Advertisement

Informal conflict intervention: Advice and dissent

  • Blair H. Sheppard
  • Kathryn Blumenfeld-Jones
  • John W. Minton
  • Elaine Hyder
Articles

Abstract

A disparity appears to exist between how managers are advised to handle conflict and the intervention methods that they utilize in actual practice. Normative advice tends to agree that managers should adopt a facilitative, mediatorlike role (e.g., Walton, 1987; Tjosvold, 1990), while the empirical research suggests that managers are much more controlling, often deciding how to resolve the problem on their own (e.g., Kolb, 1986; Sheppard, 1983). The present study focuses on two potential reasons as to why managers utilize the methods they do: (1) They treat choices instrumentally to achieve key goals and (2) they interpret or frame conflicts in a form that suggests directive action. One hundred and eighty managers were interviewed about a recent effort to intervene in a dispute at work. The results confirm that managers are very controlling when intervening in disputes and relates this to both interpretive frame and, to a lesser extent, managerial goals. A canonical analysis appears to emphasize the pivotal role that frame plays in influencing whether or not managers choose the solution. Implications of these results for managerial action are discussed.

Key words

informal conflict resolution managerial third party dispute resolution conflict and intervention methods third party dispute resolution conflict intervention choices 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bartlett, F. C. (1932).Remembering. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Brett, J. M. (1986). Commentary on procedural justice papers. In Lewicki, R. J., Sheppard, B. H., & Bazerman, M. H. (Eds.),Research on Negotiation in Organizations. Vol. 1, 81–90. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brett, J. M., & Goldberg, S. B. (1983). Mediator-advisers: A new third party role. In Bazerman, M. H., & Lewicki, R. J. (Eds.),Negotiating in Organizations, 165–176. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Gray, B. (1990).An Interactive Theory of Reframing in Negotiation. Unpublished manuscript, Center for Research in Conflict and Negotiation, Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.Google Scholar
  5. Filley, A. C. (1975).Interpersonal Conflict Resolution. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.Google Scholar
  6. Goffman, E. (1959).Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  7. Gonos, G. (1977). “Situation” versus “frame”: The “interactionist” and the “structuralist” analyses of everyday life.American Sociological Review, 42, 854–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heuer, L. B., & Penrod, S. (1986). Procedural preference as a function of conflict intensity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 700–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Karambayya, R., & Brett, J. M. (1989). Managers handling disputes: Third party roles and perceptions of fairness.Academy of Management Journal, 32, 678–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kolb, D. M. (1986). Who are organizational third parties and what do they do? In Lewicki, R. J., Sheppard, B. H., & Bazerman, M. H. (Eds.),Research on Negotiation in Organizations. Vol. 1, 207–227. Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
  12. Kolb, D. M., & Sheppard, B. H. (1985). Do managers mediate or even arbitrate?Negotiation Journal, 1, 379–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lewicki, R. J., & Sheppard, B. H. (1985). Choosing how to intervene: Factors affecting the use of process and outcome control in third party dispute resolution.Journal of Occupational Behavior, 6, 49–64.Google Scholar
  14. Lissak, R. I., & Sheppard, B. H. (1983) Beyond fairness: The criterion problem in research on dispute intervention.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 45–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1989).The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  16. Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In Winston, P. H. (Ed.),The Psychology of Computer Vision. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  17. Murnighan, J. K. (1986). The structure of mediation and intravention: Comments on Carnevale’s strategic choice model.Negotiation Journal, 2, 351–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Neale, M. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (1985). The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence on bargainer behavior.Academy of Management Journal, 28, 34–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pinkley, R. L. (1990). Dimensions of conflict frame: Disputant interpretations of conflict.Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Roth, J., & Sheppard, B. H. (1989).The Framing of Disputes: An Empirical Test. Paper presented at the European Congress of Psychology, Amsterdam, Holland.Google Scholar
  22. Sheppard, B. H. (1983). Managers as inquisitors: Some lessons from the law. In Bazerman, M. H., & Lewicki, R. J. (Eds.),Negotiation in organizations, 193–213. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Sheppard, B. H. (1984). Third party conflict intervention: A procedural framework. In Staw, B. M., & Cummings, L. L. (Eds.),Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 6, 141–190. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  24. SPSS Inc. (1988).SPSS-X User’s Guide (3rd Ed.). Chicago, Illinois: SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
  25. Thomas, K. W. (1982). Manager and mediator: A comparison of third party roles based upon conflict-management goals. In Bomers, G. B. J., & Peterson, R. B. (Eds.),Conflict Management and Industrial Relations, 141–157. Boston, MA: Kluwer-Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  26. Tjosvold, D. (1990).The Conflict-Positive Organization: Stimulate Diversity and Create Unity. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  27. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases.Science, 185, 1124–1131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Walton, R. E. (1987).Managing conflict (2nd Ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Blair H. Sheppard
    • 1
  • Kathryn Blumenfeld-Jones
    • 1
  • John W. Minton
    • 2
  • Elaine Hyder
    • 3
  1. 1.Fuqua School of BusinessDuke UniversityDurham
  2. 2.Appalachian State UniversityBoone
  3. 3.Carnegie-Mellon UniversityPittsburgh

Personalised recommendations