Conflict Resolution Models

Why This Matters

In advanced negotiation, understanding conflict resolution models gives you a strategic toolkit for diagnosing disputes and choosing the right intervention approach. You're being tested on more than just knowing what each model is—examiners want to see that you can match the right framework to the right situation, whether you're dealing with relationship-based tensions, structural power imbalances, or competing interests. These models represent decades of research into how conflicts escalate, persist, and ultimately get resolved.

The real skill lies in recognizing which model applies when. Some frameworks help you understand conflict styles (yours and theirs), others provide step-by-step processes for resolution, and still others focus on preserving relationships while addressing substantive issues. Don't just memorize the acronyms—know what problem each model solves and when you'd reach for it in a real negotiation scenario.

---

Diagnostic Models: Understanding Conflict Styles

Before you can resolve a conflict, you need to understand how the parties naturally approach disagreement. These models help you assess behavioral tendencies and identify the underlying dynamics at play.

Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI)

• Five conflict-handling modes—Competing, Collaborating, Compromising, Avoiding, and Accommodating—each representing different combinations of assertiveness and cooperativeness
• Self-assessment tool that reveals your default conflict style and helps predict how others might respond based on their tendencies
• Situational flexibility is the key insight: no single mode is always best, and skilled negotiators adapt their approach to context and desired outcomes

Dual Concerns Model

• Two-axis framework measuring concern for self (assertiveness) against concern for others (empathy), creating a matrix of conflict behaviors
• Predicts strategy selection by showing how the balance between self-interest and relationship preservation shapes negotiation choices
• Integrative potential emerges when both parties show high concern for self and others, enabling collaborative problem-solving

Circle of Conflict Model

• Five conflict sources visualized as interconnected dimensions: values, relationships, data, interests, and structure
• Root cause diagnosis helps negotiators move beyond surface symptoms to address what's actually driving the dispute
• Holistic analysis prevents the common mistake of treating an interest-based conflict as a relationship problem, or vice versa

---

Interest-Based Models: Finding Mutual Gains

These frameworks shift focus from positions ("what I want") to interests ("why I want it"), opening space for creative solutions that satisfy both parties.

Principled Negotiation Model (Harvard Negotiation Project)

• Four core principles—separate people from the problem, focus on interests not positions, generate options for mutual gain, and insist on objective criteria
• BATNA awareness (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement) anchors your negotiation power and prevents accepting unfavorable deals
• Gold standard framework from Fisher and Ury's Getting to Yes, widely tested and expected knowledge in any advanced negotiation context

Interest-Based Relational (IBR) Approach

• Relationship preservation as a primary goal, making it ideal for ongoing partnerships, workplace conflicts, or family disputes
• Perspective-taking emphasis requires understanding the other party's viewpoint before proposing solutions
• Blame-free orientation redirects energy from assigning fault toward collaborative problem-solving

---

Process Models: Step-by-Step Resolution

When you need a systematic roadmap for moving from conflict to resolution, these frameworks provide structured phases to follow.

GROW Model (Goal, Reality, Options, Will)

• Four-phase structure—establish the Goal, assess current Reality, brainstorm Options, and secure Will (commitment to action)
• Coaching origins make it particularly effective for manager-employee conflicts or mentoring situations where one party guides the other
• Accountability built in through the "Will" phase, which transforms good intentions into concrete next steps with ownership

PEACE Model (Prepare, Engage, Address, Communicate, Evaluate)

• Preparation-first philosophy recognizes that most conflict resolution fails due to inadequate groundwork before engagement
• Iterative evaluation distinguishes this model by building in reflection and learning for future conflicts
• Communication as distinct phase ensures that information exchange receives dedicated attention rather than being assumed

Conflict Resolution Process Model

• Three-stage approach—assessment, negotiation, and implementation—providing a macro-level view of resolution from start to finish
• Context analysis in the assessment phase prevents jumping to solutions before fully understanding the conflict landscape
• Follow-up emphasis addresses the common failure point where agreements collapse during implementation

---

Collaborative Models: Building Joint Solutions

These approaches assume that working together produces better outcomes than adversarial tactics, emphasizing cooperation and shared ownership of solutions.

Collaborative Problem-Solving Model

• Joint ownership of both the problem definition and solution generation, requiring parties to move beyond "my problem vs. your problem"
• Brainstorming centrality means suspending judgment to generate creative options before evaluating feasibility
• Trust-building function makes this model particularly valuable when parties need to work together after the conflict ends

Mediation Model

• Neutral third party facilitates communication without imposing solutions, distinguishing mediation from arbitration or adjudication
• Voluntary agreement as the goal means parties retain control over outcomes rather than having decisions imposed on them
• Confidentiality and safety create conditions for honest dialogue that might not occur in direct negotiation

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Which two models both use a two-dimensional framework to map conflict styles, and how do their applications differ?

2. A negotiator is preparing for a high-stakes business deal where both parties will need to maintain a working relationship afterward. Which model would best guide their approach, and why might they combine it with another framework?

3. Compare and contrast the GROW Model and the PEACE Model: what types of conflict situations is each best suited for, and what does each emphasize that the other doesn't?

4. If a team conflict stems from disagreements about data interpretation and interpersonal tensions between two members, which diagnostic model would help you identify these multiple sources, and how would that diagnosis shape your intervention?

5. An FRQ asks you to design a conflict resolution process for a community dispute involving multiple stakeholders with entrenched positions. Which combination of models would you draw from, and in what sequence would you apply their principles?