Conflict management: should we defend a position that has already cost us?
In a workplace disagreement, abandoning a demand can become difficult precisely because so much has been invested in securing its acceptance. The management question is specific: how can we check that a position remains defensible because of its future consequences, rather than because it justifies past efforts?
What the literature establishes
Hal R. Arkes and Catherine Blumer (1985, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes) show that previous investments of money, effort or time can encourage people to continue a course of action. These sunk costs then influence a decision that should concern consequences that can still be changed. For conflict management, this suggests a hypothesis worth examining: a demand may persist because defending it has been costly, not simply because it remains useful.
When making the original decision makes withdrawal harder
Barry M. Staw (1976, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance) observes, in a resource-allocation experiment, greater additional commitment to a failing course of action when participants bear responsibility for the initial decision. The finding is consistent with a self-justification mechanism: reversing a choice can threaten one's view of one's own judgement. In a conflict, asking someone to withdraw a proposal may therefore raise a difficulty distinct from the substance of that proposal.
The premature conclusion
It would be tempting to conclude that persistence is irrational and that conceding demonstrates clear thinking. Yet past investments may have generated skills, information or equipment that genuinely change future prospects. The relevant test is not to disregard the past, but to distinguish what has been irretrievably spent from what retains value for the future. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What these findings cannot prescribe
These studies concern decisions and investments, not the effectiveness of a conflict-resolution protocol in organisations in Berne. They do not demonstrate that making sunk costs explicit is sufficient to resolve a disagreement. A legal obligation, safety requirement or contractual commitment does not become a psychological bias because one party insists on respecting it.
A practical check in Berne
As part of SHR's “Gestion du conflit” programme, an exercise to test in Berne would examine a contested decision: a procedure in the federal administration, a public-health measure, a telecoms rollout or a change in precision manufacturing. Before a ruling is made, each party would separately record sunk expenditures, the future consequences of the options and non-negotiable constraints. Over one month, measure the proportion of reviewed decisions whose records explicitly compare the future consequences of at least two options, without treating past efforts alone as justification. This indicator would check decision-making discipline, not establish a reduction in conflict. To go further: explore the Conflict Management training in Bern in the canton of Bern, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Conflict Management in Bern
- conflict management
- Bern
- research
- training bern