International Journal of Conflict Management (INT J CONFL MANAGE)

This chapter is concerned with the difficult question of what our field can contribute to preventing and resolving the sorts of destructive conflicts which are so prevalent in our world today at the interpersonal, intergroup, interethnic, and international levels. In this chapter, I outline an approach to this question. The chapter is divided into three parts. The first is a brief discussion of some of the factors which determine whether a conflict will take a constructive or destructive course. The second deals with the prevention of destructive conflicts—here I consider the potential roles of government, education, the media, religion, and industry. The third is concerned with how to manage intractable, destructive conflicts. KeywordsDestructive conflict-Prevention-United Nations-United States-Education, Media-Religion-Industry

This chapter suggests that conflict and cooperation are part of the many pairs of opposing tendencies that characterize organizational life. It provides a case study of intergroup conflict through collective bargaining in the public sector. It examines the way in which clashing on issues, disagreeing on courses of action and enacting disputes aids in constituting group and organizational identities. It questions how ritualized conflict management becomes productive and beneficial, not only through obtaining particular goals, but through promoting effective communication and building relationship from the on-going struggle between intergroup forces. This struggle extends beyond the traditional boundaries of collective bargaining to coalitions between members of opposing groups, alliances with external ties, and interdependent organizational linkages that give symbolic meaning to this event. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

This study empirically examined the antecedents of verbal and physical assaults on managers perpetrated by subordinate employees. A model was presented and hypotheses developed that were tested with data obtained through the content analysis of published arbitration decisions. The findings indicated that such assaults were more likely to be verbal than physical, preceded by aversive treatment, and targeted at managers directly involved in the negative outcomes. Additionally, the severity of the incident varied across the different types of triggering events. Individuals who had been aggressive in the past but had not been disciplined were more likely to subsequently engage in physical than verbal assaults. The implications of these findings for future research and organizational practices were also discussed.

Theories of ethnic conflict often assume that the cause of political violence is the same across actors and constant over time. I propose that causes differ, depending upon the identity, grievances, and strategy of the perpetrator as influenced by the cultural, economic, and political contexts in which they operate. Together with Granger causality tests, multivariate time-series analyses of political deaths in Northern Ireland support a multi-causal perspective. Reflecting identity differences, Loyalist violence but not Republican violence was likely to increase during months when high levels of protest coincided with annual commemorations. By deepening grievances related to ethnic stratification, rising unemployment contributed to Republican violence, but not to Loyalist violence. Repression of Nationalists increased Republican violence but decreased Loyalist violence, supporting a see-saw conceptualization of political opportunities in divided societies. The findings highlight the need for sensitivity in both conflict research and management to differences between actors and across social contexts.

Many relationships between politicians and bureaucrats are based on an energy-equilibrium model where the politicians provide energy and the bureaucrats, equilibrium. According to this model, conflicts occur when one partner does not adequately fulfill his or her expected role. This model may be fruitfully used to study the relationship between the politician, the career bureaucrat, and the political appointee. The division of roles among this “ménage à trois” is particularly difficult and often generates tension. The situation is most prone to conflict when the government is in a period of change. At such times, the newly elected politicians have a tendency to mistrust the established bureaucracy and to depend almost exclusively on their political appointees. The dysfunctions induced by this phenomenon, in regard to the capacity of the bureaucracy to adequately fulfill its equilibrium role, are very clearly illustrated by the Canadian political transition of 1984, when the federal government was handed over to the Progressive Conservative Party. A series of interviews with ministers, senior civil servants, and senior policy advisors, all of whom had ringside seats to this transition, shows how the extensive power granted to ministerial offices aggravated the difficulties usually associated with a period of transition. This particular transition illustrates how important it is for the newly elected to ensure that their partisan policy advisors play their roles without getting in the way of the indispensable cooperation which must be established between ministers and senior civil servants.

The purpose of this study was to determine if arbitrators use all seven of Dougherty's tests of just cause in cases involving discharge for excessive absenteeism. One hundred and ninety-five absenteeism cases published by the Bureau of National Affairs and Commerce Clearing House between 1980 and 1990 were analyzed. Four of Dougherty's key tests were found to be critical: Penalty, Equal Treatment, Proof, and Notice. Logistic regression analysis of the data reveals that if these four tests are met by management, there is an almost certain probability that a grievance for excessive absenteeism discharge will be denied. If, however, any one of these tests is not met, the probability is greater than 99 percent that the grievance will be fully sustained or split.

This study presents an investigation of the communicative behaviors and strategies employed in the stimulation and management of productive and destructive conflict in culturally heterogeneous workgroups. Using communication accommodation theory (CAT), we argue that the type and course of conflict in culturally heterogeneous workgroups is impacted by the communicative behaviors and strategies employed by group members during interactions. Analysis of data from participant observations, non-participant observations, semi-structured interviews, and self-report questionnaires support CA T-based predictions and provide fresh insights into the triggers and management strategies associated with conflict in culturally heterogeneous workgroups. In particular, results indicated that the more groups used discourse management Strategies, the more they experienced productive conflict. In addition, the use of explanation and checking of own and others' understanding was a major feature of productive conflict, while speech interruptions emerged as a strategy leading to potential destructive conflict. Groups where leaders emerged and assisted in reversing communication breakdowns were better able to manage their discourse, and achieved consensus On task processes. Contributions to the understanding of the triggers and the management of productive conflict in culturally heterogeneous workgroups are discussed.

A laboratory experiment examined the effects of time pressure (high versus low) and accountability to constituents (not-accountable-to-constituents versus accountable-to-constituents) on the competitiveness of negotiators' interaction and on the outcome (i.e., agreement or impasse) of the negotiation. Using a newly developed negotiation game with the payoff structure of a game of chicken, we predicted and found an interaction effect. Based on the pattern of results we conclude that the effect of time pressure is contingent on the accountability to constituents of the negotiator. When negotiators are negotiating only for themselves, time pressure makes the negotiators act less competitive, and a higher proportion of the negotiations will result in an agreement. In contrast, when negotiators are negotiating on behalf of their con-stituents, time pressure will result in more competitive interaction and in a higher proportion of impasses.

This study explores the effects of different structures of accountability on the development of groupthink. Specifically, the differences between individual and collective accountability are examined and contrasted to a condition with no accountability. The groupthink phenomenon can be differentiated into collective avoidance, arising from a pessimistic perception of a decisional issue, and collective overoptimism. It is argued that structures of accountability can either promote or reduce groupthink, depending upon the way group members perceive the decisional issue. We tested the hypothesis that accountability can prevent the collective-avoidance type of groupthink, and that individual accountability will be more effective in doing so than collective accountability, by preventing the possibility to “hide in the crowd.” The results confirm that under conditions conducive to collective avoidance, individual accountability is more effective in reducing groupthink-like tendencies than collective accountability. However, group members expecting to be collectively responsible still display less symptoms of groupthink than control groups. In particular, accountability makes groups display more difficulty to reach consensus, stimulates group members to try to influence the decision making, results in a more equal dispersion of influence within the group, and in less risky decisions. Some methodological concerns regarding research on groupthink and accountability, and the implications of the findings for future research in this area are discussed.

Misunderstanding, or misconstrual, is a major exacerbating factor in conflict escalation and an impediment to negotiation and resolution. Laboratory work has identified characteristic errors of construal which partisans make in assessing the views of their opponents. This paper examined whether these same phenomena could be observed in a traditional real-world conflict, that between trade unions and management. In two studies, union representatives and managers reacted first (in Study 1) to an actual contract negotiation that the two sides were involved with, and then to a hypothetical unjust act. Results revealed that the two sides indeed display many characteristic errors of construal. Specifically, union representatives underestimated management concern for harmful acts against workers, or management's sincere wish to negotiate in good faith within financial constraints, and were generally highly suspicious of management motives and intentions toward workers. Managers saw union representatives as unreasonable, and greatly overestimated union militancy and unwillingness to accept extenuating circumstances. Negotiations will be greatly improved if such misconstruals can be exposed and debunked prior to, or during negotiations.

This study used a critical incidents methodology to examine the influence of accounts on perceived social loafing and evaluations of team member, and to investigate the face management and responsibility explanations of account-giving. The results of this study suggest that communicative acts such as accounts may reduce perceived loafing. In addition, perceived loafing and evaluations of the team member were influenced by the type of account provided; concessions were more effective in decreasing perceptions of social loafing and increasing evaluations of the team member than excuses and justifications which, in turn, were more effective than refusals. These findings indicate tentative support for the face management explanation of account effectiveness.

This study examines the relationship between decisions of arbitrators and the accounts provided by grievants in a sample of discipline arbitration cases. It was hypothesized that arbitrators' decisions would be influenced by both the type of accounts used (refusals, excuses, and justifications) and the quality of accounts. The results suggest that grievants providing refusals are most likely to have their suspensions reduced, and grievants providing justifications are least likely to have their suspensions reduced Also, the quality of accounts influences reduction in suspension. These findings help broaden our understanding of the arbitration decision-making process and explain how grievants' accounts can bias arbitrators' decisions. Implications for policy-makers, management, employees, and unions are provided, along with suggestions for future research.

This research examined the relationships among a number of outcomes of mediation. The sample consisted of 73 hearings at two dispute settlement centers in New York State. Predictions from goal achievement theory were contrasted with predictions from procedural justice theory. In accordance with goal achievement theory, disputants who attained their goals in the agreement indicated immediate satisfaction with that agreement and with the conduct of the hearing. However, goal achievement was unrelated to long-run success or long-run satisfaction with the agreement, a result which may apply primarily to the mediation of interpersonal disputes. The predictions from procedural justice theory were more successful. Disputants who perceived that the underlying problems had been aired, that the mediator had understood what they said and that they had received a fair hearing also showed immediate satisfaction with the agreement and with the conduct of the hearing. In addition, these and related perceptions—especially in the eyes of the respondent—were predictive of several aspects of long-run success.

When organizations with disparate cultures are merged, the culture of the acquired organization often represents a counterculture for the acquiring firm. Scholars and consultants frequently recommend avoiding integration of an acquired company if it has a sharply different culture. This paper presents a case study of a recent hostile takeover that disproves the conventional wisdom and shows that careful implementation processes enable the company, not only to overcome post-merger integration barriers due to culture clash, but also to maximize strategic benefits from those cultural differences. It shows that integration can be achieved through a process in which only some specific cultural dimensions are integrated while others are preserved.

This paper proposes an anthropology-based theoretical model describing the impact of top management culture clash on the commitment of the acquired team to the new organization and on its cooperation with the acquiring team. It suggests that three factors are influential, namely the degree of cultural differences, the nature of the contact between the teams, and the intended level of integration between the companies. The paper generates numerous propositions for predicting the impact of the culture clash. It also offers suggestions for further theoretical and empirical study, and presents some of the model's practical implications.

This study investigated the unpad of culture on styles of handling interpersonal conflicts. The Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory was used to collect data on the conflict management styles of integrating, obliging, avoiding, dominating, and compromising. Two regions of the world were chosen: Middle Eastern countries and states (n = 913) and the United States (n = 144). MANCOVA was used to analyze the data. The results indicate that Arab Middle Eastern executives use more of an integrating and avoiding style in handling interpersonal conflict while U.S. executives use more of an obliging, dominating, and compromising style. Implications of the findings and future research are discussed.

Effects of voice, compensation, and responsibility attribution on justice perception and post-complaint behavior in a consumer setting were studied in a cross-cultural study. Hotel school students in China and Canada (N = 168) read and responded to a scenario which described how a service provider handled the complaint from a customer whose coat was stained with tea. The results showed that collectivists were more likely than individualists to blame the service provider. Also, voice offered by the service provider failed to reduce its blame, and compensation actually led to more blame attributed to the service provider. Responsibility attribution was found to be able to mediate the effect of culture on post complaint behavior. A culture by voice interaction indicated that when voice was offered by the service provider, Canadians were less likely to attribute the responsibility to themselves than were Chinese. The implications of these results on justice, culture, and responsibility attribution are discussed.

Over the past decade there has been an upsurge of interest in the study of mediation. Much of the current interest is the consequence of mediation's apparent success in the management of labor-management conflicts. It is suggested here that a critical examination of mandated mediation—a long standing, but neglected part of negotiation under the Railway Labor Act of 1926—can make substantive contributions to the development of mediation theory. This paper proposes a conceptual model for understanding context, process, and outcome constraints on the performance of mandated mediation.

The doctrine of employment-at-will has been the rule of law for over 100 years in the United States. Under it an employee can be terminated for a good reason, a bad reason, or for no reason at all. Because of real abuses when firing employees, generally called wrongful termination, all but five U.S. states have now carved out at least one of three exceptions to the rule. They are implied contract, public policy tort, and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Although created with good intentions, all three exceptions have spawned a legal environment of judicial inconsistency and unpredictability and a climate of expensive litigation and monetary judgments. The Model Employment Termination Act, if adopted by all the states, would establish a uniform legal system for managing employee terminations. The Act's major provisions require that an employee can be terminated only for “good cause,” and, in the “preferred version” that arbitration be used in settling disputes. However, an employee's remedies are limited and can include reinstatement, back pay, lump-sum severance payments, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, but no compensatory or punitive damages.

Prior research has illustrated the benefits of cooperation across groups. This study sought to identify methods to induce cooperation across groups. Three laboratory studies showed modifying performance appraisals to include intergroup behavior, and including an external supervisor evaluation, led to greater frequencies of helping behavior and more positive attitudes towards cooperating under scarce resource conditions.

Two studies were conducted to investigate the impact of socially-induced positive affect on organizational conflict. In Study I, male and female subjects were provoked or not provoked, and then exposed to one of several treatments designed to induce positive affect among them. Results indicated that several of these procedures (e.g., mild flattery, a small gift, self-deprecating remarks by an opponent) increased subjects' preference for resolving conflict through collaboration, but reduced their preference for resolving conflict through competition. In addition, self-deprecating remarks by an opponent (actually an accomplice) increased subjects' willingness to make concessions to this person during negotiations. In Study 2, male and female subjects were exposed to two treatments designed to induce positive affect (humorous remarks, mild flattery). These were presented before, during, or after negotiations with another person (an accomplice). Both treatments reduced subjects' preferences for resolving conflict through avoidance and increased their preferences for resolving conflict through collaboration, but only when delivered during or immediately after negotiations. Together, the results of both studies suggest that simple interventions designed to induce positive affect among the parties to conflicts can yield several beneficial effects.

This paper reports the results of two studies that examined the impact of framing negotiations in affective terms. Pursuant to the recommendations made by Clyman and Tripp (2000) for reducing risks associated with discrepant values, the objective of the first study was to determine the optimal way of representing potential outcomes in affective terms in a negotiation payoff table. Results demonstrated the superiority of happy and unhappy face icons over other representations; it also revealed a slight advantage to varying the quantity of icons, rather than size, to reflect differences in the relative values of these outcomes. In the second study, the focus was on determining to what extent, if any, framing negotiations in affective terms would differentially affect negotiators' thoughts and feelings prior to engaging in a two-party negotiation. Results indicated that when negotiations are affectively framed, negotiators report higher levels of negotiation involvement and positive emotion and lower levels of trust, as well as a decreased likelihood of employing cooperative negotiation tactics. The implications of the findings for future research are discussed.

After the Mandela government took power in 1994 in South Africa, one of its highest priorities was providing power to the impoverished rural areas, and particularly the infrastructure-poor black “townships.” In addition to a scarcity of resources, multiple stake-holders with very different agendas were integrally a part of the decision-making process. To this extent, what happened with the electricity industry is a metaphor for the multiple issues—social, economic, and political—which had to be negotiated by the new society. The multiple stake-holders were brought together in a “Forum,” a non-regulatory advisory body which was designed to specifically include all relevant interested parties in an open (“transparent”) problem-solving process. This forum system was extensively used in the 18–24 months immediately before and after the 1994 elections to deal with a host of issues. The National Electricity Forum (NELF) was one of the earliest and most successful of these forums. This case reviews the build-up to the 1994 elections, describes how the forum process worked, and outlines its structure.

This study evaluates an attempt to develop a mediation program within a state environmental agency. A number of concerns arose during the agency's efforts to use mediation, including the neutrality of mediators, the types of cases mediated, the voluntary participation of parties, and acceptance of the mediated agreement. These issues were examined through a case study of a conflict that was mediated by the agency. Based on issues in the case, criteria are suggested which help guard against the problems that arise when government agencies serve a mediating role. These criteria may be useful to any organization that contemplates using mediation to help resolve conflict.

Among the recurrent concerns of urban planners and administrators is the institutionalization of an inclusive, equitable, and effective process of citizen participation. Such is required not only as matter of law but also as instrument of social cohesion. The great majority of urban conduct is a function of voluntarism, consensus, and accommodation. In earlier decades, informal social processes facilitated reconciliation. In more recent decades, formal processes of citizen participation have yielded frustration. For the present decade, both literature and practice suggest a shifting of citizen participation processes toward mediation alternatives. While increasingly popular, all mediation alternatives carry three troublesome concerns: definition of interested parties, openness to information, and role of the public mediator. Unless such alternatives are seen as more inclusive, equitable and effective, they will fail to win social acceptance, leading to increasing community distrust and frustrating the ability to effectively plan and govern urban communities.

Negotiators with a BATNA (best alternative to the negotiated agreement) obtain higher individual outcomes and a larger percentage of the dyadic outcomes than individuals without a BATNA. This study examined if three mechanisms related to a BATNA, an alternative, a specific goal, and self-efficacy, independently or in combination, influence outcomes. Six of the eight combinations resulted in higher individual outcomes. An alternative coupled with a goal or self-efficacy resulted in a higher percent of dyadic outcomes and higher impasse rates.

This paper presents an analysis of interview data and field notes from participant observation collected during a four-month period to discover different work-related cultural assumptions between Chinese and American co-workers in a multicultural organization. The paper also addresses how those different cultural assumptions which guide the ways Chinese and American workers conceptualize their jobs and job behaviors lead to conflict as the employees go about their daily business. The contrasting cultural assumptions discussed in the paper are (1) Chinese and American views of the role of manager and the practice of “managing,” (2) Chinese and American conceptualizations of good service, and (3) Chinese and American perspectives of compensation. Finally, the paper discusses some theoretical and methodological implications of the current study and its research method for future studies of cultural and conflict in multicultural contexts.

The recent impasse over federal forest management in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States has been a living laboratory of conflict and its management, and provides the context for this case study. While most of the media attention has been focused on regional or national events such as President Clinton's Forest Conference of April 1993, a larger number of localized conflicts have shaped the controversy at the grassroots level. This case study focuses on a pivotal meeting in one such conflict: the Shasta Costa planning process. Outside intervenors mediated the meeting, and USDA Forest Service personnel, timber industry representatives, and environmentalists participated Participant observation and a supplemental survey led to the following conclusions: (1) measures of standing (the legal and social basis for legitimate participation) differed between the industry and environmental representatives, (2) reliance on science differed between groups, and (3) the process was not able to overcome a power imbalance. These findings suggest that there may be little hope for local dispute efforts if there is substantial policy uncertainty at the national level. Implications for managing forestry conflict in the region are discussed.

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a theory of measurement. When applied in decision-making, it assists one to describe the general decision operation by decomposing a complex problem into a multi-level hierarchic structure of objectives, criteria, subcriteria and alternatives. The AHP provides a fundamental scale of absolute magnitudes to represent judgments in the form of paired comparisons. A ratio scale of relative magnitudes expressed in priority units is then derived from each set of comparisons. An overall ratio scale of priorities is synthesized to obtain ranking of the alternatives. What is illustrated here is an application of the AHP to a retributive ongoing conflict in which the parties maximize both their benefits from and costs to the opponent. Using the AHP, benefit and cost hierarchies are constructed for the parties, four for each, involving actual and perceived benefits and costs of concessions. Similarly, a mediator must construct his own hierarchies to evaluate and propose changes in judgments and new concessions to improve an impasse in negotiation.

This discussion forwards a political economy framework for the analysis of the role and impact of political intervention on the process and outcome of environmental conflicts. The proposed analytic approach, advocated by the class-centric state perspective, focuses on the economic roots of political action in conflict situations. The paper provides a critique of the existing analytic approaches to conflict analysis. The paper also offers a brief account of Hawaii's land use policy and history of land-related environmental conflicts to illustrate the potential of the political economy approach.

Ting-Toomey's (1988) face-negotiation theory of conflict predicts that choice of conflict style is closely associated with face-negotiation needs, which vary across cultures. This study investigated this prediction in a workplace setting involving status and face-concern with a sample of 163 Anglo-Australian and 133 Chinese university students who were working full or part-time. The association of type of communication (direct or cautious) according to type of face-threat (self or other) and work status (subordinate, co-worker or superior) with preferences for three conflict management styles (control, solution-oriented, non-confrontational) was examined for the two cultural groups. The results showed that: (1) as predicted by the individualist-collectivist dimension, Anglo respondents rated assertive conflict styles higher and the non-confrontational style lower than their Chinese counterparts; (2) overall, both Anglo and Chinese respondents preferred more direct communication strategies when self-face was threatened compared with other-face threat; (3) status moderated responses to self and other-face threat for both Anglos and Chinese; (4) face-threat was related to assertive and diplomatic conflict styles for Anglos and passive and solution-oriented styles for Chinese. Support was shown for Ting-Toomey's theory; however the results indicated that, in applied settings, simple predictions based on only cultural dichotomies might have reduced power due to workplace role perceptions having some influence. The findings were discussed in relation to areas of convergence and the two cultural groups; widening the definition of “face”; and providing a more flexible model of conflict management incorporating both Eastern and Western perspectives.

This paper explores the relationship between integrative potential, information exchange, and behavioral and perceptual indicators of negotiation outcome. A measure of integrative potential is introduced that allows the researcher to quantify how much potential for integrativeness is contained in various bargaining scenarios. An experiment using a variant of Pruitt's (1981) bargaining scenario was conducted to investigate the usefulness of the measure. In particular, competitiveness interacted with information exchange to affect joint benefit. It is concluded that integrative potential can help develop useful theories of integrative bargaining.

This observational and interview study investigated the role of caucusing (private meetings between the mediator and a disputant) in community mediation. The results from 73 cases at two mediation centers indicate that mediators are more likely to caucus when disputants have a history of escalation, are hostile toward each other during the hearing, and fail to engage in joint problem solving. Caucus sessions were found to discourage direct hostility between the disputants but to encourage indirect hostility. There was also evidence that caucus sessions foster disputant flexibility and problem solving between the disputant and the mediator. However, no relationship was found between the occurrence or nature of caucusing and the likelihood of agreement or the quality of the mediated outcome.

In a simulated three-issue organizational dispute, subjects were interrupted by a third party (their supervisor) who recommended—and eventually imposed—one of five different outcomes. Each outcome provided subjects the same overall payoff, though the arrangement of payoffs across each of the three issues varied. The design allowed us to evaluate four different perspectives regarding negotiators' perceptions of their outcomes. In addition, third parties provided justifications, apologies, or excuses for their actions. Fairness judgments and supervisory evaluations were most favorable when negotiators received an outcome reflecting favorable settlements on the majority of the issues, or the midpoint compromise; the least favorable reactions occurred when subjects received favorable outcomes on only their most important issue. Third parties who offered a justification for their actions were seen as fairer than those offering apologies or excuses. The findings reiterate the importance of considering both the symbolic characteristics of outcomes and the interactional justice inherent in different types of explanations.

In this paper, findings from the negotiation literature are tested in the context of mergers. Firms' relative threat capacity, surveillance by constituents, accountability to constituents, and the attractiveness of initial offers are shown to predict management's resistance to mergers in a manner consistent with theories in the negotiation literature. The pattern of predicted two-way and three-way interactions support speculations and findings previously reported in the negotiation literature as well. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

The Americans for Indian Opportunity (AIO), a national Indian organization concerned primarily with tribal governance issues, has sponsored numerous projects during the 1980s which suggest that better models of communication and consensus-building are desperately needed within Indian tribal communities. Due in part to the use of forms of problem-solving that are incongruent with tribal values and cultural patterns, many Indian communities have been paralyzed in their efforts to develop consensus on strategic plans. While many tribes have experimented with various forms of conflict management techniques, careful consideration must be given to the appropriateness of the approach employed Because the cultural traditions of Indian communities are rooted in a consensual approach to problem-solving, dispute resolution approaches imposed by non-Indian law and bureaucracies often conflict with tribal values. This paper reports the attempt of one tribe, the Winnebago in Nebraska, to introduce a system of planning and problem-solving adequate for dealing with the needs of the tribal community in a culturally appropriate manner.

The competence model of conflict communication suggests that individuals who use various conflict styles will be perceived differently in terms of appropriateness and effectiveness. A simulated organizational decision-making task involving 100 randomly-paired dyads consisting of business students suggested that an integrative conflict style is generally perceived as the most appropriate (in terms of being both a polite, prosocial strategy and an adaptive, situationally appropriate strategy) and most effective style. The dominating style tended to be perceived as inappropriate when used by others, but some participants judged themselves as more effective when they used dominating tactics along with integrating tactics. The obliging style was generally perceived as neutral, although some participants perceived themselves to be less effective and relationally appropriate when they employed obliging tactics. The avoiding style was generally perceived as ineffective and inappropriate. Finally, compromising was perceived as a relatively neutral style, although some participants judged their partners to be more effective and relationally appropriate if they compromised. Overall, these results and others provide general support for the competence model's predictions, while also suggesting some modifications and directions for future research.

This article asserts that standard form arbitration clauses do not encourage fast and economical resolution of disputes on small construction projects. Furthermore, standard form clauses are frequently a hindrance to that goal. Instead of reliance on preprinted forms, both owners of projects and contractors will be more likely to resolve disputes by devoting sufficient time and legal talent to preparation of tailor made dispute resolution provisions. Such provisions must take into account the needs of the individual parties involved, as well as the legal climate of the community. Absent this attention to detail, use of a standard form arbitration clause leads to the same waste of resources as litigation and the frequently dissatisfying results that follow. It is also argued that in certain cases preservation of the right to litigate narrow legal issues is to be preferred over arbitration.

Prior research has argued that management has an advantage in many grievance cases largely because it enjoys the discretion to pursue these cases or otherwise as it chooses. Conversely, organized labor has far less discretion inasmuch as it must pursue serious grievances for which positive outcomes cannot reasonably be expected It was recently demonstrated that grievances “filed in the name of the union” may provide an important exception to this principle. This empirical assessment of arbitration cases (N = 520) extends these arguments from the context of the grievance to that of arbitration, an arguably more valid and generalizable context for such an assessment. The results indicate that “filing in the name of the union” does provide a substantive edge in arbitration outcomes, even while controlling for the various types of arbitration cases.

This paper reviews published arbitration awards dealing with fighting covering 1980 to 1990 as reported in the Bureau of National Affairs (BNA) and Commerce Clearing House (CCH). It attempts to show arbitral guidelines developed from the case sources. Where disagreement in approach to issues by arbitrators is noted, competing schools of thought are presented The majority of arbitrators define fighting as a physical encounter with the intent of offensively striking another person that must normally occur on company premises. For an employee to be considered acting in self-defense s/he must have been assaulted by another employee and be of the mind that force is necessary to prevent bodily harm. Moreover, an employee acting in self defense must use only the amount of force necessary to protect himself or herself from danger. The right to discipline for off-premises fights may be accorded to an employer when the fight is related to disagreements which have had their origins in the work place or is a continuation of a dispute occurring in the plant, or is otherwise clearly work-related Discipline may also be issued when a supervisor is attacked away from the plant premises. A major factor leading to the mitigation of discipline can occur when both parties to a fight are determined to be equally guilty (i.e., there was no clear provocateur), but one is given a harsher penalty than the other. When assessing penalties imposed for fighting, arbitrators also take into account the length of service and/or the work record of an involved employee. The contrition or lack of contrition by one or both employees may also lead an arbitrator to modify or sustain the degree of the penalty imposed depending on the severity of the altercation. An arbitrator may reduce the degree of discipline based on management's failure to diffuse conditions leading to a fight when these are known in advance, or for inaction to break up a fight before it becomes serious.

Prior work has demonstrated that management enjoys a substantive edge in many grievance cases largely as a function of its discretion to pursue or dismiss these cases as it chooses. Conversely, organized labor has far less discretion in as much as it must pursue serious grievances which may be less viable. It is argued here that grievances “filed in the name of the union” may provide an important exception to this principle. This field assessment of format grievances (N = 538) indicates robust differences in the outcomes of grievances between those “filed in the name of the union” and those filed in the more traditional manner. This tendency may provide some countervailing influence for the grievant to the advantages posited for management.

This study examines the method of scenario analysis as a means of exposing hidden assumptions which cause misattributions that lead to multicultural conflict and as a way of assessing cross-cultural understanding. Results from thirty-five critical incident interviews of technical professionals and semi-structured scenario questionnaires from graduate business and engineering students are presented. The results provide support for the use of scenarios as a method of exposing hidden assumptions leading to multicultural conflict and as a process which helps participants deal with the conflict. Implications for organizational research and practice are discussed, including the use of scenario analysis as an evaluation and measurement tool for culturally-related conflict in organizations.

In 1984, Local P-9 of the United Food and Commercial Worker's Union (UFCW) launched a publicity campaign to protest wage cuts at the George A. Hormel Company of Austin, Minnesota. This corporate campaign was followed in August, 1985, by a bitter strike. After P-9 had been striking for nearly a year, the international officers of the UFCW placed the local P-9 union in trusteeship, replaced its officers, and negotiated a new labor contract.

Social systems devise rules for member conduct and often specify punitive action for nonconformity. However, confronting and signaling the intent to punish a rule violator may be an inherently face-threatening and volatile situation. As such, in this paper we seek to add to the research aimed at minimizing the negative effects of confrontation. We conducted an experiment to examine the impact of linguistic cues and coercive potential on message categorization and on receiver perceptions of threat and face-sensitivity. Results suggest that threats might be considered a special class of warnings, distinguishable by a speaker-based locus of punishment Locus of punishment did not, however, impact perceptions of having been warned. These findings thus call into question the assumed parallelism between researcher conceptualizations of threats and warnings and those of typical language-users. Additionally, targets reported feeling less threatened and perceived more face-sensitivity, in cases when the speaker was not the source of punishment. Perceptions of threat were decreased when disclaimers were employed and where the message originated from a peer rather than an authority. Power of speech had an impact in ambiguous situations. Implications for researchers and practitioners are discussed.

Individuals sometimes feel compelled to confront a rule-violator. Because the goal of a confrontation is to stop the objectionable action, the violator may feel that his or her autonomy is being threatened and may resist complying. To reduce the likelihood of negative outcomes, confronters are advised to engage in discourse that makes them appear face-sensitive. However, we argue that the authority of a speaker and the type of directive (imperative or suggestion) that is spoken interact so as to affect the degree of face-sensitivity attributed to a confronter. We conducted an experiment to test this notion. Consistent with our position, authorities are perceived as more sensitive when expressing suggestions and are attributed coercive potential regardless of the directive enacted Peers, however, are attributed greater coercive potential when communicating imperatives, while face-sensitivity is unaffected by the type of directive. Implications for confrontation are discussed.

This study used a scenario design to examine whether there are different reactions among whites based on how a diversity program is justified by an organization. A reactive justification (affirmative action) was proposed to result in greater backlash than a competitive advantage justification (diversity management). In addition, this study examined the effects of personal and group outcomes on backlash and explored two individual difference variables, gender and orientation toward other ethnic groups, as potential moderators of the proposed relationships. Backlash was operationalized in four ways: an affect-based measure (negative emotions), two cognitive-based measures (attitude toward the diversity program, perceptions of unfairness of promotion procedures), and a behavioral-intentions-based measure (organizational commitment). Results indicated that the diversity management justification was associated with more favorable support of the diversity initiative, and that unfavorable personal and group outcomes adversely affected backlash reactions. There was no empirical support for the influence of the moderator variables on the proposed relationships, however, a main effect for gender was found. Implications of the study's findings and future research directions are discussed.

Literature on power differentials within mediation sessions has indicated that when power imbalances are too great, mediation is not the proper venue for the resolution of these disputes. However, when there is not an incapacitating imbalance, it is possible that mediators can take steps to rectify this situation. A field study was conducted at two community dispute settlement centers in New York State, with the proceedings of 73 actual cases transcribed and then coded to: (1) determine the impact of unequal power on the outcome of interpersonal mediation; (2) examine how mediators deal with unequal power; (3) assess the impact of mediator efforts to balance power discrepancies, and (4) determine the impact of disputant characteristics on differences in power and outcome. It was found that the mediators in the present study did attempt to remedy power imbalances: by encouraging the more passive disputant to participate more in the hearing by criticizing aggressive disputants, and by asking embarrassing questions of more argumentative disputants and those taking a determined principled stance. However, contrary to expectations, it was found that mediator efforts to balance power discrepancies were not successful, power discrepancies did not lead to unequal agreements, and being a female or a minority did not lead to an unfair outcome.

Research adopting prospect theory to examine negotiator performance was extended to mediation. We examined whether framing negotiator payoffs in terms of gains or losses affects a mediator's behavior towards negotiators when the mediator has no personal frame. The use of a mediator presents a critical test between an explanation of framing effects based on bargainers' underlying preferences for risk and a simpler explanation based on the psychophysical properties of perceived gains and losses. A computer-based experiment was conducted in which subjects acted as mediators between two disputants (computer programs) in an integrative bargaining task. As predicted, subjects proposed settlements of higher joint value when both disputants had loss frames than when both had gain frames, supporting the psychophysical explanation. Moreover, within mixed framed disputes, subjects' proposals favored the loss-framed bargainer over the gain-framed bargainer. However, predicted interactions between bargainer frame and concession-making activity were not supported Implications of the results for real bargainers and mediators are discussed.

This paper tests the fit of three models of integrative and distributive bargaining using eight hostage negotiation transcripts. Putnam (1990) argues that integrative and distributive bargaining processes are best understood through the interdependence model that emphasizes the dynamic nature in which bargainers make transitions between integrative and distributive positions. The separate and the stage models predict more stable patterns of distributive and integrative behavior. To determine the goodness of fit for these three models, this paper compares integrative and distributive strategy use among actual and simulated hostage negotiations. These hostage negotiations, obtained from the FBI and a Midwest state police organization, were transcribed and coded using a scheme designed to tap cooperative and competitive strategy use of both hostage takers and police negotiators. The data reveal that the interdependence model best fits the simulated cases. This fit is evidenced by the major shifts between integrative and distributive orientations displayed by hostage takers and police negotiators. The separate models and the stage appear to fit several features of the authentic hostage negotiation cases. The study concludes that the extent to which each model emerges depends largely on which contextual parameters dominate the interaction.

To speak of collective bargaining as a collaborative process seems a contradiction. Since 1935 when collective bargaining was institutional-ized in the Wagner Act, the process has assumed that the disputing par-ties are enemies, competing for scarce resources with different objec-tives. This article explains the implementation of a new theory of col-lective bargaining which encourages truthfulness, candor, and the acknowledgement of shared goals and avoids the negative and self-defeating power plays of the adversarial collective bargaining process. As a result of this process, grievances in the observed company declined from 40 per year under previous contracts, to 2 in 18 months under the current contract; anger and hostility have been nearly eliminated; and there is a real spirit of cooperation present in the plant.