Conflict Management Approaches and Human Behavior
This paper examines intra-organizational conflict management by drawing on Sheppard's (1984) framework and Katz Jameson's (1999) model. It identifies four desired outcomes that disputants seek — fairness, participant satisfaction, effectiveness, and efficiency — and explains why meeting all four simultaneously is essential for genuine conflict resolution. The paper then outlines the three major conflict resolution strategies employed within organizations: interest-based, rights-based, and power-based approaches. It concludes by contrasting interest-based and power-based strategies in terms of their underlying concepts, formality, and practical application, highlighting when each approach is most appropriate.
- Desired Outcomes of Disputants: Four outcomes disputants seek in conflict resolution
- Importance of Fairness, Effectiveness, and Participant Satisfaction: Why all three outcomes must be met simultaneously
- Major Conflict Resolution Strategies: Interest-based, rights-based, and power-based strategies
- Interest-Based and Power-Based Strategies Compared: Contrasting formality, mechanisms, and appropriate use cases
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Anchors its analysis in cited academic sources (Sheppard, 1984; Katz Jameson, 1999), giving the argument scholarly credibility without over-relying on quotation.
- Moves logically from what disputants want, to why those wants matter, to how practitioners respond — creating a coherent progression from theory to application.
- Uses concrete examples (e.g., a manager threatening repercussions or promising rewards) to illustrate abstract concepts like power-based strategy.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective comparative analysis: it does not simply list strategies in isolation but explicitly contrasts interest-based, rights-based, and power-based approaches along shared dimensions (formality, third-party role, negotiation focus). This parallel structure allows the reader to understand not just what each strategy is but how and why organizations choose among them.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized into four numbered sections. The first defines the desired outcomes disputants bring to conflict situations. The second explains why those outcomes — fairness, effectiveness, and participant satisfaction — must be met simultaneously. The third introduces the three major resolution strategies. The fourth section zooms in on a direct comparison between interest-based and power-based strategies, adding granular detail about mechanisms and appropriate use cases. A short references list closes the paper.
Desired Outcomes of Disputants
The primary source of intra-organizational conflict is a perceived difference in the desired goals of different parties. Therefore, whenever managing an organizational conflict, consideration of the outcomes desired by the parties involved is of the utmost importance. Drawing on several sources in the literature, and emphasizing Sheppard's (1984) research in particular, scholars have identified four key desired outcomes: fairness, participant satisfaction, effectiveness, and efficiency.
In terms of fairness, disputants seek an objective opinion from a third party and wish to set a precedent for future conflict management. At the level of participant satisfaction, this can be measured by the desire to make the conflict public or keep it private, the personal need for vindication or actual resolution, and the need to ensure some acceptable degree of recovery after the conflict has ended.
The effectiveness desired by disputants is comparatively limited in scope, with the primary desire being that of improving the working relationship. The desires of the mediating third party are more complex: the third party will typically wish to prevent repetition of the conflict, draw lessons from it, and improve the quality of the decision-making process. Finally, the disputant's desire for efficiency is reflected in the goal of settling the conflict in a "timely manner" (Katz Jameson, 1999).
Importance of Fairness, Effectiveness, and Participant Satisfaction
Throughout conflict management, it is essential to continually ensure fairness, effectiveness, and participant satisfaction. Unless these criteria are all simultaneously met, the conflict stands little chance of being truly resolved. The combination of these outcomes is essential for ensuring disputant satisfaction and guaranteeing that the conflict is not only well managed, but that lessons are learned and future situations are already improved as a result.
In terms of fairness, it is important to demonstrate that the conflict was managed with an objective eye and a genuine interest in the well-being of all parties involved. In other words, it is crucial to show that better rules were created and instituted as a result of the process. At the level of participant satisfaction, it is important — from a more objective point of view — to ensure that participants fully accept the proposed solution and that their privacy is respected to the degree they desire.
At the level of effectiveness, the importance of this outcome refers to the longer-term impact of the method currently employed to resolve the conflict. Specifically, this method must improve the working relationship between disputants, "prevent repetition, teach parties to manage conflict more effectively in the future, work on a structural solution by altering work structure, create more clarity, learn from the conflict without resolving it, try to create a workable solution and find a pragmatic solution" (Katz Jameson, 1999).
Major Conflict Resolution Strategies
Whenever conflicts arise within an intra-organizational setting, managers employ three types of strategies to resolve them: interest-based strategies, rights-based strategies, and power-based strategies.
Interest-based strategies revolve primarily around negotiation, meaning that the parties discuss the conflict and seek to identify a mutually beneficial solution. In some cases this approach is fruitful; in others, the disputants cannot reach a resolution on their own. At that point, labor unions may become involved to help mediate the conflict, or the disputants may seek the counsel of a different third party, such as a manager. The goal is to include a third party who is objective and can understand and pursue the interests of the disputants.
Rights-based strategies, like interest-based strategies, seek to resolve intra-organizational conflicts with minimal external intrusion. The key difference is that rights-based strategies are more formal: they aim to identify facts and rights and to resolve conflicts in a highly objective manner, focusing on established facts and entitlements rather than on the persons involved, their demands, or the specific nature of the dispute. When third parties are brought in under this approach, they serve as arbitrators.
The third category of conflict management strategies is based on the power exercised by various members of the organization. A clear example is a manager demanding that an employee complete a task, threatening repercussions for non-compliance or promising rewards for compliance — a straightforward use of power to create an outcome and manage a potential conflict. Power is used by managers to resolve conflicts between other disputants, and it is often employed to enforce a solution rather than to facilitate voluntary agreement.
References
Katz Jameson, J. (1999). Toward a comprehensive model for the assessment and management of intra-organizational conflict: Developing the framework. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 10(3), 286–294.
Sheppard, B. H. (1984). Third party conflict intervention: A procedural framework. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 141–190).
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.