Behavioral guidelines for effectively implementing the collaborative (problem-solving) approach to conflict management are organized according to three roles. Guidelines for the problem-identification and solution-generation phases of the problem-solving process are specified for each role. Guidelines for the action plan and follow-up phases are the same for all three roles which are summarized below:
1. Role of Initiator
Step 1: Problem Identification
- Succinctly describe your problem in terms of behaviors, consequence and feelings.
- Stick to the facts (e.g. use a specific incident to illustrate the expectations or standards violated).
- Avoid drawing evaluative conclusions and attributing motives to the respondent.
1:2 Persist until Understood: Encourage Two-way Discussion
- Restate your concerns or give additional examples.
- Avoid introducing additional issues or letting frustration sour your emotional tone.
- Invite the respondent to ask question and express another perspective.
1:3 Manage the Agenda Carefully
- Approach multiple problems incrementally, proceeding from simple to complex, easy to difficult, concrete to abstract.
- Don't become fixed on a single issue. If you reach an end, expand the discussion to increase the likelihood of an integrative outcome.
Step 2: Solution Generation (Make a Request)
- Focus on those things you share in common (principles, goals and constraints) as the basis for recommending preferred alternatives.
2. Role of Responder
Step 1: Problem Identification
1:1 Establish a Climate for Joint Problem Solving
- Show genuine concern and interest. Respond em-pathetically, even you disagree with the complaint.
- Respond appropriately to the initiator's emotions. If necessary, let the person "blow off steam" before addressing the complaint.
1:2 Seek Additional Information about the Problem
- Ask questions that channel the initiator's statements from general to specific and from evaluative to descriptive.
1:3 Agree with some Aspect of the Complaint
- Signal your willingness to consider making changes by agreeing with facts, perceptions, feelings or principles.
Step 2: Solution Generation
- Ask for suggestions and recommendations.
- To avoid debating the merits of a single suggestion, brainstorm multiple alternatives.
3. Role of Mediator
Step 1: Problem Identification
1:1 Acknowledge that a Conflict Exists
- Select the most appropriate setting (one-on-one conference versus group meeting) for coaching and fact-finding.
- Propose a problem-solving approach for resolving the dispute.
1:2 Maintain a Neutral Posture
- Assume the role of facilitator, not judge. Do not be little the problem or berate the disputants for their inability to resolve their differences.
- Be impartial toward disputants and issues (provided policy has not been violated).
- If correction is necessary, do it in private.
1:3 Manage the Discussion to Ensure Fairness
- Focus discussion on the conflict's impact on performance and the detrimental effect of continue conflict.
- Keep the discussion issue oriented, not personality oriented.
- Do not allow one party to dominate the discussion. Ask directed questions to maintain balance.
Step 2: Solution Generation
- Explore options by focusing on the interest behind stated positions.
- Explore the "whys" behind disputants' arguments or demands.
- Help disputants see commonalities among their goals, values and principles.
- Use commonalities to generate multiple alternatives.
- Maintain a non-judgmental manner.
Resolving Conflict through Negotiation
1. Distributive Bargaining
It is a negotiation that seeks to divide up a fixed amount of resources. Probably, the most widely cited example of distributive bargaining is labor management negotiations over wages. Typically, labor representatives come to the bargaining table determined to get as much money as possible out of management. Since every rupee more that labor negotiates increases management's cost, each party bargains aggressively and treats the other as an opponent who must be defeated.
2. Integrative Bargaining
In contrast to distributive bargaining, integrative problem solving operates under the assumption that there exist one or more settlements that can create a win-win solution between distributive integrative bargaining.
Distributive versus Integrative Bargaining
| Bargaining Characteristics | Distributive Bargaining | Integrative Bargaining |
| Available Resources | Fixed amount of resources to be divided | Variable amount of resources to be divided |
| Primary Motivations | I win, you lose | I win, you win |
| Primary interests | Opposed to each other | Convergent or congruent with each other |
| Focus of relationships | Short-term | Long-term |
It is a negotiation that seeks one or more settlements that can create a win-win situation.
In terms of intra-organizational behavior, all things being equal, integrative bargaining is preferable to distributive bargaining because the integrative bargaining builds long term relationship and facilitates working together in the future. It binds negotiators and allows each to leave the bargaining, on the other hand, distributive bargaining leaves one party a loser. It tends to build animosities and deepen rifts and divisions when people have to work together on an ongoing basis.