essay on interpersonal conflict

Interpersonal Conflict: Definition and Analysis Essay

While being admittedly unpleasant, conflicts are virtually unavoidable and, therefore, inevitable components of everyday communication. The phenomenon of a conflict is generally defined as “an antagonistic state of opposition, disagreement or incompatibility between two or more parties” (Hussein & Al-Mmaary, 2019, p. 10). Therefore, the notion of a conflict encompasses a rather broad range of issues in personal interactions, from a misunderstanding to the feeling of mutual resentment. Typically, conflicts occur as a result of a mismatch in perspectives of the participants and the following unwillingness to compromise (Hussein & Al-Mmaary, 2019). However, conflicts represent a unique learning opportunity, namely, a chance to understand and accept others’ point of view. Thus, conflicts should be viewed not as the reasons for ceasing to communicate with opponents but, instead, as an opportunity to expand one’s perspectives and create a viable compromise.

In order to understand the nature of and core reasons for a conflict more accurately, one will need a profound theoretical perspective on the issue. Marx’s interpretation of a conflict concerns the problem of social inequality embedded into societal hierarchy and, therefore, leading to misalignment in perspectives (Tabassi et al., 2019). In other words, differences in perspectives, values, and beliefs of participants are seen as the main factors contributing to a conflict (Tabassi et al., 2019). Another theory views conflicts as a product of a mismatch in communication styles and individual differences of the parties resulting in misconceptions (Tabassi et al., 2019). Thus, the lack of mutual understanding appears to be the core premise for a conflict in all theoretical frameworks. Thus, communication behaviors that may lead to a conflict may involve direct aggression, consistent avoidance of specific issues, and the consistent avoidance of recognizing and validating the feelings of the opponents (Hussein & Al-Mmaary, 2019). Each of the specified techniques fails due to the failure to balance between the rational and emotional aspects of conflict management.

The effects that unresolved conflicts produce on relationships in different contexts are mostly detrimental. For instance, in the face-to-face setting, a conflict may cause further aggression and, possibly, physical altercations (Tabassi et al., 2019). In turn, virtual and cyber conflicts may cause instances of cyberbullying (Tabassi et al., 2019). Finally, in group communications, conflicts may cause long-lasting disagreements that cause lasting effects and impede productivity (Tabassi et al., 2019). Therefore, conflicts must be approached rationally and objectively by all participants involved.

In turn, the strategies that lead to the fastest resolution of a conflict require incorporating the acknowledgement of the participants’ emotional response to the subject matter and the development of a rational solution that will represent a compromise of all those involved. Specifically, to resolve a conflict, one needs to introduce a framework based on acknowledging one’s respect for the opponent’s viewpoint and the willingness to cooperate in order to find an option that satisfies all parties involved (Hussein & Al-Mmaary, 2019). Other conflict approaches, which are less successful and often lead to further issues, include accommodating opponents, confronting them, and avoiding a conflict (Tabassi et al., 2019). None of the three approaches above lead to an objective analysis of the situation and the effort to create a long-0lasting solution, which is why they should eb discarded.

By interpreting conflicts as the scenarios that involve a chance to learn more about others’ opinions and rationales for taking a specific stance on a certain issue, one can transform conflicts into unique learning opportunities. Therefore, confrontations and misunderstandings should be represented not as the basis for creating enmity between opponents but, instead, as the vehicle for engaging in cross-cultural exchange and learning about new perspectives and opinions. By engaging in behaviors that allow minimizing the extent of a conflict, one will ultimately achieve the most beneficial outcomes.

Hussein, A. F. F., & Al-Mamary, Y. H. S. (2019). Conflicts: Their types, and their negative and positive effects on organizations. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research , 8 (8), 10-13.

Tabassi, A. A., Abdullah, A., & Bryde, D. J. (2019). Conflict management, team coordination, and performance within multicultural temporary projects: Evidence from the construction industry . Project Management Journal , 50 (1), 101-114.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, June 24). Interpersonal Conflict: Definition and Analysis. https://ivypanda.com/essays/interpersonal-conflict-definition-and-analysis/

"Interpersonal Conflict: Definition and Analysis." IvyPanda , 24 June 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/interpersonal-conflict-definition-and-analysis/.

IvyPanda . (2023) 'Interpersonal Conflict: Definition and Analysis'. 24 June.

IvyPanda . 2023. "Interpersonal Conflict: Definition and Analysis." June 24, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/interpersonal-conflict-definition-and-analysis/.

1. IvyPanda . "Interpersonal Conflict: Definition and Analysis." June 24, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/interpersonal-conflict-definition-and-analysis/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Interpersonal Conflict: Definition and Analysis." June 24, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/interpersonal-conflict-definition-and-analysis/.

• Why Medicine Needs a Dose of Evolution?
• Eye-Path and Memory-Prediction Framework
• Sex Reassignment in Treating Gender Dysphoria: A Way to Psychological Well-Being
• Ethics Awareness Inventory Analysis
• Does Age Matter in Relationships?
• Resolving Interpersonal Conflicts Within the Organization
• Psychology of Aggression and Violence
• Demand and Supply
• Urban-Rural Variations in Health: Living in Greener Areas
• Evenin’ Air Blues
• Virtual Teams and Communication Tools
• Definition of Lie in Ericsson’s “The Ways We Lie”
• Plagiarism and Originality in Personal Understanding
• Communication – Communicating in the Digital Age
• Public Speaking as the Art of Communication

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.”

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

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).

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.

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
• 40th Anniversary Symposium
• Free Reports and Program Guides

Free Videos

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

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

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

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.

Interpersonal Conflict Resolution: Beyond Conflict Avoidance

Interpersonal conflict resolution and conflict management can be intimidating, but generally, avoidance only worsens conflict. here’s advice on how to become comfortable dealing with conflict..

By Katie Shonk — on February 20th, 2024 / Conflict Resolution

To hear some tell it, we are experiencing an epidemic of conflict avoidance, finding new ways to walk away from conflict rather than engaging in interpersonal conflict resolution. Ghosting, for example—ending a relationship by disappearing—has become common . Numerous tech companies are being criticized for laying off people via email rather than in person. Many people experience the pain of estrangement from family members, which can arise without warning or explanation. And whether you view the recently documented phenomenon of “ quiet quitting ” as destructive slacking or healthy boundary setting , it can manifest as avoidance of hard conversations and negotiations about workload.

There can be legitimate reasons for avoiding conflict, such as the need to break off an abusive relationship. But in many cases, interpersonal conflict resolution could help repair a relationship, to the benefit of all involved, or end it with less pain. Through a better understanding of conflict avoidance, we can become more comfortable with interpersonal conflict resolution at work and in our personal lives.

Claim your FREE copy: The New Conflict Management

In our FREE special report from the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School - The New Conflict Management: Effective Conflict Resolution Strategies to Avoid Litigation – renowned negotiation experts uncover unconventional approaches to conflict management that can turn adversaries into partners.

Why Do We Avoid Conflict?

We choose to avoid conflict for numerous reasons. “A lot of people anticipate that talking about how they feel is going to be a confrontation,” psychologist Jennice Vilhauer told the New York Times . “That mental expectation makes people want to avoid things that make them uncomfortable.” Relatedly, the fear of being emotionally vulnerable with others can lead us to avoid conflict and resist interpersonal conflict resolution.

Some people are especially prone to avoiding conflict. “Conflict avoidance is a type of people-pleasing behavior that typically arises from a deep-rooted fear of upsetting others,” according to Healthline . “Many of these tendencies can be traced back to growing up in an environment that was dismissive or hypercritical.”

Research showing that social anxiety is growing among young people worldwide could also help to explain a recent rise in conflict avoidance. And the lack of accountability created by modern technology may play a role. Whether we are laying off someone, leaving a job, or ending a romantic relationship, texts and emails allow us to avoid having such difficult conversations in real time, face-to-face.

 How Conflict Avoidance Harms Us

Conflict avoidance often harms us and others. When we avoid conflict with those we continue to interact with, we allow it to fester and grow. Imagine that you hear that you hurt a coworker’s feelings with a thoughtless remark. You feel awkward about the situation and unsure about how to bring it up. Conflict avoidance on both sides could lead your work relationship to grow uncomfortable and distant. By contrast, taking the coworker aside to discuss what happened and apologize would likely repair the relationship and set up productive future interactions.

“Avoiding conflict can compromise our resilience, mental health, and productivity in the long term,” writes Andrew Reiner for NBC News . By contrast, one study of over 2,000 people aged 33 to 84 found that those who intentionally resolved daily conflicts reported that their stress diminished. They also experienced fewer negative emotions than others in the study, and their positive emotions remained stable for longer periods of time.

Toward Interpersonal Conflict Resolution

How can we overcome the urge to avoid conflict and move toward engaging in interpersonal conflict resolution more frequently? Here are some guidelines:

Recognize the costs of avoidance. Look beyond the temporary sense of safety and calm that conflict avoidance can bring and recognize what you stand to lose from it—such as broken relationships, a damaged reputation, and strained interactions at work or at home.

Practice on smaller issues. If you’re used to sweeping conflict under the rug, interpersonal conflict resolution can feel deeply threatening. You might try to build your skills and confidence by opening up conversations about relatively small matters with those you trust the most. Positive experiences resolving minor issues, such as household chores that aren’t getting done, can equip you to take on bigger concerns.

Make a plan. Think through—and perhaps write down—the best way to cope with a conflict before reaching out to the other person or people involved. In particular, to get a broader perspective, consider how your actions—or inaction—might be affecting them.

Get help. A trusted friend or counselor might help you view the conflict more fully and determine the best way to manage it. You might also consider asking a third party, such as your boss, to help mediate the dispute, or consider formal mediation.

Set the foundation for collaboration and honesty. When approaching the person with whom you are in conflict, you might acknowledge the discomfort you feel before explaining why you believe it is important to talk things through. If you believe you have been wronged, rather than lashing out in anger, present your interpretation of the situation, and ask the other person to describe how they see things. If you’ve hurt the other person, take responsibility for your actions and be prepared to apologize before discussing how to move forward.

What other advice do you have for avoiding conflict and moving toward interpersonal conflict resolution?

Related Posts

• 3 Types of Conflict and How to Address Them
• Negotiation with Your Children: How to Resolve Family Conflicts
• What is Conflict Resolution, and How Does It Work?
• Conflict Styles and Bargaining Styles
• Value Conflict: What It Is and How to Resolve It

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.

Negotiation and Leadership

• Learn More about Negotiation and Leadership

NEGOTIATION MASTER CLASS

• Learn More about Harvard Negotiation Master Class

Negotiation Essentials Online

• Learn More about Negotiation Essentials Online

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

• Learn More about Beyond the Back Table

Select Your Free Special Report

• Beyond the Back Table September 2024 and February 2025 Program Guide
• Negotiation and Leadership Fall 2024 Program Guide
• Negotiation Essentials Online (NEO) 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

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

• Negotiation Examples: How Crisis Negotiators Use Text Messaging
• For Sellers, The Anchoring Effects of a Hidden Price Can Offer Advantages
• BATNA Examples—and What You Can Learn from Them
• Taylor Swift: Negotiation Mastermind?
• Power and Negotiation: Advice on First Offers
• Amazon–Whole Foods Negotiation: Did the Exclusive Courtship Move Too Fast?
• 10 Great Examples of Negotiation in Business
• The Process of Business Negotiation
• Contingency Contracts in Business Negotiations
• Sales Negotiation Techniques
• Police Negotiation Techniques from the NYPD Crisis Negotiations Team
• Famous Negotiations Cases – NBA and the Power of Deadlines at the Bargaining Table
• Negotiating Change During the Covid-19 Pandemic
• AI Negotiation in the News
• Crisis Communication Examples: What’s So Funny?
• Bargaining in Bad Faith: Dealing with “False Negotiators”
• Managing Difficult Employees, and Those Who Just Seem Difficult
• How to Deal with Difficult Customers
• Negotiating with Difficult Personalities and “Dark” Personality Traits
• Consensus-Building Techniques
• 7 Tips for Closing the Deal in Negotiations
• How Does Mediation Work in a Lawsuit?
• Dealmaking Secrets from Henry Kissinger
• Writing the Negotiated Agreement
• The Winner’s Curse: Avoid This Common Trap in Auctions
• What are the Three Basic Types of Dispute Resolution? What to Know About Mediation, Arbitration, and Litigation
• Four Conflict Negotiation Strategies for Resolving Value-Based Disputes
• The Door in the Face Technique: Will It Backfire?
• Three Questions to Ask About the Dispute Resolution Process
• Negotiation Case Studies: Google’s Approach to Dispute Resolution
• India’s Direct Approach to Conflict Resolution
• International Negotiations and Agenda Setting: Controlling the Flow of the Negotiation Process
• Overcoming Cultural Barriers in Negotiations and the Importance of Communication in International Business Deals
• Political Negotiation: Negotiating with Bureaucrats
• Government Negotiations: The Brittney Griner Case
• The Contingency Theory of Leadership: A Focus on Fit
• Directive Leadership: When It Does—and Doesn’t—Work
• How an Authoritarian Leadership Style Blocks Effective Negotiation
• Paternalistic Leadership: Beyond Authoritarianism
• Advantages and Disadvantages of Leadership Styles: Uncovering Bias and Generating Mutual Gains
• Undecided on Your Dispute Resolution Process? Combine Mediation and Arbitration, Known as Med-Arb
• Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Training: Mediation Curriculum
• What Makes a Good Mediator?
• Why is Negotiation Important: Mediation in Transactional Negotiations
• The Mediation Process and Dispute Resolution
• The Right Negotiation Environment: Your Place or Mine?
• Negotiation Skills: How to Become a Negotiation Master
• Dear Negotiation Coach: Should You Say Thank You for Concessions in Negotiations?
• Persuasion Tactics in Negotiation: Playing Defense
• Negotiation in International Relations: Finding Common Ground
• Ethics and Negotiation: 5 Principles of Negotiation to Boost Your Bargaining Skills in Business Situations
• Negotiation Journal celebrates 40th anniversary, new publisher, and diamond open access in 2024
• 10 Negotiation Training Skills Every Organization Needs
• Trust in Negotiation: Does Gender Matter?
• Use a Negotiation Preparation Worksheet for Continuous Improvement
• Negotiating a Salary When Compensation Is Public
• How to Negotiate a Higher Salary after a Job Offer
• How to Negotiate Pay in an Interview
• How to Negotiate a Higher Salary
• Renegotiate Salary to Your Advantage
• Check Out the International Investor-State Arbitration Video Course
• Teaching with Multi-Round Simulations: Balancing Internal and External Negotiations
• Check Out Videos from the PON 40th Anniversary Symposium
• Camp Lemonnier: Negotiating a Lease Agreement for a Key Military Base in Africa
• New Great Negotiator Case and Video: Christiana Figueres, former UNFCCC Executive Secretary
• Win-Win Negotiation: Managing Your Counterpart’s Satisfaction
• Win-Lose Negotiation Examples
• How to Negotiate Mutually Beneficial Noncompete Agreements
• What is a Win-Win Negotiation?
• How to Win at Win-Win Negotiation

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

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.

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

How to Navigate Conflict with a Coworker

Seven strategies to help you make progress with even the most difficult people

Interpersonal conflicts are common in the workplace, and it’s easy to get caught up in them. But that can lead to reduced creativity, slower and worse decision-making, and even fatal mistakes. So how can we return to our best selves? Having studied conflict management and resolution over the past several years, the author outlines seven principles to help you work more effectively with difficult colleagues: (1) Understand that your perspective is not the only one possible. (2) Be aware of and question any unconscious biases you may be harboring. (3) View the conflict not as me-versus-them but as a problem to be jointly solved. (4) Understand what outcome you’re aiming for. (5) Be very judicious in discussing the issue with others. (6) Experiment with behavior change to find out what will improve the situation. (7) Make sure to stay curious about the other person and how you can more effectively work together.

Early in my career I took a job reporting to someone who had a reputation for being difficult. I’ll call her Elise. Plenty of people warned me that she would be hard to work with, but I thought I could handle it. I prided myself on being able to get along with anyone. I didn’t let people get under my skin. I could see the best in everyone.

• Amy Gallo is a contributing editor at Harvard Business Review, cohost of the Women at Work podcast , and the author of two books: Getting Along: How to Work with Anyone (Even Difficult People) and the HBR Guide to Dealing with Conflict . She writes and speaks about workplace dynamics. Watch her TEDx talk on conflict and follow her on LinkedIn . amyegallo

Partner Center

• 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. , & Müller, 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: 28 April 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.39.149.46]
• 185.39.149.46

Character limit 500 /500

Managing Conflict Resolution Effectively

How to set boundaries and act assertively in conflict..

Posted January 11, 2024 | Reviewed by Jessica Schrader

• Assertiveness and boundaries are a powerful combination for managing conflict.
• When you are being nonjudgmental and cultivating compassion, collaboration increases.
• Practice active listening to understand your partner while finding common ground.

Conflict resolution is a way for two or more parties to find a peaceful solution to a disagreement among them. When a dispute arises, often the best course of action is assertive communication that resolves the disagreement while maintaining a respectful relationship.

When conflicts are managed constructively, it can help build trust in relationships. Respectfully, directly, and openly discussing opposing perspectives and resolving conflicts collaboratively can create a sense of unity, shared purpose, and mutual respect within the relationship.

Assertiveness and boundaries are essential skills for managing conflict in any situation. Whether it is at work, in your relationships, or in your team, you need to be able to express your feelings, thoughts, needs, and opinions respectfully and confidently.

What is assertive communication?

Assertive communication is a style of communication based on honesty, respect, and confidence . Assertiveness is the ability to express feelings and thoughts openly and to directly defend your rights while respecting the rights of others. It is about taking care of your own needs and wants while considering the needs and wants of others. It is the ability to take responsibility without being controlling. Assertiveness is the balanced space between surrender and aggressiveness. It is not about overpowering or dominating, but rather about finding balance, harmony, and mutual understanding.

Why is assertive communication important for dealing with conflict?

Assertive communication is an essential skill for conflict resolution, as it enables you to express your needs in a respectful manner while also collaboratively resolving your disagreement with your partner. Assertiveness helps build trust and rapport with your partner, empowering your partner while enhancing your self-esteem and confidence. In addition, assertive communication minimizes stress , while ensuring your rights and boundaries are respected.

Assertive communication is important because it ensures that you deliver your points in a constructive way—respectful, clear, direct, and kind. When you communicate in that manner, it will naturally help diffuse the conflict, establish healthy boundaries, and also prevent any issue from escalating.

What are boundaries?

Boundaries are the limits and rules you set for yourself and others in your interactions. They reflect your values, preferences, and expectations and help you define what is acceptable or unacceptable for you. Boundaries help individuals establish limits and protect their emotional and physical well-being. Without boundaries, individuals may not feel safe or secure in their relationships or environments.

Set healthy boundaries

Setting and maintaining healthy boundaries with others is a skill you can learn and practice. To do so, identify your boundaries—what you want and need, what makes you feel comfortable and uncomfortable, and your non-negotiables. Then communicate them clearly, directly, and respectfully to others. Be consistent and firm, but also flexible and open to feedback. If someone crosses or violates your boundaries, let them know how you feel and what you expect. Take action to protect yourself if they persist or disrespect your boundaries. Lastly, respect the boundaries of others. Ask for permission, listen to their cues, and accept their “no” without judgment, pressure, or manipulation.

Integrate assertiveness and boundaries to resolve conflict

Handling conflict with boundaries and assertiveness is not always easy, but it is achievable and beneficial. To do so, identify your state of mind, feelings, and needs, and prepare your statements. Choose an appropriate time and location to have a discussion about the conflict and make sure that both parties are ready and willing to converse. During the talk, objectively focus on the issue rather than the person. Avoid personal attacks, put down, or allegations, and use “I” statements to express your perspective. Stay calm and listen with curiosity to understand your partner while finding common ground. Respect both of your boundaries and rights while being willing to compromise and negotiate. Stay open-minded and make sure you maintain a caring relationship with your partner regardless of conflict and its outcome. Finally, thank the other person for their time and effort, summarizing what you agreed upon, expressing appreciation, and hoping for a stronger relationship and a bright future.

Practice active listening

To identify the source of the conflict, you have to pay attention and listen carefully. To listen actively, make sure you understand your partner and paraphrase the other party's points.

Pay attention to nonverbal signals and use appropriate body language , such as nodding your head, to show interest and to clarify that you're following them.

Listen without interruption to what the other person has to say. Aspire to be objective and clear. Then, ask questions to make sure each side understands what the other person thinks, feels, and wants.

Do that before speaking

Before you communicate, ask yourself the following questions about what you wish to say:

• Is it true?
• Is it kind?
• Is it useful?
• Is it necessary?
• Is it going to land well?
• Is this the right time to say it?

If one of the answers is no, consider not saying it. In these moments, silence is more productive than words. Be patient and once you find the time when the answers to these questions are yes, this is the time to speak.

7 steps for better conflict resolution

• Define the source of the conflict. Take your time to reveal the true needs of each party. The greater knowledge you have about the cause of the problem, the more easily you can resolve it.
• Find a common goal. Make similarities the starting point of finding a creative solution. Be open and curious to continually find common ground throughout the entire conflict resolution process.
• Establish safety. Creative conflict resolution requires that all parties feel safe enough to not only share what they need but to challenge each other's ideas without emotional escalation.
• Recognize your part. Be accountable and objectively assess your share in the conflict. Acknowledge your role in the problem and take responsibility for it.
• Empathize with your partner. Demonstrate to your partner that you understand their side while considering it. When you are being non-judgmental and cultivate compassion the fear of losing diminishes and collaboration increases.
• Review options. Remind yourself of your positive intention and what you want to achieve before you start the discussion. Be creative and discuss possible options while looking for solutions that benefit all parties.
• Discover a win-win solution. This is the ultimate goal—to agree on an option that benefits both sides to some extent. When one party wins and another party loses, the outcome does not resolve the underlying causes of the conflict.

Conflicts and disagreements are unavoidable. It is important to realize that the benefits of conflict resolution extend beyond resolving disagreements, contributing significantly to personal growth, emotional well-being, and healthy relationships.

Moshe Ratson, MBA, MFT, is a psychotherapist and executive coach in NYC. He specializes in personal and professional development, anger management, emotional intelligence, infidelity issues, and couples and marriage therapy.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Teletherapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Therapy Center NEW
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

• Coronavirus Disease 2019
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• school Campus Bookshelves
• menu_book Bookshelves
• perm_media Learning Objects
• login Login
• how_to_reg Request Instructor Account
• hub Instructor Commons
• Download Page (PDF)
• Download Full Book (PDF)
• Periodic Table
• Physics Constants
• Scientific Calculator
• Reference & Cite
• Tools expand_more
• Readability

selected template will load here

This action is not available.

13.2: Power and Conflict

• Last updated
• Save as PDF
• Page ID 184678

• Keith Green, Ruth Fairchild, Bev Knudsen, & Darcy Lease-Gubrud
• Ridgewater College via Minnesota State Colleges and Universities

Learning Objectives

After completing this section, students should be able to:

• define interpersonal conflict and the influence of the relational and content dimensions.
• identify the six types of interpersonal conflict.
• describe the five ways interpersonal conflict is typically managed.
• illustrate best practices for conflict resolution.
• identify the principles and types of power in interpersonal relationships.

When humans interact, there will be differences of opinions. Conflict , or different ways of viewing the same event or idea , is a perfectly normal part of the human condition. Each of us lives within our own field of experience and, as a result, we will have a range of perceptions on the same issue. Since conflict is normal and to be expected, the core issue for effective interpersonal communication is how conflict is addressed.

While it may seem counter-intuitive, conflict can actually be a healthy component of a quality relationship, depending on the type of conflict and how it is managed. Conflict can occur in the content dimension, the relationship dimension, or in both.

Conflict in the content dimension means we are disagreeing about an issue, a plan, an action, or something outside of the relationship itself . Perhaps we are trying to determine what movie to go see, whose parents to be with for a holiday, or where to go on vacation. A marker of content conflict is that it tends to be less emotionally charged than relationship conflict.

Conflict in the relationship dimension means we are disagreeing about the nature of the relationship itself. Perhaps she feels he does not value her, or he feels she is too controlling. Infidelities, disrespect, unresolved issues, anger, resentments, power struggles, or other such issues challenge the health of the relationship itself. Emotions are high in relationship conflict as we feel fear, insecurity, uncertainty, and rejection. Relationship conflict is very personal, while content conflict can be more impersonal.

A common scenario is where both dimensions are involved. Often when couples disagree in the content dimension, the conflict is actually a manifestation of something in the relationship dimension. Something as innocent as what movie to go see may actually be masking concerns about power and shared decision-making.

When partners address conflict, assuming it is done in a healthy way, the relationship can be strengthened and deepened. Some benefits of addressing and managing conflict include:

• Releasing tension: One person might be fretting over some issue or perceived insult. By processing the issue, the problem can be resolved before growing and festering. Instead of built up frustrations coming out in negative ways, the tension can be released in a healthy way.
• Learning to resolve conflict: As partners address conflict, they are learning the best way for them to handle conflict within the specific relationship. They can use the knowledge to address conflict later, always learning more about how best to handle it. This can be a very positive cycle of learning > applying > learning. The better the partners are at resolving conflict, the less relationship harm will come from the conflict.
• Growing closer: When partners make a commitment to address conflict, they are making a commitment to reinforce the relationship itself. Through conflict resolution, they engage in honest self-disclosure which can deepen and strengthen the relationship.

Types of Conflict

Ego Conflict : One of the most frustrating and destructive types of conflict is ego conflict. In an ego conflict, everything is taken very personally. The issue becomes “I want to win, and I want you to lose,” not resolving the conflict in a healthy manner. The person, or people, get defensive and the focus shifts from “resolving” to “winning.” In ego conflict, comments are taken as personal insults and defensiveness quickly arises.

Pseudo Conflict : Pseudo conflict is conflict that is superficial and easily resolved like a misunderstanding, misstatement, or other such minor disagreement. An example of a psuedo-conflict is if he says, “I thought you said 3:30,” and she replies, “No, it is at 3:00." Note how easily it is resolved, and how once it is resolved, the issue disappears quickly.

Belief (or Fact) Conflict : Beliefs are very basic views of what is true or false, exists or does not exist. For example, if one person believes a god exists and judges one's behavior, and the other person believes there is no god, they have a belief conflict. Belief conflicts do not have to be religious. They can be about a range of issues. For example, if he believes processed food is dangerous, yet she believes processed food is safe, they will have disagreements over what to eat. Often called “factual conflicts,” we disagree over what is true or accurate information.

Value (or Attitude) Conflict : Values refer to how we rank issues or actions in relative importance. We use our values as ways to measure the importance of things. For example, a young family with small children buying a new vehicle will most likely place safety as a very high value. When they look for a vehicle, safety ratings may play a key role in their final decision. However, for a single, young adult, the look of the vehicle may be more important than safety. Since our values vary, we consider the importance of things differently. We get into a value conflict when our relative value rankings do not match .

Action (or Policy) Conflict : Actions refer to behaviors or policies. An action conflict is a disagreement over what to do. For example, if Ruth and her husband have a disagreement over where to go on vacation, that is an action conflict. They may both agree they want to go to Glacier National Park, but disagree on where to stay, what to do, or how to devote their time. When parents run into issues disciplining children, they both agree they want to do what is best for the child, but they may come into conflict over which actions are most beneficial.

Meta-Conflict : A meta-conflict is a disagreement over how the conflict is being addressed . When a parent says, “Don’t talk back to me,” it is a meta-conflict; the issue is how the conflict is being addressed, not what the conflict is about. If one person says to the other, “Can I have my say?” it is a comment on how the conflict is being managed. The meta-conflict layers on top of the original conflict.

Managing Conflict

Before addressing specific ways to handle conflict, it is important to address defensiveness . Defensiveness arises when we feel our egos are being threatened. In effect, we put up a protective barrier to any incoming message, determined to repel, divert, or combat it in order to protect our personal sense of value and worth . Once we engage in defensiveness, behaviors will be based on protecting ego versus having honest, open communication. For example, having taught for 30 years, when someone suggests a better way to teach, Keith tends to become defensive. After all, he knows what he is doing, so he tends to minimize or ignore any suggestions. It does not matter how good the suggestions are. In Keith's drive to protect his ego, deflecting the criticism is more important than considering the other person may have a good point.

In resolving conflict, it is important we avoid triggering defensiveness in others, and equally important we not become defensive. As soon as defensiveness kicks in, any attempt at healthy conflict resolution is futile.

The way we manage conflict depends on a number of factors, but according to Froemling, Grice and Skinner (2011), we can summarize these as “concern for self” and “concern for other.” As shown in image 2, if we have a strong concern for ourselves and getting what we want or need, we will tend to manage conflict by pushing for things to go our way. If we have a stronger concern for the other, we will tend to manage conflict by focusing on what they want. We also can balance the two concerns, leading to other conflict management styles. The five common conflict management styles are:

Withdrawing/Avoiding : If we find the conflict unmerited, we may withdraw or avoid handling the conflict at all. We tend to withdraw when the conflict is not worth the tension and more trouble to engage in conflict management. If we predict broaching the subject will cause more difficulty than we are willing to engage in, we may withdraw. The danger with withdrawing is the conflict may become a larger issue if not addressed initially.

Accommodating : We accommodate when we let the other person have their way, regardless of what we want. Sometimes we do this because we are more concerned about the other party, or we have no strong feeling on the issue. If we do accommodate all the time, we risk being taken advantage of. The other person gets accustomed to getting their way, and we can start to resent the expectation.

Compromising : A compromise means both parties give and take to reach an acceptable decision . Neither party gets everything they want, but is willing to settle for as much as they can get. While compromise is often the best we can do, the danger is since neither party is fully satisfied, the frustrations over what was given up may grow and become intrusive.

Forcing : Forcing is making the other person do as we wish. In this case, getting our way is more important than the other person, and perhaps even the relationship itself, so we insist things be done as we wish. The danger with forcing is the potential for damage to the relationship, either temporarily or long-term.

Collaborating : When the parties have a sense of mutual respect and concern, more focused on maintaining the health of the relationship than just winning, they can engage in collaboration. They work jointly to find a mutual decision with which both are comfortable. This is not compromise; no one is giving up anything. They are coming to a common agreement on the best resolution for both.

Conflict Resolution

Many of us do not like addressing conflict; we tend to fall back on whatever conflict management style we are most comfortable with using. The list below outlines a relatively simple and straightforward way to talk about conflict in a healthy manner:

• Let the other person express their feelings and concerns on the issue without interruption, except when necessary to ask for clarification.
• Paraphrase back to the person and try to understand their concerns. This is a perception-check, to make sure we understood correctly and demonstrates we are listening and understanding their position.
• Express our feelings and concerns.
• Identify the core point of difference.
• Discuss the core difference, working to understand each other’s point of view.
• Identify and implement a solution acceptable to both people.

While engaging in the process, it is very important to minimize emotion and avoid defensiveness. Once emotion and defensiveness take over the interaction, the chances of resolving the conflict are minimalized. We must also operate with integrity, which means we say what we need to say, and we act consistently with what we say. If we fail to express our thoughts completely, we may find the resolution is superficial or not really targeted on our concerns. Once we and our partner reach a resolution, it is important to follow through. Agreeing to something, then not following through, inflames the conflict, versus resolving it.

Sometimes a conflict is significant but difficult to solve or even to talk about. When the issue and the relationship are important, bringing in a mediator may help. A mediator must be a neutral and impartial party. Friends or family members are not qualified to mediate because of their inherent bias toward the situation or the parties. Gaining an outside perspective may help those in conflict to see the situation anew and work toward collaborating on a resolution.

Power and Influence

In all relationships, there are power dynamics. No matter how equal we may feel, power does come into play. Power is our ability to influence or control another person . It may be as mild as trying to persuade our friends to see the movie we want to see or as forceful as loudly demanding a refund for an improperly cooked steak. Power is not inherently bad; how it is used is the core issue.

Dynamics about power to keep in mind include:

• Power is perceived. When a person has power over us, it is because we perceive the person to have power over us; we give them that power. For example, a boss has power over us because we choose to work in that setting. A spouse has power over us in some areas because we respect their expertise in those areas. Police officers have power because society gives them power. If we let our fear of a person control us, we are giving power to the person to control us. This does not mean we can simply take away the power without consequence. If we decide we do not respect the power our boss has over us, the consequence may be losing our job. If we do not respect the power we have collectively given police officers, we may find ourselves in jail. The power a person has over us is something we give to them.
• Power follows the principle of least interest. The person with the least interest in the resolution has the most power. The more we want something, the more power we give the other person . If Jon really wants Dianne to like him, but Dianne is only mildly interested, he will do whatever she asks; Dianne has a lot of power over Jon. If Ian is considering a new vehicle, but is in no rush to buy, he has power over the salesperson. As long as Ian is comfortable walking away from a deal, he has the advantage. If Ian really wants to buy the specific car today, the salesperson will have more power over him.
• Power is used intentionally and unintentionally. Nearly every day we are in situations in which decisions need to be made in conjunction with others. We reason and plead and negotiate to get things accomplished, to get our way or to avoid unpleasant tasks. Friends influence each other, as do parents and children. For example, on Friday night, Elise talks Blake into going bowling instead of watching a movie. Twelve-year old Mara does not eat the new cereal her dad buys, so he does not buy it again.
• The more power we have, the less we have to abide by rules, norms, and expectations. No matter how egalitarian (equal) we like to think we are, people with more power have the ability to set and alter rules and norms. Humans are very status oriented; we quickly determine our "place" in the order of things. Leaders at the top, set the expectations and the followers of lower status, are expected to adhere to those expectations. In social groups, those higher in status can suggest things that those of lower status would be shunned for doing. In the workplace the rules seem to apply differently as one goes up the organization’s hierarchy. In the classroom, instructors make rules students have to abide by, and the instructor can change the rules as they see fit.
• “With great power comes great responsibility.” This quotation (often attributed to Spiderman, but actually comes from Voltaire in 18th century France) means people who have higher power have a greater ethical obligation to use their power wisely. Parents have enormous power over their children, and we expect parents to use their power thoughtfully, in a healthy manner, and to raise a responsible person. Unfortunately we hear of parents abusing the power, through physical, sexual, emotional, or mental abuse. In a classroom, an instructor has a great responsibility to treat all students fairly and equitably, minimizing favoritism, and working to insure all students have the same opportunities to succeed. Police officers are held to very high standards of conduct due to the sheer power they have over citizens. As power increases, our obligations to use power ethically and judiciously also increases.

Types of Power

Verderber and MacGeorge (2016) identify five types of power we encounter as we navigate our relationships.

Coercive power is using threats to get one's way . Coercion is threatening harm, either physically or psychologically, to force the other person to do as we wish. The classic physical threat, “Do this or I will hit you,” is physical coercion, while statements such as, “If you loved me…” is psychological coercion. The degree of coercive power one has depends on two variables: how much the other person fears the threat, and how likely the threat will be followed through. If a parent regularly threatens to take away a favorite toy to get a child to act a certain way, yet never does, the likelihood of the threat coming true diminishes, the power diminishes. If the child does not like the toy, the threat is less powerful.

Reward power is using the offer of some desired item or action to influence a person’s actions . Many students are motivated by this sort of power, wanting the reward of a high grade for their work. Offering a worker a bonus for high quality work can serve to motivate the individual to higher levels of performance. Reward power is only as strong as the desire for the reward. If a student is perfectly happy with a C, the instructor has far less reward power over them than over the “gotta get an A” type of student.

Referent power is interpersonal power . Some people have power over us because we like them and want to have a relationship with them. We are far more likely to do as our partner asks because we want to maintain an intimate relationship with them. With other, more transient relationships, the degree of referent power is minimal. Referent power is strongest with those we wish to be connected with, and with whom the relationship is very important. Social groups usually have a leader or two. The other members will typically go along with the ideas and suggestions of the leader to stay in the group, be accepted, and feel a sense of connection and belongingness to the group.

Legitimate power is power given by an institution, social structure, or governmental entity . We believe the source of the power has the authority to confer power on individuals. We perceive police officers having power because our judicial system attributes power to them. We perceive teachers as having power over students because our educational system defines the power relationship in that way. Players accept that sports officials, as in image 7, have power due to their defined role in the game. Power is still given, but in this case it is given by an organization, not an individual.

Expert power is power given to people we think know more than we do about specific topics . We are more likely to trust and be influenced by our physicians because we believe they know far more than we do about proper medical care. If the doctor says we should take a medication for our health, we will most likely do so. However, if our perception of the doctor's expertise drops, our willingness to act on the directions given also falls; we are giving less power because we see the doctor as less of an expert. We may have experienced a person who presents themselves as an expert, but as we got to know them, we realized they did not know as much as they appeared to. As a result, the amount of expert power we give them drops.

Key Concepts

The terms and concepts students should be familiar with from this section include:

• Content dimension and Relationship dimension
• Defensiveness
• Withdrawing/Avoiding
• Accommodating
• Compromising
• Collaborating
• Conflict resolution
• Principle of least interest
• Used intentionally and unintentionally
• Adherence to rules, norms, and expectations
• Great responsibility

Froemling, K.K., Grice, G.L., & Skinner, J.F. (2011). Communication: The handbook. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Verderber, K.S., & MacGeorge, E. L. (2016). Inter-Act: Interpersonal communication concept, skills, and contexts (14th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

9.1 Understanding Conflict

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Describe the key elements of conflict.
• Explain different levels at which conflict can occur.
• Summarize stages in the conflict process.
• Recognize characteristics of conflict escalation.

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, friendships, and in the workplace. In this module, we will introduce some introductory concepts and explore why understanding conflict is important for your career success and interpersonal relationships.

There are many different definitions of conflict existing in the literature. For our purposes, conflict  occurs in interactions in which there are real or perceived incompatible goals, scarce resources, or opposing viewpoints. Conflict can vary in severity from mild to grievous and can be expressed verbally or nonverbally along a continuum ranging from a nearly imperceptible cold shoulder to a very obvious blowout.

Elements of Conflict

There are six elements to a conflict described by Rice (2000):

• Conflict is inevitable.  Because we do not all think and act the same, disagreements will occur.
• Conflict by itself is neither good nor bad.  Leaving conflict unresolved can result in negative outcomes. It is important to work toward resolving conflict and achieving a positive outcome.
• Conflict is a process. We choose how to respond to others and can escalate or deescalate a conflict.
• Conflict and avoid conflict both consume energy.  The longer we avoid working on a resolution for a conflict with someone else, the more energy we spend on it.
• Conflict has elements of both content and feeling.  While conflict often arises from a specific behavior or action, it often involves underlying emotions. For example, if your significant other always left dirty dishes in the sink, despite your requests to rinse and put them in the dishwasher, you may feel like your partner doesn’t respect you. This may lead to a conflict over doing the dishes.
• We can choose to be proactive or reactive in a conflict. Taking a proactive approach to resolving conflict when it arises can lead to more positive outcomes.

Other Key Terms

Some people use the terms conflict, competition, dispute, and violence interchangeably. While these concepts are similar, they aren’t exactly the same. We will define each of these terms to ensure that we have a shared understanding of how they are used.

Dispute  is a term for a disagreement between parties. Typically, a dispute is adversarial in nature. While conflict can be hostile, it isn’t always . Dispute also sometimes carries with it a legal connotation.

Competition  is a rivalry between two groups or two individuals over an outcome that they both seek. In a competition there is a winner and a loser. Parties involved in a conflict may or may not view the situation as a competition for resources. Ideally, parties in a conflict will work together rather than compete.

The term  interpersonal violence  is also not synonymous with conflict. Although some conflict situations escalate to include acts of aggression and hostility, interpersonal violence involves acts of aggression such as an intent to harm or actual physical or psychological harm to another or their property. Ideally, conflict will be productive, respectful, and non-violent.

Levels of Conflict

In addition to different views of conflict, there exist several different levels of conflict. By level of conflict, we are referring to the number of individuals involved in the conflict. That is, is the conflict within just one person, between two people, between two or more groups, or between two or more organizations? Both the causes of a conflict and the most effective means to resolve it can be affected by level. Four levels can be identified: within an individual (intrapersonal conflict), between two parties (interpersonal conflict), between groups (intergroup conflict), and between organizations (inter-organizational conflict) (Figure 9.1).

Intrapersonal Conflict

Intrapersonal conflict  arises within a person. In the workplace, this is often the result of competing motivations or roles. We often hear about someone who has an approach-avoidance conflict; that is, they are both attracted to and repelled by the same object. Similarly, a person can be attracted to two equally appealing alternatives, such as two good job offers (approach-approach conflict) or repelled by two equally unpleasant alternatives, such as the threat of being fired if one fails to identify a coworker guilty of breaking company rules (avoidance-avoidance conflict). Intrapersonal conflict can arise because of differences in roles.

A  role conflict  occurs when there are competing demands on our time, energy, and other resources. For example, a conflict may arise if you’re the head of one team but also a member of another team. We can also have conflict between our roles at work and those roles that we hold in our personal lives.

Another type of intrapersonal conflict involves  role ambiguity . Perhaps you’ve been given the task of finding a trainer for a company’s business writing training program. You may feel unsure about what kind of person to hire—a well-known but expensive trainer or a local, unknown but low-priced trainer. If you haven’t been given guidelines about what’s expected, you may be wrestling with several options.

Interpersonal Conflict

Interpersonal conflict  is among individuals such as coworkers, a manager and an employee, or CEOs and their staff. Many companies suffer because of interpersonal conflicts as it results in loss of productivity and employee turnover. According to one estimate, 31.9% of CEOs resigned from their jobs because they had conflict with the board of directors (Whitehouse, 2008). Such conflicts often tend to get highly personal because only two parties are involved and each person embodies the opposing position in the conflict. Hence, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the opponent’s position and the person. Keeping conflicts centered around ideas rather than individual differences is important in avoiding a conflict escalation.

Intergroup Conflict

Intergroup conflict  is conflict that takes place among different groups and often involves disagreement over goals, values, or resources. Types of groups may include different departments, employee unions, or management in a company or competing companies that supply the same customers. Departments may conflict over budget allocations, unions and management may disagree over work rules, and suppliers may conflict with each other on the quality of parts.

Merging two groups together can lead to friction between the groups—especially if there are scarce resources to be divided among the group. For example, in what has been called “the most difficult and hard-fought labor issue in an airline merger,” Canadian Air and Air Canada pilots were locked into years of personal and legal conflict when the two airlines’ seniority lists were combined following the merger (Stoykewch, 2003). Seniority is a valuable and scarce resource for pilots, because it helps to determine who flies the newest and biggest planes, who receives the best flight routes, and who is paid the most. In response to the loss of seniority, former Canadian Air pilots picketed at shareholder meetings, threatened to call in sick, and had ongoing conflicts with pilots from Air Canada. The history of past conflicts among organizations and employees makes new deals challenging. As the Canadian airline WestJet is now poised to takeover Sunwing, WestJet has stated that they will respect existing union agreements (Mallees, 2022). Intergroup conflict can be the most complicated form of conflict because of the number of individuals involved. Coalitions can form and result in an “us-against-them” mentality. Here, too, is an opportunity for groups to form insulated ways of thinking and problems solving, thus allowing groupthink to develop and thrive.

Interorganizational Conflict

Finally, we can see  interorganizational conflic t in disputes between two companies in the same industry (for example, a disagreement between computer manufactures over computer standards), between two companies in different industries or economic sectors (for example, a conflict between real estate interests and environmentalists over land use planning), and even between two or more countries (for example, a trade dispute between the United States and Russia). In each case, both parties inevitably feel the pursuit of their goals is being frustrated by the other party.

Types of Conflict

If we are to try to understand conflict, we need to know what type of conflict is present. At least four types of conflict can be identified:

• Goal conflict  can occur when one person or group desires a different outcome than others do. This is simply a clash over whose goals are going to be pursued.
• Cognitive conflict  can result when one person or group holds ideas or opinions that are inconsistent with those of others. Often cognitive conflicts are rooted in differences in attitudes, beliefs, values, and worldviews, and ideas may be tied to deeply held culture, politics, and religion. This type of conflict emerges when one person’s or group’s feelings or emotions (attitudes) are incompatible with those of others.
• Affective conflict  is seen in situations where two individuals simply don’t get along with each other.
• Behavioral conflict  exists when one person or group does something (i.e., behaves in a certain way) that is unacceptable to others. Dressing for work in a way that “offends” others and using profane language are examples of behavioral conflict.

Each of these types of conflict is usually triggered by different factors, and each can lead to very different responses by the individual or group. It is important to note that there are many types of conflict and that not all researchers use this same four-type classification. For example, Gallo (2015) has characterized conflict as being rooted in relationships, tasks (what to do), process (how to do things), or status. Regardless, when we find ourselves in a conflict situation, it can be helpful to try and take a step back and identify what type of conflict it is. It can also be helpful to acknowledge that what may look like a goal conflict may actually also have components of affective or cognitive conflict.

The Conflict Process

The most commonly accepted model of the conflict process consists of four stages: (1) frustration, (2) conceptualization, (3) behavior, and (4) outcome (Thomas, 1976)(Figure 9.2).

Stage 1: Frustration

As we have seen, conflict situations originate when an individual or group feels frustration in the pursuit of important goals. This frustration may be caused by a wide variety of factors, including disagreement over performance goals, failure to get a promotion or pay raise, a fight over scarce economic resources, new rules or policies, and so forth. In fact, conflict can be traced to frustration over almost anything a group or individual cares about.

Stage 2: Conceptualization

In stage 2, the conceptualization stage of the model, parties to the conflict attempt to understand the nature of the problem, what they themselves want as a resolution, what they think their opponents want as a resolution, and various strategies they feel each side may employ in resolving the conflict. This stage is really the problem-solving and strategy phase. For instance, when management and union negotiate a labor contract, both sides attempt to decide what is most important and what can be bargained away in exchange for these priority needs.

Stage 3: Behavior

The third stage in Thomas’s model is actual behavior. As a result of the conceptualization process, parties to a conflict attempt to implement their resolution mode by competing or accommodating in the hope of resolving problems. A major task here is determining how best to proceed strategically. That is, what tactics will the party use to attempt to resolve the conflict? Thomas has identified five modes for conflict resolution: (1) competing, (2) collaborating, (3) compromising, (4) avoiding, and (5) accommodating. We will discuss these modes in further detail in the next section.

Stage 4: Outcome

Finally, as a result of efforts to resolve the conflict, both sides determine the extent to which a satisfactory resolution or outcome has been achieved. Where one party to the conflict does not feel satisfied or feels only partially satisfied, the seeds of discontent are sown for a later conflict. One unresolved conflict episode can easily set the stage for a second episode. Managerial action aimed at achieving quick and satisfactory resolution is vital; failure to initiate such action leaves the possibility (more accurately, the probability) that new conflicts will soon emerge.

Conflict Escalation

Many academics and conflict resolution practitioners have observed predictable patterns in the way conflict escalates. Conflict is often discussed as though it is a separate entity, and in fact it is true that an escalating dispute may seem to take on a life of its own. Conflict will often escalate beyond reason unless a conscious effort is made to end it.

Figure 9.3 is called the conflict escalation tornado. It demonstrates how conflict can quickly escalate out of control. By observing and listening to individuals in dispute, it is often possible to determine where they are in the escalation process and anticipate what might occur next. In doing so, one can develop timely and appropriate approaches to halt the process.

Culture and Conflict

Culture is an important context to consider when studying conflict. 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.

• Conflict occurs in interaction in which there are real or perceived incompatible goals, scarce resources, or opposing viewpoints.
• Conflict will inevitably occur and isn’t inherently good or bad.
• Conflict can occur at different levels: within individuals, between individuals, between groups, and between organizations.
• The four types of conflict are: goal conflict, cognitive conflict, affective conflict, and behavioral conflict.
• The conflict process consists of four stages: frustration, conceptualization, behaviour, and outcomes.
• Culture influences how we engage in conflict based on our cultural norms regarding individualism or collectivism and concern for self-face or other-face.

Discussion Questions

• Think of your most recent communication with another individual. Write down this conversation and, within the conversation, identify the components of the communication process.
• Think about the different types of noise that affect communication. Can you list some examples of how noise can make communication worse?
• We all do something well in relation to communication. What are your best communication skills? In what areas would you like to improve?

Remix/Revisions featured in this section

• Small editing revisions to tailor the content to the Psychology of Human Relations course.
• Remix of combining sections of Introduction to Conflict and Conflict Resolution, Negotiations, and Labour Relations (Conflict Management – Open Library) and adding 2 Conflict and Interpersonal Communication (Communication in the Real World – University of Minnesota Libraries).
• Changed formatting for images to provide links to locations of images and CC licenses.
• Added doi links to references to comply with APA 7 th edition formatting reference manual.

Attributions

CC Licensed Content, Original Modification, adaptation, and original content.  Provided by : Stevy Scarbrough. License : CC-BY-NC-SA

CC Licensed Content Shared Previously Communication in the Real World. Authored by: University of Minnesota. Located at: https://open.lib.umn.edu/communication/chapter/6-2-conflict-and-interpersonal-communication/ License: CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0

CC Licensed Content Shared Previously Conflict Management Authored by: Laura Westmaas. Published by: Open Library Located at: https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/conflictmanagement/ License: CC BY 4.0

Dsilva, M. U., & Whyte, L. O. (2010). Cultural differences in conflict styles: Vietnamese refugees and established residents. Howard Journal of Communication 9 (1), 57-68. https://doi.org/10.1080/106461798247113

Gallo, A. (2015, November 4). 4 types of conflict and how to manage them [Podcast]. In Harvard Business Review . https://hbr.org/podcast/2015/11/4-types-of-conflict-and-how-to-manage-them

Mallees, N. A. (2022, March 2). WestJet Airlines to acquire Sunwing: Competition Bureau says it will review proposed transaction . CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/westjet-sunwing-acquisition-1.6370021

Oetzel, J., Garcia, A. J. and Ting‐Toomey, S. (2008). 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 (4), 382-403. https://doi.org/10.1108/10444060810909310

Oetzel, J. G., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: A cross- cultural empirical test of the face negotiation theory. Communication Research, 30 (6), 599-624. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650203257841

Rice, S. (2000). Non-violent conflict management: Conflict resolution, dealing with anger, and negotiation and mediation . Berkeley: University of California at Berkeley, California Social Work Education Center. https://www.oercommons.org/courseware/lesson/21446/overview-old

Stoykewych, R. E. (2003, March 7). A note on the seniority resolutions arising out of the merger of Air Canada and Canadian Airlines [Paper presentation]. American Bar Association Midwinter Meeting, Laguna Beach, CA.

Thomas, K. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),  Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology  (pp. 889-935). Rand McNally.

Whitehouse, K. (2008, January 14). Why CEOs need to be honest with their boards. Wall Street Journal (Eastern edition), R1–R3. Retrieved November 19, 2022 from https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB119997940802681015

Psychology of Human Relations Copyright © by Stevy Scarbrough is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Interpersonal Conflicts: Meaning, Types & Examples

Consider Professor Charles Xavier and Magneto from the X-Men films. Acquaintances turned friends turned enemies, the two had quite a…

Consider Professor Charles Xavier and Magneto from the X-Men films. Acquaintances turned friends turned enemies, the two had quite a volatile and eccentric relationship.

Riddled with interpersonal conflict and a battle of wits, both Professor X and Magneto have tried to one up each other countless times. But there have been choice moments where we see them unifying against common enemies or helping each other through difficult times.

Their relationship is an ideal example of interpersonal conflicts. Interpersonal conflict arises due to factors like personality clashes but finds its resolution in common goals.

What Are Interpersonal Conflicts?

Types of interpersonal conflicts.

The meaning of interpersonal conflicts is conflicts between two or more people in any setting; it may be at work or among friends. These types of conflicts are quite common but what’s more common is how often we leave them unresolved.

If you’ve ever had an argument with a coworker or locked horns with someone outside of work, you’re probably aware of how this goes. We end up ignoring the person for as long as we can, which ultimately turns to hostility.

In the workplace, interpersonal conflicts are often seen as problematic—something that needs to be pushed under the rug. But because conflict is inevitable, it’s all the more important to deal with it immediately.

Let’s explore how resolving interpersonal conflict can help you at work:

You’ll find it easier to communicate with the person after resolving the conflict

It’ll lead to improved work performance because you feel secure about your role and responsibilities

It can help you achieve better results collaboratively, working with your team members without any hostility

It builds a positive work environment where you’ll feel appreciated, heard and valued

It leads to growth as you identify ways to deal with people and solve problems

You’ll find different types of interpersonal conflicts that are a result of internal or external factors.

Whether you have different interests or goals, anything can cause interpersonal conflicts. What’s important is to recognize conflict for what it is and get to the bottom of it.

Here are some causes and examples of interpersonal conflicts in the workplace:

Personality Clashes

This is an internal factor that can cause conflict between people. Personality clashes mean that two people who are fundamentally different find it hard to agree on something. If you see or perceive things differently, you may struggle if you’re paired with someone who’s the opposite. For instance, say one of your coworkers wants to go over your manager’s head in a bid to win brownie points with your director. If this doesn’t sit well with you, you’ll find yourself in a conflict with your coworker.

Lack Of Trust

When there’s a lack of trust between coworkers, it can lead to conflict. Interdependence is one of the pillars of teamwork and it impacts how well you get along with each other. No task is independent so you need to build trust in teams if you want to manage conflict. It’s better to focus on collective goals than isolating personal objectives.

Ineffective Communication

Say you wrote an email about a new work schedule to your coworker and they missed it the first time. You followed-up the next day and you still didn’t get a response. Poor communication such as this can lead to frustration at work. Not only will you inevitably face conflict but it’ll also affect your professional relationships.

Different Interests

Different interests can lead to interpersonal conflicts especially when it’s at the cost of compromising someone else’s interests. In an organization, interests need to match for the successful implementation of solutions. If your interest works against your coworker’s, it’s difficult to find a middle ground.

Incompatible Goals

Personal goals should be aligned with organizational goals to avoid conflict. Incompatible goals are an extension of different interests. If you and your coworker have the same goals in mind, you’ll be more willing to work together to achieve better results. However, if your idea of success is something else, it’ll likely end in conflict.

Most interpersonal conflicts can be resolved with conversation and negotiations. If you can learn to negotiate with your coworkers and people outside of work, you’ll be far more equipped to resolve problems.

Harappa’s Negotiating Wisely course teaches you how to arrive at win-win outcomes for successful negotiations. The best way to resolve interpersonal conflicts is to approach them from different directions and understand multiple perspectives. You’ll learn about the Negotiation Canvas for successful conversations. Learn from powerful frameworks and industry leaders!

Explore topics such as the Importance of  Managing Conflict ,  Types of Conflict , The  Thomas-Kilmann Model  &  Functional and Dysfunctional Conflict  from Harappa Diaries and build an approachable organizational culture.

Beyond Intractability

The Hyper-Polarization Challenge to the Conflict Resolution Field: A Joint BI/CRQ Discussion BI and the Conflict Resolution Quarterly invite you to participate in an online exploration of what those with conflict and peacebuilding expertise can do to help defend liberal democracies and encourage them live up to their ideals.

Follow BI and the Hyper-Polarization Discussion on BI's New Substack Newsletter .

Hyper-Polarization, COVID, Racism, and the Constructive Conflict Initiative Read about (and contribute to) the  Constructive Conflict Initiative  and its associated Blog —our effort to assemble what we collectively know about how to move beyond our hyperpolarized politics and start solving society's problems. 

By Charles (Chip) Hauss

August 2003

William Ury begins the first chapter of The Third Side with a simple story. Two friends of his were almost run over by a speeding car. One of his friends got angry and smashed the hood of the car with his fist. The driver, infuriated, stormed out of the car. It turns out that the driver was black; Ury's friends are white. So, this rapidly escalating conflict immediately also took on racial overtones. Then, an elderly black man came up and put his hands down as if to say, "OK, cool it." As Ury finishes the story, "the young man visibly struggled to control himself, then suddenly walked back to his car, got in, and drove off without another word."[1]

You might well ask why it makes sense to start with a story about a bad driver and three pedestrians in an article about intractable conflict. Indeed, this story has little in common with anything else in this data base.

However, in one page, Ury opens two doors. The first is to what he calls "the third side," the individuals or groups who can help solve a conflict. The second and more relevant door here is to the way interpersonal conflict and violence sheds light on the broader social and political issues which are at the heart of this project.

What Is Interpersonal Conflict

In a very real sense, interpersonal conflict is the stuff of life.

We encounter it every day. My wife and I, for instance, routinely disagree about what to eat, whether we should go to the mall, our relationship with her daughter, if she should retire or not, and, perhaps most important of all, the amount of time I spend writing. I enter into conflict with my students over the grades I give them. And, even at the conflict resolution organization I work for, we have conflicts all the time over what projects who should take on, how we should work with the people who ask for our help, and even how we should clean up our office kitchen.

Interpersonal conflict truly is everywhere. We have road rage on suburban highways, battles of the bands, disputes between neighbors over property lines, arguments between workers and bosses. The list goes on and on.

Why Is Interpersonal Conflict Important?

The importance of interpersonal conflict lies in how we handle it.

One of my colleagues at Search for Common Ground who has helped set up a local conflict resolution center uses the terms "flight, fight, or unite" to describe our options when we encounter conflict.

"Flight" is what scholars call the exit option. Sometimes we can just walk away from it. If someone acts aggressively toward me on Washington 's infamous Beltway, I can drive away. If my neighbor turns out to be an impossible, harassing jerk, I can move.

We certainly can fight. It's not the road rage deaths that are most worrisome here, though there are far too many of them. Spousal abuse, most violent crime, and most schoolyard fights are an outgrowth of interpersonal conflict. The rage seen in American (and other) homes, neighborhoods, workplaces, and schools is very frightening. To some, it reflects our very human nature of selfishness, greed, and a tendency toward violence.

Or, we can unite to solve our differences cooperatively. My wife and I have found ways to become better parents and step-parents respectively simply by talking through our differences of opinion. I can settle almost every grade complaint in a way that not only satisfies the student involved but makes him or her a better student and me a better teacher.

If the interpersonal conflict is intense, however, uniting requires help from what Ury calls a third sider, an individual or group who helps disputants find common interests that can serve as the basis for an agreement. Many families going through the kind of conflict that could lead to divorce seek the help of counselors. Occasionally, I have to turn to my department chair for help if I can't work out a grade complaint or other conflict with a student. Most American communities have some sort of community conflict resolution service. Mediators and arbitrators are used on a routine basis in American business. Some of them have such good reputations that they can charge hundreds of dollars an hour for their services. Finally, at least 5,000 American schools have peer mediation programs to help minimize the violence that grows out of the inevitable conflicts among young people.

The words of Tracy Chapman in the box at right come from her debut album. In its 11 tracks, she evocatively tells us about many of the aspects of interpersonal conflict in the United States and beyond -- racism, poverty, homelessness, spousal abuse, gang violence, despair, substance abuse, corruption, sexism, and racial profiling by the police.

Some interpersonal conflict is a micro-level version of the international and national disputes which are the focus of this knowledge base. In other words, flight, fight, and unite are the options we have in facing any intractable conflict. Interpersonal and international conflict are not the same, of course. However, in some ways it is easier to prevent international conflict from turning violent because collective decisions have to be made, often by hundreds of people.

What Can Individuals Do?

Not surprisingly, individuals can have their greatest impact in the ways that interpersonal conflicts unfold. Unlike national or international conflicts which are decided at sites distant from London, England, New London, Conn., or New London, South Africa, these erupt and are best solved as close to "home" as possible.

During the 1960s, the civil rights activist Eldridge Clearer claimed that "if you are not part of the solution, you part of the problem." He was, of course, referring to the struggle for equality by African-Americans in what was loosely called the Black Power movement. His statement is just as true of any interpersonal conflict, whether race is involved or not.

As these three terms, "flight, fight, and unite" suggest, an individual faced with an interpersonal conflict has three basic options. The first two are almost always counterproductive.

As we saw earlier, interpersonal violence is almost always counterproductive. To see that, consider the biblical story of David and Goliath which one of my colleagues uses to illustrate our options when facing intractable conflict.

In the biblical story, the normal-sized David slays the giant Goliath using a stone and a slingshot. As far as the Bible is concerned, the story ends there.

But does it? In today's world, David will probably get arrested and spend time in jail. Or, if Goliath isn't killed, he will get back up again and try to exact revenge against David. Even if he is killed, his giant friends will probably try to get back at David by hurling boulders at him. In other words, in most real world settings, interpersonal violence used in response to interpersonal violence produces even more interpersonal violence in return.

Flight does not provide a better option. The narrator in Tracy Chapman's song does not literally flee the conflict; she sits behind her wall and listens, probably in fear herself. "Flight" here does not necessarily mean physically running away from a conflict. Rather, we tend to put it on the back burner, delaying dealing with it, hoping that somehow it will just go away .

It seldom does.

In other words, individuals have a primary responsibility to choose the "unite" option and solve their problems cooperatively. And, today, it is not hard for them to learn how to do so. Most communities in the United States and many other countries have local mediation services which can help people settle disputes and offer training in basic conflict resolution skills. So, too, do many schools, police departments, and corporations.

What Third Parties Can Do

Conflict resolution is a growth industry. Mediators are now called on to help settle everything from wars between states to "wars" between divorcing spouses.

The growing community of mediators and other conflict resolution professionals still has to mature in at least two ways. First, it has to become much more visible so that people who currently do not know it exists learn of it and turn to it when a conflict arises. Second, it has to become more political and seek out ways to make win-win conflict resolution the norm "above" the interpersonal level.

What States Can Do

Most governments have already taken steps to reduce the most violent forms of interpersonal conflict, such as spousal abuse. Most observers, however, believe that states also have a long way to go in preventing violence and punishing those who commit it.

More importantly for our purposes here, states have barely scratched the surface when it comes to promoting win/win conflict resolution at any level, including the interpersonal. A number of American states have created consensus councils or other institutions designed to foster cooperation in public policy making. Many American states require the use of mediation in divorce cases and otherwise promote the use of alternative dispute resolution because it is usually cheaper and provides more satisfactory outcomes than litigation. As noted earlier, many public schools and universities have peer mediation programs.

Few governments at any level or in any country have done much to promote interpersonal conflict resolution in other forms. In particular, almost none have supported campaigns or other efforts to promote win-win conflict resolution as a general approach to settling disputes. As a result, adversarial processes remain the norm for interpersonal as well political intractable conflicts.

[1] William Ury, The Third Side . (New York: Penguin, 2000), 3.

Use the following to cite this article: Hauss, Charles (Chip). "Interpersonal Conflict and Violence." Beyond Intractability . Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: August 2003 < http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/interpersonal-violence >.

Additional Resources

The intractable conflict challenge.

Our inability to constructively handle intractable conflict is the most serious, and the most neglected, problem facing humanity. Solving today's tough problems depends upon finding better ways of dealing with these conflicts.   More...

Selected Recent BI Posts Including Hyper-Polarization Posts

• Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Roles - Part 2 -- The first of two posts explaining the actor roles needed for a massively parallel peacebuilding/democracy building effort to work, which combined with an earlier post on strategy roles, makes up the current MPP role list.
• Lorelei Kelly on Strengthening Democracy at the Top and the Bottom -- Lorelei Kelly describes the work of the bipartisan Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress which passed 202 recommendations, many unanimously. Over 1/2 have been implemented and most others are in progress.
• Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links for the Week of March 24, 2024 -- A rename of our regular "colleague and context links" to highlight how these readings and the activities they describe all fit within our "massively parallel" peace and democracy building framework--or show why it is needed.

Get the Newsletter Check Out Our Quick Start Guide

Educators Consider a low-cost BI-based custom text .

Constructive Conflict Initiative

Join Us in calling for a dramatic expansion of efforts to limit the destructiveness of intractable conflict.

Things You Can Do to Help Ideas

Practical things we can all do to limit the destructive conflicts threatening our future.

Conflict Frontiers

A free, open, online seminar exploring new approaches for addressing difficult and intractable conflicts. Major topic areas include:

Scale, Complexity, & Intractability

Massively Parallel Peacebuilding

Authoritarian Populism

Constructive Confrontation

Conflict Fundamentals

An look at to the fundamental building blocks of the peace and conflict field covering both “tractable” and intractable conflict.

Beyond Intractability / CRInfo Knowledge Base

Home / Browse | Essays | Search | About

BI in Context

Links to thought-provoking articles exploring the larger, societal dimension of intractability.

Colleague Activities

Information about interesting conflict and peacebuilding efforts.

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Beyond Intractability or the Conflict Information Consortium.

Beyond Intractability 

Unless otherwise noted on individual pages, all content is... Copyright © 2003-2022 The Beyond Intractability Project c/o the Conflict Information Consortium All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced without prior written permission.

Guidelines for Using Beyond Intractability resources.

Citing Beyond Intractability resources.

Photo Credits for Homepage, Sidebars, and Landing Pages

Contact Beyond Intractability    Privacy Policy The Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base Project  Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess , Co-Directors and Editors  c/o  Conflict Information Consortium Mailing Address: Beyond Intractability, #1188, 1601 29th St. Suite 1292, Boulder CO 80301, USA Contact Form

Powered by  Drupal

production_1