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).
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.