Conflict management: does a signed agreement mean a conflict is resolved?
A manager may settle a disagreement over resource allocation only to find that cooperation remains fragile. The management question is precise: beyond the formal agreement, what should be checked before considering a conflict resolved?
What the literature establishes
Jared R. Curhan, Hillary Anger Elfenbein and Heng Xu (2006, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) distinguish several dimensions of subjective value in negotiation: the outcome, the self, the process and the relationship. This value is therefore not equivalent to material gain or merely to satisfaction with the concessions secured. For managers, this suggests that a signature is not a sufficient summary of the parties' experience.
What the experience of reaching agreement may predict
Jared R. Curhan, Hillary Anger Elfenbein and Noah Eisenkraft (2009, Journal of Applied Psychology) followed the outcomes of job offer negotiations over time. In their study, subjective value predicted subsequent job satisfaction and turnover intentions, whereas the economic value obtained did not. The finding suggests that how an agreement is experienced may provide information about the future employment relationship, without itself establishing a causal mechanism.
The premature conclusion
It would be tempting to conclude that a good resolution must leave everyone satisfied. These studies show neither that an unpopular decision is necessarily poor nor that a positive experience guarantees implementation. The useful distinction is more restrained: accepting a solution, viewing its outcome favourably and wanting to continue working together are different assessments. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot establish
This research concerns negotiation rather than the full range of organisational conflicts; a job offer negotiation does not reproduce an enduring dispute between interdependent colleagues. The longitudinal findings are not a trial demonstrating that improving people's experience is enough to restore cooperation. In practice, a satisfaction questionnaire may also conceal reservations when responses are accessible to the person assessing an employee's work.
A practical check in Berne
In Berne, SHR's “Gestion du conflit” programme could introduce agreement follow-up tailored to resource disputes in the federal administration, the organisation of a public health service, telecoms interfaces or production priorities in precision manufacturing. At closure and again one month later, each party separately records satisfaction with the outcome, an assessment of how the discussion was conducted and willingness to continue cooperating; these responses are reviewed alongside a record of commitments already due and actually fulfilled, under explicit confidentiality rules. The verifiable measure is the proportion of those commitments fulfilled by their deadline, considered alongside each party's assessments without merging them into an average: this proposed protocol can identify a gap between declared agreement and actual cooperation, not certify that the conflict has disappeared. 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