Conflict management: how should a negotiator's success be assessed?
When a manager negotiates a way out of an interdepartmental conflict, senior management can easily focus on the budget protected or the deadline secured. The more demanding management question is this: which criteria should assess success without rewarding an apparent victory at the expense of cooperation?
What the literature establishes
Jared R. Curhan, Hillary Anger Elfenbein and Heng Xu (2006, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) distinguish four dimensions of subjective value in negotiation: feelings about the instrumental outcome, the self, the process and the relationship. Their research shows that assessments of a negotiation extend beyond its economic outcome. For managers, this suggests examining separately what was achieved and how the parties experienced the exchange.
An outcome also depends on what was understood
Leigh Thompson and Reid Hastie (1990, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes) show, in experimental negotiations, that participants can misperceive their counterpart's interests, notably by assuming opposition that does not exist on every issue. Securing a concession therefore does not prove that the possibilities for agreement were properly explored. Assessing negotiators solely on what they persuaded the other side to concede risks rewarding confrontation rather than the identification of compatible interests.
The hasty conclusion
It would be tempting to replace the financial indicator with a satisfaction score. These studies do not justify that substitution: subjective value is neither a measure of compliance nor proof of economic efficiency. A negotiation can leave a favourable impression while producing a costly arrangement; conversely, a necessary decision can disappoint without indicating poor conflict management. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot score
These studies do not provide a universal scoring system for assessing a manager in conflict with another department. Experimental settings do not fully reproduce hierarchical dependencies, regulatory obligations or repeated workplace interactions. Feedback collected after an exchange may also be influenced by a fear of displeasing others: it is better used to examine practice than to establish individual rankings immediately.
A practical check in Zurich
In financial services, insurance, tech and the European headquarters of international groups in Zurich, SHR's conflict management programme can provide a framework for a test: document the next interdepartmental disputes addressed through negotiation. For each case, record the outcome against the original mandate, then separately ask each party to assess the outcome, their opportunity to defend their position, the process and the relationship. Next, calculate the proportion of cases in which the mandate was achieved but at least one party reports being unwilling to work with the other again under the same conditions. This divergence rate does not prove failure; it identifies cases to review before describing the negotiator as successful. To go further: explore the Conflict Management training in Zurich in the canton of Zurich, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Conflict Management in Zurich
- conflict management
- Zurich
- research
- training zurich