The Future of Conflict Management Systems (original) (raw)
Related papers
The future of employment conflict management systems
Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, 2003
In this article, the authors have offered their view of the future of conflict management systems, and of some of the problems that will slow the pace of those systems' growth. All of these problems are related to the external environment faced by organizations seeking to develop conflict management systems, since there seems to be only a limited potential for influence of internal design features. The threat of the courts, problems with neutrals, and the evolving role of neutral providers may give pause, though, to those organizations currently debating the strategic question of whether to create their own system.
Toward a strategic theory of workplace conflict management
2008
3 1d. OHIO STATE JOURNAL ON DISPUTE RESOLUTION alternative methods of resolving employment disputes that avoided entanglement in the courts. 4 This reasoning had the appeal of Occam's razor-it had the virtues of parsimony and simplicity. The theory that ADR could best be understood as a manifestation of the inefficiency of our legal system also appealed to all those inside and outside the legal profession who believed they had been victimized by a system that badly needed reform. We term the conventional explanation for the rise of ADR the legalistic theory of ADR. The emergence of conflict management systems in the 1990s prompted scholars to frame an explanation for this new organizational phenomenon. These scholars recognized that the legalistic theory could not fully explain the growing use of conflict management systems. Indeed, focusing only on factors external to the firm (i.e., exogenous factors) to explain the rise of systems ignored the critical role played by factors internal to the firm (i.e., endogenous factors). External factors such as litigation, the threat of unionization, and market competition were found to be a necessary but insufficient explanation for the use of systems in organizations. One needed to understand that a fuller explanation for emergence of systems had to take account of the interaction between the internal dynamics of the organization and the external environment in which the organization existed. Some of the internal factors that mattered included management and leadership, political forces within the organization, human resource policies, and the nature and roots of conflict in the organization's employment relations. 5 We propose using the term "systems theory" for those explanations that examine the growing use of systems as a function of the interaction of external threats (such as litigation) and internal needs and pressures. The ultimate purpose of both theories is to explain how organizations resolve workplace disputes. There are two questions that previous theories of conflict resolution have sought to address: What factors explain how an organization handles workplace conflicts? How effective is the organization's handling of workplace conflicts in settling or resolving them? 4 Id.
The Conflict Over Conflict Management The Conflict Over Conflict Management
Excerpt] In this article we look at the traditional approach to workplace conflict, the evolution of conflict management, criticism of this process by progressive and traditional critics, and then consider whether they can be reconciled by taking what we call a strategic view of conflict management in the workplace. This view calls for an alignment between the goals of the conflict management system and the overarching nature of the organization in which that system is implemented. The management of conflict, according to this approach, should complement the organization's strategic posture and existing structures. We maintain that the level of fit between an organization's conflict management philosophy and its strategic goals and objectives dictates whether the conflict management system will enhance or hinder key stakeholder outcomes.
An Uncertain Destination: On the Development of Conflict Management Systems in U.S. Corporations
2004
Excerpt] Our survey and field research have led us to some tentative conclusions that do not conform to the conventional wisdom of our field. From its inception, ADR has been controversial. On the one hand, ADR has been embraced by a coterie of "champions" who have always believed that its advantages over litigation were so obvious and compelling it would only be a matter of time before ADR was adopted universally. These champions have also been missionaries, proselytizing their faith in all quarters and making numerous converts. Like all true believers, ADR champions cannot understand why others have not yet "gotten the faith." On the other hand, there has always been a group of ADR opponents who believe ADR undercuts our system of justice and must be resisted. ADR champions believe in the inevitability of ADR, while ADR opponents believe the movement to ADR can be stopped and even reversed. On balance, we believe in ADR's merits and share many of its champi...
A Strategic Approach to Conflict Management Systems
As a practice of identifying and handling conflicts, conflict management has been subjected to an intense scrutiny and even criticism, coming from both traditionalists (still dominant among Romanian managers), and progressive managers. As a result, conflict management systems got blamed for not including all stakeholders' interests, as well as for undermining managers' authority, among other not less important aspects.
In theories of conflict management, managers' conflict resolution skills have often been understood as their relational attitudes and ability to communicate, but choices of conflict resolution strategies in organizational management should also depend on the types of conflicts managers face. Understanding how a complex conflict situation involves one or several conflict types is a matter of understanding the deep structure of the conflict. Knowledge of such deep structure is a key to realizing what the conflict is about and how it should be resolved. The chapter uses conflict theory to distinguish between six conflict types that are especially important from an organizational perspective: interpretation conflicts, argumentation conflicts, value conflicts, interest conflicts, role conflicts and personal conflicts. After having clarified their signifcance in an organizational context, the chapter elucidates how knowledge of the conflict types and how they are logically related to each other can be used in managers' conflict resolution practices. The last part of the chapter uses the conflict types to develop a model for practical conflict resolution in management. The model can be used as a tool for analyzing conflict situations-to gain a deeper and more systematic understanding of how the situations should be resolved in accordance with the best interest of the organization.
Conflict management is the task where in the aspect of conflict leads to a disagreement between two or more individuals or groups, with each individual or group trying to gain acceptance of its views or objections over others. When employees do not cope-up with the conflict situation, there is an increased absenteeism and exit of employees from the organisation and work. On the other hand it has been opinioned that conflict is good for the organization as it produces new ideas, increases competitive spirit, cohesiveness in the team and instils an atmosphere of brotherhood in the organization. This is only possible if ideas are properly channelized and there is proper delegation of authority, empowerment and autonomy in functioning. Conflict is a dynamic situation which may take the organisation to greater heights when it is positive or may ruin the organisation if it is negative. By and large conflict is the most necessary aspect in the changing scenario of business as there are plenty of things that changes and teaches to the managers and other stake holders of business.
Conflict and Conflict Management
Conflict cannot be avoided since it is an inevitable aspect of work teams. Conflict may be defined as a struggle or contest between people with opposing needs, ideas, beliefs, values, or goals. Conflict on teams is inevitable; however, the results of conflict are not predetermined. Conflict might escalate and lead to nonproductive results, or conflict can be beneficially resolved and lead to quality final products. Therefore, learning to manage conflict is integral to a high-performance team. Although very few people go looking for conflict, more often than not. Conflict management involves acquiring skills related to conflict resolution, selfawareness about conflict modes, conflict communication skills, and establishing a structure for management of conflict in organizational environment. This paper presents types of conflict describe the benefits and detriments of conflict and present the causes of conflict. Strategies are also presented to prevent and to effectively manage conflict.
Organizational Communication and Conflict Management Systems
Nordicom Review, 2010
The purpose of the present article is to examine the prevailing model of systematic organizational conflict management from an organizational communicative perspective and to suggest directions for improvement. Particularly the model of conflict management system (CMS) is examined at the macro-level from the novel theoretical perspective of social complexity augmented with an interpretive view of organizational communication. Specifically two models – the dual function of communication and the arena model – are utilized to illustrate weaknesses and points of development in traditional CMS thinking. CMS was found to represent a rather limited vision of contemporary conflict management. It is rooted in a mechanistic view of organizational communication, which, we assert, is problematic from the organizational conflict management perspective, both theoretically and practically. The differences between CMS and social complexity approaches are identified, and a fresh framework for strate...