Conflict management: should we check the disagreement before seeking a compromise?
When two departments are in conflict, finding a middle ground often seems prudent. Yet the management question is more specific: how can we avoid negotiating a concession on an issue where both parties already want the same thing?
What the literature establishes
Leigh Thompson and Reid Hastie (1990, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes) show, in experimental negotiations, that participants do not always recognise compatible interests and overestimate the opposition between their preferences. Approaching a negotiation as a distribution in which every gain for one side means a loss for the other can therefore distort the assessment of the situation. An expressed disagreement is not a reliable map of every issue that needs negotiating.
Compromise can create a loss for both sides
Leigh Thompson and Dennis Hrebec (1996, Psychological Bulletin) examine agreements in which the parties settle on an outcome that is worse for each than another available alternative. Their synthesis shows that compatible interests are not necessarily recognised and acted upon. The mechanism relevant to management is straightforward: treating an issue as contentious can lead both sides to abandon an option they actually prefer.
The premature conclusion
It would be tempting to conclude that every conflict conceals an agreement that simply needs uncovering. These studies do not support that conclusion: budget constraints, regulatory obligations or workloads can genuinely place the parties at odds. The more nuanced approach is to check compatibility issue by issue, assuming neither universal opposition nor hidden harmony. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence does not guarantee
An experimental negotiation allows researchers to compare predefined preferences; in an organisation, preferences may change and remain partly confidential. A stated preference may also reflect a strategic position rather than a stable wish. Asking parties to rank options is therefore a clarification tool, not sufficient proof that the conflict has disappeared.
A practical check in Berne
Within SHR — Swiss Human Resources' « Gestion du conflit » programme, an exercise applicable in Berne consists of breaking a case into separate issues: an approval workflow in the federal administration, scheduling in public health, a maintenance window in telecommunications or quality control in precision manufacturing. Before the discussion, each party independently ranks the feasible options for each issue; the rankings are then compared to distinguish shared preferences from actual differences. The proposed measure is the proportion of issues with the same top-ranked option on both lists for which the final agreement retains that option, recording the reason whenever it is dropped. This record checks whether the search for compromise preserved shared preferences, without claiming to measure conflict resolution on its own. 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