Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T22:15:34.280Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effective Behaviors to De-escalate Organizational Conflicts in the Process of Escalation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2013

Francisco J. Medina  and
Miriam Benítez
Francisco J. Medina*
Affiliation:
Universidad de Sevilla (Spain)
Miriam Benítez
Affiliation:
Universidad de Sevilla (Spain)
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Francisco J. Medina, Departmento de Psicología Social, Universidad de Sevilla. Calle Camilo José Cela s/n, 41018-Sevilla (Spain). E-mail: fjmedina@us.es
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The goal of the present study was to determine what behaviors negotiators can use to help to quell an escalating conflict. In doing so, we formed a sample of professionals who took on the role of negotiator when we provoked an organizational conflict between a superior and subordinate that escalates due to the intervention of research confederates. Trained judges analyzed the negotiators' behaviors that most effectively mitigated the intensity of the conflict in which they were involved. The results demonstrate that the behaviors most effective at de-escalating an escalating conflict are problem-solving and accommodation, especially when said conflict has escalated considerably. Similarly, jointly employing problem-solving and direct fighting behaviors also seems to help de-escalate conflict. The results do not, however, consistently support using a forceful behavioral strategy to de-escalate a conflict in the early stages of escalation.

La finalidad de este trabajo fue estudiar qué comportamientos permiten la reducción del conflicto cuando los negociadores se enfrentan a un proceso de conflicto que crece en intensidad. Para ello, y mediante una muestra de negociadores profesionales, se ha provocado un conflicto organizacional entre un superior y un subordinado, que crece en intensidad mediante las intervenciones de cómplices de los investigadores. Jueces entrenados han analizado los comportamientos más efectivos de los negociadores para mitigar la intensidad del conflicto al que se veían sometidos. Los resultados muestran que para reducir un conflicto escalado los comportamientos más efectivos son la solución de problemas y la acomodación, sobre todo cuando el conflicto es muy elevado. Del mismo modo, el uso conjunto de las conductas de solución de problemas y lucha directa también permite reducir la intensidad de los conflictos. Por el contrario, los resultados no apoyan una estrategia consistente en utilizar conductas de dominación durante las primeras etapas del escalamiento del conflicto para reducir la intensidad de los conflictos.

Keywords

conflict escalationproblem-solvingaccommodationconflict effectivenessescalamiento del conflictosolución de problemasacomodaciónefectividad del conflicto
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , November 2011 , pp. 789 - 797
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Arenas, A., Medina, F. J., & Munduate, L. (2007, June). Understanding bullying as a relationship conflict. Proccedings of the Annual Conference of the International Association of Conflict Management (pp. 73). Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2010). Social conflict: The emergence and consequences of struggle and negotiation. In Fiske, S.T., Gilbert, D.T, & Lindzey, G. (Eds.). Handbook of Social Psychology (5th ed) (pp. 983–1023). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Gelfand, M. J. (2008). The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations. Londres, UK: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Deutsch, M., Coleman, P. T., & Marcus, E. (2007). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Douglas, A. (1962). Industrial peacemaking. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, R. A., Tidd, S. T., Currall, S. C., & Tsai, J. C. (2000). What goes around comes around: The impact of personal conflict styles on work conflict and stress. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11, 32–55. doi:10.1108/eb022834CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janssen, O., & van de Vliert, E. (1996). Concern for the other's goals: Key to (de-) escalation of conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 7, 99–120. doi:10.1108/eb022777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quaterly, 40, 256–282. doi:10.2307/2393638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medina, F. J., & Dorado, M. A. (2006). Efectividad en los procesos de negociación [Effectiveness in negotiation processes] In Munduate, L. & Medina, F. J. (Eds.). Gestión del conflicto, negociación y mediación [Managing conflict, negotiation and mediation] (pp. 229–247). Madrid, Spain: Pirámide.Google Scholar
Medina, F. J., Dorado, M. A., Arévalo, A., Cisneros, I. F. J., & Munduate, L. (2003). Secuencias conductuales en la efectividad de la gestión del conflicto [Behaviours sequences in managing conflicto effectiveness]. Psicothema, 15, 12–18.Google Scholar
Mikolic, J. M., Parker, J. C., & Pruitt, D. G., (1997). Escalation in response to persistent annoyance: Group versus individuals and gender effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 389–399. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.72.1.151Google Scholar
Munduate, L., Ganaza, J., Peiró, J. M., & Euwema, M. (1999). Patterns of styles in conflict management and effectiveness. International Journal of Conflict Management, 10, 5–24. doi:10.1108/eb022816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olekalns, M., & Smith, P. L. (2003). Testing the relationships among negotiators' motivational orientations, strategy choices and outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 101–117. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00520-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olekalns, M., Brett, J. M., & Weingart, L. (2003). Phases, transitions and interruptions: The processes that shape agreement in multi-party negotiations. International Journal of Conflict Management, 14, 191–211. doi:10.2139/ssrn.321385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olekalns, M., Putnam, L. L., Weingart, L. R., & Metcalf, L. (2008). Communication processes and conflict management. In De Dreu, C. K. W. & Gelfand, M. J. (2008). The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations (pp. 81–115) Londres, UK: Taylor y Francis.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E. (1962). An alternative to war o surrender. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Pruitt, D. G. (2008). Conflict Escalation in Organizations. In De Dreu, C. K. W. & Gelfand, M. J. (2008). The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations (pp. 245–267). Londres, UK: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Putnam, L. L., & Wilson, S. R. (1989). Argumentation and bargaining strategies as discriminators of integrative outcomes. In Rahim, M. A. (Ed.), Managing conflict: An interdisciplinary approach (pp. 121–141). New York, NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
Rahim, M. A., & Magner, M. R. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the styles of handling interpersonal conflict: First-order factor model and its invariance across group. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 122–132. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.1.122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahim, M. A., Antonioni, D., & Psenicka, C. (2001). A structural equations model of leader power, subordinates' styles of handling conflict, and job performance. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 12, 191–211. doi:10.1108/eb022855Google Scholar
Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D., & Kim, S. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Tjosvold, D. (2000). Learning to manage conflict: Getting people to work together productively. New York, NY: Lexington BooksGoogle Scholar
Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1997). Mitigating groupthink by stimulating constructive conflict. In De Dreu, C. K. W., & van de Vliert, E. (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations (pp. 53–71). London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
van de Vliert, E., & Euwema, M. C. (1994). Agreeableness and activeness as component of conflict behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 674–687. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.674CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van de Vliert, E., Euwema, M. C., & Huismans, S. E. (1995). Managing conflict with a subordinate or a superior: Effectiveness of conglomerated behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 271–281. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.80.2.271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van de Vliert, E., Nauta, A., Euwema, M. C., & Janssen, O. (1997). The effectiveness of mixing problem solving and forcing. In De Dreu, C. K. & van de Vliert, E. (Eds.). Using conflict in organizations (pp. 38–52). Londres, UK: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van de Vliert, E., Nauta, A., Giebels, E., & Janssen, O. (1999). Constructive conflict at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 475–491. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199907)20:4<475::AID-JOB897>3.3.CO;2-73.0.CO;2-G>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Graf, I. K., & Ferris, G. R. (1997). The role of upward influence tactics in human resource decisions. Personnel Psychology, 50, 979–1006. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1997.tb01491.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yukl, G., & Tracey, B. (1992). Consequences of influence tactics used with subordinates, peer and the boss. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 525–535. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.77.4.525CrossRefGoogle Scholar