Understanding Conflict Management Systems and Strategies in the Workplace: A Pilot Study

• Author: Neil H. Katz,Linda T. Flynn
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21070
• Published date: 01 June 2013
• Date: 01 June 2013

ticlesUnderstanding Con ict Mana gement

Systems and Strategies in the Workplace:

A Pilot Study

Neil H. Katz

Linda T. Flynn

In today’s business environment, workplace con ict is a signi cant issue.

Research in the con ict management discipline says that con ict in the

workplace is on the rise and will continue to go up; however, many

leaders and managers are not fully aware of structures and processes

available to manage it.  is article presents the results of a pilot study

conducted in Broward County, Florida, of workplace leaders’ and man-

agers’ awareness, perception, and use of con ict management systems

and strategies.  e  ndings re ect the lack of a clear de nition of the

issue, the absence of integrated con ict management systems within

most organizations, and dissatisfaction with antiquated grievance sys-

tems.  ere is substantial opportunity for additional research.

Nonviolent, collaborative con ict resolution methods such as facilita-

tion, negotiation, mediation, and consensual decision making are

part of a long history in many regions of the globe, including sub-Sahara

Africa, India, Iceland, and the Roman Empire. However, these proven con-

 ict resolution methods were not well known in the United States until the

1980s, when developments in various areas converged to expose these

methods to a wider audience. Among the most important of these initia-

tives were widely popular books such as Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agree-

ment without Giving In (Fisher, Ury, and Patton 1981) and  e Mediation

Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Con icts (Moore 2003); national

ARTICLES

C R Q, vol. 30, no. 4, Summer 2013 393

© Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and the Association for Con ict Resolution

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/crq.21070

394 KATZ, FLYNN

C R Q • DOI: 10.1002/crq

organizations providing conferences and networking services, including

the National Conference on Peacemaking and Con ict Resolution; and

institutes such as the  eory and Practice Research and Educational Cen-

ters funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, including uni-

versity centers such as the Harvard Negotiation Project, the Program for

the Analysis and Resolution of Con icts at Syracuse University’s Maxwell

School of Citizenship and Public A airs, and the Dispute Resolution Pro-

gram at the Kellogg Business School of Northwestern University.

 roughout the 1990s, interest in collaborative con ict resolution

techniques continued to accelerate in academia, training organizations,

and numerous sectors of society such as business, education, family, and

religious institutions. Substantial support of these methods existed among

people and institutions of great in uence, including the US Congress,

which passed the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act in 1990 authoriz-

ing and encouraging federal agencies to use alternative dispute reso lution

(ADR), and the presidency: In 1993, President Bill Clinton signed Execu-

tive Order 12891 mandating that all US federal agencies form labor-

management partnership councils and undergo training in interest-based

negotiation, as well as other con ict resolution and collaborative decision-

making methods.

By the late 1990s, hundreds of colleges and universities and training

organizations o ered theory and practice in con ict resolution techniques:

facilitation, negotiation, advanced communication skills, con ict and com-

munication styles, and mediation and arbitration. Prominent private sector

 rms such as General Electric, Prudential, Johnson and Johnson, and Alcoa

were developing in-house mediators, arbitrators, ombudspersons, and other

con ict resolution specialists. Large federal agencies such as the US Postal

Service, the Department of the Interior, and the Departments of the Navy

and Air Force trained many of their own employees to become ADR special-

ists.  ese trained sta handled cases of workplace con ict e ectively and

e ciently in terms of cost, settlement satisfaction, durability of the agree-

ment, and overall satisfaction with the process (Lipsky and Seeber 2006).

By the turn of the century, optimism that these dispute resolution

practices were becoming the norm in communities, groups, families, and

workplaces took hold among many scholars and practitioners. William

Ury’s  e  ird Side (2000) promotes the belief and promise that nego-

tiation will take over as the norm in settling international disputes, with

military interventions becoming more and more obsolete. Jack Gordon’s