Conflict resolution theories are structured around the type of dispute and the approaches to

the conflict taken by the parties.

Two central conflict resolution theories are the Thomas-Kilman Conflict Mode Instrument
(TKI) and the Interest Based Relational (IBR) Approach.
The theory of TKI is that there are particular modes of dealing with conflict, and each is suited to
different kinds of disputes.
IBR puts forth a set of conflict resolution rules that should be used with any dispute.

Of the two conflict resolution theories, TKI places the most emphasis on the way in which
the participants themselves handle conflict situations. It identifies five principal modes of
approaching conflict. A mode that works in one type of conflict may not be suited to another
type.The process of effective conflict resolution may involve many different strategies to find a
resolution to conflict.

The compromising mode for dealing with conflict seeks solutions that give at least partial
satisfaction to all the disputants.Compromising mode seeks solutions that give at least partial
satisfaction to all the disputants. Everyone must give something up. It is most suited to avoiding
litigation, where the cost of conflict is higher than that of the sacrifice.
Competitive mode is evidenced by people who are operating from positions of power and have
rank, expertise, and forceful personalities. This approach is most useful in emergencies, when
quick decisions are required. It may cause resentments or be counterproductive in
non-emergency situations.
Collaborative mode attempts to find solutions that will satisfy all positions. It brings together all
points of view and is most effective in long standing disputes where trade offs are necessary.
Accommodating mode meets the needs of others at the expense of one’s own. It is not
thought to be the most effective conflict resolution approach.
Avoiding mode seeks to escape conflict entirely, delegating controversial decisions. It is only
useful where the dispute is minor, or another person should be solving the conflict.
Understanding the different modes can aid in deciding how to approach a dispute.

Between the two types of conflict resolution theories, the IBR approach focuses on the
application of six rules applied equally to all participants in the dispute.
The primary rule is that all participants behave civilly and be understanding of the other party’s
positions.
Keeping people and problems separate is a rule that must be followed even when there are
personality clashes between the disputants.
Paying attention to the interest being presented by each of the parties is a key rule for effectively
resolving the conflict.
Listening carefully is required of all the parties, as it is considered the best way to understand
why another person has taken a particular position. This can yield insights into what that person
really feels the dispute is about.
Finally, options must be explored together by all the participants, as joint solution is the optimal
way to resolve the conflict.
The 3 Views of Conflict: Traditional View, Human Relations View, Interactionist View of
Conflict.
3 Views of Conflict - Traditional View, Human Relations View, Interactionist View of Conflict3
views of conflict are traditional, human relations, and interactionist view; where each view treats
and manage conflict uniquely and differently.

Organizational conflict is the discord that arises when the goals, interests or values of different
individuals or groups are incompatible and those individuals or groups block or thwart one
another’s attempts to achieve their objective.

Conflicts can occur because of the task, relationship, or process-related issues between
personnel.
Conflicts at the organization were perceived or viewed as only a negative object.
But through the development of “organizational behavior” studies; conflict is now viewed
differently and organizations now learned how to manage them.

But, there is conflict over the role of conflict in groups and organizations.

Changing Views of Organizational Conflict

Attitude towards the conflict in organizations has changed considerably in the last few decades.

Once upon a time conflict was considered fully harmful and must be avoided for the betterment
of the organization.

With the passing of time, those views changed largely. Conflict is now an inevitable part of
organizations. Its presence is positive in some aspects.

Here explain the 3 different views on organizational conflicts. With continuous studies and
researches in the field of organizational behavior and management, that thinking gradually
changed.

Traditional View of Organizational Conflict

The traditional view on organizational conflict is the earliest of the trio.
It was first developed in the late 1930s and early 1940s, with the most linear and simple
approach towards conflict. According to the traditional view, any conflict in an organization is
Outright bad, negative and harmful.
Although conflicts are of different types, the traditional view only sees conflict as dysfunctional
and destructive.
It suggests that organizational conflict must be avoided by identifying the malfunctioning callus.
Moreover, the traditional view on organizational conflict identifies poor communication,
disagreement, lack of openness and trust among individuals and the failure of managers to be
responsive to their employees’ needs as the main causes and reasons of organizational conflict
The traditional view is the early approach to conflict which assumed that all conflict was bad and
to be avoided. The conflict was treated negatively and discussed with such terms as violence,
destruction, and irrationality to reinforce its negative implication.
The conflict was a dysfunctional outcome; resulting from poor communication, lack of
transparency and trust between people, and the failure of managers to be responsive to the
necessities and aspirations of their employees.
The view that all conflict is negative certainly offers a simple approach to looking at the behavior
of people who create conflict.
We simply need to direct our attention to the causes of conflict, analyzing them and take
measures to correct those malfunctions for the benefit of the group and organizational
performance.
The traditional view of conflict fell out of favor for a long time as scholars and academics came
to realize that in some circumstances a conflict was inescapable.

Human Relations View of Organizational Conflict

From the late 1940s to the mid-70s, the human relations view dominated the topic of
organizational conflict.
In that period, the fields of management and organizational behavior were expanding.
The traditional view was challenged by various studies and surveys, and therefore, the human
relations view on organizational conflict presented a significantly different perspective on the
topic.
The human relations view on organizational conflict primarily teaches us to accept conflict.
It identifies conflict as an important aspect of any organization, which simply cannot be more
important. Unlike the traditional view, the human relations view does not discard conflict as an
outright negative and destructive thing. Instead, it says that an organizational conflict may be
beneficial for the individuals, groups and the organization in general.
Moreover, this perspective even suggests that organizational conflicts within groups may even
lead to better group performance and outcome.
The human relations view of conflict treats conflict as a natural and inevitable phenomenon and,
so can’t be eliminated from any organization.
Here, the conflict was seen in a positive light as it was suggested that conflict may lead to an
improvement in a group’s performance.
It is similar to the interactionist view of the conflict.
Human relations view of conflict
Definition (1):

The view that conflict is a natural and inevitable outcome in any group and need not be negative
but has the potential to be a positive force in contributing to a group’s performance, is called the
human relations view of conflict.

Definition (2):

The human relations view started dominating the topic of organizational conflict from the late
1940s and continued to the mid-70s. During that period the fields of organizational behavior and
management were expanding. The human relations view of conflict initially teaches us to accept
conflict. It recognizes conflict as a crucial aspect of any organization. It states that an
organizational conflict can be advantageous for the persons, groups, and the entire
organization.

Again, this view suggests that conflicts within groups in an organization can even lead to
improved group performance and results.
The human relations view of conflict considers conflict as an inevitable and natural phenomenon
and that’s why cannot be eliminated or removed from any organization. Here, the organizational
conflict was viewed in a positive light because it was prescribed that conflict might result in a
betterment in a team’s or group’s performance.

Interactionist View of Organizational Conflict

With passing time and further studies in the field of organizational behavior, people started to
accept conflict as an integral and somewhat positive aspect.
The interactionist view on organizational conflict extends that concept.
While the human relations view accepted organizational conflict as an important part, the
interactionist view on- organizational conflict takes the same concept one step further.
It suggests that an ongoing, minimum level of conflict is necessary and beneficial for a group.
In the interactionist view, an organization or group with no conflict is more likely to become
static, non-responsive, inflexible and unadaptable.
It states that a minimum level of conflict is beneficial for the group because it maintains a certain
level of creativity, self-evaluation, and competition among the individuals.
All these things result in increased group performance, more creative solutions to problems and
better outcomes.
We should mind it that even the interactionist view does not claim that every type of conflict is
beneficial and healthy.
It clearly states that only the functional and constructive forms of conflict help the group, while
the dysfunctional or destructive forms of conflict should be avoided.
The interactionist view indicates that conflict is not only an encouraging force in a group but also
an absolute necessity for a group to perform effectively.
While the human relations view accepts conflict, the interactionist view encourages conflicts
because a harmonious, peaceful, tranquil, and cooperative group is prone to becoming static,
apathetic and non-responsive to needs for change in innovation.

So the major contribution of the interactionist view is encouraging group leaders to sustain an
ongoing minimum level of conflict enough to keep the group viable, self-critical and inspired.

Traditional Vs Current Views of Conflict

The traditional view of organizational conflictvis-a-vis the Current view of organizational conflict
Conflict is avoidable. Conflict is inevitable.
Conflict is caused by management error in designing organizations or by trouble makers.
Conflict arises from many causes, including organizational structure, unavoidable differences in
goals, differences in perceptions and values of specialized personnel and so on.
Conflict disrupts the organization and prevents optimal performance. Conflict contributes
and detracts from organizational performance in varying degrees.
The task of the management is to eliminate conflict. The task of the management is to manage
the level of conflict and its resolution for optimal organizational performance.
Optimal organizational performance requires the removal of conflict. Optimal
organizational performance requires a moderate level of conflict.
The traditional view of the conflict started to change as organizational, behavior researchers and
management writers began to identify causes of organizational conflict independent of
management error and like the advantages of the effectively managed conflict started to be
recognized.

The current view, also called the interactionist view, is that conflict in organizations is inevitable
and even necessary, no matter how organizations are designed and operated.

This view says that some conflicts are dysfunctional; it can harm individuals and impede the
attainment of organizational goals.

But some conflicts can also be functional – because it may make organizations more effective.
Conflict can lead to the search for solutions.

Thus it is an instrument of organizational innovation and change.