2008). It takes two to tango: An interdependence analysis of the spiraling of perceived trustworthiness and cooperation in interpersonal and intergroup relationships. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 107 , 161–178.
  • Fisher, R. , & Ury, W. L. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreements without giving in . New York: Penguin Books.
  • Follett, M. P. (1941). Constructive conflict. In H. C. Metcalf & L. Urwick (Eds.), Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett (pp. 30–49). New York: Harper & Row (Originally published in 1926.)
  • Fulmer, C. A. , & Gelfand, M. J. (2012). At what level (and in whom) we trust? Trust across multiple organizational levels. Journal of Management , 38 (4), 1167–1230.
  • Gelfand, M. J. , & Brett (2004). The handbook of negotiation and culture . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Giebels, E. , & Janssen, O. (2005). Conflict stress and reduced well-being at work: The buffering effect of third-party help. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 14 (2), 137–155.
  • Goldman, B. M. , Cropanzano, R. , Stein, J. H. , Shapiro, D. L. , Thatcher, S. , & Ko, J. (2008). The role of ideology in mediated disputes at work: a justice perspective. International Journal of Conflict Management , 19 (3), 210–233.
  • Gunia, B. , Brett, J. , & Nandkeolyar, A. K. (2012). In global negotiations, it’s all about trust. Harvard Business Review , December.
  • Gunia, B. , Brett, J. , & Nandkeolyar, A. K. (2014). Trust me, I’m a negotiator. Diagnosing trust to negotiate effectively, globally. Organizational Dynamics , 43 (1), 27–36.
  • Hackman, J. R. , & Morris, C. G. (1975). Group tasks, group interaction process, and group performance effectiveness: A review and proposed integration . In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8). New York: Academic Press.
  • Hempel, P. , Zhang, Z. , & Tjosvold, D. (2009). Conflict management between and within teams for trusting relationships and performance in China. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 30 , 41–65.
  • Herrmann, M. S. (2006). Blackwell handbook of mediation: Bridging theory, research, and practice . Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
  • Holmes, J. G. , & Rempel, J. K. (1989). Trust in close relationships. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 187–220). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  • Jehn, K. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly , 40 (2), 256–282.
  • Jehn, K. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly , 42 , 530–557.
  • Jehn, K. , & Chatman, J. A. (2000). The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict composition on team performance. International Journal of Conflict Management , 11 (1), 56–73.
  • Jehn, K. A. , Greer, L. , Levine, S. , & Szulanski, G. (2008). The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent states on group outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation , 17 , 465–495.
  • Jehn, K. A. , & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The Dynamic Nature of Conflict: A Longitudinal Study of Intragroup Conflict and Group Performance. Academy of Management Journal , 44 (2), 238–251.
  • Johnson, D. V. , Johnson, R. T. , & Tjosvold, D. (2014). Constructive controversy: The value of intellectual opposition. In P. Coleman , M. Deutsch , & E. Marcus , The handbook of conflict resolution . San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Johnson, D. W. , & Johnson, R. (2005). New developments in social interdependence theory. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs , 131 (4), 285–358.
  • Johnson, D. W. , & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research . Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
  • Jones, T. S. (2016). Mediation and conflict coaching in organizational dispute systems. In K. Bollen , M. Euwema , & L. Munduate (Eds.), Advancing workplace mediation: Integrating theory and practice . Springer International.
  • Jones, T. S. , & Brinkert, R. (2008). Conflict coaching: Conflict management strategies and skills for the individual . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Kaufman, S. , Elgoibar, P. , & Borbely, A. (2016). Context matters: Negotiators’ interdependence in public, labor and business disputes . International Association of Conflict Management Conference, New York, June 26–29, 2016.
  • Kilmann, R. H. , & Thomas, K. W. (1977). Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict-handling behavior: The “mode” instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 37 (2), 309–325.
  • Komorita, S. S. , & Parks, C. D. (1995). Interpersonal relations: Mixed-motive interaction. Annual Review of Psychology , 46 (1), 183–207.
  • Kramer, R. M. , & Tyler, T. R. (1996). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  • Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging Perspectives, Enduring Questions. Annual Review of Psychology , 50 , 569–598.
  • Kressel, K. (2006). Mediation revised. In M. Deutsch , P. T. Coleman , & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Kressel, K. (2014). The mediation of conflict: Context, cognition and practice. In P. Coleman , M. Deutsch , & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice . San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
  • Lax, D. , & Sebenius, J. (1987). The manager as negotiator: Bargaining for cooperative and competitive gain . New York: Free Press.
  • Lewicki, R. , Elgoibar, P. , & Euwema, M. (2016). The tree of trust: Building and repairing trust in organizations. In P. Elgoibar , M. Euwema , & L. Munduate (Eds.), Trust building and constructive conflict management in industrial relations . The Netherlands: Springer Verlag.
  • Lewicki, R. J. , Saunders, D. M. , & Barry, B. (2014). Essentials of negotiation . New York: McGraw Hill.
  • Lewicki, R. J. , & Tomlinson, E. (2014). Trust, trust development and trust repair. In M. Deutsch , P. Coleman , & E. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution (3d ed.) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Lewicki, R. J. , Tomlinson, E. C. , & Gillespie, N. (2006). Models of interpersonal trust development: Theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Journal of Management , 32 (6), 991–1022.
  • Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality . New York: McGraw Hill.
  • Lindner, E.G. (2014). Emotion and conflict: Why it is important to understand how emotions affect conflict and how conflict affects emotions. In P. Coleman , M. Deutsch , & E. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (3d ed., pp. 817–848). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Lytle, A. L. , Brett, J. M. , & Shapiro, D. L. (1999). The strategic use of interests, rights, and power to resolve disputes. Negotiation Journal , 15 , 31–51.
  • Martinez-Pecino, R. , Munduate, L. , Medina, F. , & Euwema, M. (2008). Effectiveness of mediation strategies in collective bargaining: Evidence from Spain. Industrial Relations , 47(3) , 480–495.
  • Medina, F. J. , & Benitez, M. (2011). Effective behaviors to de-escalate organizational conflicts. Spanish Journal of Psychology , 14 (2), 789–797.
  • Meyerson, D. , Weick, K. E. , & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In R. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations . Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
  • Mohr, J. , & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal , 15 (2), 135–152.
  • Moore, C. W. (2014). The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict . San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
  • Munduate, L. , Ganaza, J. , Peiro, J. M. , & Euwema, M. (1999). Patterns of styles in conflict management and effectiveness. International Journal of Conflict Management , 10 (1), 5–24.
  • Nahapiet, J. , & Goshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. The Academy of Management Review , 23 (2), 242–266.
  • Nair, N. (2007). Towards understanding the role of emotions in conflict: A review and future directions. International Journal of Conflict Management , 19 (4), 359–381.
  • Oetzel, J. , Ting-Toomey, S. , Masumoto, T. , Yokochi, Y. , Pan, X. , Takai, J. , & Wilcox, R. (2001). Face and facework in conflict: A cross-cultural comparison of China, Germany, Japan, and the United States. Communication Monographs , 68 (3), 235–258.
  • Peterson, R. S. , & Harvey, S. (2009). Leadership and conflict: Using power to manage in groups for better rather than worse. In D. Tjosvold & B. Wisse (Eds.), Power and interdependence in organizations (pp. 281–298). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
  • Pondy, L. R. (1967). Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly , 12 , 296–320.
  • Posthuma, R. A. , & Dworkin, J. B. (2000). A behavioral theory of arbitrator acceptability. International Journal of Conflict Management , 11 (3), 249–266.
  • Pruitt, D. G. (1981). Negotiation behavior . New York: Academic Press.
  • Pruitt, D. G. , & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement . New York: McGraw Hill.
  • Rahim, M. A. (1983). Rahim organizational conflict inventories . Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  • Rahim, M. A. (2002). Towards a theory of managing organizational conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management , 13 (3), 206–235.
  • Rahim, M.A. (2010). Managing conflict in organizations . 4th ed. New Jersey: Transaction publishers.
  • Robbins, S. P. (1978). “Conflict management” and “conflict resolution” are not synonymous terms. California Management Review , 21 (2), 67–75.
  • Römer, M. , Rispens, S. , Giebels, E. , & Euwema, M. (2012). A helping hand? The moderating role of leaders' conflict management behavior on the conflict-stress relationship of employees. Negotiation Journal , 28 (3), 253–277.
  • Ross, W. , & LaCroix, J. (1996). Multiple meanings of trust in negotiation theory and research: A literature review and integrative model. International Journal of Conflict Management , 7 (4), 314–360.
  • Rousseau, D. M. , Sitkin, S. B. , Burt, R. S. , & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review , 23 (3), 393–404.
  • Rubin, J. Z. , Pruitt , & Kim (1994). Models of conflict management. Journal of Social Issues , 50 , 33–45.
  • Schellenberg, J. A. (1996). Conflict Resolution: Theory, Research, and Practice . State University of New York Press.
  • Serva, M. A. , Fuller, M. A. , & Mayer, R. C. (2005). The reciprocal nature of trust: A longitudinal study of interacting teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 26 , 625–648.
  • Sheldon, O. J. , & Fishbach, A. (2011). Resisting the temptation to compete: Self-control promotes cooperation in mixed-motive interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 47 , 403–410.
  • Sinaceur, M. , Adam, H. , Van Kleef, G. A. , & Galinsky, A. D. (2013). The advantages of being unpredictable: How emotional inconsistency extracts concessions in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 49 , 498–508.
  • Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis , 13 , 675–682.
  • Spaho, K. (2013). Organizational communication and conflict management. Journal of Contemporary Management Issues , 18 (1), 103–118.
  • Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 13 (3), 265–274.
  • Thomas, K. W. , & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument . Mountain View, CA: Xicom
  • Tjosvold, D. (1997). Conflict within interdependence: Its value for productivity and individuality. In C. K.W. De Dreu & E. Van de Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations (pp. 23–37). London: SAGE.
  • Tjosvold, D. (1998). Cooperative and competitive goal approach to conflict: Accomplishments and challenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review , 47 (3), 285–342.
  • Tjosvold, D. , Morishima, M. , & Belsheim, J. A. (1999). Complaint handling in the shop floor: Cooperative relationship and open-minded strategies. International Journal of Conflict Management , 10 , 45–68.
  • Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict-positive organization: it depends upon us. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 29 (1), 19–28.
  • Tjosvold, D. , Wong, A. S. H. , & Chen, N. Y. F. (2014). Constructively managing conflicts in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behaviour , 1 , 545–568.
  • Tjosvold, D. , Wan, P. , & Tang, M. L. (2016). Trust and managing conflict: Partners in developing organizations. In P. Elgoibar , M. Euwema , & L. Munduate (Eds.), Building trust and conflict management in organizations . The Netherlands: Springer Verlag.
  • Van de Vliert, E. (1997). Complex interpersonal conflict behavior: Theoretical frontiers . Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
  • Van de Vliert, E. , & Euwema, M. C. (1994). Agreeableness and activeness as components of conflict behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 66 (4), 674–687.
  • Van de Vliert, E. , Euwema, M. C. , & Huismans, S. E. (1995). Managing conflict with a subordinate or a superior: Effectiveness of conglomerated behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology , 80 (2), 271–281.
  • Van de Vliert, E. , Nauta, A. , Euwema, M. C. , & Janssen, O. (1997). The effectiveness of mixing problem solving and forcing. In C. De Dreu & E. Van de Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations (pp. 38–52). London: SAGE.
  • Van de Vliert, E. , Nauta, A. , Giebels, E. , & Janssen, O. (1999). Constructive conflict at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 20 , 475–491.
  • Van Erp, K. J. , Giebels, E. , van der Zee, K. I. , & van Duijn, M. A. (2011). Let it be: Expatriate couples’ adjustment and the upside of avoiding conflicts. Anxiety, Stress & Coping , 24 (5), 539–560.
  • Van Kleef, G. A. , & Cote, S. (2007). Expressing anger in conflict: When it helps and when it hurts. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92 (6), 1557–1569.
  • Vayrynen, R. (1991). New Directions in Conflict Theory . London: SAGE.
  • Volkema, R. J. , & Bergmann, T. J. (2001). Conflict styles as indicators of behavioral patterns in interpersonal conflicts. The Journal of Social Psychology , 135 (1), 5–15.
  • Walton, R. E. , & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system . Cornell University Press.
  • Wilson, T. D. (2004). Strangers to ourselves. Discovering the adaptive unconscious . Cambridge, MA: Belknap.
  • Zaheer, S. , & Zaheer, A. (2006). Trust across borders. Journal of International Business Studies , 37 (1), 21–29.

Related Articles

  • Work and Family
  • Psychodynamic Psychotherapies
  • Trust and Social Dilemmas

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Psychology. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 19 February 2024

  • Cookie Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Accessibility
  • [66.249.64.20|185.147.128.134]
  • 185.147.128.134

Character limit 500 /500

4 Conflict Resolution Worksheets for Your Practice

Conflict Resolution Worksheets

As a therapist, counselor, or coach, your main job is to help clients identify the situations that are troubling them – the conflicts in their lives – and guide them through to win–win solutions.

Mutually satisfying outcomes can prevent anger, anxiety, and depression, and enable individuals, couples, and families to live together productively and in peace (Christensen & Heavey, 1999; Cummings, Koss, & Davies, 2015).

In this article, we’ll share some powerful conflict resolution worksheets that can teach parties the pathways to win–win outcomes, converting conflict into shared problem solving. Participants feel like they are sitting on the same side of the table, working together against the problem, instead of against each other.

Before you continue, we thought you might like to download our three Positive Communication Exercises (PDF) for free . These science-based tools will help you and those you work with build better social skills and better connect with others.

This Article Contains:

2 useful conflict resolution worksheets, 4 tools for resolving conflicts at work, worksheets for student conflicts, 2 best worksheets for couples’ conflicts, teaching conflict resolution: 4 lesson plans, 5 positivepsychology.com toolkit resources, a take-home message.

Conflict – problems, issues, troubles, dilemmas, tough decisions, etc. – generally emerge in one or more of the following three areas (adapted from Kellermann, 1996):

  • Intrapsychic conflicts – pulls and tugs within a person’s array of feelings, desires, thoughts, fears, and actions
  • Interpersonal or intergroup conflicts – situations in which two or more preferred action plans seem to be incompatible
  • Situational conflicts – situations in which adverse circumstances such as illness, financial difficulties, or other factors collide with each other or with what participants want

Differences can quickly spark arguments when parties believe that the outcome will result in either winning or losing. That is why the word “conflict” usually suggests fighting. These worksheets, by contrast, teach pathways to win–win outcomes.

By guiding both conflict resolution and cooperative problem solving in the same process, solution building for any decision, issue, or dilemma becomes a combined effort. The idea of winning versus losing is removed, and a win–win outcome negates previous conflicts.

Win–Win Waltz Worksheet

The process that leads to win–win outcomes is referred to as the win–win waltz because the process involves three essential steps.

The Win–Win Waltz Worksheet explains the key terms, core concepts, and essential ingredients for using the exercise successfully.

1. Knowing when to use the win–win waltz

The win–win waltz guides the way to cooperative solution building in situations when there seems to be conflict with underlying or overt tension and a feeling that two sides feel in opposition.

Also, the win–win waltz guides the process in any situation that calls for problem solving.

In both instances, the tone needs to stay calm and cooperative. There needs to be an awareness of the dilemma that participants need to solve and a willingness on both sides to seek a solution that will be responsive to the concerns of all parties.

2. Core concepts: solutions versus underlying concerns

Solutions are potential plans of action.

Concerns , by contrast, are the factors to which the solution needs to be responsive.

For instance, a problem/conflict is that I am hungry, but at the same time, I don’t want to eat – two alternative and seemingly opposed courses of action.

My underlying concern might include wanting to lose weight, to alleviate my hunger, to minimize my intake of calories, and to find an immediate solution. The solution options may be to eat some yogurt, distract myself by phoning a friend, or to exercise as that too tends to alleviate feelings of hunger.

3. One list for both people’s concerns

A happy couple should have healthy conflict

That assumption differs significantly from the usual two-list way of thinking (e.g., my way versus your way or pros versus cons).

4. What if there are seemingly too many underlying concerns?

Paradoxically, the more concerns that have been identified, the more likely it becomes that the ultimate solution will be excellent, even though a long list of concerns may appear daunting.

The trick is for each participant to step back and reflect: “ Of all of these concerns, what one or two concerns are most deeply felt? ” Start the solution-building process by responding to these concerns first. Add additional elements to the solution set until all the underlying concerns have been answered.

For instance, Gil and Angela want to find a new apartment. Stepping back from their list of 20 concerns concerning what apartment to choose, they realize Angela’s primary concern is location. She wants an apartment close to her mother, while Gil’s primary concern is the price. With just two variables to attend to for starters, Angela and Gil can quickly start apartment hunting.

Once they find apartments that met their initial criteria, they add their other concerns.

5. It is for me to look at what I can do, not to tell you what to do.

Solution generating works best if each participant looks at what they can offer toward a win–win solution, and especially toward a plan of action responsive to the other person. Offering suggestions about what the other could do can undermine solution building.

conflict resolution and decision making skills assignment quizlet

Download 3 Communication Exercises (PDF)

These detailed, science-based exercises will equip you or your clients with tools to improve communication skills and enjoy more positive social interactions with others.

Download 3 Free Communication Tools Pack (PDF)

By filling out your name and email address below.

  • Email Address *
  • Your Expertise * Your expertise Therapy Coaching Education Counseling Business Healthcare Other
  • Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

In the workplace, conflict resolution skills enable managers to keep their work environment positive.

They also enable colleagues to work together harmoniously (Johansen, 2012; Korabik, Baril, & Watson, 1993).

Whereas conflict breeds tension that erodes work quality, cooperation maximizes productivity and, at the same time, keeps employees enjoying their work.

Fortunately, the Win–Win Waltz Worksheet works wonderfully in workplace situations too.

The additional tools below also merit attention when conflicts arise in the business world.

Early intervention. It’s best to address potential tensions as soon as you become aware of them.

Participation. It is generally best to bring together all the parties involved in any given dispute and to have them learn to do the win–win waltz together.

Identify those who, even with guidance, cannot think in terms of win–win.

If one or more parties appear to be unable to look for mutually satisfying solutions, a top-down or powering-over decision may be necessary.

Some parties simply cannot get past looking out for themselves only. Others invest more in seeking to hurt the other party rather than to find benefits for both sides. They would rather create a lose–lose outcome than see the other side receive any aspect of what they want.

Keep the problem, the problem.

The vital principle comes from the work of Fisher and Ury (1991). They rightly identify that talking about people and feelings can be inappropriate in work settings.

The problem, for instance, is not that ‘she is an intrusive person.’ The problem is that roles and responsibilities may be unclear. The problem is not that ‘he is lazy.’ The problem is an unclear division of labor. The problem is not that ‘he works too slowly;’ rather, how to speed up the work process so that deadlines can be met.

14 Effective conflict resolution techniques – BRAINY DOSE

Students can benefit from using the Win–Win Waltz Worksheet when they face conflict situations with roommates, friends, and teachers.

Students also are likely to experience conflicts within their own thoughts and preferences.

For instance, these intrapsychic conflicts can arise when they want to go out with friends but also know they need to study for an exam. The win–win waltz recipe works well for any of these situations.

Worksheets to manage couple conflict

From my way , No my way , to OUR way is for practicing win–win conflict resolutions on issues that can arise at home. The worksheet is from Susan Heitler’s (2003) book The Power of Two Workbook . (Available on Amazon .)

The Anger Exit and Re-entry Worksheet offers guidance for stepping back and calming down when anger begins to emerge.

When people become angry, they cease to be able to hear each other’s concerns. They are likely to disregard all their cooperative-talking skills and instead resort to blame, criticism, and attempts to control.

In the face of irritation or anger, it is essential to have a self-calming ability as part of the conflict resolution process.

It generally is best to begin the self-calming process by stepping back or out of the anger-inducing situation. For this reason, couples need to develop mutual exit/re-entry routines.

Win win conflict resolution

In a collaborative marriage, partners respect each other’s ideas; they avoid dismissing or steamrolling over each other’s viewpoints. But what happens when couples have differing opinions regarding a future decision? Both spouses may want the decision to go their way. Fortunately, both can win.

Exercise 1: The Win-Win Waltz

One hallmark of a true partnership is the effectiveness of two people’s shared decision making.

“Effective” means their ability to make decisions that are responsive to the full range of concerns of both partners.

These steps of the win–win waltz can be used in a group to demonstrate how to make decisions about upcoming events (shared decision making) and to change things that are not working (fix-it talk). The only difference is that fix-it talk begins with two initial steps.

  • Learn the signs and costs of unilateral decision making in a partnership.
  • Learn to make shared decisions.
  • Practice division of labor decisions so that they do not keep re-occurring.
  • Identify pitfalls to avoid and keys to success.

Cue cards – Write one step each on three separate pieces of paper:

  • Express initial positions.
  • Explore underlying concerns.
  • Create win–win solutions.

Win–Win Waltz Situation Cards Win–Win Waltz Worksheet : distribute one copy to each participant.

Place the three cue cards so that they are visible to all the group members (e.g., facing the group, propped on chairs in front of the group). Spread the cards/chairs out so there is room for two people to stand next to each.

Explain that a waltz has three steps, as does collaborative problem solving, pointing to the step on each cue card as you explain it.

Walk through the following example to be sure that everyone understands the difference between concerns (fears, values, motivations) and positions and solutions (plans of action). The leader plays both Pete and Mary.

Step 1: Express initial positions.

Peter and Mary want to buy a car. Peter says, “ Let ‘s buy a Ford. ” Mary says, “ No. I want a Toyota. “

Step 2: Explore underlying concerns.

Ask the group what Peter’s concerns might be. Peter might say: “ The prices are reasonable, and the dealership is close by, so it will be easy to take care of maintenance and repairs. “

Stress that both sides need to explore their underlying concerns, and ask then for what Mary’s might be. Mary might say: “ I don’t want to have to keep taking the car back to the shop; I want as much room as we can get for passengers for our kids and their friends. “

Step 3: Create a plan of action responsive to both.

Go with the information generated by the group. Peter and Mary might say: “ Let’s get a Consumer’s Report guide to cars so we have full information on repair rates, roominess, and prices. Let’s also find out which dealers have repair facilities near us. “

Hint: Encourage thinking in terms of solution sets that are multi-piece answers.

Now, invite one couple in front of the group to try the “waltz” sequence. Use the situation of a couple deciding where to go for dinner.

Emphasize the difference between concerns and positions (which are action plans or specific solutions).

Make one list of all of their concerns and a list of three possible solutions: one partner’s idea with modifications, the other partner’s idea with modifications, and at least one new solution (possible final solution).

Invite the group to look at the difference between concerns and solutions.

Have a different couple come to the front and traverse the three steps on their own to the dilemma: “ What should we do for vacation this summer? ”

To be sure they follow the three steps, use the Win–Win Waltz Worksheet where they can write out the three steps.

Pass out additional Situation Cards and invite other couples to try the win–win waltz in front of the group.

  • Most couples have systems for making decisions together, such as taking turns on who gets their way, whoever feels most strongly about the issue gets their way, or they compromise (they both give up some). How do these three options compare to the win–win waltz?
  • What was most satisfying about this style of problem solving?
  • What will be the hardest part of actually using the win–win waltz?

Conclusions

With the win–win waltz, virtually any decision becomes easy and mutual. Both big and little choices – where to live and what to eat for lunch – become simple and shared. The more skilled a couple becomes, the faster the decision making and the more satisfied you both feel with the resulting plan of action.

Exercise 2: Win–Win Worksheet

Applying the win–win waltz successfully, even under challenging dilemmas, requires practice. It often helps to write out your process on particularly tough decisions.

Use the Win–Win Waltz Worksheet as a guide for working through the process of making collaborative decisions.

Two copies of the Win–Win Waltz Worksheet for each participant.

Couples facing each other, with some space between each couple, so that each couple will be able to work semi-privately.

  • Hand out two worksheets to each participant. Explain that one is to use now, and the second is for them to take home.
  • Ask participants to look at the worksheet. What do they notice about the boxes on the page?
  • They start with two different boxes, then merge into one list of concerns for everyone. In other words, each individual’s interests become the concern of the partnership.
  • There are four different suggestions for ways to generate solution sets. Generating multiple solution sets helps in two ways. First, it fosters creative thinking. Second, evaluating between solution set options often gives rise to identifying additional underlying concerns.
  • Have each couple work together to complete the worksheet. Suggest they pick from one of the following topics:
  • Saving for retirement
  • If you should join a new sports club (or some other organization)

How did the worksheet help to structure your decision-making process?

Using the worksheet can help keep track of the details, emphasizing that all underlying concerns are important.

Exercise 3: Traps and Tips

People sometimes say, “ I tried the win–win waltz, and it didn’t work. ” Usually, that means they fell into one of several common traps.

By contrast, if they said, “ The win–win waltz works great! ” odds are they utilized certain techniques that facilitate success.

One copy of the Traps to Avoid and Tips for Success Worksheet One copy of the Win–Win Waltz Situation Cards

1. Recognize at least three potential traps (listed in Procedure, below).

2. Recognize three techniques for success (below).

Briefly explain each Trap to Avoid and Tip for Success.

  • Frozen thinking (saying the same thing over and over, and not taking in new information) versus absorbing information from each other
  • Attachment to a position and pushing for that solution, evident in attempts to debate, persuade, and convince
  • Criticizing the other’s concerns instead of trying to understand them

Tips for success:

  • Be an example to each other and listen to learn!
  • Create one list for concerns, a shared data pool, so both partners’ concerns become of equal import.
  • Emphasize the elephant: Tell the story about the blind men and the elephant. Each blind man felt one part of the animal. The one who touched its side described the elephant as something like a wall. The one who felt the tail described the animal as like a hose. The trunk felt like a tree branch, the leg like a tree trunk. Putting all of their perspectives together was essential for them to be able to appreciate the whole elephant. Similarly, emphasize that both partners have legitimate views; each of them tunes into different aspects of a dilemma.
  • Ask the last question—” Is there any piece of this that still feels unfinished? “
  • Think out of the box and be creative when exploring possible solution sets.
  • Exit now; talk later. When you get too stuck, drop the dialogue and resume later, when everyone is calmer.

Now, pick one situation from the Situation Cards . Ask for one volunteer (A) to try to be a reasonable spouse. In a way that the rest of the group can’t see, point to one of the trap for another participant (B). This participant will use this style of thinking. The group’s role is to be on the alert for recognizing each trap B demonstrates.

As soon as the group identifies a trap, B needs to let go of it and return to productive mode. A’s role is to try to be so effective that A and B reach a consensus despite the traps.

Debrief by noting what A did that was effective even if B was persisting in a trap.

Ask for two new participants to be A and B. Repeat using a different trap.

Ask participants to help you come up with a potentially tricky decision a couple might have to make. Have two participants come to the front and discuss this question with the tips in front of them. Have the rest of the group pay attention to what tips they used and the impact of them.

What would you like to be able to do if you find yourself or your partner in a trap?

With enough skills, couples can avoid slipping into an adversarial stance. If not, take a break from the discussion, and try another time. Using the tips will often make it easier to come to a consensus on complicated dilemmas.

Exercise 4: Costs of Unilateral Rather Than Shared Decision Making

Depression and anger both indicate flaws in shared decision making. Notice the connection in the following story.

  • Understand the relationship between unilateral decision making, anger, and depression.
  • Experience the concept “ Depression is a disorder of power. “

Tell the following story:

Once upon a time, in a kingdom not far away, a lovely lady named Linda married a handsome man named Len. Linda and Len lived in Louiston, where Linda grew up and was a town she loved.

One day Len said to Linda, “ I don’t seem to be able to find employment here that is as good as what I could get if we were to move. ”

Linda felt crushed. “ I love Louiston. I love my job here, my family, my friends. I don’t want to move, as much as I do understand that the job market is better in other areas. ”

Len answered, “ Linda, I’m sorry that you’re so against the idea. But I have already taken a job several states away. We need to move if we’re ever going to get ahead in life. That’s that. The decision has been made. ”

Continue reading the following instructions to the group, pausing after each, but saving the answers until the visualization has been completed:

  • Close your eyes and picture yourself as Linda.
  • Notice what emotions you are experiencing. Notice who seems more prominent, more powerful – yourself or your partner – as you put yourself into the role of the two partners.
  • What did you experience?
  • Now have two participants role-play this scenario using their best win–win waltz skills. What is different?

Discussion and conclusions

What have you learned about the relationship between anger, depression, and unilateral (one-sided) decision making? The powerless person experiences either anger or depression. The more critical the decision, the more potent the anger/depression.

Our toolkit contains invaluable tools for practitioners, coaches, and other professionals. In fact, the Positive Psychology Toolkit© contains over 400 tools, many of which are highly applicable to conflict resolution.

Below we will briefly mention some of these tools that are designed to assist with conflict resolution.

1. Giving Negative Feedback Positively

In any relationship, there are the inevitable ‘hard topics’ to breach, and by avoiding these topics, more harm is done to the relationship. To approach these discussions in a healthy way, our Giving Negative Feedback Positively worksheet guides you through eight constructive steps for a positive conversation and successful relationships.

2. How to Apologize

This exercise also focuses on positive communication in relationships , guides clients in how to apologize effectively to build trust and prevent further conflict.

3. Hot buttons

When Hot Buttons Are Pushed is a coping exercise to help clients become aware of their ‘hot buttons’ that cause unhelpful and impulsive actions. This exercise will help them respond more effectively once they know what their hot buttons are.

4. Difficult people

Looking at Difficult People from a Strength Perspective  is an exercise to guide a client’s thinking about a ‘difficult’ person. Once the client can see the strengths of that person and focus on positive aspects, they’ll be less affected by less desirable aspects.

5. Improving Expression and Understanding

This couples therapy exercise is geared toward Improving Expression and Understanding and is a formatted guide with prompts to encourage positive communication.

6. 17 Positive Communication Exercises

If you’re looking for more science-based ways to help others communicate better, this collection contains 17 validated positive communication tools for practitioners . Use them to help others improve their communication skills and form deeper and more positive relationships.

Conflict leads to emotional distress, turmoil, depression, unhappy relationships, and separation.

But it does not have to be that way.

Being able to manage conflict constructively can instead create opportunities to reach many mutually beneficial decisions. The conflict resolution process can bring you and your partner closer together; allow you to learn from each other; and get to know, understand, love, and respect each other even better.

As long as there are differences of opinion, there will always be conflict. But knowing how to manage it productively and turn it into a win–win situation is the key to a healthy relationship , friendship, and family.

We hope you enjoyed reading this article. Don’t forget to download our three Positive Communication Exercises (PDF) for free .

  • Christensen, A., & Heavey, C. L. (1999). Interventions for couples.  Annual Review of Psychology ,  50 (1), 165-190.
  • Cummings, E. M., Koss, K. J., & Davies, P. T. (2015). Prospective relations between family conflict and adolescent maladjustment: Security in the family system as a mediating process.  Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology ,  43 (3), 503-515.
  • Fisher, R., & Ury, W. L. (1991). Getting to yes. Penguin Books.
  • Heitler, S., & Hirsch, A. H. (2003). The power of two workbook: Communication skills for a strong & loving marriage. New Harbinger.
  • Johansen, M. L. (2012). Keeping the peace: Conflict management strategies for nurse managers.  Nursing Management ,  43 (2), 50-54.
  • Kellermann, P. F. (1996). Interpersonal conflict management in group psychotherapy: An integrative perspective.  Group Analysis ,  29 (2), 257-275.
  • Korabik, K., Baril, G. L., & Watson, C. (1993). Managers’ conflict management style and leadership effectiveness: The moderating effects of gender.  Sex Roles ,  29 (5-6), 405-420.

profile picture

Share this article:

Article feedback

What our readers think.

Misbah Arshad

Hi, I want to use the Conflict Resolution Checklist by Susan Heitler, PhD., 2020. How should I cite this in my research.

Nicole Celestine, Ph.D.

Glad you found this checklist useful. You can reference it in APA 7th as follows:

Heitler, S. (2020). Conflict resolution checklist [Worksheet]. PositivePsychology.com . Retrieved from: https://positivepsychology.com/wp-content/uploads/Conflict-Resolution-Checklist.pdf

Hope this helps!

– Nicole | Community Manager

Luis Aguirre

I’m trying to conduct a process with my parents, as they wouldn’t accept formal help, and it has been highly helpful for us. Thank you 🙂

Sandra Billingslea

Helpful information.

Let us know your thoughts Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related articles

Conflict Resolution Training

Conflict Resolution Training: 18 Best Courses and Master’s Degrees

All humans have some things in common. We all need air to breathe and water to stay alive. We are all social beings, and if [...]

Positive Communication

How to Foster Positive Communication: 9 Effective Techniques

Can you recall a really good conversation you’ve had? What was memorable about it? Was it the topic, the words, or just a feeling it [...]

Communication in therapy

Communication Skills in Counseling & Therapy: 17 Techniques

Positive outcomes from therapy and counseling rely on the strength of the relationship between the mental health professional and the client. Such connections build on [...]

Read other articles by their category

  • Body & Brain (46)
  • Coaching & Application (56)
  • Compassion (26)
  • Counseling (51)
  • Emotional Intelligence (24)
  • Gratitude (18)
  • Grief & Bereavement (21)
  • Happiness & SWB (40)
  • Meaning & Values (26)
  • Meditation (20)
  • Mindfulness (45)
  • Motivation & Goals (45)
  • Optimism & Mindset (33)
  • Positive CBT (27)
  • Positive Communication (20)
  • Positive Education (46)
  • Positive Emotions (31)
  • Positive Leadership (15)
  • Positive Psychology (33)
  • Positive Workplace (34)
  • Productivity (16)
  • Relationships (43)
  • Resilience & Coping (34)
  • Self Awareness (20)
  • Self Esteem (36)
  • Strengths & Virtues (30)
  • Stress & Burnout Prevention (34)
  • Theory & Books (46)
  • Therapy Exercises (37)
  • Types of Therapy (63)

conflict resolution and decision making skills assignment quizlet

  • Phone This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Organizational Behaviour
  • Decision Making
  • Conflict Resolution and Decision Making

Any decisions taken at any level have to take into account the conflicting needs of the individuals who are affected by the decisions and hence conflict resolution is a part of the decision making process . How well the conflicts are resolved depends on the skill and leadership traits of the decision maker.

After all, any decision that is taken is to balance competing interests and is essentially an allocation of shared resources among the different groups.

The point here is that in any organization there are scarce resources that need to be allocated among competing groups and hence the decision maker has to ensure that all the needs and concerns of the different groups are taken into consideration when making the decision.

Since most decisions involve some emotional component as well, the decision makers have to be especially sensitive to the needs of the people who are affected by the decisions.

Consensual decision making ensures that most concerns of the different groups are heard and taken into account . However, in the real world organizations, decision making by consensus might not be feasible since each group has its own agendas.

Hence the decision makers have to ensure that the decisions that they take involve some amount of consultation and some amount of overriding the individual agendas. The reason being that though individual concerns can be taken into account, the decision makers have to keep the interests of the organization in mind and hence proceed accordingly. This is needed so as to prevent individuals and groups hijacking the decision making process with their agendas.

In most organizations it is common for the decision makers to elicit as much information as possible from the individuals and then only take the decision so as to provide balance and grievance redressal to the affected parties.

As this article has discussed, conflicts are inevitable when decisions are taken and the best way to deal with conflicts is to resolve them to the satisfaction of the aggrieved parties . However, this is easier said than done in this competitive world where nobody is willing to lose out on lucrative resources and forego their chances.

So it takes quite a bit of skill and managerial abilities not to mention leadership traits to ensure that the decisions result in amicable settlements among the competing groups.

The point here is that while it is not possible to please everybody, it is possible to give them a fair hearing and be patient with them so as to give an impression of consensual decision making.

In extreme cases when the competing groups do not agree or abide with the decision, it is left to the higher-ups in the organization to play the role of peacemakers. This is the process of appeal to the senior management as part of the concerns and grievance redressal. This is an essential component of the decision making process in organizations and only when there is active recourse to appeal can true decision making work.

Download Powerpoint Presentation for Complete Course on Conflict Management

  related articles.

  • Decision Making and Hierarchy
  • Top down vs Bottom up Decision Making
  • Decision Making in Self Directed Teams
  • Decision Makers and Zero Sum Game
  • Steps in Decision Making Process

View All Articles

Authorship/Referencing - About the Author(s)

The article is Written By “Prachi Juneja” and Reviewed By Management Study Guide Content Team . MSG Content Team comprises experienced Faculty Member, Professionals and Subject Matter Experts. We are a ISO 2001:2015 Certified Education Provider . To Know more, click on About Us . The use of this material is free for learning and education purpose. Please reference authorship of content used, including link(s) to ManagementStudyGuide.com and the content page url.
  • Decision Making - Introduction
  • What is Decision Making ?
  • Decision Making - Organizational Context
  • Individual Decision Making
  • Corporate Decision Making
  • OODA Loop and Decision Making
  • OODA Loop Explained in Detail
  • Curious Observation
  • Decision Making in an Uncertain World
  • The Need for Certainty and Control
  • Decision Making at the time of Crisis
  • Designing Failsafe Systems
  • VUCA Paradigm for Leadership
  • Decision Making in a Confusing World
  • Corporate India has to Get Ready for a Wave of Defaults
  • Importance of Culture in Business Decisions and Its Implications for All
  • Importance of Employment Statistics and Numbers and How to Interpret Them
  • How Geopolitics Impacts Business Decision Makers and Why it is Important?
  • Decision Making in a Breakneck Speed World and the Paradoxical Age of Consequences
  • Black Swans and White Knights: Risks of Operating in a VUCA and Global Environment
  • How Cutting Edge Technologies can Enable Better and More Efficient Decision Making
  • The Need to Actualize Purely Local Responses to Events by Corporates and Individuals
  • The Perils of Excessive Reliance on Technology for Decision makers and HR Professionals
  • The Promise and Perils of Technology Driven Decision Making for Business Leaders
  • Why the Digital Age Demands Decision Makers to be Like Elite Marines and Zen Monks

Logo for M Libraries Publishing

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

6.2 Conflict and Interpersonal Communication

Learning objectives.

  • Define interpersonal conflict.
  • Compare and contrast the five styles of interpersonal conflict management.
  • Explain how perception and culture influence interpersonal conflict.
  • List strategies for effectively managing conflict.

Who do you have the most conflict with right now? Your answer to this question probably depends on the various contexts in your life. If you still live at home with a parent or parents, you may have daily conflicts with your family as you try to balance your autonomy, or desire for independence, with the practicalities of living under your family’s roof. If you’ve recently moved away to go to college, you may be negotiating roommate conflicts as you adjust to living with someone you may not know at all. You probably also have experiences managing conflict in romantic relationships and in the workplace. So think back and ask yourself, “How well do I handle conflict?” As with all areas of communication, we can improve if we have the background knowledge to identify relevant communication phenomena and the motivation to reflect on and enhance our communication skills.

Interpersonal conflict occurs in interactions where there are real or perceived incompatible goals, scarce resources, or opposing viewpoints. Interpersonal conflict may be expressed verbally or nonverbally along a continuum ranging from a nearly imperceptible cold shoulder to a very obvious blowout. Interpersonal conflict is, however, distinct from interpersonal violence, which goes beyond communication to include abuse. Domestic violence is a serious issue and is discussed in the section “The Dark Side of Relationships.”

6-2-0n

Interpersonal conflict is distinct from interpersonal violence, which goes beyond communication to include abuse.

Bobafred – Fist Fight – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Conflict is an inevitable part of close relationships and can take a negative emotional toll. It takes effort to ignore someone or be passive aggressive, and the anger or guilt we may feel after blowing up at someone are valid negative feelings. However, conflict isn’t always negative or unproductive. In fact, numerous research studies have shown that quantity of conflict in a relationship is not as important as how the conflict is handled (Markman et al., 1993). Additionally, when conflict is well managed, it has the potential to lead to more rewarding and satisfactory relationships (Canary & Messman, 2000).

Improving your competence in dealing with conflict can yield positive effects in the real world. Since conflict is present in our personal and professional lives, the ability to manage conflict and negotiate desirable outcomes can help us be more successful at both. Whether you and your partner are trying to decide what brand of flat-screen television to buy or discussing the upcoming political election with your mother, the potential for conflict is present. In professional settings, the ability to engage in conflict management, sometimes called conflict resolution, is a necessary and valued skill. However, many professionals do not receive training in conflict management even though they are expected to do it as part of their job (Gates, 2006). A lack of training and a lack of competence could be a recipe for disaster, which is illustrated in an episode of The Office titled “Conflict Resolution.” In the episode, Toby, the human-resources officer, encourages office employees to submit anonymous complaints about their coworkers. Although Toby doesn’t attempt to resolve the conflicts, the employees feel like they are being heard. When Michael, the manager, finds out there is unresolved conflict, he makes the anonymous complaints public in an attempt to encourage resolution, which backfires, creating more conflict within the office. As usual, Michael doesn’t demonstrate communication competence; however, there are career paths for people who do have an interest in or talent for conflict management. In fact, being a mediator was named one of the best careers for 2011 by U.S. News and World Report . [1] Many colleges and universities now offer undergraduate degrees, graduate degrees, or certificates in conflict resolution, such as this one at the University of North Carolina Greensboro: http://conflictstudies.uncg.edu/site . Being able to manage conflict situations can make life more pleasant rather than letting a situation stagnate or escalate. The negative effects of poorly handled conflict could range from an awkward last few weeks of the semester with a college roommate to violence or divorce. However, there is no absolute right or wrong way to handle a conflict. Remember that being a competent communicator doesn’t mean that you follow a set of absolute rules. Rather, a competent communicator assesses multiple contexts and applies or adapts communication tools and skills to fit the dynamic situation.

Conflict Management Styles

Would you describe yourself as someone who prefers to avoid conflict? Do you like to get your way? Are you good at working with someone to reach a solution that is mutually beneficial? Odds are that you have been in situations where you could answer yes to each of these questions, which underscores the important role context plays in conflict and conflict management styles in particular. The way we view and deal with conflict is learned and contextual. Is the way you handle conflicts similar to the way your parents handle conflict? If you’re of a certain age, you are likely predisposed to answer this question with a certain “No!” It wasn’t until my late twenties and early thirties that I began to see how similar I am to my parents, even though I, like many, spent years trying to distinguish myself from them. Research does show that there is intergenerational transmission of traits related to conflict management. As children, we test out different conflict resolution styles we observe in our families with our parents and siblings. Later, as we enter adolescence and begin developing platonic and romantic relationships outside the family, we begin testing what we’ve learned from our parents in other settings. If a child has observed and used negative conflict management styles with siblings or parents, he or she is likely to exhibit those behaviors with non–family members (Reese-Weber & Bartle-Haring, 1998).

There has been much research done on different types of conflict management styles, which are communication strategies that attempt to avoid, address, or resolve a conflict. Keep in mind that we don’t always consciously choose a style. We may instead be caught up in emotion and become reactionary. The strategies for more effectively managing conflict that will be discussed later may allow you to slow down the reaction process, become more aware of it, and intervene in the process to improve your communication. A powerful tool to mitigate conflict is information exchange. Asking for more information before you react to a conflict-triggering event is a good way to add a buffer between the trigger and your reaction. Another key element is whether or not a communicator is oriented toward self-centered or other-centered goals. For example, if your goal is to “win” or make the other person “lose,” you show a high concern for self and a low concern for other. If your goal is to facilitate a “win/win” resolution or outcome, you show a high concern for self and other. In general, strategies that facilitate information exchange and include concern for mutual goals will be more successful at managing conflict (Sillars, 1980).

The five strategies for managing conflict we will discuss are competing, avoiding, accommodating, compromising, and collaborating. Each of these conflict styles accounts for the concern we place on self versus other (see Figure 6.1 “Five Styles of Interpersonal Conflict Management” ).

Figure 6.1 Five Styles of Interpersonal Conflict Management

image

Source: Adapted from M. Afzalur Rahim, “A Measure of Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict,” Academy of Management Journal 26, no. 2 (1983): 368–76.

In order to better understand the elements of the five styles of conflict management, we will apply each to the follow scenario. Rosa and D’Shaun have been partners for seventeen years. Rosa is growing frustrated because D’Shaun continues to give money to their teenage daughter, Casey, even though they decided to keep the teen on a fixed allowance to try to teach her more responsibility. While conflicts regarding money and child rearing are very common, we will see the numerous ways that Rosa and D’Shaun could address this problem.

The competing style indicates a high concern for self and a low concern for other. When we compete, we are striving to “win” the conflict, potentially at the expense or “loss” of the other person. One way we may gauge our win is by being granted or taking concessions from the other person. For example, if D’Shaun gives Casey extra money behind Rosa’s back, he is taking an indirect competitive route resulting in a “win” for him because he got his way. The competing style also involves the use of power, which can be noncoercive or coercive (Sillars, 1980). Noncoercive strategies include requesting and persuading. When requesting, we suggest the conflict partner change a behavior. Requesting doesn’t require a high level of information exchange. When we persuade, however, we give our conflict partner reasons to support our request or suggestion, meaning there is more information exchange, which may make persuading more effective than requesting. Rosa could try to persuade D’Shaun to stop giving Casey extra allowance money by bringing up their fixed budget or reminding him that they are saving for a summer vacation. Coercive strategies violate standard guidelines for ethical communication and may include aggressive communication directed at rousing your partner’s emotions through insults, profanity, and yelling, or through threats of punishment if you do not get your way. If Rosa is the primary income earner in the family, she could use that power to threaten to take D’Shaun’s ATM card away if he continues giving Casey money. In all these scenarios, the “win” that could result is only short term and can lead to conflict escalation. Interpersonal conflict is rarely isolated, meaning there can be ripple effects that connect the current conflict to previous and future conflicts. D’Shaun’s behind-the-scenes money giving or Rosa’s confiscation of the ATM card could lead to built-up negative emotions that could further test their relationship.

Competing has been linked to aggression, although the two are not always paired. If assertiveness does not work, there is a chance it could escalate to hostility. There is a pattern of verbal escalation: requests, demands, complaints, angry statements, threats, harassment, and verbal abuse (Johnson & Roloff, 2000). Aggressive communication can become patterned, which can create a volatile and hostile environment. The reality television show The Bad Girls Club is a prime example of a chronically hostile and aggressive environment. If you do a Google video search for clips from the show, you will see yelling, screaming, verbal threats, and some examples of physical violence. The producers of the show choose houseguests who have histories of aggression, and when the “bad girls” are placed in a house together, they fall into typical patterns, which creates dramatic television moments. Obviously, living in this type of volatile environment would create stressors in any relationship, so it’s important to monitor the use of competing as a conflict resolution strategy to ensure that it does not lapse into aggression.

The competing style of conflict management is not the same thing as having a competitive personality. Competition in relationships isn’t always negative, and people who enjoy engaging in competition may not always do so at the expense of another person’s goals. In fact, research has shown that some couples engage in competitive shared activities like sports or games to maintain and enrich their relationship (Dindia & Baxter, 1987). And although we may think that competitiveness is gendered, research has often shown that women are just as competitive as men (Messman & Mikesell, 2000).

The avoiding style of conflict management often indicates a low concern for self and a low concern for other, and no direct communication about the conflict takes place. However, as we will discuss later, in some cultures that emphasize group harmony over individual interests, and even in some situations in the United States, avoiding a conflict can indicate a high level of concern for the other. In general, avoiding doesn’t mean that there is no communication about the conflict. Remember, you cannot not communicate . Even when we try to avoid conflict, we may intentionally or unintentionally give our feelings away through our verbal and nonverbal communication. Rosa’s sarcastic tone as she tells D’Shaun that he’s “Soooo good with money!” and his subsequent eye roll both bring the conflict to the surface without specifically addressing it. The avoiding style is either passive or indirect, meaning there is little information exchange, which may make this strategy less effective than others. We may decide to avoid conflict for many different reasons, some of which are better than others. If you view the conflict as having little importance to you, it may be better to ignore it. If the person you’re having conflict with will only be working in your office for a week, you may perceive a conflict to be temporary and choose to avoid it and hope that it will solve itself. If you are not emotionally invested in the conflict, you may be able to reframe your perspective and see the situation in a different way, therefore resolving the issue. In all these cases, avoiding doesn’t really require an investment of time, emotion, or communication skill, so there is not much at stake to lose.

Avoidance is not always an easy conflict management choice, because sometimes the person we have conflict with isn’t a temp in our office or a weekend houseguest. While it may be easy to tolerate a problem when you’re not personally invested in it or view it as temporary, when faced with a situation like Rosa and D’Shaun’s, avoidance would just make the problem worse. For example, avoidance could first manifest as changing the subject, then progress from avoiding the issue to avoiding the person altogether, to even ending the relationship.

Indirect strategies of hinting and joking also fall under the avoiding style. While these indirect avoidance strategies may lead to a buildup of frustration or even anger, they allow us to vent a little of our built-up steam and may make a conflict situation more bearable. When we hint, we drop clues that we hope our partner will find and piece together to see the problem and hopefully change, thereby solving the problem without any direct communication. In almost all the cases of hinting that I have experienced or heard about, the person dropping the hints overestimates their partner’s detective abilities. For example, when Rosa leaves the bank statement on the kitchen table in hopes that D’Shaun will realize how much extra money he is giving Casey, D’Shaun may simply ignore it or even get irritated with Rosa for not putting the statement with all the other mail. We also overestimate our partner’s ability to decode the jokes we make about a conflict situation. It is more likely that the receiver of the jokes will think you’re genuinely trying to be funny or feel provoked or insulted than realize the conflict situation that you are referencing. So more frustration may develop when the hints and jokes are not decoded, which often leads to a more extreme form of hinting/joking: passive-aggressive behavior.

Passive-aggressive behavior is a way of dealing with conflict in which one person indirectly communicates their negative thoughts or feelings through nonverbal behaviors, such as not completing a task. For example, Rosa may wait a few days to deposit money into the bank so D’Shaun can’t withdraw it to give to Casey, or D’Shaun may cancel plans for a romantic dinner because he feels like Rosa is questioning his responsibility with money. Although passive-aggressive behavior can feel rewarding in the moment, it is one of the most unproductive ways to deal with conflict. These behaviors may create additional conflicts and may lead to a cycle of passive-aggressiveness in which the other partner begins to exhibit these behaviors as well, while never actually addressing the conflict that originated the behavior. In most avoidance situations, both parties lose. However, as noted above, avoidance can be the most appropriate strategy in some situations—for example, when the conflict is temporary, when the stakes are low or there is little personal investment, or when there is the potential for violence or retaliation.

Accommodating

The accommodating conflict management style indicates a low concern for self and a high concern for other and is often viewed as passive or submissive, in that someone complies with or obliges another without providing personal input. The context for and motivation behind accommodating play an important role in whether or not it is an appropriate strategy. Generally, we accommodate because we are being generous, we are obeying, or we are yielding (Bobot, 2010). If we are being generous, we accommodate because we genuinely want to; if we are obeying, we don’t have a choice but to accommodate (perhaps due to the potential for negative consequences or punishment); and if we yield, we may have our own views or goals but give up on them due to fatigue, time constraints, or because a better solution has been offered. Accommodating can be appropriate when there is little chance that our own goals can be achieved, when we don’t have much to lose by accommodating, when we feel we are wrong, or when advocating for our own needs could negatively affect the relationship (Isenhart & Spangle, 2000). The occasional accommodation can be useful in maintaining a relationship—remember earlier we discussed putting another’s needs before your own as a way to achieve relational goals. For example, Rosa may say, “It’s OK that you gave Casey some extra money; she did have to spend more on gas this week since the prices went up.” However, being a team player can slip into being a pushover, which people generally do not appreciate. If Rosa keeps telling D’Shaun, “It’s OK this time,” they may find themselves short on spending money at the end of the month. At that point, Rosa and D’Shaun’s conflict may escalate as they question each other’s motives, or the conflict may spread if they direct their frustration at Casey and blame it on her irresponsibility.

Research has shown that the accommodating style is more likely to occur when there are time restraints and less likely to occur when someone does not want to appear weak (Cai & Fink, 2002). If you’re standing outside the movie theatre and two movies are starting, you may say, “Let’s just have it your way,” so you don’t miss the beginning. If you’re a new manager at an electronics store and an employee wants to take Sunday off to watch a football game, you may say no to set an example for the other employees. As with avoiding, there are certain cultural influences we will discuss later that make accommodating a more effective strategy.

Compromising

The compromising style shows a moderate concern for self and other and may indicate that there is a low investment in the conflict and/or the relationship. Even though we often hear that the best way to handle a conflict is to compromise, the compromising style isn’t a win/win solution; it is a partial win/lose. In essence, when we compromise, we give up some or most of what we want. It’s true that the conflict gets resolved temporarily, but lingering thoughts of what you gave up could lead to a future conflict. Compromising may be a good strategy when there are time limitations or when prolonging a conflict may lead to relationship deterioration. Compromise may also be good when both parties have equal power or when other resolution strategies have not worked (Macintosh & Stevens, 2008).

6-2-2n

Compromising may help conflicting parties come to a resolution, but neither may be completely satisfied if they each had to give something up.

Broad Bean Media – handshake – CC BY-SA 2.0.

A negative of compromising is that it may be used as an easy way out of a conflict. The compromising style is most effective when both parties find the solution agreeable. Rosa and D’Shaun could decide that Casey’s allowance does need to be increased and could each give ten more dollars a week by committing to taking their lunch to work twice a week instead of eating out. They are both giving up something, and if neither of them have a problem with taking their lunch to work, then the compromise was equitable. If the couple agrees that the twenty extra dollars a week should come out of D’Shaun’s golf budget, the compromise isn’t as equitable, and D’Shaun, although he agreed to the compromise, may end up with feelings of resentment. Wouldn’t it be better to both win?

Collaborating

The collaborating style involves a high degree of concern for self and other and usually indicates investment in the conflict situation and the relationship. Although the collaborating style takes the most work in terms of communication competence, it ultimately leads to a win/win situation in which neither party has to make concessions because a mutually beneficial solution is discovered or created. The obvious advantage is that both parties are satisfied, which could lead to positive problem solving in the future and strengthen the overall relationship. For example, Rosa and D’Shaun may agree that Casey’s allowance needs to be increased and may decide to give her twenty more dollars a week in exchange for her babysitting her little brother one night a week. In this case, they didn’t make the conflict personal but focused on the situation and came up with a solution that may end up saving them money. The disadvantage is that this style is often time consuming, and only one person may be willing to use this approach while the other person is eager to compete to meet their goals or willing to accommodate.

Here are some tips for collaborating and achieving a win/win outcome (Hargie, 2011):

  • Do not view the conflict as a contest you are trying to win.
  • Remain flexible and realize there are solutions yet to be discovered.
  • Distinguish the people from the problem (don’t make it personal).
  • Determine what the underlying needs are that are driving the other person’s demands (needs can still be met through different demands).
  • Identify areas of common ground or shared interests that you can work from to develop solutions.
  • Ask questions to allow them to clarify and to help you understand their perspective.
  • Listen carefully and provide verbal and nonverbal feedback.

“Getting Competent”

Handling Roommate Conflicts

Whether you have a roommate by choice, by necessity, or through the random selection process of your school’s housing office, it’s important to be able to get along with the person who shares your living space. While having a roommate offers many benefits such as making a new friend, having someone to experience a new situation like college life with, and having someone to split the cost on your own with, there are also challenges. Some common roommate conflicts involve neatness, noise, having guests, sharing possessions, value conflicts, money conflicts, and personality conflicts (Ball State University, 2001). Read the following scenarios and answer the following questions for each one:

  • Which conflict management style, from the five discussed, would you use in this situation?
  • What are the potential strengths of using this style?
  • What are the potential weaknesses of using this style?

Scenario 1: Neatness. Your college dorm has bunk beds, and your roommate takes a lot of time making his bed (the bottom bunk) each morning. He has told you that he doesn’t want anyone sitting on or sleeping in his bed when he is not in the room. While he is away for the weekend, your friend comes to visit and sits on the bottom bunk bed. You tell him what your roommate said, and you try to fix the bed back before he returns to the dorm. When he returns, he notices that his bed has been disturbed and he confronts you about it.

Scenario 2: Noise and having guests. Your roommate has a job waiting tables and gets home around midnight on Thursday nights. She often brings a couple friends from work home with her. They watch television, listen to music, or play video games and talk and laugh. You have an 8 a.m. class on Friday mornings and are usually asleep when she returns. Last Friday, you talked to her and asked her to keep it down in the future. Tonight, their noise has woken you up and you can’t get back to sleep.

Scenario 3: Sharing possessions. When you go out to eat, you often bring back leftovers to have for lunch the next day during your short break between classes. You didn’t have time to eat breakfast, and you’re really excited about having your leftover pizza for lunch until you get home and see your roommate sitting on the couch eating the last slice.

Scenario 4: Money conflicts. Your roommate got mono and missed two weeks of work last month. Since he has a steady job and you have some savings, you cover his portion of the rent and agree that he will pay your portion next month. The next month comes around and he informs you that he only has enough to pay his half.

Scenario 5: Value and personality conflicts. You like to go out to clubs and parties and have friends over, but your roommate is much more of an introvert. You’ve tried to get her to come out with you or join the party at your place, but she’d rather study. One day she tells you that she wants to break the lease so she can move out early to live with one of her friends. You both signed the lease, so you have to agree or she can’t do it. If you break the lease, you automatically lose your portion of the security deposit.

Culture and Conflict

Culture is an important context to consider when studying conflict, and recent research has called into question some of the assumptions of the five conflict management styles discussed so far, which were formulated with a Western bias (Oetzel, Garcia, & Ting-Toomey, 2008). For example, while the avoiding style of conflict has been cast as negative, with a low concern for self and other or as a lose/lose outcome, this research found that participants in the United States, Germany, China, and Japan all viewed avoiding strategies as demonstrating a concern for the other. While there are some generalizations we can make about culture and conflict, it is better to look at more specific patterns of how interpersonal communication and conflict management are related. We can better understand some of the cultural differences in conflict management by further examining the concept of face .

What does it mean to “save face?” This saying generally refers to preventing embarrassment or preserving our reputation or image, which is similar to the concept of face in interpersonal and intercultural communication. Our face is the projected self we desire to put into the world, and facework refers to the communicative strategies we employ to project, maintain, or repair our face or maintain, repair, or challenge another’s face. Face negotiation theory argues that people in all cultures negotiate face through communication encounters, and that cultural factors influence how we engage in facework, especially in conflict situations (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). These cultural factors influence whether we are more concerned with self-face or other-face and what types of conflict management strategies we may use. One key cultural influence on face negotiation is the distinction between individualistic and collectivistic cultures.

The distinction between individualistic and collectivistic cultures is an important dimension across which all cultures vary. Individualistic cultures like the United States and most of Europe emphasize individual identity over group identity and encourage competition and self-reliance. Collectivistic cultures like Taiwan, Colombia, China, Japan, Vietnam, and Peru value in-group identity over individual identity and value conformity to social norms of the in-group (Dsilva & Whyte, 1998). However, within the larger cultures, individuals will vary in the degree to which they view themselves as part of a group or as a separate individual, which is called self-construal. Independent self-construal indicates a perception of the self as an individual with unique feelings, thoughts, and motivations. Interdependent self-construal indicates a perception of the self as interrelated with others (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). Not surprisingly, people from individualistic cultures are more likely to have higher levels of independent self-construal, and people from collectivistic cultures are more likely to have higher levels of interdependent self-construal. Self-construal and individualistic or collectivistic cultural orientations affect how people engage in facework and the conflict management styles they employ.

Self-construal alone does not have a direct effect on conflict style, but it does affect face concerns, with independent self-construal favoring self-face concerns and interdependent self-construal favoring other-face concerns. There are specific facework strategies for different conflict management styles, and these strategies correspond to self-face concerns or other-face concerns.

  • Accommodating. Giving in (self-face concern).
  • Avoiding. Pretending conflict does not exist (other-face concern).
  • Competing. Defending your position, persuading (self-face concern).
  • Collaborating. Apologizing, having a private discussion, remaining calm (other-face concern) (Oetzel, Garcia, & Ting-Toomey, 2008).

Research done on college students in Germany, Japan, China, and the United States found that those with independent self-construal were more likely to engage in competing, and those with interdependent self-construal were more likely to engage in avoiding or collaborating (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003). And in general, this research found that members of collectivistic cultures were more likely to use the avoiding style of conflict management and less likely to use the integrating or competing styles of conflict management than were members of individualistic cultures. The following examples bring together facework strategies, cultural orientations, and conflict management style: Someone from an individualistic culture may be more likely to engage in competing as a conflict management strategy if they are directly confronted, which may be an attempt to defend their reputation (self-face concern). Someone in a collectivistic culture may be more likely to engage in avoiding or accommodating in order not to embarrass or anger the person confronting them (other-face concern) or out of concern that their reaction could reflect negatively on their family or cultural group (other-face concern). While these distinctions are useful for categorizing large-scale cultural patterns, it is important not to essentialize or arbitrarily group countries together, because there are measurable differences within cultures. For example, expressing one’s emotions was seen as demonstrating a low concern for other-face in Japan, but this was not so in China, which shows there is variety between similarly collectivistic cultures. Culture always adds layers of complexity to any communication phenomenon, but experiencing and learning from other cultures also enriches our lives and makes us more competent communicators.

Handling Conflict Better

Conflict is inevitable and it is not inherently negative. A key part of developing interpersonal communication competence involves being able to effectively manage the conflict you will encounter in all your relationships. One key part of handling conflict better is to notice patterns of conflict in specific relationships and to generally have an idea of what causes you to react negatively and what your reactions usually are.

Identifying Conflict Patterns

Much of the research on conflict patterns has been done on couples in romantic relationships, but the concepts and findings are applicable to other relationships. Four common triggers for conflict are criticism, demand, cumulative annoyance, and rejection (Christensen & Jacobson, 2000). We all know from experience that criticism, or comments that evaluate another person’s personality, behavior, appearance, or life choices, may lead to conflict. Comments do not have to be meant as criticism to be perceived as such. If Gary comes home from college for the weekend and his mom says, “Looks like you put on a few pounds,” she may view this as a statement of fact based on observation. Gary, however, may take the comment personally and respond negatively back to his mom, starting a conflict that will last for the rest of his visit. A simple but useful strategy to manage the trigger of criticism is to follow the old adage “Think before you speak.” In many cases, there are alternative ways to phrase things that may be taken less personally, or we may determine that our comment doesn’t need to be spoken at all. I’ve learned that a majority of the thoughts that we have about another person’s physical appearance, whether positive or negative, do not need to be verbalized. Ask yourself, “What is my motivation for making this comment?” and “Do I have anything to lose by not making this comment?” If your underlying reasons for asking are valid, perhaps there is another way to phrase your observation. If Gary’s mom is worried about his eating habits and health, she could wait until they’re eating dinner and ask him how he likes the food choices at school and what he usually eats.

Demands also frequently trigger conflict, especially if the demand is viewed as unfair or irrelevant. It’s important to note that demands rephrased as questions may still be or be perceived as demands. Tone of voice and context are important factors here. When you were younger, you may have asked a parent, teacher, or elder for something and heard back “Ask nicely.” As with criticism, thinking before you speak and before you respond can help manage demands and minimize conflict episodes. As we discussed earlier, demands are sometimes met with withdrawal rather than a verbal response. If you are doing the demanding, remember a higher level of information exchange may make your demand clearer or more reasonable to the other person. If you are being demanded of, responding calmly and expressing your thoughts and feelings are likely more effective than withdrawing, which may escalate the conflict.

Cumulative annoyance is a building of frustration or anger that occurs over time, eventually resulting in a conflict interaction. For example, your friend shows up late to drive you to class three times in a row. You didn’t say anything the previous times, but on the third time you say, “You’re late again! If you can’t get here on time, I’ll find another way to get to class.” Cumulative annoyance can build up like a pressure cooker, and as it builds up, the intensity of the conflict also builds. Criticism and demands can also play into cumulative annoyance. We have all probably let critical or demanding comments slide, but if they continue, it becomes difficult to hold back, and most of us have a breaking point. The problem here is that all the other incidents come back to your mind as you confront the other person, which usually intensifies the conflict. You’ve likely been surprised when someone has blown up at you due to cumulative annoyance or surprised when someone you have blown up at didn’t know there was a problem building. A good strategy for managing cumulative annoyance is to monitor your level of annoyance and occasionally let some steam out of the pressure cooker by processing through your frustration with a third party or directly addressing what is bothering you with the source.

No one likes the feeling of rejection. Rejection can lead to conflict when one person’s comments or behaviors are perceived as ignoring or invalidating the other person. Vulnerability is a component of any close relationship. When we care about someone, we verbally or nonverbally communicate. We may tell our best friend that we miss them, or plan a home-cooked meal for our partner who is working late. The vulnerability that underlies these actions comes from the possibility that our relational partner will not notice or appreciate them. When someone feels exposed or rejected, they often respond with anger to mask their hurt, which ignites a conflict. Managing feelings of rejection is difficult because it is so personal, but controlling the impulse to assume that your relational partner is rejecting you, and engaging in communication rather than reflexive reaction, can help put things in perspective. If your partner doesn’t get excited about the meal you planned and cooked, it could be because he or she is physically or mentally tired after a long day. Concepts discussed in Chapter 2 “Communication and Perception” can be useful here, as perception checking, taking inventory of your attributions, and engaging in information exchange to help determine how each person is punctuating the conflict are useful ways of managing all four of the triggers discussed.

Interpersonal conflict may take the form of serial arguing , which is a repeated pattern of disagreement over an issue. Serial arguments do not necessarily indicate negative or troubled relationships, but any kind of patterned conflict is worth paying attention to. There are three patterns that occur with serial arguing: repeating, mutual hostility, and arguing with assurances (Johnson & Roloff, 2000). The first pattern is repeating, which means reminding the other person of your complaint (what you want them to start/stop doing). The pattern may continue if the other person repeats their response to your reminder. For example, if Marita reminds Kate that she doesn’t appreciate her sarcastic tone, and Kate responds, “I’m soooo sorry, I forgot how perfect you are,” then the reminder has failed to effect the desired change. A predictable pattern of complaint like this leads participants to view the conflict as irresolvable. The second pattern within serial arguments is mutual hostility, which occurs when the frustration of repeated conflict leads to negative emotions and increases the likelihood of verbal aggression. Again, a predictable pattern of hostility makes the conflict seem irresolvable and may lead to relationship deterioration. Whereas the first two patterns entail an increase in pressure on the participants in the conflict, the third pattern offers some relief. If people in an interpersonal conflict offer verbal assurances of their commitment to the relationship, then the problems associated with the other two patterns of serial arguing may be ameliorated. Even though the conflict may not be solved in the interaction, the verbal assurances of commitment imply that there is a willingness to work on solving the conflict in the future, which provides a sense of stability that can benefit the relationship. Although serial arguing is not inherently bad within a relationship, if the pattern becomes more of a vicious cycle, it can lead to alienation, polarization, and an overall toxic climate, and the problem may seem so irresolvable that people feel trapped and terminate the relationship (Christensen & Jacobson, 2000). There are some negative, but common, conflict reactions we can monitor and try to avoid, which may also help prevent serial arguing.

Two common conflict pitfalls are one-upping and mindreading (Gottman, 1994). is a quick reaction to communication from another person that escalates the conflict. If Sam comes home late from work and Nicki says, “I wish you would call when you’re going to be late” and Sam responds, “I wish you would get off my back,” the reaction has escalated the conflict. Mindreading is communication in which one person attributes something to the other using generalizations. If Sam says, “You don’t care whether I come home at all or not!” she is presuming to know Nicki’s thoughts and feelings. Nicki is likely to respond defensively, perhaps saying, “You don’t know how I’m feeling!” One-upping and mindreading are often reactions that are more reflexive than deliberate. Remember concepts like attribution and punctuation in these moments. Nicki may have received bad news and was eager to get support from Sam when she arrived home. Although Sam perceives Nicki’s comment as criticism and justifies her comments as a reaction to Nicki’s behavior, Nicki’s comment could actually be a sign of their closeness, in that Nicki appreciates Sam’s emotional support. Sam could have said, “I know, I’m sorry, I was on my cell phone for the past hour with a client who had a lot of problems to work out.” Taking a moment to respond mindfully rather than react with a knee-jerk reflex can lead to information exchange, which could deescalate the conflict.

6-2-3n

Mindreading leads to patterned conflict, because we wrongly presume to know what another person is thinking.

Slipperroom – Mysterion the Mind Reader – CC BY-NC 2.0.

Validating the person with whom you are in conflict can be an effective way to deescalate conflict. While avoiding or retreating may seem like the best option in the moment, one of the key negative traits found in research on married couples’ conflicts was withdrawal, which as we learned before may result in a demand-withdrawal pattern of conflict. Often validation can be as simple as demonstrating good listening skills discussed earlier in this book by making eye contact and giving verbal and nonverbal back-channel cues like saying “mmm-hmm” or nodding your head (Gottman, 1994). This doesn’t mean that you have to give up your own side in a conflict or that you agree with what the other person is saying; rather, you are hearing the other person out, which validates them and may also give you some more information about the conflict that could minimize the likelihood of a reaction rather than a response.

As with all the aspects of communication competence we have discussed so far, you cannot expect that everyone you interact with will have the same knowledge of communication that you have after reading this book. But it often only takes one person with conflict management skills to make an interaction more effective. Remember that it’s not the quantity of conflict that determines a relationship’s success; it’s how the conflict is managed, and one person’s competent response can deescalate a conflict. Now we turn to a discussion of negotiation steps and skills as a more structured way to manage conflict.

Negotiation Steps and Skills

We negotiate daily. We may negotiate with a professor to make up a missed assignment or with our friends to plan activities for the weekend. Negotiation in interpersonal conflict refers to the process of attempting to change or influence conditions within a relationship. The negotiation skills discussed next can be adapted to all types of relational contexts, from romantic partners to coworkers. The stages of negotiating are prenegotiation, opening, exploration, bargaining, and settlement (Hargie, 2011).

In the prenegotiation stage, you want to prepare for the encounter. If possible, let the other person know you would like to talk to them, and preview the topic, so they will also have the opportunity to prepare. While it may seem awkward to “set a date” to talk about a conflict, if the other person feels like they were blindsided, their reaction could be negative. Make your preview simple and nonthreatening by saying something like “I’ve noticed that we’ve been arguing a lot about who does what chores around the house. Can we sit down and talk tomorrow when we both get home from class?” Obviously, it won’t always be feasible to set a date if the conflict needs to be handled immediately because the consequences are immediate or if you or the other person has limited availability. In that case, you can still prepare, but make sure you allot time for the other person to digest and respond. During this stage you also want to figure out your goals for the interaction by reviewing your instrumental, relational, and self-presentation goals. Is getting something done, preserving the relationship, or presenting yourself in a certain way the most important? For example, you may highly rank the instrumental goal of having a clean house, or the relational goal of having pleasant interactions with your roommate, or the self-presentation goal of appearing nice and cooperative. Whether your roommate is your best friend from high school or a stranger the school matched you up with could determine the importance of your relational and self-presentation goals. At this point, your goal analysis may lead you away from negotiation—remember, as we discussed earlier, avoiding can be an appropriate and effective conflict management strategy. If you decide to proceed with the negotiation, you will want to determine your ideal outcome and your bottom line, or the point at which you decide to break off negotiation. It’s very important that you realize there is a range between your ideal and your bottom line and that remaining flexible is key to a successful negotiation—remember, through collaboration a new solution could be found that you didn’t think of.

In the opening stage of the negotiation, you want to set the tone for the interaction because the other person will be likely to reciprocate. Generally, it is good to be cooperative and pleasant, which can help open the door for collaboration. You also want to establish common ground by bringing up overlapping interests and using “we” language. It would not be competent to open the negotiation with “You’re such a slob! Didn’t your mom ever teach you how to take care of yourself?” Instead, you may open the negotiation by making small talk about classes that day and then move into the issue at hand. You could set a good tone and establish common ground by saying, “We both put a lot of work into setting up and decorating our space, but now that classes have started, I’ve noticed that we’re really busy and some chores are not getting done.” With some planning and a simple opening like that, you can move into the next stage of negotiation.

There should be a high level of information exchange in the exploration stage. The overarching goal in this stage is to get a panoramic view of the conflict by sharing your perspective and listening to the other person. In this stage, you will likely learn how the other person is punctuating the conflict. Although you may have been mulling over the mess for a few days, your roommate may just now be aware of the conflict. She may also inform you that she usually cleans on Sundays but didn’t get to last week because she unexpectedly had to visit her parents. The information that you gather here may clarify the situation enough to end the conflict and cease negotiation. If negotiation continues, the information will be key as you move into the bargaining stage.

The bargaining stage is where you make proposals and concessions. The proposal you make should be informed by what you learned in the exploration stage. Flexibility is important here, because you may have to revise your ideal outcome and bottom line based on new information. If your plan was to have a big cleaning day every Thursday, you may now want to propose to have the roommate clean on Sunday while you clean on Wednesday. You want to make sure your opening proposal is reasonable and not presented as an ultimatum. “I don’t ever want to see a dish left in the sink” is different from “When dishes are left in the sink too long, they stink and get gross. Can we agree to not leave any dishes in the sink overnight?” Through the proposals you make, you could end up with a win/win situation. If there are areas of disagreement, however, you may have to make concessions or compromise, which can be a partial win or a partial loss. If you hate doing dishes but don’t mind emptying the trash and recycling, you could propose to assign those chores based on preference. If you both hate doing dishes, you could propose to be responsible for washing your own dishes right after you use them. If you really hate dishes and have some extra money, you could propose to use disposable (and hopefully recyclable) dishes, cups, and utensils.

In the settlement stage, you want to decide on one of the proposals and then summarize the chosen proposal and any related concessions. It is possible that each party can have a different view of the agreed solution. If your roommate thinks you are cleaning the bathroom every other day and you plan to clean it on Wednesdays, then there could be future conflict. You could summarize and ask for confirmation by saying, “So, it looks like I’ll be in charge of the trash and recycling, and you’ll load and unload the dishwasher. Then I’ll do a general cleaning on Wednesdays and you’ll do the same on Sundays. Is that right?” Last, you’ll need to follow up on the solution to make sure it’s working for both parties. If your roommate goes home again next Sunday and doesn’t get around to cleaning, you may need to go back to the exploration or bargaining stage.

Key Takeaways

  • Interpersonal conflict is an inevitable part of relationships that, although not always negative, can take an emotional toll on relational partners unless they develop skills and strategies for managing conflict.
  • Although there is no absolute right or wrong way to handle a conflict, there are five predominant styles of conflict management, which are competing, avoiding, accommodating, compromising, and collaborating.
  • Perception plays an important role in conflict management because we are often biased in determining the cause of our own and others’ behaviors in a conflict situation, which necessitates engaging in communication to gain information and perspective.
  • Culture influences how we engage in conflict based on our cultural norms regarding individualism or collectivism and concern for self-face or other-face.
  • We can handle conflict better by identifying patterns and triggers such as demands, cumulative annoyance, and rejection and by learning to respond mindfully rather than reflexively.
  • Of the five conflict management strategies, is there one that you use more often than others? Why or why not? Do you think people are predisposed to one style over the others based on their personality or other characteristics? If so, what personality traits do you think would lead a person to each style?
  • Review the example of D’Shaun and Rosa. If you were in their situation, what do you think the best style to use would be and why?
  • Of the conflict triggers discussed (demands, cumulative annoyance, rejection, one-upping, and mindreading) which one do you find most often triggers a negative reaction from you? What strategies can you use to better manage the trigger and more effectively manage conflict?

Ball State University, “Roommate Conflicts,” accessed June 16, 2001, http://cms.bsu.edu/CampusLife/CounselingCenter/VirtualSelfHelpLibrary/RoommateIssues.aspx .

Bobot, L., “Conflict Management in Buyer-Seller Relationships,” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 27, no. 3 (2010): 296.

Cai, D. A. and Edward L. Fink, “Conflict Style Differences between Individualists and Collectivists,” Communication Monographs 69, no. 1 (2002): 67–87.

Canary, D. J. and Susan J. Messman, “Relationship Conflict,” in Close Relationships: A Sourcebook , eds. Clyde Hendrick and Susan S. Hendrick (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000), 261–70.

Christensen, A. and Neil S. Jacobson, Reconcilable Differences (New York: Guilford Press, 2000), 17–20.

Dindia, K. and Leslie A. Baxter, “Strategies for Maintaining and Repairing Marital Relationships,” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 4, no. 2 (1987): 143–58.

Dsilva, M. U. and Lisa O. Whyte, “Cultural Differences in Conflict Styles: Vietnamese Refugees and Established Residents,” Howard Journal of Communication 9 (1998): 59.

Gates, S., “Time to Take Negotiation Seriously,” Industrial and Commercial Training 38 (2006): 238–41.

Gottman, J. M., What Predicts Divorce?: The Relationship between Marital Processes and Marital Outcomes (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994). One-upping

Hargie, O., Skilled Interpersonal Interaction: Research, Theory, and Practice (London: Routledge, 2011), 406–7, 430.

Isenhart, M. W. and Michael Spangle, Collaborative Approaches to Resolving Conflict (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000), 26.

Johnson, K. L. and Michael E. Roloff, “Correlates of the Perceived Resolvability and Relational Consequences of Serial Arguing in Dating Relationships: Argumentative Features and the Use of Coping Strategies,” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 17, no. 4–5 (2000): 677–78.

Macintosh, G. and Charles Stevens, “Personality, Motives, and Conflict Strategies in Everyday Service Encounters,” International Journal of Conflict Management 19, no. 2 (2008): 115.

Markman, H. J., Mari Jo Renick, Frank J. Floyd, Scott M. Stanley, and Mari Clements, “Preventing Marital Distress through Communication and Conflict Management Training: A 4- and 5-Year Follow-Up,” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 61, no. 1 (1993): 70–77.

Messman, S. J. and Rebecca L. Mikesell, “Competition and Interpersonal Conflict in Dating Relationships,” Communication Reports 13, no. 1 (2000): 32.

Oetzel, J., Adolfo J. Garcia, and Stella Ting-Toomey, “An Analysis of the Relationships among Face Concerns and Facework Behaviors in Perceived Conflict Situations: A Four-Culture Investigation,” International Journal of Conflict Management 19, no. 4 (2008): 382–403.

Reese-Weber, M. and Suzanne Bartle-Haring, “Conflict Resolution Styles in Family Subsystems and Adolescent Romantic Relationships,” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 27, no. 6 (1998): 735–52.

Sillars, A. L., “Attributions and Communication in Roommate Conflicts,” Communication Monographs 47, no. 3 (1980): 180–200.

  • “Mediator on Best Career List for 2011,” UNCG Program in Conflict and Peace Studies Blog, accessed November 5, 2012, http://conresuncg.blogspot.com/2011/04/mediator-on-best-career-list-for-2011.html . ↵

Communication in the Real World Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

  • Browse Topics
  • Executive Committee
  • Affiliated Faculty
  • Harvard Negotiation Project
  • Great Negotiator
  • American Secretaries of State Project
  • Awards, Grants, and Fellowships
  • Negotiation Programs
  • Mediation Programs
  • One-Day Programs
  • In-House Training and Custom Programs
  • In-Person Programs
  • Online Programs
  • Advanced Materials Search
  • Contact Information
  • The Teaching Negotiation Resource Center Policies
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Negotiation Journal
  • Harvard Negotiation Law Review
  • Working Conference on AI, Technology, and Negotiation
  • Free Reports and Program Guides

Free Videos

  • Upcoming Events
  • Past Events
  • Event Series
  • Our Mission
  • Keyword Index

conflict resolution and decision making skills assignment quizlet

PON – Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School - https://www.pon.harvard.edu

Team-Building Strategies: Building a Winning Team for Your Organization

conflict resolution and decision making skills assignment quizlet

Discover how to build a winning team and boost your business negotiation results in this free special report, Team Building Strategies for Your Organization, from Harvard Law School.

  • 3 Negotiation Strategies for Conflict Resolution

Reach a peaceful end to your dispute by following these proven negotiation and conflict resolution strategies

By Katie Shonk — on February 13th, 2024 / Dispute Resolution

conflict resolution and decision making skills assignment quizlet

When a dispute flares up and conflict resolution is required, the outcome can be sadly predictable: the conflict escalates, with each side blaming the other in increasingly strident terms. The dispute may end up in litigation, and the relationship may be forever damaged.

Facilitating Conflict Resolution Processes with Negotiation Skills

The following three negotiation strategies for conflict resolution from the realm of business negotiation can help parties mend their partnership, avoid the expense of a lawsuit, and even create value.

1. Avoid being provoked into an emotional response.

Negotiators make several “moves” to question each other’s legitimacy and assert their own power, write Deborah M. Kolb and Judith Williams in their book Everyday Negotiation: Navigating the Hidden Agendas in Bargaining . This “shadow negotiation,” which takes place under the surface, helps to explain why discussions of concrete, seemingly rational issues can lead to angry outbursts, hurt feelings, and simmering conflict (see also, Emotional Triggers: How Emotions Affect Your Negotiating Ability ).

Dispute Resolution

Claim your FREE copy: Dispute Resolution

Discover how to improve your dispute resolution skills in this free report, Dispute Resolution: Working Together Toward Conflict Resolution on the Job and at Home , from Harvard Law School.

Here are a few examples. First, a negotiator may challenge your competence or expertise—for example, by saying you don’t have the experience to perform a particular task. Second, someone might demean your ideas in a way that it makes it difficult for you to respond, perhaps by saying, “You can’t be serious!” Finally, a coworker might criticize your style with a line such as “Stop being so sensitive.”

By challenging, demeaning, and criticizing you, the other party (whether consciously or not) may be attempting to provoke you into an emotional response that will shift the balance of power in their favor.

How can you defend yourself against such moves without being accused of overreacting? Kolb and Williams suggest several responses, which they call “turns”:

  • Interrupt the move by taking a break, which should give everyone time to gain control of their emotions, in addition to halting any momentum that is going against you.
  • Try naming the move; that is, let your coworker know that you recognize it as a power play. If someone says, “You can’t be serious!” you might respond, “Actually, I’m quite serious. Instead of cutting me off, how about if you give me a chance to clarify my plan?”
  • Correct the move, substituting the other side’s negative remarks with a more positive interpretation. If a coworker incorrectly blames you for a decision that went wrong, provide him or your boss with hard evidence of the facts.
  • Divert the move by shifting the focus back to the issue at hand. To the person who criticizes you as overly sensitive, you could say, “I think it’d be best if we avoid personal judgments and concentrate on the proposal.”

2. Don’t abandon value-creating strategies.

Negotiators who understand the importance of collaborating with one another to create value nonetheless often abandon that approach during dispute resolution. Treating disputes as different from other aspects of dealmaking, they tend to view business dispute resolution as a zero-sum game—one in which only a single issue (such as money) is at stake. Consequently, they tend to look at the dispute resolution process as a win-lose battle, to their detriment.

By contrast, you should be able to find the same set of value-creation opportunities in disputes as you do in deals. For example, try to capitalize on shared interests, or noncompetitive similarities, recommend senior fellow at Harvard Law School Robert C. Bordone and University of Oregon professor Michael L. Moffitt. If both parties would likely suffer reputational damage if their dispute went public, then they might agree to keep certain aspects of their dispute resolution process confidential. Reaching agreement on seemingly peripheral issues can help parties build a foundation of trust and optimism that enables them to collaborate to resolve the main sources of their conflict.

Disputants may also be able to create value by trading on their differing preferences and priorities (see also, Integrative Negotiations, Value Creation, and Creativity at the Bargaining Table ). Suppose Party A places a high value on receiving a formal apology from Party B. Party B might be willing to grant the apology in exchange for a lower settlement payment to Party A. Through such tradeoffs, negotiators can increase the odds of a peaceful and lasting resolution.

3. Use time to your advantage.

The perceptions we hold about the dispute resolution process may change over time as a result of our experiences dealing with the conflict and with the other party. For example, a couple that endures a rancorous divorce might grow more cooperative over time for the sake of their children. Rather than viewing your dispute as permanently intractable, try to view it as being constantly in flux.

It helps to remain in contact with the other party during dispute resolution, recommends Tufts University professor Jeswald Salacuse . Doing so may allow you to encourage them that your existing approaches to the conflict resolution are not working and that the prospect of negotiating offers some hope of improvement. When parties recognize the importance of meeting regularly, they may be able to slowly work through their differences.

Another reason time can be your friend in dispute resolution? The departure of divisive leaders on one side of the conflict or the other can offer new hope for resolution after some time has passed. Take advantage of such changes by making a new settlement proposal, working through a mediator or other third party if necessary (see also, The Right Time to Negotiate ).

What strategies and tips do you have for conflict resolution?

Related Article: 5 Dealmaking Tips for Closing the Deal  – Here are five bargaining tips to help you reach a negotiated agreement with your counterpart.

Related Posts

  • In Contract Negotiations, Agree on How You’ll Disagree
  • Conflict Negotiation Strategies: When Do Employees Choose to Negotiate?
  • The Importance of Power in Negotiations: Taylor Swift Shakes it Off
  • Three Questions to Ask About the Dispute Resolution Process
  • Emotional Triggers: How Emotions Affect Your Negotiating Ability

No Responses to “3 Negotiation Strategies for Conflict Resolution”

2 responses to “3 negotiation strategies for conflict resolution”.

I had to dive into DISC personalities to help avoid emotional responses. Knowing who you are talking to is part of the solution to avoiding unnecessary emotional landmines. Using tools like DISC helped me understand that my staff had a different communication protocol than I was use to communicating in.

No emotions. Concentrate on value creation and optimize time advantage. These are three great points in Negotiations.

Click here to cancel reply.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

conflict resolution and decision making skills assignment quizlet

Negotiation and Leadership

  • Learn More about Negotiation and Leadership

Negotiation and Leadership Fall 2024 programs cover

NEGOTIATION MASTER CLASS

  • Learn More about Harvard Negotiation Master Class

Harvard Negotiation Master Class

Negotiation Essentials Online

  • Learn More about Negotiation Essentials Online

Negotiation Essentials Online cover

Beyond the Back Table: Working with People and Organizations to Get to Yes

  • Download Program Guide: March 2024
  • Register Online: March 2024
  • Learn More about Beyond the Back Table

Beyond the Back Table Spring 2024 Program Guide

Select Your Free Special Report

  • Negotiation Essentials Online (NEO) Spring 2024 Program Guide
  • Beyond the Back Table Spring 2024 Program Guide
  • Negotiation Master Class May 2024 Program Guide
  • Negotiation and Leadership Spring 2024 Program Guide
  • Make the Most of Online Negotiations
  • Managing Multiparty Negotiations
  • Getting the Deal Done
  • Salary Negotiation: How to Negotiate Salary: Learn the Best Techniques to Help You Manage the Most Difficult Salary Negotiations and What You Need to Know When Asking for a Raise
  • Overcoming Cultural Barriers in Negotiation: Cross Cultural Communication Techniques and Negotiation Skills From International Business and Diplomacy
  • Negotiation Training: How Harvard Negotiation Exercises, Negotiation Cases and Good Negotiation Coaching Can Make You a Better Negotiator

Teaching Negotiation Resource Center

  • Teaching Materials and Publications

Stay Connected to PON

Preparing for negotiation.

Understanding how to arrange the meeting space is a key aspect of preparing for negotiation. In this video, Professor Guhan Subramanian discusses a real world example of how seating arrangements can influence a negotiator’s success. This discussion was held at the 3 day executive education workshop for senior executives at the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.

Guhan Subramanian is the Professor of Law and Business at the Harvard Law School and Professor of Business Law at the Harvard Business School.

Articles & Insights

conflict resolution and decision making skills assignment quizlet

  • Power and Negotiation: Advice on First Offers
  • The Good Cop, Bad Cop Negotiation Strategy
  • BATNA and Other Sources of Power at the Negotiation Table
  • 10 Hard-Bargaining Tactics to Watch Out for in a Negotiation
  • BATNA Strategy: Should You Reveal Your BATNA?
  • Negotiation Tactics, BATNA and Examples for Creating Value in Business Negotiations
  • Solutions for Avoiding Intercultural Barriers at the Negotiation Table
  • In Corporate Crisis Management, Don’t Forget Employees
  • How to Respond to Questions in Negotiation
  • How to Find the ZOPA in Business Negotiations
  • Types of Conflict in Business Negotiation—and How to Avoid Them
  • Conflict Resolution Success Stories: A Surprising Tale from Congress
  • Conflict Resolution Examples in History: Learning from Nuclear Disarmament
  • Top Ten Posts About Conflict Resolution
  • Lessons Learned from Cultural Conflicts in the Covid-19 Era
  • AI Negotiation in the News
  • Crisis Communication Examples: What’s So Funny?
  • Crisis Negotiation Skills: The Hostage Negotiator’s Drill
  • Police Negotiation Techniques from the NYPD Crisis Negotiations Team
  • What is Crisis Management in Negotiation?
  • M&A Negotiation Strategy: Dealing with an Unpredictable Counterpart
  • Dealing with Difficult People and Negotiation: When Should You Give Up the Fight?
  • How to Renegotiate a Bad Deal
  • Dealing with Difficult People: Coping with an Insulting Offer in Contract Negotiations
  • How to Manage Difficult Staff: Gen Z Edition
  • What Leads to Renegotiation?
  • How Does Mediation Work in a Lawsuit?
  • Dealmaking Secrets from Henry Kissinger
  • Negotiation Ethics: What’s Gender Got to Do with It?
  • MESO Negotiation: The Benefits of Making Multiple Equivalent Simultaneous Offers in Business Negotiations
  • Negotiation Case Studies: The Bangladesh Factory-Safety Agreements
  • Diplomatic Negotiations: The Surprising Benefits of Conflict and Teamwork at the Negotiation Table
  • What is the Multi-Door Courthouse Concept
  • International Negotiations and Agenda Setting: Controlling the Flow of the Negotiation Process
  • A Top International Negotiation Case Study in Business: The Microsoft-Nokia Deal
  • What Is Facilitative Leadership?
  • What Is Collective Leadership?
  • Nelson Mandela: Negotiation Lessons from a Master
  • Leading vs. Managing: What’s the Difference?
  • Directive Leadership: When It Does—and Doesn’t—Work
  • Mediation Training: What Can You Expect?
  • What is Med-Arb?
  • Employee Mediation Techniques – Resolve Disputes and Manage Conflict with These Mediation Skills
  • How Mediation Works When Both Parties Agree They Need Help Resolving the Dispute
  • Undecided on Your Dispute Resolution Process? Combine Mediation and Arbitration, Known as Med-Arb
  • 10 Real-World Negotiation Examples
  • Power in Negotiation: How Effective Negotiators Project Power at the Negotiation Table
  • Negotiation Skills: Building Trust in Negotiations
  • Negotiation Strategies: Emotional Expression at the Bargaining Table
  • Dear Negotiation Coach: Dealing with an Exploding Offer
  • Use a Negotiation Preparation Worksheet for Continuous Improvement
  • Collaborative Negotiation Examples: Tenants and Landlords
  • Best Negotiation Books: A Negotiation Reading List
  • 3-D Negotiation Strategy
  • Cole Cannon Esq. Shares His Negotiation and Leadership Experience
  • Salary Negotiation: How to Ask for a Higher Salary
  • How to Ask for a Salary Increase
  • Setting Standards in Negotiations
  • How to Negotiate Salary: 3 Winning Strategies
  • Negotiating a Salary When Compensation Is Public
  • Asynchronous Learning: Negotiation Exercises to Keep Students Engaged Outside the Classroom
  • Teaching Mediation: Exercises to Help Students Acquire Mediation Skills
  • New Great Negotiator Case and Video: Christiana Figueres, former UNFCCC Executive Secretary
  • Check Out the All-In-One Curriculum Packages!
  • New Simulation: Negotiating a Management Crisis
  • For NFL Players, a Win-Win Negotiation Contract Only in Retrospect?
  • Win-Lose Negotiation Examples
  • Win-Win Negotiation: Managing Your Counterpart’s Satisfaction
  • 5 Win-Win Negotiation Strategies
  • How to Use Tradeoffs to Create Value in Your Negotiations

PON Publications

  • Negotiation Data Repository (NDR)
  • New Frontiers, New Roleplays: Next Generation Teaching and Training
  • Negotiating Transboundary Water Agreements
  • Learning from Practice to Teach for Practice—Reflections From a Novel Training Series for International Climate Negotiators
  • Insights From PON’s Great Negotiators and the American Secretaries of State Program
  • Gender and Privilege in Negotiation

conflict resolution and decision making skills assignment quizlet

Remember Me This setting should only be used on your home or work computer.

Lost your password? Create a new password of your choice.

Copyright © 2024 Negotiation Daily. All rights reserved.

conflict resolution and decision making skills assignment quizlet

IMAGES

  1. Conflict Resolution: Definition, Process, Skills, Examples

    conflict resolution and decision making skills assignment quizlet

  2. National Decision Model Diagram

    conflict resolution and decision making skills assignment quizlet

  3. 27 Conflict Resolution Skills to Use with Your Team and Your Customers

    conflict resolution and decision making skills assignment quizlet

  4. CONFLICT RESOLUTION LESSON: Low-Prep Social Skills Quiz Show

    conflict resolution and decision making skills assignment quizlet

  5. Conflict Resolution Skills: Examples and Assessment

    conflict resolution and decision making skills assignment quizlet

  6. Conflict Resolution Game and Cards for Lower Elementary

    conflict resolution and decision making skills assignment quizlet

VIDEO

  1. Analyzing Conflict Example 6

  2. My Conflict Resolution course is becoming popular

  3. Analyzing Conflict Example 2

  4. Conflict Resolution Skills

  5. nptel soft skills assignment 9 answers 2023

  6. Conflict Resolution Skills

COMMENTS

  1. Conflict Resolution and Decision-Making Skills Assignment

    Do you want to improve your conflict resolution and decision-making skills? Quizlet offers you a set of flashcards that cover various scenarios and questions related to these topics. You can study, test, and review your knowledge with Quizlet's interactive features. Learn how to communicate effectively, handle difficult situations, and make smart choices with Quizlet.

  2. Conflict Resolution and Decision-Making Skills Quiz Flashcards

    Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like In which situation is peer pressure harder to resist because of the need for a quick decision? A friend invites someone to a party a few days away. A student asks her partner to cheat during a test. A girlfriend wants her boyfriend to go to the same college. A person tells a friend they should try out for the play next month ...

  3. Conflict Resolution and Decision-Making Skills Instruction

    They should avoid contact with each other. Sullivan should throw away dirty items. - They should seek help from a mediator. Pauline has the option of studying for two more hours for her exam, watching television, or going to sleep. Select the correct order for each step in her decision-making process. _____________ , Pauline makes the decision ...

  4. Conflict Resolution and Decision-Making Skills Quiz Flashcards

    Conflict Resolution and Decision-Making Skills Quiz. 5.0 (6 reviews) Manuel and a colleague are working on a project together. Manuel wants to do the project one way and the colleague wants to do it another.

  5. Conflict Resolution and Decision-Making Skills Flashcards

    Conflict Resolution and Decision-Making Skills. 5.0 (1 review) Get a hint. Which skill is part of healthy communication? a. listening actively. b. avoiding eye contact. c. speaking aggressively. d. using crossed arms while talking. Click the card to flip 👆.

  6. Conflict Resolution and Decision-Making Skills Flashcards

    by being assertive. by being supportive of positive behaviors. by being humorous. by being quiet and submissive. by being supportive of positive behaviors. edgenuity quiz :) -bella murton Learn with flashcards, games, and more — for free.

  7. Final Exam Review Pt.10 Conflict Resolution and Decision-Making Skills

    A girlfriend wants her boyfriend to go to the same college. A person tells a friend they should try out for the play next month. A student asks her partner to cheat during a test. Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Manuel and a colleague are working on a project together. Manuel wants to do the project one way and ...

  8. Conflict Management: Definition, Strategies, and Styles

    From these approaches come five modes or styles of conflict management: 1. Accommodating. An accommodating mode of conflict management tends to be high in cooperation but low in assertiveness. When you use this style, you resolve the disagreement by sacrificing your own needs and desires for those of the other party.

  9. 5 Conflict Resolution Strategies

    Conflict resolution strategy #1: Recognize that all of us have biased fairness perceptions. Both parties to a conflict typically think they're right (and the other side is wrong) because they quite literally can't get out of our own heads.

  10. Conflict Management

    The most popular conflict resolution processes are: negotiation, mediation, conflict coaching, and arbitration (Rahim, 2002). Conflict resolution can also be accomplished by ruling by authorities. Integration of the different techniques sequentially or simultaneously has been shown to support optimal conflict resolution (Jones, 2016).

  11. 4 Conflict Resolution Worksheets For Your Practice

    These worksheets, by contrast, teach pathways to win-win outcomes. By guiding both conflict resolution and cooperative problem solving in the same process, solution building for any decision, issue, or dilemma becomes a combined effort. The idea of winning versus losing is removed, and a win-win outcome negates previous conflicts.

  12. Conflict Resolution Skills: What They Are and How to Use Them

    Share Read this article to learn about conflict resolution skills and strategies and how to use them. Handling conflict in any context is never fun. Oftentimes, issues become more complicated than they need if the people involved need more conflict resolution and general communication skills.

  13. 3 Types of Conflict and How to Address Them

    In particular, three types of conflict are common in organizations: task conflict, relationship conflict, and value conflict. Although open communication, collaboration, and respect will go a long way toward conflict management, the three types of conflict can also benefit from targeted conflict-resolution tactics.

  14. 14.3 Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups

    14.3 Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups Learning Objectives Discuss the common components and characteristics of problems. Explain the five steps of the group problem-solving process. Describe the brainstorming and discussion that should take place before the group makes a decision.

  15. Conflict Resolution and Decision Making

    Conflict Resolution and Decision Making. Any decisions taken at any level have to take into account the conflicting needs of the individuals who are affected by the decisions and hence conflict resolution is a part of the decision making process. How well the conflicts are resolved depends on the skill and leadership traits of the decision maker.

  16. Collaborative Leadership: Managing Constructive Conflict

    The Right Kind of Conflict. Effective leadership skills including tolerating and even promoting constructive dissent—disagreements that respectfully and productively challenge others' viewpoints.We often wrap up negotiations too quickly and leave value on the table because we fear disagreeing with others, according to Harvard Business School professor Francesca Gino.

  17. Conflict Resolution Strategies in Nursing

    Collaboration. This approach, committed to solving the problem by objectively evaluating differing views, can lead to creativity and new ideas. 3. Compromise. This bargaining strategy recognizes the importance of resolving the relationship and can provide a temporary solution. 4. Avoidance.

  18. Conflict Management Skills: Definition, Examples and Tips

    Here are six examples of skills used in managing conflict: Effective communication: Effective communication means you take notice of who you're communicating with and adjust your language and nonverbal cues. Refrain from using language that's hurtful or inappropriate.

  19. 6.2 Conflict and Interpersonal Communication

    14.3 Problem Solving and Decision Making in Groups. Chapter 15: Media, Technology, and Communication ... But it often only takes one person with conflict management skills to make an interaction more effective. Remember that it's not the quantity of conflict that determines a relationship's success; it's how the conflict is managed, and ...

  20. 7 Conflict Resolution Skills (and How To Use Them at Work)

    Active listening Active listening is a crucial part of conflict management and resolution. An employee might be approached by someone about a way in which their behavior is disruptive, and by actively listening, they can understand the origin of the complaint and what to do about it. 2. Bias for action

  21. How to Improve Your Conflict Resolution and Decision-Making Skills

    Improve your skills. The sixth and final step is to improve your skills in conflict resolution and decision-making. This means seeking feedback, reflecting on your strengths and weaknesses, and ...

  22. 3 Negotiation Strategies for Conflict Resolution

    Facilitating Conflict Resolution Processes with Negotiation Skills The following three negotiation strategies for conflict resolution from the realm of business negotiation can help parties mend their partnership, avoid the expense of a lawsuit, and even create value. 1. Avoid being provoked into an emotional response.

  23. Decision-Making and Problem-Solving: What's the Difference?

    Decision-making is the process of choosing a solution based on your judgment, situation, facts, knowledge or a combination of available data. The goal is to avoid potential difficulties. Identifying opportunity is an important part of the decision-making process. Making decisions is often a part of problem-solving.