Managing Workplace Conflict Research Articles

The future of employment conflict management systems

Alternatives to the High Cost of LitigationVolume 21, Issue 9 p. 169-175 Workplace ADR The future of employment conflict management systems Ronald L. Seeber, Ronald L. Seeber Ronald L. Seeber is associate dean and associate professor of the School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University, in Ithaca, N.Y., and also is executive director of Cornell's Institute on Conflict Resolution.Search for more papers by this authorRichard Fincher, Richard Fincher Mediator and arbitrator Richard D. Fincher is managing partner of Phoenix's Workplace Conflict Resolutions, a systems design firm, and an alumnus of the ILR School.Search for more papers by this authorDavid B. Lipsky, David B. Lipsky David B. Lipsky, a professor at the ILR School, and director of the Institute on Conflict Resolution, is former dean of the ILR School from 1987 to 1995, and has taught and conducted research on negotiations and dispute resolution at the ILR School for the 23 years. They are the authors of “Emerging Systems for Managing Workplace Conflict: Lessons from American Corporations for Managers and Dispute Resolution Professionals,” published earlier this year by Jossey-Bass.Search for more papers by this author Ronald L. Seeber, Ronald L. Seeber Ronald L. Seeber is associate dean and associate professor of the School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University, in Ithaca, N.Y., and also is executive director of Cornell's Institute on Conflict Resolution.Search for more papers by this authorRichard Fincher, Richard Fincher Mediator and arbitrator Richard D. Fincher is managing partner of Phoenix's Workplace Conflict Resolutions, a systems design firm, and an alumnus of the ILR School.Search for more papers by this authorDavid B. Lipsky, David B. Lipsky David B. Lipsky, a professor at the ILR School, and director of the Institute on Conflict Resolution, is former dean of the ILR School from 1987 to 1995, and has taught and conducted research on negotiations and dispute resolution at the ILR School for the 23 years. They are the authors of “Emerging Systems for Managing Workplace Conflict: Lessons from American Corporations for Managers and Dispute Resolution Professionals,” published earlier this year by Jossey-Bass.Search for more papers by this author First published: 10 July 2009 https://doi.org/10.1002/alt.3810210902 AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume21, Issue9October 2003Pages 169-175 RelatedInformation

Managing Workplace Conflict in the United States and Hong Kong

We propose that managers have norms (standards of appropriate behavior) for resolving conflict, that these norms are culturally based, and that they explain cultural differences in conflict management outcomes. We confirm that the traditionally American norms of discussing parties' interests and synthesizing multiple issues were exhibited more strongly by American managers than by their Hong Kong Chinese counterparts. In addition, we confirm that the traditionally Chinese norms of concern for collective interests and concern for authority appeared more strongly among Hong Kong Chinese managers than among their American counterparts. American managers were more likely than Hong Kong Chinese managers, to resolve a greater number of issues and reach more integrative outcomes, while Hong Kong Chinese managers were more likely to involve higher management in conflict resolution. Culture had a significant effect on whether parties selected an integrative outcome rather than an outcome that involved distribution, compromise, higher management, or no resolution at all. Conflict norms explained the cultural differences that existed between reaching an integrative outcome and reaching an outcome involving distribution, compromise, or higher management; however, conflict norms did not fully explain the cultural differences that existed between reaching an integrative outcome and reaching no resolution.

Trade Agreement vs. Open Shop: Employers' Choices before WWI

Neither cultural individualism nor hostility to craft control adequately explains American employers' rejection of collective bargaining before World War I. Evidence from selected cases in the U.S. and Britain suggests both that open‐shop policies and trade agreements helped employers manage workplace conflict amid major changes in production practices, and that the relative timing and pace of changes in technology, market structure, and union growth shaped employers' choices.