Conflict Resolution Strategies and Third-Party Interventions in Organizations

UPI Study › Courses › Leadership and Organizational Behavior › Free lessons › Lesson 13.2 Free with a free account

Conflict Resolution Strategies and Third-Party Interventions in Organizations

Leadership and Organizational Behavior · Chapter 13: Conflict Management and Negotiation in OrganizationsSection 13.2 · lesson 78 of 12211 min · free with a free account

← Workplace Conflict: Definitions, Sources, and Functional vs. Dysfunctional TypesNext lesson: The Negotiation Process: A Five-Step Framework and Practical Applications →

Earn 3 college credits for Leadership and Organizational BehaviorRecommended for credit by NCCRS · Business 206 · self-paced · one payment, lifetime access
Enroll in Leadership and Organizational Behavior · $250 →Download the syllabus (PDF)

In this lesson

Five modes, two diagnostic questions, and four kinds of outside help.

  • Map the five conflict-handling modes on two dimensions
  • Diagnose issue importance against relationship importance
  • Use de-escalation before attempting resolution
  • Match mediation, arbitration, ombudsman or coaching to the case

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 (1,558 words). Read along, or search it.

Conflict Management and Negotiation in Organizations

Resolution Strategies and Third-Party Interventions

The last subchapter defined conflict and sorted it into types. This one is about what to actually do when a disagreement lands in front of you. We will build the five conflict-handling modes on two simple dimensions. Then we will add the two diagnostic questions that turn those modes into a decision tool. We will cover de-escalation, which has to happen before any framework can work. And we will look at four kinds of outside help, and when each one fits. One idea runs through all of it. The most common failure in conflict resolution is not picking the wrong strategy. It is picking a strategy before you have understood the problem. Diagnosis comes first, every time.

The Choice

Two Dimensions Behind Every Response

Once a disagreement surfaces, the parties face a choice about how to respond. And that choice is rarely made consciously. Under pressure, most of us fall back on a habitual style. A style shaped by temperament, past experience, and the norms of our team. Yet no single style is correct for every situation. The skill that separates effective professionals is the ability to read the situation. And to select a response fitting both the importance of the issue and of the relationship. A widely used framework organizes responses along two dimensions. Assertiveness reflects how strongly a person pursues their own concerns. Cooperativeness reflects how much they attend to the concerns of others. Those two are independent, which is the insight the whole model rests on.

Thomas-Kilmann

Five Modes on the Grid

Plot assertiveness against cooperativeness, and you get five distinct modes. This is the Thomas-Kilmann model, and each mode has characteristic strengths and risks. High assertiveness with low cooperativeness gives you competing. High on both gives you collaborating. Moderate on both sits in the middle, and that is compromising. Low on both gives you avoiding. And low assertiveness with high cooperativeness gives you accommodating. Notice how the grid clarifies something the names alone do not. Compromising is not the same as collaborating, and it is not a weaker version of it. Compromising is moderate on both dimensions. Collaborating is high on both. One splits the difference. The other looks for an answer that satisfies everyone.

Modes One And Two

Competing and Accommodating

Start at opposite corners. Competing pairs high assertiveness with low cooperativeness. The person pursues their own goal at the other party's expense. It is appropriate when quick, decisive action is essential. Or when an unpopular but necessary decision must be made. Or when the stakes are too high to risk a poor compromise. Accommodating is the mirror. Low assertiveness, high cooperativeness. A person sets aside their own concerns to satisfy the other party. It builds goodwill, and it is wise when the issue matters far more to the other side. But as defaults they cost. Competing, overused, breeds resentment and blocks information. Accommodating, used habitually, signals that your interests do not count. Which invites others to take advantage.

Modes Three And Four

Avoiding and Compromising

The next pair is avoiding and compromising. Avoiding is low on both dimensions. It sidesteps the conflict altogether. There are genuine moments for it. When emotions are too hot for a productive conversation. When the issue is trivial. Or when more information is needed before acting. As a default pattern, though, avoidance lets problems fester and decisions drift. Compromising is moderate on both dimensions. Each party gives up something to reach a workable agreement. It is efficient and fair-feeling, which is exactly why it is so popular. But it can leave both parties partially dissatisfied. And it may stop short of the creative solutions that fuller collaboration would uncover.

Mode Five

Collaborating, and the Case for Range

The fifth mode is collaborating, and it is high on both dimensions. It works to satisfy the concerns of all parties. It does that by digging beneath positions to find shared interests. Positions versus interests returns in the negotiation subchapter. This mode is demanding. But for important, complex issues it produces the most durable and inventive outcomes. And the mindset matters as much as the method. The collaborating mindset treats the other party as a partner in a shared problem. Rather than as an opponent to be defeated. Now, an important caution. No mode is universally superior. A skilled professional might compete to enforce a safety rule in the morning. Accommodate a colleague on a low-stakes preference at lunch. And collaborate on a strategic plan that afternoon. The aim is range.

Diagnosis

Two Questions Before You Choose

So how do you choose? A recurring mistake is choosing before understanding. Two questions guide a sound diagnosis. First, how important is the substantive issue at stake? A disagreement over a safety-critical procedure is not like one over a memo's wording. Second, how important is the ongoing relationship between the parties? A one-time interaction with an outside vendor invites a different posture. Different, that is, from a dispute between two people who must collaborate daily for years. Held together, those questions give practical guidance. Both matter greatly, so collaborate. When the issue matters little but the relationship matters a great deal, accommodate. When the issue is critical but the relationship is incidental, competing may be justified. And when neither carries much weight, avoiding conserves energy for problems that deserve it.

De-Escalation

The Prerequisite Skill

Before any of those strategies can work, something else usually has to happen first. The emotional temperature has to come down. When people feel threatened, careful reasoning gives way to faster, defensive reactions. And even the best framework will fail against a flood of emotion. So de-escalation is a prerequisite skill, not an optional nicety. Several techniques lower it. Genuine listening, reflecting back before you respond. That signals respect, and it slows the exchange down. Naming the emotion in the room, calmly and without judgment, often defuses it. So does changing the setting. A short break, or moving off email to a face-to-face conversation. None of these resolves the underlying issue. Each creates the conditions where resolution is possible. There is a dependable sequence when a dispute lands on a manager's desk. Stabilize the emotion, clarify the real interests, generate options together, and only then decide. Jumping straight to a decision is the most common reason resolutions fail to hold.

Outside Help

Four Third-Party Interventions

Sometimes the parties simply cannot resolve it alone. They may lack the trust, the perspective, or the authority to reach agreement. In those cases organizations turn to third parties. Neutral individuals who help manage the process, the relationship, or the decision itself. The interventions differ in one crucial respect. How much control the neutral holds over the final outcome. In mediation, the neutral facilitates dialogue, and the parties themselves decide. It is best suited to preserving relationships. In arbitration, the neutral hears evidence and rules. The arbitrator decides. It is best suited to binding, final decisions. An ombudsman is a confidential adviser with no binding power, who surfaces systemic issues. And conflict coaching develops one party's skills, building capability over time.

Mediation And Arbitration

Who Owns the Outcome

Look more closely at the two best known, because they differ fundamentally. In mediation, a neutral guides a structured conversation. But the mediator holds no power to impose a settlement. The mediator helps each side feel heard, and clarifies interests beneath stated positions. Then tests possible solutions against those interests. Because the parties retain ownership of the outcome, mediated agreements tend to last. And the working relationship often survives intact. That makes mediation especially valuable when the parties must keep working together. Arbitration moves decision authority to the neutral instead. Each side presents its case, and the arbitrator renders a decision. In binding arbitration, the parties have agreed in advance to accept it. Arbitration delivers a definite resolution, faster and more privately than litigation. But it sacrifices control, and can leave the losing side feeling defeated rather than reconciled.

Ombudsman And Coaching

The Quieter Two

The other two interventions are quieter, and often more useful. An ombudsman is a designated, confidential and impartial resource. They listen to concerns, offer guidance on options, and help people navigate the system. Crucially, an ombudsman usually holds no authority to impose outcomes. The value comes from two directions. First, a safe channel for raising issues at all. Second, because the ombudsman sees many such conversations, spotting patterns. Patterns that point to systemic problems leadership should be addressing. Conflict coaching works with one individual at a time. It builds the skills and confidence to handle disagreement directly. Rather than resolving one dispute, it strengthens long-term capacity. How to prepare for a difficult conversation, regulate emotion, and listen for interests. Over time, a workforce skilled in these techniques needs fewer formal interventions.

System Design

A Layered System, Not a Single Channel

So which intervention, for which case? Three practical considerations. The first is how much the parties need to preserve control over the outcome. If relationship and ownership matter most, mediation is the natural fit. If a definite, enforceable decision matters more, arbitration delivers the finality. The second consideration is confidentiality. Someone unsure whether they even have a legitimate grievance needs a discreet first stop. So does someone who fears that raising it openly will invite retaliation. The third is whether the real need is resolving a dispute, or developing capability. If it is capability, coaching addresses the root rather than the symptom. These are not mutually exclusive, and a good system lets a concern move between them. Which points at the design principle. Think in tiers. Most disagreements should be resolvable directly between the parties. Fewer need a facilitator, fewer still formal mediation, and only the rarest arbitration. Handling each dispute at the lowest effective tier is itself a mark of organizational maturity.

About Leadership and Organizational Behavior at UPI Study

Leadership and Organizational Behavior (Business 206) is a self-paced online course of 122 video lessons in 20 chapters, from personality, perception and motivation to leadership and power, teams, decision-making, conflict, organizational structure, culture, ethics and change. 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 Leadership and Organizational Behavior with UPI Study

Why people act the way they do at workLeadership and Organizational Behavior explains how individuals, groups and leaders behave inside organizations: motivation, attitudes, teams, power, conflict, culture and change. It is a core course in business administration, management and human resources programs.
Credit at a fraction of the priceThe same 3 credits can cost $750 or more at a US college. Here it is one payment, self-paced, with lifetime access.
Finish your degree soonerTransfer credits reduce the courses you still owe, so you can graduate earlier or lighten a heavy semester.
Strengthen an applicationA completed college-level course on an official transcript shows admissions and scholarship committees you can do the work.
Study on your own scheduleNo start dates, no deadlines. Watch the lessons, practice, and take the final when you are ready.
130,000+students helped with college creditsACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.

Where the credit goes

Universities that work with NCCRS

Leadership and Organizational Behavior 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 UniversityThomas Edison State UniversitySigned partnerUniversity of the PeopleUniversity of the PeopleSigned partnerCharter Oak State CollegeCharter Oak State CollegeSigned partnerStrayer UniversityStrayer UniversitySigned partnerColumbia Southern UniversityColumbia Southern UniversitySigned partnerIndiana TechIndiana TechSigned partnerPenn StatePenn StateWorks with NCCRSSouthern New Hampshire UniversitySouthern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRSSUNYSUNYWorks 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 Strategies and Third-Party Interventions in Organizations

What are the five conflict-handling modes in the Thomas-Kilmann model?
The Thomas-Kilmann model describes five modes: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating. They come from plotting assertiveness, how strongly a person pursues their own concerns, against cooperativeness, how much they attend to others' concerns. Competing is high assertiveness and low cooperativeness, collaborating is high on both, compromising is moderate on both, avoiding is low on both, and accommodating is low assertiveness with high cooperativeness.
What is the difference between compromising and collaborating in conflict resolution?
Compromising splits the difference, while collaborating looks for a solution that fully satisfies everyone. Compromising is moderate on both assertiveness and cooperativeness: each side gives up something, which is efficient but can leave both partly dissatisfied. Collaborating is high on both and digs beneath stated positions to find shared interests. It takes more effort, but for important, complex issues it tends to produce the most durable and creative outcomes.
How do you choose the right conflict resolution strategy?
Start by diagnosing two things: how important the issue is and how important the ongoing relationship is. When both matter greatly, collaborate. When the issue matters little but the relationship matters a lot, accommodate. When the issue is critical but the relationship is incidental, competing may be justified. When neither carries much weight, avoiding saves energy. Lowering emotional temperature first, through listening and naming emotions, helps any strategy work.
What is the difference between mediation and arbitration in the workplace?
The difference is who decides the outcome. In mediation, a neutral third party guides the conversation and clarifies interests, but the parties make the final agreement, so mediation tends to preserve working relationships. In arbitration, the neutral hears each side's case and issues a decision, which is binding if the parties agreed in advance. Arbitration gives a definite, private resolution faster than litigation, but the parties give up control.

About the Leadership and Organizational Behavior course

How many college credits is Leadership and Organizational Behavior?
Leadership and Organizational Behavior (Business 206) carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
How much does Leadership and Organizational Behavior cost and what is included?
$250, paid once, with lifetime access: all 122 video lessons, a practice quiz after each, the graded work and final exam, and an official transcript when you finish. Students who want several courses choose UPI Study PRO instead.
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
UPI Study has signed partner agreements with universities such as Thomas Edison State University, University of the People and Charter Oak State College, and works with universities such as Penn State, SNHU and SUNY. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities. Use "Find my college" on this page to check yours.
How long does Leadership and Organizational Behavior take?
It is self-paced with no deadlines. The 122 lessons total about 21 hours of video; most students add reading and practice time and finish in a few weeks to a few months, on their own schedule.
How are the exams done?
Quizzes and assignments are online in the course. The final exam is taken online with proctoring; a person on the UPI Study team checks assignments, usually within two days.
How do my credits reach my college?
When the course shows 100% complete, request the official transcript from your dashboard. It is sent to the college you name, and you can send it to more than one. Check your college first with "Find my college" on this page, or ask Athena.

Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Leadership and Organizational Behavior.

122 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.

Enroll in Leadership and Organizational Behavior →Download the syllabusEvery course with PRO →
Leadership and Organizational Behavior
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →