UPI Study › Courses › Foundations of Leadership › Free lessons › Lesson 11.3 Free with a free account
Conflict Resolution: Skills, Techniques, and Methods
Foundations of Leadership · Chapter 11: Conflict & Diversity ModuleSection 11.3 · lesson 76 of 9013 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Foundations of Leadership.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Foundations of Leadership
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Managing and Problem-Solving Conflicts in Organisations →← The Conflict Process: Definition, Stages, and DynamicsNext lesson: Managing and Problem-Solving Conflicts in Organisations →
In this lesson
Skills, techniques and methods - the practitioner's toolkit.
- Name the interpersonal skills resolution rests on
- Evaluate the five Thomas-Kilmann modes
- Distinguish negotiation, mediation and arbitration
- Apply principled negotiation to real disputes
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,667 words). Read along, or search it.
Conflict & Diversity Module
Conflict Resolution
Knowing what kind of conflict you have in front of you does not resolve it. Knowledge without skill is inert. This section is the practitioner's toolkit. The interpersonal competencies resolution rests on. The five strategic modes people use to engage with conflict. And the three formal techniques that structure resolution when informal effort has failed. Negotiation, mediation, and arbitration.
The Foundation
Knowledge Without Skill Is Inert
Start with the foundation, because every technique later in this section sits on top of it. Active listening means giving full, undivided attention to another person. Receiving not only the content of their words, but the emotional tone and the concern underneath. It signals respect, and it lowers defensive reactivity in the other party. It also does something more useful. It frequently reveals that a stated position conceals a more addressable interest. Empathy is the ability to understand, and to a degree share, another person's emotional experience. It is distinct from sympathy, which is feeling sorry for someone, and from agreement. You can empathise with a party's distress while still challenging their position. Often you have to. Collapsing the two is how leaders end up conceding on substance in order to manage a mood. Emotional regulation is the third, and it applies to the leader as much as to anyone. Staying calm, self-aware and deliberately purposeful under that pressure is among the most powerful competencies a leader can build.
The Foundation
Three More, Less Often Taught
Three more skills, less commonly taught, and each doing distinct work. Assertive communication is expressing your own perspective and needs clearly, directly, and without aggression. Describing an observable behaviour is assertive. Making a character attribution is not. That is the whole difference between an I statement and a you always accusation. Perspective-taking is deliberate cognitive effort to see the situation from the other side. Including their constraints, their pressures, and their values. It does not require agreement. It requires intellectual generosity and curiosity. And problem reframing is shifting the framing of the conflict. From positional, I want this and you want that. To interest-based, what does each of us actually need here. Reframing is the highest-leverage of the six. Because positional bargaining forecloses solution spaces that interest-based framing reopens.
Two Dimensions
Assertiveness Against Cooperativeness
The most widely used framework for how individuals approach conflict is the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann developed it in nineteen seventy-four. It maps behaviour onto two independent dimensions. Assertiveness is the degree to which an individual pursues their own concerns. Cooperativeness is the degree to which they attempt to satisfy the other party's concerns. Those two axes produce five distinct modes. High assertiveness and low cooperativeness is competing. Win-lose. High on both is collaborating. Win-win, and the most demanding to actually achieve. Low on both is avoiding, which the model treats as lose-lose. Low assertiveness and high cooperativeness is accommodating. Lose-win. And moderate on both is compromising, sitting in the centre of the grid.
Five Modes
Each One Has Its Hour
The value of the model is not the labels. It is the conditions attached to each one. Competing is appropriate for emergency decisions. For unpopular but necessary action. And for protecting yourself against exploitation. Collaborating is right when both parties' concerns are too important to trade away. When you are building a long-term relationship, or the issue is complex with multiple possible solutions. Compromising suits moderately important goals, and situations needing a temporary resolution. It also suits parties of roughly equal power, and cases where collaboration has already been tried and failed. Avoiding is legitimate when the issue is trivial, or the costs of confrontation outweigh the benefits. Also when emotions are running too high, or you simply need more information first. Accommodating is right when the relationship is paramount, the other party is correct, or the issue matters far more to them. The critical insight is that no single mode is universally optimal. Leaders who habitually default to one, however sophisticated, will systematically mishandle every conflict that calls for another. What the instrument actually measures is situational fluency, not style.
Negotiation
Dividing a Pie Against Growing One
Negotiation is the most fundamental resolution technique. Direct, structured dialogue toward a mutually acceptable agreement. Distributive negotiation, also called positional bargaining, treats value as a fixed pie. Any gain by one party is a loss for the other. So parties open with positions more extreme than their real preferences. They concede reluctantly, and they conceal their actual reservation point. Sometimes that is unavoidable. A single-issue, one-time transaction leaves very little else available. But it typically damages relationships, and produces collectively suboptimal outcomes. Integrative negotiation seeks instead to expand the value available. By identifying and addressing the underlying interests of all parties, rather than trading positions. The landmark statement of it is Fisher, Ury and Patton's book Getting to Yes, from nineteen ninety-one. Its four principles still function as the working checklist.
Four Principles
What Principled Bargaining Requires
The first principle is to separate the people from the problem. Address interpersonal dynamics and substantive issues on separate tracks. And treat the other party as a partner in problem-solving, rather than an adversary to defeat. The second is to focus on interests, not positions. A position is what someone says they want. An interest is why they want it. Positions are often flatly incompatible. The interests underneath them frequently are not. The third is to invent options for mutual gain. Before evaluating or committing to anything, generate a wide range of creative options. Including some that seem implausible, through uninhibited brainstorming. Generating before evaluating is the step almost everyone skips. And evaluating an option as it appears kills the creative range that integrative agreements are built from. The fourth is to insist on objective criteria. Ground the agreement in market rates, expert opinion or industry norms, rather than in whoever has more stamina.
BATNA
Know What Happens If You Walk
One concept does more work in negotiation than any other, and it has an awkward acronym. BATNA. Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement. It is the course of action a party will take if the negotiation fails. Understanding your own BATNA establishes the floor, below which no agreement should be accepted. Understanding the other party's BATNA, or even its limits, provides leverage. It also reveals the Zone of Possible Agreement. That is the range within which a deal satisfying both parties can actually be struck. Leaders who enter a negotiation without a clear BATNA are systematically disadvantaged. Without a floor, every offer sounds like it might be the last one. Capitulation starts to look rational. Take a concrete case. A department head is negotiating a budget increase. Their BATNA is delaying the project by one quarter. Knowing that clarifies the minimum acceptable outcome, and prevents accepting an inadequate offer out of anxiety.
Mediation
A Third Party With No Authority
When direct negotiation has failed, or was never feasible, mediation brings in a neutral third party. Crucially, the mediator has no decision-making authority. Their function is facilitative, not adjudicative. That is what makes mediation preserve party autonomy, and confidentiality, far better than arbitration or litigation. The process runs through six phases. Opening and ground rules, establishing a safe space. Storytelling, in which each party gives an uninterrupted narrative. Issue identification, where positions get separated from interests. Option generation, brainstormed without judgement. Agreement negotiation, exploring the trade-offs. And closure, with a written commitment. Leaders often act as informal mediators inside their own teams. That role demands real care, because impartiality has to be genuine and has to look genuine. Where the leader has a direct stake, or the conflict is serious enough, bring in a trained external mediator.
Arbitration
When the Decision Leaves the Room
Arbitration is the formal end of the spectrum. A neutral arbitrator hears evidence and arguments from both parties, and renders a binding decision. Unlike mediation, arbitration removes decision-making authority from the parties entirely. It is appropriate where voluntary agreement cannot be reached. Where a binding decision is legally required. Where speed of resolution is critical. Or where the parties simply lack the trust or the communication skills to negotiate directly. In negotiation, the parties retain it fully. In mediation, the parties still control the outcome while the mediator facilitates. In arbitration, the arbitrator decides and the parties comply. The principal limitation of arbitration is structural, not procedural. Its adversarial form typically damages the relationship further. And it produces winners and losers, rather than genuine resolution.
Case
Six Months Against Three at DataBridge
DataBridge Technologies had a serious conflict over the roadmap for its next software release. Priya, the Head of Engineering, insisted on six months to build a robust, scalable architecture. James, the Chief Commercial Officer, demanded a three-month release to capture a market window. Both dug in, and executive leadership asked for a facilitated resolution session. Structured dialogue turned up something neither had stated. Priya's core interest was not six months as such. It was avoiding a repeat of a prior catastrophic product failure caused by rushed development. James's core interest was not three months as such. It was being able to credibly communicate a release timeline to a key client, whose contract renewed in ninety days. Stated that way, the two interests are not incompatible at all. The team generated a phased release. A feature-limited but stable version in ten weeks. That satisfied James's client commitment. A full-featured version followed four months later, meeting Priya's standard. Both parties agreed. The client signed. The full product launched on schedule, without defects. And the integrative solution had been invisible to both of them while they stayed locked in positional bargaining.
Consolidate
Fluency Beats Style
Two things are worth carrying out of this section. The first is that every formal technique here degrades without the underlying skills. Mediation without active listening is two monologues with a chair in the middle. Principled negotiation without perspective-taking cannot find an interest to work with. The second is that the three methods form a sequence. Negotiation, then mediation, then arbitration. Each step adds structure, and each step removes control from the parties themselves. So each step buys certainty and spends relationship. Which means the last resort should be reached deliberately, rather than by drift. Arbitration is right when a binding decision is genuinely required. It is not a default for a conflict that nobody gave a real attempt at the earlier two.
About Foundations of Leadership at UPI Study
Foundations of Leadership (Business 205) is a self-paced online course of 90 video lessons in 12 chapters, from the roots of leadership theory and the trait, situational and transformational approaches to power, decision-making, communication, teams, conflict, diversity and global leadership. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Business courses Every course with PRO →
Compare: Management and leadership courses · Foundations of Leadership vs Leadership and OB
Why take it here
Why students take Foundations of Leadership with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Foundations of Leadership carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Conflict Resolution: Skills, Techniques, and Methods
What are the five conflict modes in the Thomas-Kilmann model?
What are the four principles of principled negotiation in Getting to Yes?
What does BATNA mean in negotiation?
What is the difference between negotiation, mediation, and arbitration?
About the Foundations of Leadership course
How many college credits is Foundations of Leadership?
How much does Foundations of Leadership cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Foundations of Leadership take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Foundations of Leadership.
90 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →