State of Knowledge: Conflict Coaching Theory, Application, and Research

• Author: Ross Brinkert
• Date: 01 June 2016
• Published date: 01 June 2016
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21162

C R Q, vol. 33, no. 4, Summer 2016 383

© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and the Association for Confl ict Resolution

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/crq.21162

State of Knowledge: Con ict Coaching Theory,

Application, and Research

Ross Brinkert

 is article begins by revisiting the origins of confl ict coaching to rec-

ognize the many and varied contributions that led to its emergence.

 e period of 2005 to 2015 is then considered in depth and organized

according to theory, application, and research developments.  e third

portion of the article consists of six propositions on the current state of

confl ict coaching.  ese propositions are intended to help guide those

involved with confl ict coaching on scholarly and practitioner levels in

the coming years.

C onfl ict coaching is primarily a dyadic process in which a coach trained

in confl ict resolution or executive coaching works with a client to

develop the client ’ s confl ict-related understanding, interaction strategies,

and interaction skills (Brinkert 2006 ). It emerged and gained prominence

in the confl ict resolution fi eld largely because one or more parties did not

want to participate in mediation (Tidwell 1997 ). Its uses have become

considerably more varied.  is article retraces and updates writing on the

origins of confl ict coaching before providing a thorough overview of what

has been accomplished in the area since 2005.  e article concludes by

off ering six propositions to make sense of the state today and suggest direc-

tions of growth for confl ict coaching.

A Note on Method

Confl ict coaching is situated at the intersection of two fi elds, both com-

posed of individuals from various academic and professional backgrounds.

Accordingly, contributors to the conversation publish work in varied

places.  is makes searching for relevant writing a challenging task. In

384 brinkert

C R Q • DOI: 10.1002/crq.21162

general, the approach used for this article was to prioritize the search for

peer-reviewed articles, scholarly and respected professional books, and

other edited writing.

Origins: Prior to 2005

While the origins of confl ict coaching have previously been addressed

(Brinkert 2006 ), coverage of the origins is included here to enhance under-

standing of this period and to provide context for later actual and pro-

posed activities. Reexamination of the origins period arguably suggests that

those in the confl ict resolution community (broadly understood as those

engaged with the Association for Confl ict Resolution and its predecessor

organizations and including those from various academic and professional

specialties) played the primary initial role. At the same time, it is clear that

people from beyond the confl ict resolution fi eld were also contributors,

and sometimes major contributors, particularly as time progressed.

Coaching has been a part of the ombuds fi eld for some time. Upon

consideration of Casey ’ s ( 2007 ) work in tracing the history of the ombuds

fi eld, Brinkert ( 2010a ) suggested that informal coaching by some ombuds

was occurring at least as early as the 1970s. Gadlin ( 2014a , 398), possibly

the dominant contemporary authority in the ombuds fi eld, recently reiter-

ated this view in writing that some ombuds were using the term coaching

to describe initial meetings with guests “well before the current blossoming

of various sorts of coaches.”

Confl ict coaching emerged and became a distinct concept in the con-

fl ict resolution fi eld between the early 1990s and 2001.  e fi rst formally

developed confl ict-specifi c coaching-type process was created at Macquarie

University in Australia in 1993 (Tidwell 1997 ). Called problem solving for

one , it was a dyadic, interest-based process for an individual in a confl ict

situation where one or more parties did not want to engage in mediation.

In January 1996, Folger and Jones began using the term confl ict coaching

to describe confl ict styles coaching for individual disputants in the Temple

University campus-based student-focused confl ict resolution program,

the Confl ict Education Resource Team (CERT; Brinkert 1999 ; Jameson

1998 ). Confl ict coaching at Temple University was expanded to include

confl ict coaching for better engaging issues of diversity as preparation for

possible confrontation and for possible mediation (Brinkert 2000 ). In writ-

ing about integrated confl ict management systems, Cloke and Goldsmith