Advancing Dispute Resolution by Understanding the Sources of Conflict: Toward an Integrated Framework

Abstract

Organizational leaders, public policymakers, dispute resolution professionals, and scholars have developed diverse methods for resolving workplace conflict. But inadequate recognition has been given to the idea that the effectiveness of a dispute resolution method depends on its fit with the source of a particular conflict. Consequently, it is essential to better understand where conflict comes from and how this affects dispute resolution. To these ends, this article uniquely integrates scholarship from multiple disciplines to develop a multidimensional framework to conceptualize the sources of conflict. This framework provides an important foundation for theorizing and identifying effective dispute resolution methods. Such methods are increasingly important as the changing world of work raises new issues, conflicts, and institutions.

Regulatory pluralism and the resolution of collective labour disputes in Southeast Asia

“…This triptych is dynamic and co-exists in most real-world settings (Suchman, 1995). Nature of Dispute Different actors in a dispute may have different understandings of the nature of the conflict (Budd et al, 2020: 260) and hold different values and assumptions as to how it should be resolved. This component of the framework focuses on actors’ subjectivities: on what frames and narratives different actors use to understand the dispute; on who holds responsibility for the dispute; sense of legitimacy and appropriateness in pursuing the dispute; perceptions of what is an appropriate and legitimate course of action; etc.…”

From Bread and Roses to #MeToo: Multiplicity, Distance, and the Changing Dynamics of Conflict in IR Theory

“…Finally, IR scholars have also recognized that in the current era of employment relations, conflict is not necessarily rational, unfolding within structures created by institutions and situated in the workplace, as it has been assumed (Lipsky, Avgar, and Lamare 2016). Rather, they argue that conflict can take on many forms, including private and informal instances of goal incompatibility that are embedded in everyday interactions and experiences, a point we return to below (Bartunek, Kolb, and Lewicki 1992; Kolb and Putnam 1992; Budd, Colvin, and Pohler 2020).…”

“…These might include, for example, an offensive joke made in regard to gender or race at work (e.g., Hepler 2018). Such experiences inform individual and shared frames—or the cognitive lenses through which interpretations, decision-making, and action occur, thereby influencing how individuals and groups perceive the world around them (Budd et al 2020: 260)—even if they do not rise to the level of formal redress within an organization. Second, prior models assume that identities and values align with economic interests (Piore and Safford 2006).…”

“…These may not necessarily represent conflicts of interests, for they may neither make any specific actor or entity the target of blame (as in the case of posting on social media) nor require direct interaction in order to manifest (as in certain social groups’ lack of representation in public discourse or media coverage). In similar fashion, forms of bias, like stereotyping, that give rise to conflict do not necessarily require interaction and interdependence (Budd et al 2020). Motivations can be attributed to one group by another even though members have never met or cannot point to a particular situation as evidence for their perspective.…”

Union-enterprise guanxi and union instrumentality: an empirical study in Taiwan

“…The former operates under a profit-motive, whereas the latter is committed to safeguarding labor rights and welfare. How they should avoid or de-escalate such conflicts is a crucial topic that warrants attention and serious deliberation (Budd et al , 2020; Khazanchi et al , 2018). Apart from militant means, unions can also be achieved through win–win cooperative models to promote union instrumentality (Newton and Shore, 1992).…”