BAB-000

1/15/02

Note on Conflict Resolution: Power, Rights, and Interests

A conflict begins when one party1 makes a claim or demand on another who rejects it. The
conflict may arise from an endless number of scenarios. It may be about a grievance, such as perceptions
about being treated unfairly by someone. It may also be a transaction, such as an attempt to concur on the
value of a product or service. The resolution to a conflict might also take many shapes.2 It may take the
form of an agreement negotiated by the disputants, or the resolution may be a decision rendered by a
neutral third party. Alternatively, the conflict may be resolved by one disputant choosing to abandon the
claim or, alternatively, a by his or her opponents choice to allow it.
A conflict resolution method that focuses primarily on the needs and concerns of the parties in
conflict is called an interests-based3 procedure. When disputants adopt an interests-based approach,
they do so with the understanding that their objective is a solution that satisfies all concerned. The
negotiators focus on mutuality (satisfaction for both sides) because their aim is to reveal both positions
(stated demands) as well as interests, the underlying issues and feelings which may otherwise remain
unexpressed or concealed in a particular dispute. For example, a disputant may take the position of
objecting to a change in her job responsibilities. Her manager may take the position that she must
perform the job as instructed. If the parties focus only on arguing their respective positions on the new
arrangement, they may miss the opportunity to discuss any interests the employee has about adapting to
the change in her work day, or the interests the manager has concerning pressure from her own boss to
make immediate changes in the office routine. Information on the interests of both parties is needed
before the true concerns of the disputants can be appreciated and mutual solutions can be developed.

People involved in a conflict (individuals, teams, organizations, or nations) are commonly referred to as
disputants or parties in negotiation analysis. A person who is neutral about the outcome but assists in some way
in helping the parties reach agreement is called a third party.

There has been ample research on the topic of conflict resolution processes and systems. Some key sources to
consult include the following: Cathy Constantino and Christina Merchant, Designing Conflict Management Systems:
A Guide to Creating Productive and Healthy Organizations, ( Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1996); William Ury, Jeanne
Bret, and Stephen Goldberg, Getting Disputes Resolved:Designing Systems to Cut the Costs of Conflict, ( JosseyBass Publishers, 1988); Slaikeu, Karl A., and Ralph H. Hasson. Controlling the Costs of Conflict: How to Design a
System for Your Organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1998; Stephen Goldberg, Frank Sander,
and Nancy Rogers, Dispute Resolution, Negotiation, Mediation, and Other Processes, (Little Brown, 1992).
3

For a detailed discussion of interest-based bargaining, see Roger Fisher, William Ury and Bruce Patton, Getting
to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In, (Random House, 1981); R. Walton and R. McKersie, A
Behavioral Theory of Labor Negotiation: An Analysis of a Social Interaction System, (McGraw-Hill, 1965); D.
Pruitt and S. Lewis, Development of Integrative Solutions in Bilateral Negotiation, (Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, VOL 31, pp. 621-633, 1975).
Elaine Landry, Associate Professor, Babson College, prepared this note (2002) as a basis for class discussion. It may not
be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the permission of the author.

Note on Interests, Rights, and Power

BAB-000

A conflict resolution method that focuses primarily on standards or established rules is called a
rights-based4 procedure. There are often relevant measuressuch as the prevailing rate for signing
bonuses for new hiresthat exist to guide disputants toward a fair outcome. When people in conflict
choose to rely on standards or rights, they commonly do so because it may seem either sensible and/or
more persuasive to them to discuss a benchmark which has some legitimacy outside of their own dispute.
Some of these rights go beyond common practice and are formalized in law, policies, or contracts.
Other rights are closer to what we might consider norms, socially accepted standards of behavior within
a particular culture for such concepts as reciprocity, precedent, ethics and fairness. Sometimes
rights are unclear. Usually, the lack of clarity is because there are differentand somewhat
contradictorystandards that might apply and that might be appealing to only one of the disputants.
Reaching agreement on rights, where the outcome will determine who gets what, can, therefore, often be
difficult, leading the parties to turn to a third party to help them determine whose position has more merit.
Common rights procedures that involve a third party are adjudication (a third party has the power to
adjudicate (judge) and hand down a binding decision) and mediation (a third party manages the
agreement-seeking process and may provide general information about applicable standards, but does not
have the power to decide on the content of the agreement).
A conflict resolution method that focuses primarily on power is called a power-based
procedure because it involves resolution of the dispute based on the resources each side both has available
and has the capacity and willingness to use.5 Power is often defined as the ability to achieve outcomes
you desireget things done in the way you want them to be done.6 For example, a co-worker may hold
a position in an organization that allows her to withhold benefits in some tangible way that worsens the
other partys worklife. If the conflict becomes long-lasting or emotional, disputants may choose
aggressive behaviors that range from exchanging insults to sabotage, even escalating to open warfare.
In practice, parties in conflict will frequently draw from components of all three procedures
some discussion of interests, some reliance on rights, and some attempts to use power. There are, of

For a discussion of rights-based procedures, consults the following sources: Jessica Jameson, Employee
Perceptions of the Availability and Use of Interest-Based, Rights-Based, and Power-Based Conflict Management
Strategies (Conflict Resolution Quarterly, VOL 19, No. 2, 2001); Stephen Goldberg, Frank Sander, and Nancy
Rogers, Dispute Resolution, Negotiation, Mediation, and Other Processes, (Little Brown, 1992).

Some good sources to consult for a discussion of the concept of power in negotiations within organizations
include: William Zartman and Jeffrey Rubin, ed., Power and Negotiation, (University of Michigan Press, 2000); R.
Pinkley, M. Neale and R. Bennett, The Impact of Alternatives to Settlement in Dyadic Negotiation, (Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, VOL 57, pp.97-116).
6

G. H. Salancik and Jeffrey Pfeffer, Who Gets Power and How They Hold On To It: A Strategic-Contingency
Model of Power, (Organizational Dynamics, VOL 5, pp.3-21, 1977).
2

Note on Interests, Rights, and Power

BAB-000

course, many responses to conflict. Two common alternatives to the processes outlined in this note are
avoidance, a refusal to acknowledge or engage in the problem; and unilateral decision-making, in which
one of the disputants requests (or allows) a third party to independently decide on an outcome to the
dispute without a formal process.
So, what may be the likely outcomes of these different approaches that you should be aware of
before you begin to formulate a strategy7 of your own? Focusing only who is rightas in litigation and
arbitrationor on who is more powerfulas in sabotage or unilateral decision-makingrisks leaving at
least one party perceiving herself as the loser. A party who feel she has lost is more likely to experience a
recurrence of the same conflict and, further, is more likely to re-engage in purely positional or even
destructive conflict behavior in future disputes with her opponent.
The experience of using the problem interests-based approach challenges negotiators because it
requires time, information sharing, and at least minimal trust.

The result, when the interaction is

successful, is that negotiators typically have a higher level of mutual satisfaction and a lower rate of
conflict recurrence than if they had chosen processes centered on determining rights or power. A related
benefit of interest-based discussions is that parties tend to have an easier time initiating any necessary renegotiation or introducing the idea of aiming for mutual satisfaction in new negotiations. That said, not
all disputes can beor should beresolved by reconciling interests. Rights and power procedures can
sometimes accomplish an outcome when interests-based procedures cannot. This is especially true when
the parties have weak communication skills or are inexperienced in using problem solving techniques.
In sum, there is not one magic formula for managing conflict. Assess your own (and your
opponents) experience, motivation, and skill alongside the limitations and advantages of each of the
resolution procedures available to you before formulating a plan. If conflict resolution is your goal, the
more effective and functional approach to attempt is one where most of the issues in dispute are resolved
by reconciling interests, some by means of determining rights, and the fewest of all through the use of
power struggles.

Two good sources to consult on the topic of planning a strategy for conflict resolution are: D. Pruitt, Strategic
Choice in Negotiation, (American Behavioral Scientist, VOL 27, pp. 167-194); L. Putnam and M. Holmer, Framing,
Reframing, and Issue Development, ( L. Putnam and M. Roloff, eds., Communication and Negotiation, pp. 128-155,
1992).