research articles on conflict management

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychol

Resolving Conflicts Between People and Over Time in the Transformation Toward Sustainability: A Framework of Interdependent Conflicts

Johann m. majer.

1 Department of Social, Organizational, and Political Psychology, Faculty of Education, Institute of Psychology, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

Matthias Barth

2 Education for Sustainable Development, Faculty of Sustainability, Institute of Sustainable Development and Learning, Leuphana University Lüneburg, Lüneburg, Germany

Marie van Treek

Roman trötschel, associated data.

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Transformative and mutually beneficial solutions require decision-makers to reconcile present- and future interests (i.e., intrapersonal conflicts over time) and to align them with those of other decision-makers (i.e., interpersonal conflicts between people). Despite the natural co-occurrence of intrapersonal and interpersonal conflicts in the transformation toward sustainability, both types of conflicts have been studied predominantly in isolation. In this conceptual article, we breathe new life into the traditional dialog between individual decision-making and negotiation research and address critical psychological barriers to the transformation toward sustainability. In particular, we argue that research on intrapersonal and interpersonal conflicts should be tightly integrated to provide a richer understanding of the interplay between these conflicts. We propose a novel, unifying framework of interdependent conflicts that systematically structures this interplay, and we analyze how complex interdependencies between the social (i.e., conflict between decision-makers) and temporal (i.e., conflict within a decision-maker) dimensions pose fundamental psychological barriers to mutually beneficial solutions. Since challenges to conflict resolution in the transformation toward sustainability emerge not only between individual decision-makers but also frequently between groups of decision-makers, we scale the framework up to the level of social groups and thereby provide an interdependent-conflicts perspective on the interplay between intra- and intergenerational conflicts. Overall, we propose simple, testable propositions, identify intervention approaches, and apply them to transition management. By analyzing the challenges faced by negotiating parties during interdependent conflicts and highlighting potential intervention approaches, we contribute to the transformation toward sustainability. Finally, we discuss implications of the framework and point to avenues for future research.

Introduction

Human civilization stands at a crossroads. Avoiding a decline of the human species and ensuring its long-term survival requires scaling up human cooperation at all levels, from individual to global ( Dreber and Nowak, 2008 ; Ostrom, 2009 ; Dannenberg and Barrett, 2018 ). Sustainability issues such as climatic change, biodiversity loss, and resource depletion can result in a conflict of interests between individuals, groups, organizations, and nations ( Hsiang et al., 2013 ; Mach et al., 2019 ). These challenges inevitably require collaborative decision-making processes (i.e., negotiations) to coordinate different interests and reach conflict solutions ( Barrett and Dannenberg, 2012 ; Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 2013 ). Negotiation is a pervasive communication process that is most-widely used to plan for the future, allocate resources, resolve conflicts of interests, and solve complex problems via mutually satisfying agreements ( Jang et al., 2018 ).

“[Negotiations] can dramatically reshape the social and physical environments we occupy” ( Jang et al., 2018 , p. 318). The transformative potential of collaborative decision-making processes to lead to new practices ( Asara et al., 2015 ) has long been recognized by scholars of social conflict. Indeed, Pruitt and Carnevale (1993 , p. 15) concluded that “…[negotiation] presides over much of the change that occurs in human society. Conflict often results from dissatisfaction with the status quo, and it often leads to negotiation about how to do things differently. […] [S]ociety usually prospers if negotiation goes well and the agreements reached are mutually satisfying to the parties. Conversely, society is often harmed when negotiation goes poorly and fails to produce a mutually satisfying outcome.”

Negotiation processes can trigger change at different societal levels (the Multi-level perspective; Geels and Schot, 2007 ; Geels, 2011 ). At the micro-level (i.e., niches), at which individual actors operate, negotiation processes can promote sustainability transitions. At the meso-level (i.e., regimes), diverse stakeholders and representatives of social groups (e.g., communities, firms, private and public organizations, political parties, governmental institutions) incrementally transform the current state of society via negotiations ( Geels, 2020 ). Across both levels, negotiation processes constitute an essential element of collective sense-making processes and can foster societal change ( Geels, 2020 ).

It is important to note that “the structure and processes of negotiation are fundamentally the same at the personal level as they are at the diplomatic and corporate level” ( Lewicki and Litterer, 1985 ). Indeed, negotiations are interactive human decision-making processes. In line with this reasoning, our conceptual article stands in the tradition of psychological and behavioral decision-making research in assuming that negotiators depart from rationality in systematic ways (e.g., Raiffa, 1982 ; Neale and Bazerman, 1985 ; Trötschel et al., 2015 ). In the transformation toward sustainability, negotiators are confronted with so-called “wicked problems,” which are characterized by systemic complexities, including the involvement of multiple, interdependent actors ( Rittel and Webber, 1973 ). Beyond these social interdependencies, negotiators are also confronted with the critical element of time and temporal interdependencies, as has been emphasized in the extended conceptualization of “super wicked problems” ( Levin et al., 2012 ; Peters, 2017 ).

Previous research has revealed that negotiations on sustainability issues are often ineffective and end in suboptimal solutions ( Van der Gaast, 2015 ; Weber and Johnson, 2016 ; Dannenberg and Barrett, 2018 ) and that the involved parties, external stakeholders, and – most often – societies would benefit from more-mutually beneficial solutions ( Bazerman et al., 1999 ). We argue that negotiation aimed at the transformation toward sustainability faces fundamental psychological barriers grounded in the conglomeration of social and temporal interdependencies. Given these conflicting interests both between people and over time, exactly how such transformation can be promoted remains unclear. In the psychological literature, two major lines of research have contributed significantly to our understanding of complex decision-making processes: first, the negotiation-research perspective (i.e., how parties resolve conflicts of interests between decision-makers), and second, the individual decision-making perspective (i.e., how decision-makers resolve conflicts between present- and future interests). These two research perspectives have been the focus of a long-standing dialog that has spurred innovation across and beyond lines of research ( Raiffa, 1982 ; for a review, see Tsay and Bazerman, 2009 ). In the present contribution, we seek to reinvigorate this traditional dialog between the two psychological research areas and address key barriers and drivers in the transformation toward sustainability.

Given that the transformation toward sustainability faces super wicked problems ( Levin et al., 2012 ), including conflicts between people and over time, these conflicts should be considered jointly rather than in isolation. We posit the existence of an interplay between inter- and intrapersonal conflicts (see Thompson and Gonzalez, 1997 ). Politicians, for instance, “[must] navigate political conflict over climate policy in Congress […] and within themselves” ( Van Boven et al., 2018 ). Importantly, we believe that the web of interplay between conflicts is difficult to disentangle because negotiators must simultaneously integrate their own interests with those of their counterparts and reconcile their present- and future interests. The interplay between conflicts therefore acts as a significant barrier to the transformation toward sustainability (e.g., Weber and Johnson, 2016 ). To explicitly delineate the concrete challenges that arise from this interplay between inter- and intrapersonal conflicts, we introduce the concept of interdependent conflicts. We propose that a solution to one conflict (e.g., between decision-makers) impacts the solution to concurrent conflicts (e.g., within decision-makers). Consequently, interdependent conflicts can only be resolved efficiently by considering them simultaneously (see super wicked problems, Levin et al., 2012 ).

By developing a framework of interdependent conflicts, we contribute to existing research on decision-making and negotiation in the transformation toward sustainability in various ways. First, we provide a unifying structure for complex and interdependent decision-making processes. Second, taking the negotiation perspective, we seek to expand existing research by introducing a temporal dimension (i.e., negotiation agreements with short-term and long-term consequences). Third, from a multi-level perspective, we offer a systematic link between psychological negotiation research and transition management and highlight negotiation processes at different societal levels. Fourth, from an applied perspective, we aim to provide a more-comprehensive understanding of psychological conflicts in the transformation toward sustainability and to offer potential leverage points with hands-on tools for interventions that foster sustainable solutions. In essence, we seek to encourage future research to further examine human decision-making processes in the context of interdependent conflicts with the goal of fostering the transformation toward sustainability.

The Framework of Interdependent Conflicts

Based on the assumption that conflict resolutions depend on one another in the social and temporal dimensions, we derive a basic structure for the framework by distinguishing between three psychological conflicts. The involved parties may experience (1) present interpersonal conflict between their own and their counterparts’ present interests. This type of conflict has traditionally been investigated by social-conflict- and negotiation research (e.g., De Dreu et al., 2000 ). Simultaneously, each party may experience (2) intrapersonal conflict between their present- and future interests (i.e., the conflict emerges for each party individually). This type of conflict has predominantly been studied by individual decision-making research (e.g., Frederick et al., 2002 ). Finally, the two parties may also experience (3) future interpersonal conflict between their own and their counterparts’ future interests. Very few studies have investigated outcome delays and the efficiency of negotiated agreements found in this type of conflict (e.g., Okhuysen et al., 2003 ; Henderson et al., 2006 ). The parsimonious framework focuses explicitly on dyadic, two-party conflicts of interests and on two instances over time (i.e., present- and future interests). 1 Figure 1 illustrates the proposed framework of interdependent conflicts for individual decision-makers.

The framework of interdependent conflicts at the individual level. Figure shows the integration of traditional research fields (vertical and horizontal gray-framed areas) into our unifying framework of interdependent conflicts. The framework distinguishes between present interpersonal conflict, intrapersonal conflict emerging for each party, and future interpersonal conflict. These conflicts naturally co-occur and interdependently affect one another.

Our paper is structured as follows: To establish our framework, we first introduce interdependent conflicts at the individual level. In so doing, we review the existing literature, outline characteristic psychological processes, derive propositions, and conclude with an intervention approach to addressing the proposed problems at the individual level. Second, we scale up our framework from the individual-group to the social-group level to establish interdependent conflicts as an interplay between inter- and intragenerational conflicts. We then follow the same structure as at the individual level.

Introducing Interdependent Conflicts at the Individual Level

Interpersonal conflicts.

Interpersonal conflicts emerge whenever two or more parties perceive their views or interests as being incompatible ( Jehn, 1995 ), and negotiation is the decision-making process that parties with divergent interests use to reconcile their differences ( Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993 ). Traditionally, the interest structure of interpersonal conflicts has been a central element of theorization and research (e.g., Gelfand et al., 2011 ). In general, the literature distinguishes between convergent- and divergent-interest structures: (1) When parties have convergent interests, these interests are compatible, and no interpersonal conflict emerges. By contrast, when parties have divergent interests, these interests can be (2a) diametrically opposed, resulting in a distributive-interest structure (i.e., a zero-sum structure without opportunities for exploring integrative, win-win solutions). In zero-sum negotiations, the best solution for both parties is a compromise ( Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993 ). When parties have divergent interests, these interests can also be (2b) opposed, but since the parties have different priorities, they form an integrative-interest structure, which includes mutually beneficial trade-off opportunities and allows the parties to explore integrative agreements (i.e., win-win agreements; Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993 ). In contrast to compromise agreements, integrative agreements create value for both parties and therefore leave them better off than would a compromise (e.g., Bazerman et al., 1985 ). Importantly, in order to exploit integrative potential and reach mutually beneficial, transformative solutions, parties must consider their own and their counterparts’ underlying interests and coordinate them via negotiations.

In interpersonal conflicts, negotiators typically display the detrimental psychological tendency to devalue their counterparts’ interests ( Thompson and Hastie, 1990 ; Babcock and Loewenstein, 1997 ; Curhan et al., 2004 ). Parties therefore have a biased idea of how to resolve a social conflict in favor of their own interests. Pinkley et al. (1995) demonstrated that negotiators devalue their counterparts’ interests and thus create suboptimal agreements even though the parties have complete information on their counterparts’ interests. As parties have a basic propensity toward interpersonal devaluation, resolving interpersonal conflicts is difficult and often leads to suboptimal agreements ( Schelling, 1958 ; Bazerman and Neale, 1992 ).

Intrapersonal Conflicts Over Time

The individual decision-making perspective.

Decision-makers who experience intrapersonal conflict must make a choice between different alternatives that entail consequences that occur at different times (e.g., Soman et al., 2005 ). People must weigh immediate against future utility ( Loewenstein, 1988 ) and thus make “trade-offs among costs and benefits occurring at different times” ( Frederick et al., 2002 ). In the transformation toward sustainability, intrapersonal conflicts are ubiquitous and challenging to decision-makers, for instance, when choosing between maintaining the status quo or developing an alternative with substantial long-term benefits ( Weber, 2017 ).

Research has demonstrated that people tend to temporally devalue their own future interests relative to their immediate ones (for a review, see Frederick et al., 2002 ). As individuals put a premium on immediate benefits, they often prefer smaller, immediate benefits over larger, later ones ( Weber, 2017 ). Hardisty and Weber (2009 , p. 329) describe this human tendency as a “strong desire, all things being equal, to get things now.” Decision-makers therefore have a biased idea in favor of their present interests in terms of how to resolve the temporal conflict.

The Negotiation Perspective

Social-conflict research metaphorically describes intrapersonal conflicts as two psychological states with opposing interests in which one party seeks to protect present interests and the other to protect future interests ( Bazerman et al., 1998 ). Schelling (1984 , p. 58) describes this situation with the following metaphor: “Everybody behaves like two people, one who wants clear lungs and long life and the other who adores tobacco, or one who wants a lean body and the other who wants dessert… the ‘straight’ one often in command… but the wayward one needing only to get occasional control to spoil the other’s best-laid plans.”

Read et al. (1999) indicate that such intrapersonal conflict can have similar interest structures to interpersonal conflict. (1) When a decision-maker has convergent interests, present- and future interests are compatible, and no intrapersonal conflict emerges. When one decision-maker has divergent interests, present- and future interests can be (2a) diametrically opposed, resulting in a distributive-interest structure over time. In this case, the decision-maker prefers the diametrically opposed option now as opposed to later. Alternatively, the decision-maker’s present- and future interests can also be (2b) opposed but have different priorities, resulting in an integrative-interest structure over time. Preference-consistent trade-offs can therefore also reconcile a party’s interests over time in individual decision-making. Read et al. (1999 , p. 184) suggest that “analogously [to interpersonal conflicts], individual decision-makers can reach integrative agreements with themselves, if they consider the possibility of trade-offs across the many choices that they face.” To reach efficient solutions in an intrapersonal conflict, decision-makers must consider their own present- and future interests and reconcile them by negotiating with themselves over time ( Bazerman et al., 1998 ). Therefore, researchers argue that intrapersonal conflicts are as difficult to resolve as interpersonal conflicts ( Bazerman et al., 1998 ).

Characteristic Psychological Processes in Inter- and Intrapersonal Conflicts

In the following sections, we highlight the central psychological processes involved in the interplay between interdependent conflicts based on the reviewed literature. We remain fully aware that other cognitive, motivational, and affective processes may also contribute to inefficient conflict resolution.

Interpersonal and Intertemporal Devaluation

As parties are prone to devalue others’ present interests and their own future interests ( Babcock and Loewenstein, 1997 ; Frederick et al., 2002 ), we conclude that devaluing interests is likely the dominant psychological tendency in interdependent conflicts. Decision-makers face three distinct interests in addition to their own present interests: their counterparts’ present interests, their own future interests, and their counterparts’ future interests. Solutions to interdependent conflicts are hence impaired by either interpersonal devaluation, intertemporal devaluation, or both: In a present interpersonal conflict, a party socially devalues their counterparts’ present interests. In an intrapersonal conflict, a party temporally devalues their own future interests. In a future interpersonal conflict, a party interpersonally and intertemporally devalues their counterparts’ future interests. In line with previous research ( Wade-Benzoni and Tost, 2009 ; Charlton et al., 2013 ), devaluation should be strongest in future interpersonal conflicts due to the duality of interpersonal and intertemporal devaluation.

Outcome Interdependence and Decisional Control

In addition to the processes of interpersonal and intertemporal devaluation, outcome interdependence and decisional control play an important role in interdependent conflicts. Following Interdependence Theory ( Kelley and Thibaut, 1978 ), the structure of any given interdependence situation can be described in terms of specific features that aid in the understanding of psychological processes ( Rusbult and Van Lange, 1996 ). Outcome interdependence and decisional control differ systematically across types of psychological conflicts. Specifically, the degree of outcome interdependence varies across inter- and intrapersonal conflicts. Whereas Party A’s outcomes are interdependent on Party B’s outcomes (interpersonal conflict), Party A’s future outcomes are purely dependent on its present outcomes (intrapersonal conflict). Consequently, parties’ decisional control also ranges across conflicts, from joint control in interpersonal conflicts to actor control in intrapersonal conflicts. 2

In intrapersonal conflict, decision-makers face a situation with outcome dependence and full actor control and can decide how to resolve a conflict between their own present- and future interests independently of their counterparts. Herrnstein and Prelec (1991) describe actor control with a metaphor from the courtroom: The moment that a temporal decision is made, the actor functions as both “judge and jury.” In intrapersonal conflicts, parties have full actor control to simply overrule their own future interests and only serve their present interests, or vice-versa (see also Loewenstein, 1996 ).

By contrast, in interpersonal conflicts, parties face a situation with outcome interdependence and joint control – that is, both parties’ outcomes are mutually dependent on the decisions and actions of their counterparts. Parties thus have joint control and must therefore coordinate their decisions with those of their counterparts. Joint control has been metaphorically described by conflict scholars as the “negotiation dance” ( Raiffa, 1982 ) to highlight the coordination of decisions and actions in interpersonal conflicts.

Based on the distinction between full actor and joint control, parties could perceive of having different degrees of freedom in resolving their conflicts of interests over time and between people. Specifically, conflicts over time (i.e., outcome dependence) may be resolvable via actor control. By contrast, conflicts between people (i.e., outcome interdependence) may only be resolvable via joint control. Due to these differences across conflicts, parties may experience more constraints in resolving conflicts of interests with their counterparts (i.e., joint control) compared with resolving conflicts of interests with themselves (i.e., actor control). We therefore conclude that negotiators tend to prioritize the resolution of inter- over intrapersonal conflicts because solutions between people require interpersonal coordination, whereas solutions over time are less constrained by coordination with other parties.

Parties’ Consideration of Interdependent Conflicts

Building on the above-mentioned research, our framework of interdependent conflicts postulates how parties cognitively process the interplay between different psychological conflicts. In contrast to a rational approach in which parties cognitively process interdependent conflicts in a comprehensive, unbiased way (i.e., by considering all the consequences of their actions equally), we hypothesize that parties systematically prioritize the consideration of certain conflicts in a biased way.

Prioritizing the Consideration of Interdependent Conflicts

• Proposition 1: In interdependent conflicts, parties prioritize the consideration of present interpersonal conflicts (first priority) over intrapersonal conflicts (second priority) and future interpersonal conflicts (third priority) .

These priorities are derived both from parties’ tendency to discount their future interests ( Frederick et al., 2002 ) and to devaluate their counterparts’ interests ( Babcock and Loewenstein, 1997 ) as well as from the parties’ differences in decisional control ( Kelley and Thibaut, 1978 ). When considering present interpersonal conflicts, parties devalue their counterparts’ present interests only on the interpersonal dimension. When considering intrapersonal conflicts, parties devalue their future interests only on the temporal dimension. However, when considering future interpersonal conflicts, they devalue not only their own future interests on the temporal dimension but also their counterparts’ future interest on the interpersonal and intertemporal dimension. This devaluation should lead to a more-pronounced consideration of the present inter- and intrapersonal conflict compared with future interpersonal conflicts. However, as detailed above, in addition to devaluation, parties also experience less decisional control and more constraints when resolving inter- over intrapersonal conflicts. Together, this observation should lead to a prioritized consideration of present interpersonal conflicts (first priority) over intrapersonal conflicts (second priority) and future interpersonal conflicts (third priority; see Figure 2 ). Consequently, parties’ prioritization of interdependent conflicts should impair a balanced and comprehensive consideration of conflicts. Noteworthy, such a prioritization of conflicts should result in an unbalanced and biased way of processing interdependent conflicts.

Prioritized consideration of interdependent conflicts. We propose that parties prioritize present interpersonal conflicts (first priority) over intrapersonal conflicts (second priority) and future interpersonal conflicts (third priority).

In line with this reasoning, prioritizing the consideration of conflicts should also determine which conflict is resolved at the cost of another. 3 We postulate that conflicts with a higher-order priority (e.g., a present interpersonal conflict) are likely to be resolved at the cost of resolving conflicts with a lower-order priority (e.g., an intrapersonal conflict). This biased prioritization may have important implications for resolving interdependent conflicts and threaten the transformation toward sustainability.

Initial support for our assumptions can be found in a survey study ( Drory and Ritov, 1997 ) that investigated conflict-management strategies when parties experienced only an interpersonal conflict vs. both an interpersonal conflict and an intrapersonal conflict. Parties preferred more-cooperative strategies for resolving the present interpersonal conflict when they experienced the intrapersonal conflict simultaneously as compared with when they did not. Similarly, parties that experienced interdependent conflicts were more inclined to collaborate with their counterparts when the intrapersonal conflict between present interests and long-term adverse consequences was made explicit (vs. implicit; Ritov and Drory, 1996 ). This finding is in line with recent research revealing that parties value agreements over impasses when dealing with present interpersonal conflicts, even if the impasse would lead to more-profitable outcomes than would the achieved agreement ( Tuncel et al., 2016 ).

Effects of Priorities in the Consideration of Conflicts on the Quality of Agreements

• Proposition 2: Prioritizing the consideration of conflicts determines the extent to which parties can exploit integrative potential and reach integrative agreements .

To resolve interdependent conflicts in an integrative way, decision-makers must consider their interests in a comprehensive rather than in an isolated, prioritized way. From a rational perspective, parties can maximize the utility of a solution ( Raiffa, 1982 ) by making integrative trade-offs between their own and their counterparts’ interests (i.e., interpersonal conflict) and between their present- and future interests (i.e., intrapersonal conflict). Such trade-off opportunities can only be exploited when parties consider the conflicts in a comprehensive, unbiased way. However, the predicted tendency to prioritize conflicts should lead to a biased, prioritized consideration and therefore hinder parties in exploiting integrative potential. Specifically, if integrative potential is found in the intrapersonal conflict or even in the future interpersonal conflict, parties should neglect these trade-off opportunities and instead seek to resolve the present interpersonal conflict. Consequently, prioritizing conflict consideration can be particularly detrimental because parties do not consider all trade-off opportunities in a comprehensive, unbiased way and may thus overlook mutually beneficial and transformative solutions.

O’Connor et al. (2002) showed that responders in a simulated-ultimatum game rejected more bids (i.e., forewent favorable solutions in an intrapersonal conflict) when instructed to focus on the present interpersonal conflict compared with the intrapersonal conflict. This finding provides initial support for our assumptions on the detrimental effects of prioritizing interdependent conflicts.

An Intervention Approach to Addressing a Prioritized Consideration of Conflicts

We assume that prioritizing the present interpersonal conflict is caused – in part – by constraints in decisional control. Resolving interpersonal conflicts requires negotiating between parties to overcome divergent interests, whereas resolving intrapersonal conflict does not require negotiating to overcome divergent interests in the present or future. To balance the consideration of interdependent conflicts, we propose also applying a negotiation strategy to intrapersonal conflicts over time ( Bazerman et al., 1998 ). Negotiating “with oneself” should help parties reach integrative solutions over time and raise the priority of intrapersonal conflicts.

Social-conflict research has revealed that integrative solutions are particularly likely when each negotiator (1) has a strong concern for his or her own outcomes (dual concerns at a subordinate level; Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993 ; De Dreu et al., 2000 ) and (2) takes both parties’ common interests into consideration (common concerns at a superordinate level; Rhoades and Carnevale, 1999 ; De Dreu et al., 2000 ; Trötschel et al., 2011 , 2021). Accordingly, parties should be concerned about (1) their present- and future interests (dual concerns at a subordinate level) and (2) their common interests over time (common concerns at a superordinate level). Considering dual and common concerns over time should trigger negotiating with oneself, and this strategy should raise the intrapersonal conflict to the same level of priority as the interpersonal conflict. Simultaneously, raising the priority of intrapersonal conflicts by negotiating with oneself should also lead to an increase in the priority of future interpersonal conflicts. Overall, we posit that combining interpersonal and intrapersonal negotiation should lead to a balanced, unbiased, comprehensive consideration of interdependent conflicts (see Figure 3 ).

The negotiation-with-oneself strategy for balancing the consideration of interdependent conflicts at the individual level. The horizontal ellipses show how common concern can lead to integrative negotiation processes between parties. The vertical ellipses show how common concern can lead to integrative negotiation processes over time.

Applying the Intervention Approach to the Transformation Toward Sustainability

Negotiations play a vital role in community-led grassroots innovations that are niche spaces supporting local-scale transitions toward sustainability (e.g., Raven et al., 2008 ; Seyfang and Haxletine, 2012 ; Ornetzeder and Rohracher, 2013 ). Grassroots initiatives have been shown to foster change in diverse areas, such as mobility or energy ( Ornetzeder and Rohracher, 2013 ). However, a crucial success factor for exploiting the transformative potential of grassroots innovations is the successful negotiation and mutually-beneficial conflict resolution. Conflicts emerge because local partners and stakeholders of such an initiative may have at least some common interests but may also have opposing interests in reaching their shared objectives. For instance, individual owners of cooperative housing apartments may share their interest in investing in energy-efficient buildings, but may have diverging interests in the potential pathways to reach this energy transition. Some of the owners may prefer to install solar panels on the rooftop, whereas others may prefer to maintain the rooftop accessible for the residents and to use other energy sources for powering the building energy-efficiently. As they can only reach their objectives jointly, the cooperative owners must negotiate strategies that lead to the intended transformation of existing structures. However, all involved actors may enter negotiations by positioning their interests in their immediate and local context that may hinder the implementation of the pathway toward innovation. Both our framework of interdependent conflicts and the suggested intervention approach of intrapersonal negotiations for reconciling one’s present- and future interests may help to facilitate successful negotiations in grassroots innovations. Therefore, implementing the proposed intervention approach in the context of community-led grassroots initiatives requires that individual actors are concerned with their dual interests in the present and future at a subordinate level as well as with their common interests at a superordinate level. At a subordinate level, future interests come into play when the involved actors formulate long-term goals, develop a vision, and specify their expectations for the transition toward sustainability. Present interests may guide decision-making when searching for pathways to implement the innovation. Additionally, at the superordinate level, actors should share the common concern that radical innovation will lead to the intended transformation toward sustainability. When actors consider their dual and common concerns, intrapersonal negotiation may be initiated, and a prioritized consideration of conflicts may be debiased. As a consequence, negotiation processes between local actors may be improved and lead to more-mutually beneficial and transformative solutions for the societal transformation sparked by grassroots initiatives.

Tools for Implementing the Intervention Approach

Tools for implementing the negotiation-with-oneself strategy can be derived from both decision-making- and social-conflict research. Decision-making research suggests that an increasing similarity between one’s present- and future self may trigger a party’s readiness to negotiate with themself (e.g., Bartels and Urminsky, 2011 ; Hershfield, 2011 ; Urminsky, 2017 ). Alternatively, changing the primary default consideration from present- to future interests may also stimulate intrapersonal negotiations ( Weber et al., 2007 ; Sunstein and Reisch, 2013 ). Social-conflict research suggests that perspective-taking of one’s own future interests may also help induce negotiations with oneself over time and balance the consideration of interdependent conflicts ( Galinsky et al., 2008 ; Trötschel et al., 2011 ). Furthermore, learning approaches that support analogous reasoning in transferring integrative insights from one type of psychological conflict to another could facilitate interdependent-conflict resolution ( Thompson and DeHarpport, 1994 ; Gillespie et al., 1999 ; Nadler et al., 2003 ; Kim et al., 2020 ).

Although interventions may support negotiators in reaching mutually beneficial, transformative solutions, reaching integrative solutions at the level of social groups has been shown to be even more challenging ( Loschelder and Trötschel, 2010 ; Trötschel et al., 2010 ). However, the transformation toward sustainability most-often requires negotiations between social groups, such as between larger institutions or organizations that represent certain interests ( Majer et al., 2018 ). Compared with interpersonal conflict, intergroup conflict stands out in terms of the distinct psychological processes involved. To further elucidate the psychological barriers to and drivers of interdependent conflicts at the group level, we next scale our framework up and focus on intergenerational conflict. Such situations include central psychological barriers that hinder us from taking dramatic action in the transformation toward sustainability ( Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 2013 ).

Introducing Interdependent Conflicts at the Level of Social Groups: The Interplay Between Intra- and Intergenerational Conflicts

At the zenith of the COVID-19 pandemic in July 2020, the European Union agreed on the largest budget and financial package in its history to address the aftermath of the once-in-a-century-pandemic crisis. This negotiation had implications not only for member states within the present generation but also for their successor generations to come. The talks lasted almost 100 h because the member states’ contributions were heavily disputed. After an agreement had been reached, Chancellor Merkel was relieved that Europe had shown that it can come together after all ( Erlanger and Stevis-Gridneff, 2020 ). However, other European politicians criticized the fact that the funds for important future EU projects had been cut back to reach a deal between the member states ( DLF, 2020 ).

This example can be systematically structured using the framework of interdependent conflicts. Conflicts in the transformation toward sustainability include a social dimension between groups (i.e., intragenerational conflict between different groups within a current generation) and a temporal dimension between generations over time (i.e., intergenerational conflict between the predecessor and successor generation of a single group; Sherstyuk et al., 2016 ; Bosetti et al., 2020 ). In line with our framework, scholars have proposed that “many real-world intergenerational dilemmas [i.e., over time] are confounded by intragenerational social dilemmas [i.e., between groups]” ( Wade-Benzoni et al., 2008 ). Following this reasoning, we systematically differentiate between three types of psychological conflicts ( Figure 4 ): (1) present intragenerational conflict (i.e., between different groups within the present generation); (2) intergenerational conflict (i.e., between the predeceasing present generation and succeeding future generation of a single group); and finally, (3) future intragenerational conflict (i.e., between different groups within the future generation; see Footnote 1). 4

The framework of interdependent conflicts in the intergenerational context. Figure 4 displays the interplay between the arising present intragenerational conflict (i.e., the conflict between different groups within the present generation), the intergenerational conflict (i.e., the conflict between the predecessor and successor generation of a group), and the future intragenerational conflict (i.e., the conflict between different groups within the future generation).

Intergroup Conflicts (i.e., Intragenerational Conflict)

A group consists of two or more individuals connected by social relationships ( Forsyth, 2014 ). These relationships can be established objectively via outcome interdependence between individuals, which induces the formation of groups ( Lewin, 1948 ). Alternatively, relationships can also be established subjectively by assigning memberships to in-groups or out-groups to oneself and others based on similarity ( Tajfel, 1981 ). The conflicts between groups can be described as incompatibilities in the different groups’ values and/or goals, which may be caused by outcome interdependence and/or perceived similarity ( Boehm et al., 2020 ). This idea implies that intergroup conflict may involve not only economic interests but also categorization as an in- or out-group. In the transformation toward sustainability, the two foundations of intergroup conflict often arise in combination (e.g., Majer et al., 2018 ; Schuster et al., 2020 ).

Early theorizations on the causes of intergroup conflict focused on economic interests in (scarce) resources as the root of competition in intergroup conflict ( Sherif and Sherif, 1953 ; Sherif, 1961 ; Campbell, 1965 ). When comparing interpersonal and intergroup interactions, research found that intergroup relations are more competitive than are interpersonal relations ( Wildschut and Insko, 2007 ) and suggested that fear and greed explain this discontinuity effect in intergroup interactions ( Wildschut and Insko, 2007 ). Specifically, fear is based on the expectation that the other group will maximize its outcome, which poses a threat to the given group and increases competition. By contrast, greed is based on the expectation that the other group will tend to cooperate, which makes the other group vulnerable to the given group’s greed and increases competition. 5

However, another line of research suggests that merely categorizing oneself and others as members of an in- and out-group, respectively, is sufficient to induce intergroup conflict ( Tajfel and Turner, 1979 , 1986 ). Specifically, Self-Categorization Theory posits that individuals are motivated to make themselves positively distinct from others by comparing themselves to others on relevant dimensions ( Turner et al., 1987 ). If comparisons are favorable for the in-group relative to the out-group, people can make themselves positively distinct, with beneficial and direct consequences for their self-concept and self-esteem. Evidence shows that people strive for positive distinctiveness (for an overview, see Boehm et al., 2020 ), which can be obtained via different strategies, including social competition, for instance, by discriminating the out-group.

Overall, greed and fear as well as the need for positive distinctiveness all contribute to intergroup devaluation. Greed and fear are particularly pronounced when outcome interdependence exists. However, the need for positive distinctiveness can be explained by the psychological process of self-categorization as an in- or out-group member.

Intragroup Conflicts Over Time (i.e., Intergenerational Conflict)

In contrast to intergroup conflicts within a generation (e.g., Barrett and Dannenberg, 2012 ), much-less work has focused on intergenerational conflicts over time (e.g., Hauser et al., 2014 ). From a psychological perspective, intergenerational conflicts ( Wade-Benzoni and Tost, 2009 ) are characterized as decisions in which the interests of present decision-makers stand in conflict with those of future others. Such intergenerational conflicts have distinctive features as compared with intergroup (i.e., intragenerational) conflicts ( Wade-Benzoni and Tost, 2009 ).

Specifically, outcomes are not reciprocally interdependent in intergenerational conflicts. Instead, the outcomes of the future generation are fully determined by the present generation. Present generations therefore have complete actor control without the need to coordinate their interests with future others. Consequently, future generations have no voice in intergenerational conflicts (see outcome interdependence; Kelley and Thibaut, 1978 ). In addition, present generations do not have to bear the long-term consequences of their decisions and actions because they are not part of the generation that experiences the consequences. Furthermore, no direct or indirect reciprocity between the present- and future generation is possible ( Wade-Benzoni and Tost, 2009 ). The future generation cannot give anything back or punish the present generation. This lack of direct or indirect reciprocity also implies a lack of communication between the present- and future generations. Importantly, in intergroup conflicts between different groups within a current generation, reciprocity, and communication have been shown to increase cooperation and lead to more-mutually beneficial solutions (e.g., Tavoni et al., 2011 ; Yoeli et al., 2013 ). However, as the direct experience of consequences, reciprocity, and communication are ruled out in intergenerational conflict, cooperation, and integrative solutions between the present- and future generation are further exacerbated. In intergenerational conflicts, the future generation’s outcomes depend on the present generation’s beneficence (i.e., intergenerational beneficence), which is often lacking ( Sherstyuk et al., 2016 ; Bosetti et al., 2020 ). To increase intergenerational beneficence, it is therefore necessary for a perceived similarity between the present- and future generation to exist and for the present generation to identify with the future generation.

Characteristic Psychological Processes in Intra- and Intergenerational Conflicts

Intergroup devaluation.

Intergroup devaluation can be explained by the processes of greed and fear in intergroup relations as well as by the need for positive distinctiveness in comparison with the out-group. Intergroup devaluation has been found to be particularly prominent in present- and future intragenerational conflicts, which renders these conflicts difficult to resolve.

Intergenerational Devaluation (i.e., Intergroup- and Intertemporal Devaluation)

Intergenerational conflicts are difficult to resolve because intergroup- and intertemporal devaluation jointly impede integrative conflict resolution. The future generation’s interests are devalued temporally. In addition, intergroup devaluation arises because the present- and future generations are typically not part of the same collective. Both intergroup- and intertemporal devaluation are additive components of intergenerational devaluation, which is the major barrier to integrative solutions in intergenerational conflicts ( Wade-Benzoni and Tost, 2009 ). Although the degree of intergenerational devaluation should depend on perceived similarities between the present- and future generation, in general, the need for positive distinctiveness should be more-pronounced in intragenerational conflicts between distinct groups within the present generation. However, in the case of intergenerational conflicts, intergroup- and intergenerational devaluation can accumulate and lead to severe devaluation against the opposing groups’ successor generation in the future.

Outcome interdependence in intragenerational conflict only exists between the two different groups within the present generation. In intergenerational conflict over time, however, future generations outcomes fully depend on the present generation. Concerning decisional control ( Kelley and Thibaut, 1978 ), intragenerational conflict can only be resolved via joint control because one group within the present generation must coordinate its interests with another group of the same generation. By contrast, the present generation has full actor control in intergenerational conflicts because this generation fully determines the consequences for the succeeding future generations.

Parties’ Consideration of Interdependent Conflicts Across Generations

In line with the general assumption of our framework of interdependent conflicts, we postulate that social groups cognitively process different psychological conflicts in a biased way. This idea stands in contrast to a rational approach in which groups cognitively process interdependent conflicts in a comprehensive, unbiased way (i.e., they equally consider all consequences of their actions).

Prioritizing Interdependent Conflicts Within and Between Generations

• Proposition 3: In interdependent conflicts at the social-group level (i.e., generations), parties prioritize the consideration of present intragenerational conflicts (first priority) over intergenerational conflicts (second priority) and future intragenerational conflicts (third priority) .

Social groups have a tendency to prioritize present intragenerational conflicts because joint control with the other group within the present generation places constraints on the decision-making process and requires coordination between groups. This joint control stands in contrast to intergenerational conflicts over time, which should be given second priority because the present generation has full actor control when it comes to resolving these conflicts. In line with this reasoning, future intragenerational conflicts should be given third priority because in addition to intergenerational devaluation, the need for positive distinctiveness from the other group (i.e., intergroup devaluation) also contributes to the prioritization of these conflicts.

These priorities also determine which conflict will be resolved at the cost of another. Conflicts of higher priority may be resolved at the cost of lower-priority conflicts because present intragenerational conflicts should receive more consideration than intergenerational conflicts or future intragenerational conflicts. Prioritizing the consideration of interdependent conflicts thus has important implications for the transformation toward sustainability.

Recent research has found initial support for Proposition 3 ( Sherstyuk et al., 2016 ) by showing that adding the dimension of intergenerational conflict over time to the dimension of intragenerational conflict renders conflict resolution between parties more short-sighted.

• Proposition 4: A prioritized consideration of conflicts determines the extent to which social groups (i.e., generations) can exploit the integrative potential and reach integrative agreements .

To achieve mutually beneficial, transformative solutions at the group level, a balanced and unbiased consideration of all conflicts (rather than a prioritized consideration) is necessary. However, we assume that the involved groups prioritize conflicts with detrimental consequences. Specifically, parties consider the coordination of diverging interests in higher-priority conflicts to a greater extent than in lower-priority conflicts. Integrative potential and the trade-off opportunities embedded within lower-priority conflicts are therefore less-likely to be discovered. A prioritized, biased consideration of conflicts should thus result in suboptimal solutions for involved groups. In other words, resolving interdependent conflicts should be transformative and mutually beneficial if future generations’ interests are considered in an unbiased and balanced way.

Jacquet et al. (2013) provided initial evidence for Proposition 4 by experimentally demonstrating that when a temporal dimension is introduced in intergroup conflicts, conflict resolution is less optimal than when the intergroup conflict has no long-term consequences.

An Intervention Approach to Addressing a Prioritized Consideration of Interdependent Conflicts Across Generations

Based on research on social conflict and negotiation (e.g., De Dreu et al., 2000 ) and on intergroup conflict (e.g., Dovidio et al., 2000 ), we develop an intervention approach tailored to balance the consideration of interdependent conflicts between social groups. Research has shown that the perception of belonging to distinct, opposed groups (“us” vs. “them”) can be changed via interventions ( Dovidio et al., 2000 ). Specifically, by re-categorizing one’s own group and the other group into subgroups of one superordinate, common in-group identity (the new “we” – i.e., two subgroups within one group; Gaertner et al., 1993 , 1994 ), intergroup conflict can be reduced. Importantly, managing intragenerational conflict via negotiations requires that (1) the two subgroups consider their common concerns by creating a new superordinate, common in-group identity and (2) that each subgroup maintain its distinct group membership and consider its dual concerns (i.e., creating a common in-group identity, while maintaining dual identities). If the groups consider their superordinate, common in-group identity and common concerns, while simultaneously considering their dual identities and dual concerns, intragenerational conflicts can be resolved in an integrative, unbiased way ( Gaertner et al., 2016 ).

To balance the consideration of interdependent conflicts across social groups and time, we transfer the intervention approach from intra- to intergenerational conflict. We find the classic, common in-group-identity approach particularly suitable for stimulating negotiations with future others in an integrative way. As a prerequisite, the present generation should (1) create a common in-group identity with their succeeding future generation that includes common concerns shared by the present- and future generations and (2) acknowledge their distinct dual identities over time – including dual concerns of the present- and future generations – in order to stimulate negotiations with future others.

However, in intergenerational conflict, future generations have no voice to stand up for their concerns. As communication between present- and future generations is ruled out, a shift toward future generations’ interests is necessary to elicit negotiations with future others. We propose that present generations be held responsible for resolving intergenerational conflicts via negotiations. Contemporary representatives of the future generation may take responsibility for speaking up for their generations’ interests ( Kamijo et al., 2017 ). This negotiating-with-future-others strategy combines a common in-group-identity approach with a representation of future generations in order to foster integrative solutions. Negotiating with future others also raises the priority of the intergenerational conflict compared with that of the present intragenerational conflict, thereby leading to a more-balanced consideration of interdependent conflicts. If each present generation uses the negotiating-with-future-others strategy, a more-balanced consideration of the future intragenerational conflict should also be reached. Overall, negotiating with future others should be a particularly suitable approach to balancing the consideration of interdependent conflicts and fostering mutually beneficial and transformative solutions ( Figure 5 ).

The negotiating-with-future-others strategy for balancing the consideration of interdependent conflicts at the generational level. The horizontal ellipses show how common in-group identity leads to integrative negotiation processes at the intragenerational level between groups. The vertical ellipses show how common in-group identity leads to integrative negotiation processes at the intergenerational level over time. If both groups engage in such intergenerational negotiation processes, they should also be able to balance the consideration of future intragenerational conflicts.

Negotiations are also an integral part of the transition management approach ( Meadowcroft, 2009 ; Loorbach, 2010 ; Schreuer et al., 2010 ), which typically seeks to regulate and govern fundamental processes of societal change that may take generations to realize ( Frantzeskaki et al., 2012 ). During this transition, the sustainability value of intergenerational justice must be protected. However, the involved societal groups of the present generation may enter negotiations by positioning their interests in their direct and immediate context, thereby leading to suboptimal solutions ( Loorbach, 2010 ). In particular, the different interest groups within the present generation may experience short-term need for compromises, whereas succeeding future generations need long-term ambitions for radical change ( Frantzeskaki et al., 2012 ). Traditionally, transition management distinguishes between four types of circular-governance activities to facilitate sustainability transitions: strategic, tactical, operational, and reflexive activities ( Loorbach, 2010 ). The strategic and tactical activities in the transition-management cycle are largely interest-driven and require negotiation between representatives and delegates of larger societal interest groups, organizations, or institutions that have the capacity to contribute to the vision of the transition. Particularly during the tactical-activity phase of the transition-management cycle, the development of a concrete transition agenda requires the negotiation and coordination of interests between groups within the present generation and the alignment of these interests with those of future generations. In an exemplary innovation program on future urban mobility (e.g., urban-living labs, von Wirth et al., 2018 ), stakeholder groups of the present generation such as local residents, public transportation services, private mobility providers, and city authorities develop transition scenarios ( Sondeijker et al., 2006 ), which are descriptions of desirable future states that include alternative pathways for reaching them (i.e., backcasting). However, the interests of future generations should be aligned with these transition scenarios created by the delegates of the stakeholder groups within the present generation. According to our intervention approach, present delegates should create a common in-group identity with the succeeding future generation and also consider the dual identities of the present- and the future generations when developing the scenario for the urban mobility transition. In addition, a representative of the future generation could be assigned to safeguard the future generation’s interests during the development of scenarios for the urban mobility transition. Our proposed intervention approach may be particularly suitable for generating more mutually beneficial and transformative solutions in the management of transitions when interests within and between generations must be negotiated. As a result, the negotiation-with-future-others strategy may help to overcome a biased and unbalanced consideration of interdependent conflicts between societal interest groups and their successor generations.

Potential tools for creating common in-group identities include placing focus on superordinate-group memberships (e.g., nations, organizations, and communities), increasing affinity with future generations ( Wade-Benzoni, 2008 ; Arora et al., 2016 ), and emphasizing factors that are shared by the groups (e.g., values, fate, and goals). Alternative tools exist that may further trigger intergenerational negotiations over time by forecasting future generations’ beneficence ( Bosetti et al., 2020 ), priming present generations with the inevitability of their own mortality ( Wade-Benzoni et al., 2012 ), or providing advice to future generations ( Sherstyuk et al., 2016 ). However, these tools often neglect common in-group identities and the representation of future generations, both of which are required to elicit negotiations with future others.

General Discussion

We developed and introduced a framework of interdependent conflicts for stimulating novel research that examines individual- and joint decision-making processes in the transformation toward sustainability. The critical relevance that negotiations entail in this transformation is undisputed ( Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993 ; Loorbach, 2010 ); however, it is also unanimously accepted that “negotiation will fail to achieve fundamental change unless there is a commitment to long-term change […]” ( Kemp et al., 2007 , p. 316). Despite this conclusion, the existing literature on negotiations and decision-making treats sustainability challenges rather unidimensionally. While negotiation- and social-conflict research primarily focus on conflict resolution in the present ( Jang et al., 2018 ), individual decision-making often neglects the social interdependencies against which deep structural change must be negotiated and coordinated.

Typically, decision-makers must simultaneously consider their own interests and those of other decision-makers in addition to long-term future consequences for themselves and future others. We aimed to provide a novel perspective on why agreements reached via negotiations are often not in favor of our own or others’ long-term interests. One of the key contributions of our novel framework is that it enables an analysis of decision-making settings in the transformation toward sustainability in a more-comprehensive, unifying, and systematic way. Moreover, our framework provides a parsimonious structure for disentangling these complex conflict situations, analyzing the arising psychological phenomena, and designing interventions that tap into the psychological barriers that impede transformative solutions. At best, agreements create integrative solutions for all parties involved – not only in the present, but also over longer timespans. Our framework offers a systematic integration of the social and temporal dimensions and thereby helps in reaching these transformative and mutually beneficial solutions.

Sustainability challenges represent the largest collective-action problem ever faced by humanity ( Ostrom, 2009 ). Joint decision-making and negotiation, cooperation, and conflict resolution are therefore inevitable in making collective progress toward sustainable living in our societies. Taking the proposed psychological barriers into account, these negotiation processes may be biased toward solutions in the present. To overcome this crucial barrier, a better understanding of the underlying psychological processes may help in guiding negotiation processes that promote forward-looking conflict resolution. The European Union’s financial and budget deal closed by the different member states is exemplary in demonstrating interdependent conflicts. On the one hand, various member states of the European Union have repeatedly shown that they can come together to jointly resolve issues of the present generation that they could not deal with individually. On the other hand, resolving conflicts between member states within the present generation may lead to costs for member states’ very own long-term interests and for those of their succeeding future generations.

The described tensions may lead to a rather skeptical view of the transformative potential of negotiations. Indeed, the challenges for parties in creating transformative solutions are difficult. However, we hope that our framework and the proposed intervention approaches might help negotiators navigate toward more-transformative solutions across different societal levels and contexts. In grassroots initiatives, small groups of societal frontrunners may initiate negotiations over innovations and, in the management of the transition, representatives of larger societal-interest groups, institutions, or organizations may negotiate their interests in contributing to the transition pathway. Thereby, negotiations may also help to bridge structural changes across societal levels. We believe that existing and potential future tools for implementing intervention approaches should be tested, adapted, and refined depending on the interdependent-conflict situation. Nevertheless, we wish to emphasize the idea that interdependent conflicts are negotiable not only between individual actors and societal groups but also within ourselves and across generations. Making use of the transformative potential of these negotiation processes may open new transition pathways toward sustainability. We, therefore, remain optimistic that negotiations as collaborative decision-making approaches are most promising for reaching transformative solutions and are our only true alternative to collaboratively achieving long-term societal prosperity ( Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993 ). In acknowledging this belief, the framework of interdependent conflicts may provide innovative impulses for integrating and reconciling interests within planetary boundaries.

Data Availability Statement

Author contributions.

JM developed the theory, created the figures, and drafted the manuscript. MB, HZ, MT, and RT contributed to theory development, structuring, and revising the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Immo Fritsche, Michel Handgraaf, and Poonam Arora for their helpful and valuable comments on an earlier version of the framework. We would also like to thank Lucas Rosenbusch for creating the reference list for this article.

Funding. This research was funded by a grant from the German Research Foundation (DFG; MA 8577/1-1) and by a seed-money grant from Leuphana University, both of which were awarded to JM.

1 Besides the specified psychological conflicts in the framework, two other psychological conflicts might emerge for each party (i.e., an interpersonal conflict over time in which one party’s present interests conflict with the counterpart’s future interests and an interpersonal conflict over time in which one party’s future interests conflict with the counterpart’s present interests). These interpersonal conflicts over time directly reflect the unique characteristic of interdependent conflicts. Since conflicts are interdependent, the specified three different types of psychological conflicts in our framework can determine the parties’ interpersonal conflicts over time. Therefore, the framework of interdependent conflicts implicitly integrates these interpersonal conflicts over time. For conciseness reasons, the presented version of the framework of interdependent conflicts offers the most parsimonious version that may be extended in future research on interdependent conflicts in the transformation toward sustainability. Our reasoning also applies to interdependent conflicts at the level of social groups that we address in the latter part of the article.

2 Another extreme is partner control (e.g., Van Lange and Balliet, 2015 ), which is omitted here for reasons of simplicity.

3 Psychological conflicts may be either independent, positively interdependent, or negatively interdependent. When conflicts are independent of one another, one conflict can be resolved without any consequences for resolving the other. In current individual- and societal challenges, conflicts are rarely independent of one another (super wicked problems; ( Levin et al., 2012 ). By contrast, in most current social issues, interdependence between conflicts occurs: Parties’ consideration of their present interests in an interpersonal conflict usually impacts their consideration of interests in the future, and vice versa. When conflicts are positively interdependent, resolving one psychological conflict also facilitates finding a solution to the other interdependent conflict. However, positive interdependence does occur in real-world settings, albeit rarely. Most importantly, though, when psychological conflicts are negatively interdependent, parties’ efforts to resolve one conflict impede efficiently resolving the other interdependent conflict. We therefore only focus on negative interdependence between conflicts in our framework.

4 We are aware that different constellations between present- and future generations can be conceived (e.g., generations living at the same time, group representations). However, we follow the standard definition and focus explicitly on the basic situation in which the present generation (as predecessors) has no contact with the future generation (as their successors; Wade-Benzoni and Tost, 2009 ; Bosetti et al., 2020 ).

5 Various explanatory mechanisms are discussed in the fear- and greed perspective for situations in which groups’ outcomes are interdependent, but these mechanisms lie beyond the scope of this article.

• Arora P., Logg J., Larrick R. (2016). Acting for the greater good: identification with group determines choices in sequential contribution dilemmas . J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 29 , 499–510. 10.1002/bdm.1892 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Asara V., Otero I., Demaria F., Corbera E. (2015). Socially sustainable degrowth as a social–ecological transformation: repoliticizing sustainability . Sustain. Sci. 10 , 375–384. 10.1007/s11625-015-0321-9 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Babcock L., Loewenstein G. (1997). Explaining bargaining impasse: the role of self-serving biases . J. Econ. Perspect. 11 , 109–126. 10.1257/jep.11.1.109 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barrett S., Dannenberg A. (2012). Climate negotiations under scientific uncertainty . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 109 , 17372–17376. 10.1073/pnas.1208417109, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bartels D. M., Urminsky O. (2011). On intertemporal selfishness: how the perceived instability of identity underlies impatient consumption . J. Consum. Res. 38 , 182–198. 10.1086/658339 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bazerman M. H., Magliozzi T., Neale M. A. (1985). Integrative bargaining in a competitive market . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 35 , 294–313. 10.1016/0749-5978(85)90026-3 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bazerman M. H., Moore D. A., Gillespie J. J. (1999). The human mind as a barrier to wiser environmental agreements . Am. Behav. Sci. 42 , 1277–1300. 10.1177/00027649921954868 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bazerman M. H., Neale M. A. (1992). Negotiating rationally. New York, NY: Free Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bazerman M. H., Tenbrunsel A. E., Wade-Benzoni K. (1998). Negotiating with yourself and losing: making decisions with competing internal preferences . Acad. Manag. Rev. 23 :225. 10.5465/amr.1998.533224 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Boehm R., Rusch H., Baron J. (2020). The psychology of intergroup conflict: a review of theories and measures . J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 178 , 947–962. 10.1016/j.jebo.2018.01.020 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bosetti V., Dennig F., Liu N., Tavoni M., Weber E. (2020). Forward-looking belief elicitation enhances inter-generational beneficence . SSRN Electron. J. 10.2139/ssrn.3648287 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell D. T. (1965). “ Ethnocentric and other altruistic motives ” in Nebraska symposium on motivation. ed. Levine D. (Lincoln: University of Nebrasksa Press; ), 283–311. [ Google Scholar ]
• Charlton S. R., Yi R., Porter C., Carter A. E., Bickel W., Rachlin H. (2013). Now for me, later for us? Effects of group context on temporal discounting . J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 26 , 118–127. 10.1002/bdm.766, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Curhan J. R., Neale M. A., Ross L. (2004). Dynamic valuation: preference changes in the context of face-to-face negotiation . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 40 , 142–151. 10.1016/j.jesp.2003.12.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dannenberg A., Barrett S. (2018). Cooperating to avoid catastrophe . Nat. Hum. Behav. 2 , 435–437. 10.1038/s41562-018-0374-8, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Dreu C. K. W., Weingart L. R., Kwon S. (2000). Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: a meta-analytic review and test of two theories . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 78 , 889–905. 10.1037/0022-3514.78.5.889, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• DLF (2020). “Den Planeten in vernünftigem Zustand hinterlassen.” Available at: https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/philosophin-ueber-generationengerechtigkeit-den-planeten-in.694.de.html?dram:article_id=482019 (Accessed August 9, 2020).
• Dovidio J. F., Gaertner S. L., Kafati G. (2000). “ Group identity and intergroup relations: the common in-group identity model ” in Advances in group processes. Vol . 17 eds. Thye S. R., Lawler E. J., Macy M. W., Walker H. A. [Bingley, UK: Emerald (MCB UP)], 1–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Dreber A., Nowak M. A. (2008). Gambling for global goods . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 105 , 2261–2262. 10.1073/pnas.0800033105, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Drory A., Ritov I. (1997). Intrapersonal conflict and choice of strategy in conflict management . Psychol. Rep. 81 , 35–46. 10.2466/pr0.1997.81.1.35 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ehrlich P. R., Ehrlich A. H. (2013). Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided? Proc. Biol. Sci. 280 :20122845. 10.1098/rspb.2012.2845, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Erlanger S., Stevis-Gridneff M. (2020). Angela Merkel guides the E.U. to a deal, however imperfect. The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/21/world/europe/european-union-coronavirus-aid.html (Accessed July 21, 2020).
• Forsyth D. R. (2014). “ The psychology of groups ” in Noba textbook series: Psychology. eds. Biswas-Diener R., Diener E. (Champaign, IL: DEF Publishers; ). [ Google Scholar ]
• Frantzeskaki N., Loorbach D., Meadowcroft J. (2012). Governing societal transitions to sustainability . Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 15 , 19–36. 10.1504/IJSD.2012.044032 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frederick S., Loewenstein G., O’Donoghue T. (2002). Time discounting and time preference: a critical review . J. Econ. Lit. 40 , 351–401. 10.1257/jel.40.2.351 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaertner S. L., Dovidio J. F., Anastasio P. A., Bachman B. A., Rust M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias . Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 4 , 1–26. 10.1080/14792779343000004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaertner S. L., Guerra R., Rebelo M., Dovidio J., Hehman E., Deegan M. (2016). “ The common ingroup identity model and the development of a functional perspective: a cross-national collaboration ” in The social developmental construction of violence and intergroup conflict. eds. Vala J., Waldzus S., Calheiros M. M. (Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing; ), 105–120. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaertner S. L., Rust M. C., Dovidio J. F., Bachman B. A., Anastasio P. A. (1994). The contact hypothesis: the role of a common ingroup identity on reducing intergroup bias . Small Group Res. 25 , 224–249. 10.1177/1046496494252005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Galinsky A. D., Wang C. S., Ku G. (2008). Perspective-takers behave more stereotypically . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 95 , 404–419. 10.1037/0022-3514.95.2.404, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Geels F. W. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: responses to seven criticisms . Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 1 , 24–40. 10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Geels F. W. (2020). Micro-foundations of the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions: developing a multi-dimensional model of agency through crossovers between social constructivism, evolutionary economics and neo-institutional theory . Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 152 :119894. 10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119894 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Geels F. W., Schot J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways . Res. Policy 36 , 399–417. 10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gelfand M. J., Fulmer C. A., Severance L. (2011). “ The psychology of negotiation and mediation ” in APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 3: Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the organization. ed. Zedeck S. (American Psychological Association; ), 495–554. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gillespie J. J., Thompson L. L., Loewenstein J., Gentner D. (1999). Lessons from analogical reasoning in the teaching of negotiation . Negot. J. 15 , 363–371. 10.1111/j.1571-9979.1999.tb00734.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hardisty D. J., Weber E. U. (2009). Discounting future green: money versus the environment . J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 138 , 329–340. 10.1037/a0016433, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hauser O. P., Rand D. G., Peysakhovich A., Nowak M. A. (2014). Cooperating with the future . Nature 511 , 220–223. 10.1038/nature13530, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Henderson M. D., Trope Y., Carnevale P. J. (2006). Negotiation from a near and distant time perspective . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 91 , 712–729. 10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.712, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Herrnstein R. J., Prelec D. (1991). Melioration: a theory of distributed choice . J. Econ. Perspect. 5 , 137–156. 10.1257/jep.5.3.137 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hershfield H. E. (2011). Future self-continuity: how conceptions of the future self transform intertemporal choice . Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1235 , 30–43. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06201.x, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hsiang S. M., Burke M., Miguel E. (2013). Quantifying the influence of climate on human conflict . Science 341 :1235367. 10.1126/science.1235367, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jacquet J., Hagel K., Hauert C., Marotzke J., Röhl T., Milinski M. (2013). Intra- and intergenerational discounting in the climate game . Nat. Clim. Chang. 3 , 1025–1028. 10.1038/nclimate2024 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jang D., Elfenbein H. A., Bottom W. P. (2018). More than a phase: form and features of a general theory of negotiation . Acad. Manag. Ann. 12 , 318–356. 10.5465/annals.2016.0053 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jehn K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict . Adm. Sci. Q. 40 :256. 10.2307/2393638 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kamijo Y., Komiya A., Mifune N., Saijo T. (2017). Negotiating with the future: incorporating imaginary future generations into negotiations . Sustain. Sci. 12 , 409–420. 10.1007/s11625-016-0419-8, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kelley H. H., Thibaut J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York, NY: Wiley. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kemp R., Loorbach D., Rotmans J. (2007). Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development . Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 14 , 78–91. 10.1080/13504500709469709 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim J., Thompson L., Loewenstein J. (2020). Open for learning: encouraging generalization fosters knowledge transfer in negotiation . Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 13 , 3–23. 10.1111/ncmr.12163 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levin K., Cashore B., Bernstein S., Auld G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change . Policy. Sci. 45 , 123–152. 10.1007/s11077-012-9151-0 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewicki R. J., Litterer J. A. (1985). Negotiation. Homewood, IL: R.D. Irwin. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewin K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts; selected papers on group dynamics. New York, NY: Harper. [ Google Scholar ]
• Loewenstein G. (1988). Frames of mind in intertemporal choice . Manag. Sci. 34 , 200–214. 10.1287/mnsc.34.2.200 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Loewenstein G. (1996). Out of control: visceral influences on behavior . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 65 , 272–292. 10.1006/obhd.1996.0028 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Loorbach D. (2010). Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive, complexity-based governance framework . Governance 23 , 161–183. 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01471.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Loschelder D. D., Trötschel R. (2010). Overcoming the competitiveness of an intergroup context: third-party intervention in intergroup negotiations . Group Process. Intergr. Relat. 13 , 795–815. 10.1177/1368430210374482 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mach K. J., Kraan C. M., Adger W. N., Buhaug H., Burke M., Fearon J. D., et al.. (2019). Climate as a risk factor for armed conflict . Nature 571 , 193–197. 10.1038/s41586-019-1300-6, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Majer J. M., Loschelder D. D., Windolph L. J., Fischer D. (2018). How sustainability-related challenges can fuel conflict between organizations and external stakeholders: a social psychological perspective to master value differences, time horizons, and resource allocations . Umweltpsychol. 22 , 53–70. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meadowcroft J. (2009). What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions . Policy. Sci. 42 :323. 10.1007/s11077-009-9097-z [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nadler J., Thompson L., Boven L. V. (2003). Learning negotiation skills: four models of knowledge creation and transfer . Manag. Sci. 49 , 529–540. 10.1287/mnsc.49.4.529.14431 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Neale M. A., Bazerman M. H. (1985). The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence on bargaining behaviors and outcomes . Acad. Manag. J. 28 , 34–49. 10.2307/256060 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Connor K. M., De Dreu C. K. W., Schroth H., Barry B., Lituchy T. R., Bazerman M. H. (2002). What we want to do versus what we think we should do: an empirical investigation of intrapersonal conflict . J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 15 , 403–418. 10.1002/bdm.426 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Okhuysen G. A., Galinsky A. D., Uptigrove T. A. (2003). Saving the worst for last: the effect of time horizon on the efficiency of negotiating benefits and burdens . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 91 , 269–279. 10.1016/S0749-5978(03)00023-2 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ornetzeder M., Rohracher H. (2013). Of solar collectors, wind power, and car sharing: comparing and understanding successful cases of grassroots innovations . Glob. Environ. Chang. 23 , 856–867. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.007 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ostrom E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems . Science 325 , 419–422. 10.1126/science.1172133, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Peters B. G. (2017). What is so wicked about wicked problems? A conceptual analysis and a research program . Polic. Soc. 36 , 385–396. 10.1080/14494035.2017.1361633 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinkley R. L., Griffith T. L., Northcraft G. B. (1995). “Fixed pie” a la mode: information availability, information processing, and the negotiation of suboptimal agreements . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 62 , 101–112. 10.1006/obhd.1995.1035 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pruitt D. G., Carnevale P. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co. [ Google Scholar ]
• Raiffa H. (1982). The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Raven R. P., Heiskanen E., Lovio R., Hodson M., Brohmann B. (2008). The contribution of local experiments and negotiation processes to field-level learning in emerging (niche) technologies: meta-analysis of 27 new energy projects in Europe . Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 28 , 464–477. 10.1177/0270467608317523 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Read D., Loewenstein G., Rabin M., Keren G., Laibson D. (1999). “ Choice bracketing ” in Elicitation of preferences. eds. Fischhoff B., Manski C. F. (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer; ), 171–202. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rhoades J. A., Carnevale P. J. (1999). The behavioral context of strategic choice in negotiation: a test of the dual concern model 1 . J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 29 , 1777–1802. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00152.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ritov I., Drory A. (1996). Ambiguity and conflict management strategy . Int. J. Confl. Manag. 7 , 139–155. 10.1108/eb022779 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rittel H. W., Webber M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning . Policy. Sci. 4 , 155–169. 10.1007/BF01405730 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rusbult C. E., Van Lange P. A. M. (1996). “ Interdependence processes ” in Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles eds. Higgins E. T., Kruglanski A. W. (New York: The Guilford Press; ), 564–596. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schelling T. C. (1958). The strategy of conflict. Prospectus for a reorientation of game theory . J. Confl. Resolut. 2 , 203–264. 10.1177/002200275800200301 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schelling T. C. (1984). Choice and consequence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Schreuer A., Ornetzeder M., Rohracher H. (2010). Negotiating the local embedding of socio-technical experiments: a case study in fuel cell technology . Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag. 22 , 729–743. 10.1080/09537325.2010.496286 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schuster C., Majer J. M., Trötschel R. (2020). Whatever we negotiate is not what I like: how value-driven conflicts impact negotiation behaviors, outcomes, and subjective evaluations . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 90 :103993. 10.1016/j.jesp.2020.103993 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seyfang G., Haxeltine A. (2012). Growing grassroots innovations: exploring the role of community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions . Environ. Plan. Govern. Pol. 30 , 381–400. 10.1068/c10222 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sherif M. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robbers cave experiment. Vol. 10. OK: University Book Exchange Norman. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sherif M., Sherif C. W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension; An integration of studies of intergroup relations. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sherstyuk K., Tarui N., Ravago M.-L. V., Saijo T. (2016). Intergenerational games with dynamic externalities and climate change experiments . J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 3 , 247–281. 10.1086/684162 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Soman D., Ainslie G., Frederick S., Li X., Lynch J., Moreau P., et al.. (2005). The psychology of intertemporal discounting: why are distant events valued differently from proximal ones? Mark. Lett. 16 , 347–360. 10.1007/s11002-005-5897-x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sondeijker S., Geurts J., Rotmans J., Tukker A. (2006). Imagining sustainability: the added value of transition scenarios in transition management . Foresight 8 , 15–30. 10.1108/14636680610703063 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sunstein C. R., Reisch L. A. (2013). Green by default . Kyklos 66 , 398–402. 10.1111/kykl.12028 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tajfel H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tajfel H., Turner J. C. (1979). “ An integrative theory of intergroup conflict ” in The social psychology of intergroup relations. eds. Austin W. G., Worchel S. (Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole; ), 33–37. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tajfel H., Turner J. C. (1986). “ The social identity theory of intergroup behavior ” in Psychology of intergroup relations. eds. Worchel S., Austin W. G. (Chicago: Nelson-Hall; ), 7–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tavoni A., Dannenberg A., Kallis G., Loschel A. (2011). Inequality, communication, and the avoidance of disastrous climate change in a public goods game . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 108 , 11825–11829. 10.1073/pnas.1102493108, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson L., DeHarpport T. (1994). Social judgment, feedback, and interpersonal learning in negotiation . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 58 , 327–345. 10.1006/obhd.1994.1040 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson L., Gonzalez R. (1997). “ Environmental disputes: competition for scarce resources and clashing of values ” in Environment, ethics, and behavior: The psychology of environmental valuation and degradation eds. Bazerman M. H., Messick D. M., Tenbrunsel A. E., Wade-Benzoni K. A. (San Francisco: The New Lexington Press/Jossey-Bass Publishers; ), 75–104. [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson L., Hastie R. (1990). Social perception in negotiation . Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 47 , 98–123. 10.1016/0749-5978(90)90048-E [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trötschel R., Hüffmeier J., Loschelder D. D. (2010). When yielding pieces of the pie is not a piece of cake: identity-based intergroup effects in negotiations . Group Process. Intergr. Relat. 13 , 741–763. 10.1177/1368430210374608 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trötschel R., Hüffmeier J., Loschelder D. D., Schwartz K., Gollwitzer P. M. (2011). Perspective taking as a means to overcome motivational barriers in negotiations: when putting oneself into the opponent’s shoes helps to walk toward agreements . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101 , 771–790. 10.1037/a0023801, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trötschel R., Loschelder D. D., Höhne B. P., Majer J. M. (2015). Procedural frames in negotiations: how offering my resources versus requesting yours impacts perception, behavior, and outcomes . J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 108 , 417–435. 10.1037/pspi0000009, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tsay C. J., Bazerman M. H. (2009). A decision-making perspective to negotiation: a review of the past and a look to the future . Negot. J. 25 , 467–480. 10.1111/j.1571-9979.2009.00239.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tuncel E., Mislin A., Kesebir S., Pinkley R. L. (2016). Agreement attraction and impasse aversion: reasons for selecting a poor deal over no deal at all . Psychol. Sci. 27 , 312–321. 10.1177/0956797615619200, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turner J. C., Hogg M. A., Oakes P. J., Reicher S. D., Wetherell M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell. [ Google Scholar ]
• Urminsky O. (2017). The role of psychological connectedness to the future self in decisions over time . Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 26 , 34–39. 10.1177/0963721416668810 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Boven L., Ehret P. J., Sherman D. K. (2018). Psychological barriers to bipartisan public support for climate policy . Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 13 , 492–507. 10.1177/1745691617748966, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van der Gaast W. (2015). International climate negotiation conditions: Past and future. Groningen: University of Groningen, SOM research school. [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Lange P. A. M., Balliet D. (2015). “ Interdependence theory ” in APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Vol. 3: Interpersonal relations. eds. Mikulincer M., Shaver P. R., Simpson J. A., Dovidio J. F. (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; ), 65–92. [ Google Scholar ]
• von Wirth T., Gislason L., Seidl R. (2018). Distributed energy systems on a neighborhood scale: reviewing drivers of and barriers to social acceptance . Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 82 , 2618–2628. 10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.086 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wade-Benzoni K. A. (2008). Maple trees and weeping willows: the role of time, uncertainty, and affinity in intergenerational decisions . Negot. Confl. Manag. Res. 1 , 220–245. 10.1111/j.1750-4716.2008.00014.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wade-Benzoni K. A., Hernandez M., Medvec V., Messick D. (2008). In fairness to future generations: the role of egocentrism, uncertainty, power, and stewardship in judgments of intergenerational allocations . J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 44 , 233–245. 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.04.004 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wade-Benzoni K. A., Tost L. P. (2009). The egoism and altruism of intergenerational behavior . Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 13 , 165–193. 10.1177/1088868309339317, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wade-Benzoni K. A., Tost L. P., Hernandez M., Larrick R. P. (2012). It’s only a matter of time: death, legacies, and intergenerational decisions . Psychol. Sci. 23 , 704–709. 10.1177/0956797612443967, PMID: [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weber E. U. (2017). Breaking cognitive barriers to a sustainable future . Nat. Hum. Behav. 1 :13. 10.1038/s41562-016-0013 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Weber E. U., Johnson E. J. (2016). “ Can we think of the future? Cognitive barriers to future-oriented thinking ” in Global cooperation and the human factor eds. Messner D., Weinlich S. (New York, NY: Routledge; ), 139–154. [ Google Scholar ]
• Weber E. U., Johnson E. J., Milch K. F., Chang H., Brodscholl J. C., Goldstein D. G. (2007). Asymmetric discounting in intertemporal choice: a query-theory account . Psychol. Sci. 18 , 516–523. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01932.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wildschut T., Insko C. A. (2007). Explanations of interindividual—intergroup discontinuity: a review of the evidence . Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 18 , 175–211. 10.1080/10463280701676543 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yoeli E., Hoffman M., Rand D. G., Nowak M. A. (2013). Powering up with indirect reciprocity in a large-scale field experiment . Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 110 , 10424–10429. 10.1073/pnas.1301210110, PMID: [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Business Education
• Business Law
• Business Policy and Strategy
• Entrepreneurship
• Human Resource Management
• Information Systems
• International Business
• Negotiations and Bargaining
• Operations Management
• Organization Theory
• Organizational Behavior
• Problem Solving and Creativity
• Research Methods
• Social Issues
• Technology and Innovation Management
• Share Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Managing conflict for effective leadership and organizations.

• Dean Tjosvold , Dean Tjosvold Department of Management, Lingnan University
• Alfred S. H. Wong Alfred S. H. Wong Department of Management, Lingnan University
• , and  Nancy Yi Feng Chen Nancy Yi Feng Chen Department of Management, Lingnan University
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.240
• Published online: 28 August 2019

Leaders and employees deal with conflict as they collaborate in the everyday life of organizations and as they confront crises. Depending how they manage conflict, they can frustrate employees and provoke customer complaints but also stimulate their relationships and decision-making. The possibilities of constructive conflict are significant and documented, but the challenges to making conflict constructive are significant too. The practice of defining conflict as a win-lose battle has obscured ways of managing conflict constructively. Fortunately, researchers have developed concepts and findings that can help managers and employees manage conflict. A first step is developing a useful, unconfounded definition of conflict. Deutsch proposed that conflict occurs when there are incompatible activities. Team members are in conflict as they argue for different options for a decision.

Deutsch also theorized that how people believe their goals are related very much affects their interaction, specifically their conflict management. They can conclude that their goals are cooperative (positively related), competitive (negatively related), or independent. People with cooperative goals believe that as one of them moves toward attaining goals, that helps others achieve their goals. In competition, people conclude that their goals are negatively related and only one can succeed in the interaction. In independence, one person ‘s success neither benefits nor harms the others’ success. Researchers have found that the nature of the cooperative or competitive relationship between protagonists has a profound impact on their mutual motivation to discuss conflicts constructively. Cooperative and competitive methods of handling conflict have consistent, powerful effects on constructive conflict. Team members with cooperative goals engage in open-minded discussions where they develop and express their opposing positions, including the ideas, reasons, and knowledge they use to support their positions. They also work to understand each other’s perspectives. They are then in a position to combine the best of each other’s ideas and create effective resolutions of conflict that they are both committed to implement. Teams that rely on cooperative, mutual benefit interaction ways of managing conflict and avoid competitive, win-lose ways been found to use conflict to promote high quality decisions, to stimulate learning, and to strengthen their work relationships. What has an impact on constructive conflict is not so much the occurrence, amount, or type of conflict but how leaders and employees approach and handle their conflicts, specifically, the extent to which their discussions are cooperative and open-minded.

• incompatible activities
• mutual benefit conflict
• win–lose conflict
• constructive conflict
• open-minded discussions

Conflict is pervasive and greatly affects leadership and teamwork, the very drivers of organizations (Blake & Mouton, 1964 ; Jehn, 1995 ; Johnson, 2015 ). Conflict is part of the everyday life of organizations in making decisions, handling customer complaints, and managing performance; conflict is also part of dealing with dramatic events such as acquisitions, strikes, and bankruptcies. Conflicts have both constructive and destructive sides. Conflicts can sabotage alliances and relationships, but effectively managed conflict vitalizes partnerships and invigorates interpersonal bonds. Conflict challenges leaders and teammates and engages them in the full range of experiences that organizations offer.

Research on how to manage conflict is critical to understanding relationships and organizations as well as how to make them effective. Leaders and employees must learn to live with conflict; they have to deal with and resolve the many conflicts that threaten to divide them and frustrate joint progress.

We often blame conflict for our frustrations and give it power over us. We think that if we only had less conflict, our lives would be happy and productive. The goal is to be conflict-free, or at least to keep our conflicts minor and forgettable. However, how we approach and handle conflict greatly affects whether it is constructive or destructive. It’s not so much having conflict or how much conflict we have that matters, but what is critical is how we manage our conflict that affects whether it is constructive or destructive.

Constructive conflict occurs when protagonists conclude that the benefits of their conflict management outweigh the costs; they believe that their investments made in handling conflict will pay off (Deutsch, 1973 ). The costs and wasteful investments of destructive conflict are typically well recognized. Angry feelings leave relationships fragmented and joint work stalled; both people and productivity suffer (Averill, 1983 ).

However, conflicts can have very constructive effects, so useful that we may hesitate to call them conflicts. Through discussing opposing ideas in conflict, protagonists can deepen their understanding of their own ideas as they defend their views (Tjosvold, Wong, & Chen, 2014a ). They can also listen to and understand the views of their protagonists; they put themselves in each other’s shoes. They open the possibility of combining the best ideas to create new solutions. In addition to enriching their learning, they can appreciate each other’s feelings, motives, and commitments, making their joint life more personal and richer.

The possibilities of constructive conflict are significant and documented, but the challenges to making conflict constructive are significant too. Managing conflict constructively may sound straightforward, and it can be. But making conflict constructive often tests us intellectually, emotionally, and interpersonally. Managing conflict constructively gives a lot, but it takes a lot.

This article has six sections. Conflict has been defined in confounded ways so that popular stereotypes have interfered with practice and research. The first section defines conflict as incompatible activities that may or may not have opposing goals. Arguing that what has an impact on constructive conflict is not the occurrence or amount of conflict but how we approach and handle conflict, the second section proposes that open-minded discussion and cooperative goals are key conditions to making conflict constructive. The third section reviews research on task and relationship conflict that suggests that these types of conflict can be managed. The fourth section reviews how constructive conflict can strengthen leadership and thereby very much contribute to the relationship between employees and managers. Then research on how conflict can be managed across cultural boundaries is discussed. The sixth and final part suggests how training can strengthen constructive conflict, leadership, and organizations.

Understanding Conflict

Researchers typically have not considered defining conflict critical for understanding it; indeed, they have tended to define conflict by including several notions (Barki & Hartwick, 2004 ; Rahim, 1992 ). However, popular definitions have tended to define conflict in terms of opposing goals and interests. This definition of conflict has greatly frustrated research progress in identifying the many ways conflict can constructively contribute to individual learning and organizational performance. Defining conflict as incompatible actions, we propose, is a much more solid foundation for research than defining conflict as opposing interests.

Conflict as Opposing Interests

Traditionally, conflict is defined in terms of opposing interests involving scarce resources and goal divergence and frustration (e.g., Pondy, 1967 ). Defining conflict as opposing interests is consistent with the prevalent assumption that conflict involves not only differences but is win–lose and reinforces the popular thinking that conflict is typically dealt with harshly and competitively. For many people, conflict is a win–lose battle over goals that they want to win, not lose.

However, defining conflict as opposing interests frustrates effective operations and measures. Conflict is confused with win–lose ways to manage it. For example, the Interpersonal Conflict at Work Scale measures conflict with such items as “people do nasty things to me at work” (Spector & Bruk-Lee, 2008 ). This item measures a competitive, win–lose way to manage conflict, not conflict itself.

The popular assumption that conflict is competitive and a fight over opposing interests underscores the difficulties of measuring conflict with items including the term “conflict” in them. For example, research scales that measure types of conflict, such as task and relationship conflict, typically include the term “conflict.” Including the word conflict is likely to contribute to the common finding that both relationship and task conflicts contribute to team ineffectiveness (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003 ; DeChurch, Mesmer-Magnus, & Doty, 2013 ; Tjosvold, Law, & Sun, 2006 ). Conceptual and operational definitions of conflict should help us appreciate both the constructive as well as the destructive sides of conflict and should avoid confounding conflict with popular confusions and stereotypes.

Conflict as Opposing Activities

Deutsch ( 1973 ) proposes that conflict occurs when there are incompatible activities (Tjosvold et al., 2014a ). Team members are in conflict when they argue for different options for a team decision as they perform actions that interfere with each other’s actions. They express their various reasons for the joint action their team should take. Different parties arguing for their different positions are incompatible actions that block each person from getting their option accepted; they are in conflict.

They may express their views to reflect that they have cooperative goals as well as conflicting activities. They argue for their favored option as they put forth their reasons for this option. They may defend their preferred position vigorously and conduct additional research to support their option. They want team members to consider their proposed option seriously. Their goal with protagonists is a cooperative one, however: they want to make the best decision for the team as a whole.

Alternatively, team members may have opposing goals when they argue for different options; they are in competition as well as in conflict. They argue that their option must be accepted and other options should be rejected. They express their arguments for their favored option in win–lose ways. Only one option can be accepted and it should be theirs.

Expressing one’s view can be done both cooperatively and competitively. Studies indicate that these different ways of expressing one’s options often have dramatic effects on the dynamics and outcomes of conflict (Tjosvold et al., 2014a ).

Approaches to Conflict

This article argues that research on how team members manage and deal with their conflicts very much contributes to understanding and developing constructive conflict. It is not so much the frequency, amount, and type of conflict as it is how team members discuss and work out their conflicts. Cooperative and competitive methods of handling conflict have been found to have consistent, powerful effects on constructive conflict.

Researchers recognize the value of a contingency perspective that holds that managers and employees should have alternative ways to deal with a conflict so that they can select the one most useful and appropriate in their situation (Rahim, 1992 ; Thomas, 1976 ). Pretending that there is no conflict and avoiding discussing conflict are useful in some situations, but generally conflict avoidance is not useful, indeed is often destructive (De Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001 ; Friedman, Chi, & Liu, 2006 ; Liu, Fu, & Liu, 2009 ; Lovelace, Shapiro, & Weingart, 2001 ; Ohbuchi & Atsumi, 2010 ). Without direct discussion and action, conflicts seldom disappear by themselves; they can fester and intensify, becoming more complex and destructive (Bacon & Blyton, 2007 ; Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, & Bourgeois, 1997 ; Nemeth & Owens, 1996 ).

This section argues that studies conducted using different theoretical frameworks together indicate that open-minded discussion between protagonists results in constructive outcomes in many situations (Johnson, 2015 ; Tjosvold et al., 2014a ). In open-minded discussions, protagonists develop and express their opposing positions, including the ideas, reasons, and knowledge they use to support their positions. They also work to understand each other’s perspectives. They are then in a position to combine the best of each other’s ideas and create effective resolutions of conflict that they are both committed to implement.

This section further proposes that cooperative relationships, but not competitive ones, are an effective foundation for open-minded discussion and constructive conflict. These relationships orient protagonists to identify and express their own ideas and proposals. They trust that others will try to understand their ideas and positions accurately (Hempel, Zhang, & Tjosvold, 2009 ). They feel they can rely upon each other to use these views to promote each other’s benefit. Their concerns that others will use their ideas and positions against them are minimized. They recognize that they can all gain from the conflict as each protagonist’s goals are promoted.

Open-Minded Discussion

Open-mindedness is the willingness to actively search for evidence against one’s favored beliefs and ideas and to weigh such evidence impartially and fully (Baker & Sinkula, 1999 ; Cegarra-Navarro & Sánchez-Polo, 2011 ; Mitchell, Nicholas, & Boyle, 2009 ; Sinkula, Baker, & Noordewier, 1997 ). Open-minded discussion occurs when people together seek to understand each other’s ideas and positions, consider each other’s reasoning for these positions impartially, and work to integrate their ideas into mutually acceptable solutions.

In open-minded discussion, protagonists express their own views directly to each other, listen and try to understand each other’s positions and arguments, and work to combine their ideas into new agreements acceptable to all. They are open with their own views, open to those of others, and open to new solutions to resolve the conflict. Evidence indicates that these aspects of openness are reinforcing and together constitute open-minded discussion (Johnson, 2015 ; Tjosvold, 1990a ; Tjosvold, Dann, & Wong, 1992 ; Tjosvold & Halco, 1992 ).

Survey items to measure open-mindedness give a specific understanding of open-mindedness (Chen, Liu, & Tjosvold, 2005 ; Wong, Tjosvold, & Yu, 2005 ). These items include: (a) express our own views directly to each other, (b) listen carefully to each other’s opinions, (c) try to understand each other’s concerns, and (d) work to use each other’s ideas. These items are typically strongly correlated with each other and the scale has high reliability.

Open-mindedness in conflict is inherently interpersonal as people act and react to each other. It takes two to have a conflict and it takes two to manage conflict. One protagonist can make bold, persistent, and skilled actions that encourage an otherwise closed-minded protagonist to discuss conflict open-mindedly. Generally, though, open-mindedness by all protagonists is needed to make conflict constructive. Evidence also suggests that protagonists develop similar levels of open-mindedness; one protagonist’s open-mindedness encourages others to be open (Tjosvold, 1990a ; Tjosvold et al., 1992 ; Tjosvold & Halco, 1992 ). Conflicts are more likely to be constructively managed when protagonists discuss their views directly and integrate them into solutions.

Researchers have used various terms to characterize the nature of discussion that results in constructive outcomes. These terms have their own historical roots, emphasize difference aspects of interaction, and provide various ways to measure and operationalize the interaction. These concepts and their operations help us understand the nature of open-minded discussion.

Open-Mindedness Research

Research conclusions are more fully understood and deserve more confidence when various researchers using different operations and samples develop consistent findings. Conflict researchers have used a variety of terms and operations to investigate open-mindedness. We propose that, although these terms are not identical, their differences should not obscure the considerable agreement among conflict researchers that open-minded discussion contributes to resolving conflicts in many situations. The operations of these terms further suggest the similarity of the concepts to open-minded discussion.

Integrative negotiation research provides indirect support that open-minded discussion is a foundation for developing constructive conflict. This research has examined the conditions that develop the creative process by which bargainers discover superior new options for both parties than those currently under consideration (Follett, 1940 ). Walton and McKersie ( 1965 ) propose that this integration is more likely when protagonists consider several issues simultaneously, consider the issues as problems to be solved, freely exchange accurate and credible information about their interests, avoid win–lose behaviors, and argue their own position unless and until they are convinced otherwise.

Experimental integrative negotiation researchers have argued similarly that problem solving interaction characterized by full information exchange results in mutually beneficial solutions (Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993 ; Pruitt, Carnevale, Ben-Yoav, Nochajski, & Van Slyck, 1983 ; Pruitt & Lewis, 1975 ). The operations to measure this problem solving interaction include asking for valid information, requesting information about the other’s interests, giving truthful information, showing interest in the other bargainer’s welfare, and proposing mutual concessions. Integrated negotiators challenge each other’s original ideas, dig into these positions to identify each other’s underlying interests, endure the uncertainty of not finding a quick solution, and are only satisfied with solutions that promote the interests of all.

De Dreu and colleagues have drawn upon integrative negotiation research to develop the motivated information processing approach (De Dreu, 2007 ; De Dreu, Koole, & Steinel, 2000 ; De Dreu, Nijstad, & van Knippenberg, 2008 ). This research also proposes and measures constructive interaction in conflict in terms of problem solving and information exchange. The extent to which protagonists engage in thorough, systematic processing of information was found to induce them to question perceptions that one protagonist can achieve their interests only to the extent that others cannot achieve their own; challenging this trade-off in turn results in more accurate assessments and more integrative agreements (De Dreu et al., 2000 ).

Conflict management styles researchers propose five alternative approaches to dealing with conflict (Rahim, 1983 , 1995 ; Thomas, 1976 ; Van de Vliert & Kabanoff, 1990 ). Although arguing that all five can be useful in some circumstances, these researchers have concluded that the collaborative conflict management style, at times supplemented with other styles, is constructive under a wide range of conditions (Van de Vliert, Euwema, & Huismans, 1995 ; Van de Vliert, Nauta, Giebels, & Janssen, 1999 ). Research on collaborative conflict management styles and experiments on negotiation support that being open with one’s own views as well as being open to other ideas and integrating them contribute to constructive conflict (Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993 ).

Diverse researchers have found that open-minded discussion contributes to resolving conflicts within and between organizations (Johnson, Johnson, & Tjosvold, 2006 ; Tjosvold, 1985 ). Conflict involves incompatible actions, specifically the intellectual aspects of proposing and reconciling opposing ideas that temporarily disrupt reaching a resolution. Fortunately, research by various scholars supports that open-minded discussion very much contributes to effective conflict management.

Cooperative Relationships for Open-Minded Discussion

When do protagonists discuss their conflicts open-mindedly? Researchers have theorized that the nature of the relationship between protagonists has a profound impact on their mutual motivation to discuss conflicts open-mindedly. Open-minded discussions occur when both participants are motivated to work together to manage their conflicts constructively.

Theory of Cooperation and Competition

Deutsch ( 1948 , 1973 ) theorized that how people believe their goals are related very much affects their interaction and thereby their outcomes. They can conclude that their goals are cooperative (positively related), competitive (negatively related), or independent. People with cooperative goals believe that as one of them moves toward attaining goals, that helps others achieve their goals. In competition, people conclude that their goals are negatively related and only one can succeed in the interaction. In independence, one person’s success neither benefits nor harms the others’ success.

Deutsch ( 1973 ) further proposed that cooperative goals are a useful way to understand when protagonists are able to manage their conflicts constructively. Both survey and experimental studies confirm that with cooperative goals, managers and employees discuss their differences directly and open-mindedly (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 1998 ; Poon, Pike, & Tjosvold, 2001 ; Schei & Rognes, 2003 ; Tjosvold, 1988 ). Teams are considered cooperative to the extent that members rate that their goals go together (Alper et al., 1998 ); they are considered competitive to the extent that members rate that they favored their own goals over the goals of others (Alper et al., 1998 ); teams are considered independent to the extent that members rate that one member’s success is unrelated to the success of their teammates (Alper et al., 1998 ). Competitive and independent goals have been found to lead to conflict avoidance or to conflict escalation or both (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 2000 ; Tjosvold et al., 2001 ). Protagonists with cooperative goals promote each other’s benefit because doing so is to their own advantage.

Protagonists typically have mixed interdependencies as well as more “pure” cases. Galinsky and Schweitzer ( 2015 ) note that social relationships contain both competitive and cooperative aspects. This co-opetition has been thought to leave protagonists more flexibility in how they manage conflict (Landkammer & Sassenberg, 2016 ).

Antecedents to Open-Mindedness

A key dynamic of having positively related goals of cooperation is that by helping others reach their goals, one also reaches one’s own goals. In cooperation, people promote their own goals and others’ goals simultaneously. Researchers have used other theoretical frameworks to capture this idea of positively related goals where self-interests are mutual in that promoting one’s self-interest promotes the self-interest of the others. Researchers have used the dual concerns and pro-social motivation to capture positively related self-interests.

In dual concerns, theorists have proposed that conflict participants can be committed to promoting others’ interests as well as their own (Thomas, 1976 , 1992 ). Rahim and Bonoma ( 1979 ) and Rahim ( 1983 , 1992 ) built upon Blake and Mouton’s ( 1964 ) managerial grid. Concern for self describes the extent to which people attempt to satisfy their own interests. The second dimension describes the extent to which people want to satisfy the concerns of others (Rahim & Bonoma, 1979 ). High concern for self and high concern for others resemble cooperative goals. Dual concerns occur when protagonists are motivated by their own interests and outcomes: they are willing to assert themselves to get what they want and they are also motivated to promote their partners’ interests and outcomes.

Dean Pruitt and other integrative negotiation researchers have also developed the dual concerns model (Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993 ; Pruitt et al., 1983 ; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986 ). Here protagonists committed to the interests of the other as well as themselves discuss conflict open-mindedly where they are only satisfied with solutions that promote the interests of both.

Motivational and social value orientation theory (Kelley & Schenitzki, 1972 ; McClintock, 1977 ; Messick & McClintock, 1968 ; Van Lange & Kuhlman, 1994 ) also found that preference for both self and other promotes constructive conflict (De Dreu & Van Lange, 1995 ; De Dreu, Weingart, & Kwon, 2000 ). Social motives refer to preferences for outcomes to the self and other: pro-social, pro-self, and competitive negotiators differ in attaching a positive, zero, or negative weight to the other’s outcomes, respectively (De Dreu & Boles, 1998 ; De Dreu & McCusker, 1997 ; Van Lange, 1999 ).

Pro-social protagonists choose options that maximize joint outcomes; protagonists are pro-self if they select options where their own outcomes are higher than the other, and they are classified as competitive if they choose options that maximize the differences between the two, that is, their own outcomes are much better than the other’s outcomes. Pro-social motivation has been found to develop the open-minded exchange of information that results in constructive conflict (De Dreu, Weingart, et al., 2000 ; Nauta, De Dreu, & Van der Vaart, 2002 ).

Researchers have developed the dual concerns model, pro-social and pro-self social motivation, and cooperative goals as theoretical perspectives to understand relationships that promote constructive conflict (De Dreu, Weingart, et al., 2000 ; Deutsch, 1973 ; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986 ; Rahim & Bonoma, 1979 ). This section argues that these different terms obscure fundamental agreement that the commitment to promoting each other’s goals facilitates open-minded discussion.

Managers and employees of course do not always discuss their differences open-mindedly and, according to the contingency perspective, under certain conditions it would be inappropriate and dysfunctional to do so. Commitments to competitive and independent goals are apt to lead to closed-minded discussions with an emphasis on promoting one’s own interests without concern for the ideas and aspirations of the other. Indeed, with competitive goals they are apt to actively frustrate each other’s goals as they understand this is a way of promoting their own.

This article refers to cooperative relationships as underlying open-minded discussion. Previous research has directly tested whether cooperative relationships promote open-mindedness, providing both experimental and survey data (Deutsch, 1973 ). Research has demonstrated both the causal relationship that cooperative goals promote open-mindedness and survey evidence that supports that cooperative relationships support open-minded discussion in a wide variety of organizational situations (Tjosvold et al., 2014a ). In addition, many social psychologists and other social scientists have developed our understanding of cooperation and competition (Deutsch, 1973 ; Deutsch, Coleman, & Marcus, 2011 ).

Conflict Type Research

For more than two decades, organizational researchers have distinguished types of conflict and argued that the type of conflict determines how constructive the conflict is (Jehn, 1997 ; Jehn, Greer, Levine, & Szulanski, 2008 ). Whether the conflict is about getting tasks done or about the quality of relationships between protagonists, conflict type is thought to determine whether conflict is constructive or destructive. Theorizing on the role of conflict types has stimulated considerable research by many investigators.

Research findings on conflict types supports the traditional view that high levels of conflict disrupt teamwork, and refines this idea by indicating that this proposition is especially true when these conflicts are relationship-based. Relationship conflicts, as measured by such items as how much friction, tension, and personality conflict are in the team, have been found to make conflict destructive (Jehn, 1994 ; Jehn et al., 2008 ). Reviews of literature, including several meta-analyses, have consistently found that relationship conflicts correlate with low levels of team productivity (Choi & Sy, 2010 ; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003 ; DeChurch et al., 2013 ).

These results have straightforward practical implications for leaders and team members in reducing relationship conflict. Given the heavy reliance on correlational findings, it can be more cautiously concluded that relationship conflicts are signs of destructive conflict and are unlikely to contribute to constructive conflict. Researchers have, however, sought to identify boundary conditions that minimize the negative impact, and unlock the positive impact, of relationship conflict (Thiel, Harvey, Courtright, & Bradley, 2017 ).

Whereas relationship conflicts disrupt, it has been proposed that conflicts over tasks contribute to group performance (Jehn, 1997 ; Jehn et al., 2008 ). However, findings do not consistently support this theorizing that task conflict strengthens group performance (Choi & Sy, 2010 ; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003 ; DeChurch et al., 2013 ). The inconsistent effects of task conflict indicate that expressing diverse views can be useful but not consistently. It appears that expressing opposing views must be done skillfully to contribute to constructive conflict, but task conflict theory does not directly suggest the conditions under which expressing opposing views contributes to constructive conflict.

Managing Task and Relationship Conflict

Researchers have worked to document the conditions that determine whether task and relationship conflict are constructive or destructive. For example, some evidence suggests that task conflict is apt to be more productive when it is in moderate amounts, is not closely related to relationship conflict, and when the outcomes are financial performance and decision quality rather than overall performance (De Dreu, 2006 ; de Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012 ; Farh, Lee, & Farh, 2010 ; Mooney, Holahan, & Amason, 2007 ; Shaw et al., 2011 ).

Several studies show that relationship conflict can hinder teams from capitalizing on the potential positive value of task conflict (de Jong, Song, & Song, 2013 ; de Wit, Jehn, & Scheepers, 2013 ; Shaw et al., 2011 ). Research has found that relationship conflicts encourage a competitive approach to managing conflict by leading people to make forceful demands, overstate their position to get their way, and in other ways treat conflict as a win–lose contest (Tjosvold et al., 2006 ). In contrast, to the extent that protagonists had few relationship conflicts, they resolved their conflicts in ways that supported mutual benefit; specifically, they encouraged a “we are in it together” attitude, sought a solution useful for all members, combined their best ideas, and treated conflict as a mutual problem to solve (de Jong et al., 2013 ; de Wit et al., 2013 ; Shaw et al., 2011 ).

Research suggests that how task and relationship conflicts are discussed, not just the amount of them, affects their constructiveness (DeChurch et al., 2013 ; Maltarich, Kukenberger, Reilly, & Mathieu, 2018 ; Rispens, Greer, Jehn, & Thatcher, 2011 ; Tekleab, Quigley, & Tesluk, 2009 ; Todorova, Bear, & Weingart, 2014 ). Recent studies have found that task conflict can be constructive when discussed open-mindedly and skillfully (Bradley, Klotz, Postlethwaite, & Brown, 2013 ; Chun & Choi, 2014 ; Humphrey, Aime, Cushenbery, Hill, & Fairchild, 2017 ; Jiang, Zhang, & Tjosvold, 2012 ; Tekleab et al., 2009 ). Teams with members with high levels of openness as a personality characteristic were found to have constructive task conflict (Bradley et al., 2013 ; de Jong et al., 2013 ). Overall, evidence indicates that open-minded discussion contributes to making both relationship and task conflict constructive (Gibson & Callister, 2010 ; Lau & Cobb, 2010 ; Tjosvold, 2002 ; Tjosvold & Su, 2007 ; Weingart, Behfar, Bendersky, Todorova, & Jehn, 2015 ).

Conflict Management for Leadership

Leadership has long been considered a key contributor to effective organizations. Much of the power of organizations is that they motivate and coordinate the work of many people; for that to happen, managers must lead employees. Without leadership, employees may fail to face up to difficulties, allow problems to simmer, and just go through the motions. Research indicates that to have effective leadership, managers and employees must make conflict constructive (Chen et al., 2005 ; Chen & Tjosvold, 2007 , 2013 ; Chen, Tjosvold, Huang, & Xu, 2011 ; Hui, Wong, & Tjosvold, 2007 ).

Conflict management research is updating our understanding of what it takes to be an effective leader and how to develop it. Studies indicate that by developing constructive conflict, managers can improve the quality of their leader relationships with employees. Managers can then orient and train employees so that they discuss their various ideas and improve the quality of their decision-making and their overall teamwork. Researchers have demonstrated that leaders can be effective by adopting various leadership styles; recent studies show that constructive conflict is very much needed to make these leadership styles effective.

Conflict for Quality Leadership Relationships

Leadership has long been thought to be “situational” in that the actions effective leaders take depend upon the situation; they monitor the situations and decide upon effective actions in the situation (Stogdill, 1974 ). In addition, though, researchers have found that successful leaders are consistent across many situations in that they develop quality relationships. Considerable research has found that successful leaders have quality relationships (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995 ). It’s not so much that managers have the “right” personal skills and characteristics but that they have high quality relationships with employees that help them influence employees and increase their productivity. With these relationships, leaders are able to engage employees, strengthen their teamwork, and in other ways convince them to contribute effectively to the organization.

Less recognized is that leaders and employees cannot allow frustrations to brew; they need to manage their conflicts to develop quality relationships (Chen & Tjosvold, 2007 ; Chen, Tjosvold, & Su, 2005 ; Tjosvold, Poon, & Yu, 2005 ). An important reason why quality relationships are useful is because they promote constructive conflict that in turn results in employee involvement and performance (Chen & Tjosvold, 2013 ; Tjosvold, Hui, & Law, 1998 ). Otherwise, relationship conflicts are apt to undermine team productivity as they allow frustrations to fester (Chen et al., 2005 ; Chen & Tjosvold, 2007 ; Tjosvold et al., 2005 ). Leaders need to manage their conflicts to reduce relationship conflicts and develop and maintain quality relationships.

Conflict for Making Decisions

Leaders have traditionally been thought to make tough decisions and then use their power to implement them. But this is a misleading notion. Studies by diverse researchers have documented the contribution of conflict to making decisions (Amason, 1996 ; Anderson, 1983 ; Cosier, 1978 ; George, 1974 ; Gruenfeld, 1995 ; Mason & Mitroff, 1981 ; Mitchell et al., 2009 ; Peterson & Nemeth, 1996 ; Salas, Rosen, & DiazGranados, 2010 ; Schweiger, Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986 ; Somech, Desivilya, & Lidgoster, 2009 ; Tetlock, Armor, & Peterson, 1994 ; Tjosvold, Wedley, & Field, 1986 ; Wong, Ormiston, & Tetlock, 2011 ). Through conflict, conventional thinking is challenged, threats and opportunities identified, and new solutions forged. Discussing opposing views has been found to give teams the confidence to take calculated risks where they also are prepared to recover from their mistakes; with this preparation, they innovate (Tjosvold & Yu, 2007 ). Even in a crisis, leaders are typically more effective when they seek out diverse views (Tjosvold, 1984 , 1990b ). Rather than making tough decisions alone, effective leaders are oriented toward promoting the conditions and relationships for open-minded discussion of opposing views among colleagues and employees. They develop constructive conflict that helps employees make and implement decisions as a team.

Conflict to Implement Leadership Styles

Researchers have argued that managers can be effective by adopting leadership styles such as transformational, servant, and productivity and people values (Eisenbeiss, van Knippenberg, & Boerner, 2008 ; Xu & Thomas, 2011 ). Less appreciated is that these styles are effective by promoting constructive conflict. Recent studies have demonstrated that to be successful in applying these styles, leaders develop constructive conflict.

Transformational leaders are expected to stimulate superior performance by appealing to employees’ higher aspirations (Bass, 2006 ). For example, they were found highly motivated not by unilaterally directing employees but by helping them manage their conflicts cooperatively and constructively (Zhang, Cao, & Tjosvold, 2011 ). This constructive conflict in turn resulted in high team performance in a sample of independent business groups. In a related study, government officials who exercised transformational leadership promoted cooperative conflict management that in turn resulted in strong government–business partnerships (Wong, Wei, & Tjosvold, 2014 ).

Leaders who value people and productivity have long been thought to be effective leaders, but the dynamics by which these values have beneficial effects have only recently been documented. In a study of international joint ventures (Wong, Wei, Yang, & Tjosvold, 2017 ), results support the idea that productivity and participation values strengthen the partners’ beliefs that their goals are cooperatively related, which in turn reduces free riding and promotes performance; in contrast, competitive goals appear to promote free riding and obstruct joint performance. The results have practical implications by showing that developing cooperative goals can strengthen the benefits of productivity and participation values.

Working in diverse organizations in India, team leaders indicated their people and productivity values and team members rated their open-minded discussion and their effectiveness and performance (Bhatnagar & Tjosvold, 2012 ). Structural equation analysis suggested that productivity values promoted open-minded discussion and thereby team effectiveness and productivity. Productivity-oriented team leaders challenge their teams to make high quality decisions and induce them to discuss issues open-mindedly, which in turn helps teams be effective (Bhatnagar & Tjosvold, 2012 ).

Servant leaders, as they emphasize service to others, team consensus, and the personal development of individuals, have been thought to lay the groundwork for cooperative conflict management in customer service teams (Wong, Liu, & Tjosvold, 2015 ). This constructive conflict helps team members resolve issues and in other ways effectively coordinate with each other; this coordination in turn helps these teams serve their customers. Findings indicate that to the extent that they have servant leaders, teams are able to discuss their disagreements, frustrations, and difficulties directly and work out solutions for the benefit of the team and its customers. These results provide support that improving the capacity to discuss opposing views open-mindedly can be a useful means for servant leaders to enhance teamwork and customer service in China and perhaps in other countries as well.

Ethical leaders want to act justly themselves but they also want employees to be committed to ethical principles and to act morally (Eisenbeiss, 2012 ; Mayer, Aquino, Greenbaum, & Kuenzi, 2012 ). A recent study indicates that effective ethical leaders and their employees engage in open-minded, cooperative conflict management where they express their ideas, work to understand each other, integrate their ideas, and apply their resolutions. Through this constructive conflict management, they work out arrangements that help them act effectively and morally in their situation as they also develop trusting, high quality relationships with each other. Ethical leaders and their employees were found to avoid competitive conflict involving trying to impose one’s own ideas and resolutions on others. Results also confirm that effective leaders develop high quality relationships that help them influence employees as well as to be open and influenced by them (Graen & Uhl-Bien, 1995 ).

Researchers have identified a number of styles that have been shown to help leaders be effective. Although they are developed from diverse leadership theories, studies have found that constructive conflict, in particular cooperative open-minded discussion, is an important mediator of successful implementation of these leadership styles, whether they be transformational leadership, valuing people and productivity, servant, or ethical leadership. Managers can use different leadership styles to encourage constructive conflict that empowers them to lead effectively.

Cultural Differences

Theories of conflict management that can be applied in diverse cultures are increasingly relevant. In the global marketplace, many managers and employees must handle conflicts that cross cultural boundaries. Team members increasingly have diverse cultural backgrounds, even when all operations are in one country. Many managers have to work with suppliers and customers who are from other cultures and live in other countries. Research has shown that open-mindedness and cooperative relationships develop constructive conflict in organizations even when protagonists are from both Western and Eastern cultures (Chen, Tjosvold, & Pan, 2010 ; Tjosvold, Wu, & Chen, 2010 ; Tjosvold, Wong, & Chen, 2014a ).

Research on conflict management has developed our understanding of the impact of cultural values, in particular collectivism and individualism. Western cultures have traditionally been thought to support open discussion of conflict consistent with their emphasis on individuals with their rights and proclivity to express their views. Eastern cultures have been considered collectivist where there is deference to their groups and leaders. Some studies support this traditional thinking. People from the West have indicated more preference for open handling of conflict, whereas those from the East prefer reticence (Kirkbride, Tang, & Westwood, 1991 ).

However, research suggests that this reasoning needs updating. Recent studies indicate that collectivist values induce open-minded discussion whereas individualistic values promote conflict avoidance. Collectivist values have been found in experiments to strengthen cooperative relationships that in turn promote open-minded discussion between individuals from collectivist and individualistic cultures (Chen et al., 2010 ; Tjosvold, Wu, et al., 2010 ; Tjosvold, Wong, & Chen, 2014a ). Collectivist culture team members were found to believe their goals are cooperative and that they are expected to work effectively with each other, and they sought to and actually understood opposing arguments and combined ideas for integrated decisions.

Studies confirm that cooperative and competitive approaches to managing conflict, although developed from theory in the West, apply to organizations in collectivist China as well (Chen et al., 2011 ). Indeed, findings challenge stereotypes that Chinese culture and leadership are highly conflict-negative. Chinese people are not rigidly committed to conflict avoidance but have been found to manage conflict cooperatively and openly. Chinese collectivism, social face, and other values can be applied in ways that aid direct, open, cooperative conflict management (Tjosvold, Wong, & Chen, 2014b ).

Cooperative conflict management can also guide the strengthening of cross-cultural interaction. Bond ( 2003 ) and Smith ( 2003 ) argue that cross-cultural researchers, in addition to the tradition of documenting cultural value differences, should study the relationship and interaction between culturally diverse people to identify how they work together effectively. Recent studies show that diverse people can work together when they manage their conflicts cooperatively (Chen et al., 2010 ; Chen & Tjosvold, 2007 , 2008 ; Chen, Tjosvold, & Wu, 2008 ).

While the “genotype” (the underlying conceptual structure of the theory of cooperation and competition) appears to be similar, the “phenotypes” (how the theory is manifested in particular situations) often are not (Lewin, 1938 ). In particular, the actions that develop cooperative goals and communicate an attempt to discuss conflicts open-mindedly may be quite different in China than in North America, as may the general levels of cooperative goals and conflict. However, diverse people can use research to develop a common understanding and platform for how they can manage conflict cooperatively and productively (Tjosvold & Leung, 2003 ).

Training Teams

Employees, managers, and executives are more effective when they manage important conflicts open-mindedly and cooperatively. Research suggests that, when they study cooperative, open-minded conflict, plan how to approach their own conflicts, and reflect on their experiences, managers and employees are more effective at managing conflict and more productive (Lu, Tjosvold, & Shi, 2010 ; Tjosvold et al., 2014a ).

A software company in Beijing used a cooperative team workshop and two months of follow-up of team feedback and reflection to develop open-minded conflict management (Lu et al., 2010 ). More than 150 employees from all the teams in the company participated in the workshop and the follow-up activities.

They had already organized cooperative teams to work on projects and satisfy customers. At the workshop, these groups studied the theory and reviewed the research in order to appreciate the value for them and their organization of strengthening cooperative, open-minded approaches to managing their conflicts. They decided that they wanted to improve their conflict management. They met regularly to assess their current level of cooperative conflict and developed plans for managing their conflicts more constructively. They practiced in their teams, met regularly to assess their current level of cooperative conflict, and developed plans for managing their conflicts more constructively. They reflected on their experience managing conflict within and between teams with consultants, and developed concrete ways to improve their conflict management.

Findings confirmed that open-minded discussion and cooperative relationships are a valuable basis upon which teams can strengthen their conflict management, collaboration among teams, and contributions to their organization. The training was found to heighten cooperative goals, develop open-minded discussion of conflicts, foster creativity within and between cultures, and produce higher group confidence and productivity.

Human resource personnel can apply conflict management findings by initiating professional development teams for managers and employees (Tjosvold & Tjosvold, 2015 ). They realize that becoming more effective requires the encouragement, feedback, and support of others. In these teams, managers and employees study cooperative, open-minded conflict management, reflect on their current experiences, and develop concrete ways to strengthen and practice conflict management skills. They remember not to expect perfection but to focus on reflecting on their experiences to improve.

Managers and employees confront a great variety of conflicts. With persistent pressures for them to rely on each other’s resources and to work together as a team, they are likely to encounter increasingly difficult conflicts that spread across organizational and national boundaries. Yet they are expected to resolve them quickly. Theory and research such as that referred to in this article helps to focus our efforts to manage even our complex conflicts constructively. We have learned from research that we can profitably strengthen our cooperative relationships and discuss our conflicts open-mindedly. Our conflicts will not disappear, but we can engage our partners so that we manage our conflicts and work together to get things done.

• Alper, S. , Tjosvold, D. , & Law, K. S. (1998). Interdependence and controversy in group decision making: Antecedents to effective self-managing teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 74 , 33–52.
• Alper, S. , Tjosvold, D. , & Law, K. S. (2000). Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in self-managing work teams. Personnel Psychology , 53 , 625–638.
• Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal , 39 , 123–148.
• Anderson, P. A. (1983). Decision making by objection and the Cuban missile crisis. Administrative Science Quarterly , 28 , 201–222.
• Averill, J. R. (1983). Studies on anger and aggression: Implications for theories of emotion. American Psychologist , 38 , 1145–1160.
• Bacon, N. , & Blyton, P. (2007). Conflict for mutual gains? Journal of Management Studies , 44 , 814–834.
• Baker, W. E. , & Sinkula, J. M. (1999). The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 27 , 411–427.
• Barki, H. , & Hartwick, J. (2004). Conceptualizing the construct of interpersonal conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management , 15 , 216–244.
• Bass, B. M. (2006). Transformational leadership . Riggio, R. E. 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
• Bhatnagar, D. , & Tjosvold, D. (2012). Leader values for constructive controversy and team effectiveness in India. International Journal of Human Resource Management , 23 , 109–125.
• Blake, R. , & Mouton, J. (1964). The managerial grid: The key to leadership excellence . Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.
• Bond, M. H. (2003). Cross-cultural social psychology and the real world of culturally diverse teams and dyads. In D. Tjosvold & K. Leung (Eds.), Cross-cultural foundations: Traditions for managing in a cross-cultural world (pp. 43–58). Farnham, U.K.: Ashgate.
• Bradley, B. H. , Klotz, A. C. , Postlethwaite, B. E. , & Brown, K. G. (2013). Ready to rumble: How team personality composition and task conflicts interact to improve performance. Journal of Applied Psychology , 98 , 385–392.
• Cegarra-Navarro, J. G. , & Sánchez-Polo, M. T. (2011). Influence of the open-mindedness culture on organizational memory: An empirical investigation of Spanish SMEs. International Journal of Human Resource Management , 22 , 1–18.
• Chen, G. , Liu, C. , & Tjosvold, D. (2005). Conflict management for effective top management teams and innovation in China. Journal of Management Studies , 42 , 277–300.
• Chen, Y. F. , & Tjosvold, D. (2007). Cooperative conflict management: An approach to strengthen relationships between foreign managers and Chinese employees. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources , 45 , 271–294.
• Chen, Y. F. , & Tjosvold, D. (2008). Goal interdependence and leader–member relationships for cross-cultural leadership in foreign ventures in China. Leadership & Organization Development Journal , 29 , 144–166.
• Chen, Y. F. , & Tjosvold, D. (2013). Inside the leader relationship: Constructive controversy for team effectiveness in China. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 43 , 1827–1837.
• Chen, Y. F. , Tjosvold, D. , Huang, X. , & Xu, D. (2011). New manager socialization and conflict management in China: Effects of relationship and open conflict values. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 41 , 332–356.
• Chen, Y. F. , Tjosvold, D. , & Pan, Y. J. (2010). Collectivist team values for Korean–Chinese co-worker relationships and job performance. International Journal of Intercultural Relationships , 34 , 475–481.
• Chen, Y. F. , Tjosvold, D. , & Su, F. (2005). Working with foreign managers: Conflict management for effective leader relationships in China. International Journal of Conflict Management , 16 , 265–286.
• Chen, Y. F. , Tjosvold, D. , & Wu, P. G. (2008). Effects of relationship values and goal interdependence on guanxi between foreign managers and Chinese employees. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 38 , 2440–2486.
• Choi, J. N. , & Sy, T. (2010). Group-level organizational citizenship behavior: Effects of demographic faultlines and conflict in small work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 31 , 1032–1054.
• Chun, J. S. , & Choi, J. N. (2014). Members’ needs, intragroup conflict, and group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology , 99 , 437–450.
• Cosier, R. A. (1978). The effects of three potential aids for making strategic decisions on prediction accuracy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 22 , 295–306.
• De Dreu, C. K. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management , 32 , 83–107.
• De Dreu, C. K. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology , 92 , 628–638.
• De Dreu, C. K. , & Boles, T. L. (1998). Share and share alike or winner take all? The influence of social value orientation upon choice and recall of negotiation heuristics. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 76 , 253–276.
• De Dreu, C. K. , Koole, S. L. , & Steinel, W. (2000). Unfixing the fixed pie: A motivated information-processing approach to integrative negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 79 , 975–987.
• De Dreu, C. K. , & McCusker, C. (1997). Gain–loss frames and cooperation in two-person social dilemmas: A transformational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 72 , 1093–1106.
• De Dreu, C. K. , Nijstad, B. A. , & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Motivated information processing in group judgment and decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Review , 12 , 22–49.
• De Dreu, C. K. , & Van Lange, P. A. (1995). The impact of social value orientations on negotiator cognition and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 21 , 1178–1188.
• De Dreu, C. K. , & Van Vianen, A. E. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 22 , 309–328.
• De Dreu, C. K. , & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 , 741–749.
• De Dreu, C. K. , Weingart, L. R. , & Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 78 , 889–905.
• De Jong, A. , Song, M. , & Song, L. Z. (2013). How lead founder personality affects new venture performance: The mediating role of team conflict. Journal of Management , 39 , 1825–1854.
• De Wit, F. R. , Greer, L. L. , & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology , 97 , 360–390.
• De Wit, F. R. , Jehn, K. A. , & Scheepers, D. (2013). Task conflict, information processing, and decision-making: The damaging effect of relationship conflict. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 122 , 177–189.
• DeChurch, L. A. , Mesmer-Magnus, J. R. , & Doty, D. (2013). Moving beyond relationship and task conflict: Toward a process-state perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology , 98 , 559–578.
• Deutsch, M. (1948). The effects of cooperation and competition upon group process . Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
• Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
• Deutsch, M. , Coleman, P. T. , & Marcus, E. (2011). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Eisenbeiss, S. A. (2012). Re-thinking ethical leadership: An interdisciplinary integrative approach. Leadership Quarterly , 23 , 791–808.
• Eisenbeiss, S. A. , van Knippenberg, D. , & Boerner, S. (2008). Transformational leadership and team innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology , 93 , 1438–1446.
• Eisenhardt, K. M. , Kahwajy, J. L. , & Bourgeois, L. J. (1997). How management teams can have a good fight. Harvard Business Review , 75 (4), 77–85.
• Farh, J. L. , Lee, C. , & Farh, C. I. (2010). Task conflict and team creativity: A question of how much and when. Journal of Applied Psychology , 95 , 1173–1180.
• Follett, M. P. (1940). Constructive conflict. In H. C. Metcalf & L. Urwick (Eds.), Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett (pp. 183–209). New York: Harper.
• Friedman, R. , Chi, S. C. , & Liu, L. A. (2006). An expectancy model of Chinese–American differences in conflict-avoiding. Journal of International Business Studies , 37 , 76–91.
• Galinsky, A. , & Schweitzer, M. (2015). Friend & foe: When to cooperate, when to compete, and how to succeed at both . New York: Crown Business.
• George, A. L. (1974). Adaptation to stress in political decision making: The individual, small group, and organizational contexts. In G. V. Coelho , D. A. Hamburg , & J. E. Adams (Eds.), Coping and adaptation (pp. 176–245). New York: Basic Books.
• Gibson, D. E. , & Callister, R. R. (2010). Anger in organizations: Review and integration. Journal of Management , 36 , 66–93.
• Graen, G. B. , & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader–member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years; Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly , 6 , 219–247.
• Gruenfeld, D. H. (1995). Status, ideology, and integrative complexity on the US Supreme Court: Rethinking the politics of political decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 68 , 5–20.
• Hempel, P. S. , Zhang, Z. X. , & Tjosvold, D. (2009). Conflict management between and within teams for trusting relationships and performance in China. Journal of Organization Behavior , 30 , 41–65.
• Hui, C. , Wong, A. , & Tjosvold, D. (2007). Turnover intention and performance in China: The role of positive affectivity, Chinese values, perceived organizational support and constructive controversy. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 80 , 735–751.
• Humphrey, S. E. , Aime, F. , Cushenbery, L. , Hill, A. D. , & Fairchild, J. (2017). Team conflict dynamics: Implications of a dyadic view of conflict for team performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 142 , 58–70.
• Jehn, K. A. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value-based intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management , 5 , 223–238.
• Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly , 40 , 256–282.
• Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly , 42 , 530–557.
• Jehn, K. A. , Greer, L. , Levine, S. , & Szulanski, G. (2008). The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent states on group outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation , 17 , 465–495.
• Jiang, J. Y. , Zhang, X. , & Tjosvold, D. (2012). Emotion regulation as a boundary condition of the relationship between team conflict and performance: A multi-level examination. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 34 , 714–734.
• Johnson, D. W. (2015). Constructive controversy: Theory, research, practice . Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
• Johnson, D. W. , Johnson, R. T. , & Tjosvold, D. (2006). Constructive controversy: The value of intellectual opposition. In M. Deutsch , P. T. Coleman , & E. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 69–91). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Kelley, H. H. , & Schenitzki, D. P. (1972). Bargaining. In C. G. McClintock (Ed.), Experimental social psychology (pp. 298–337). New York: Holt.
• Kirkbride, P. S. , Tang, S. F. Y. , & Westwood, R. I. (1991). Chinese conflict preferences and negotiating behaviour: Cultural and psychological influences. Organization Studies , 12 , 365–386.
• Landkammer, F. , & Sassenberg, K. (2016). Competing while cooperating with the same others: The consequences of conflicting demands in co-opetition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 145 , 1670–1686.
• Lau, R. S. , & Cobb, A. T. (2010). Understanding the connections between relationship conflict and performance: The intervening roles of trust and exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 31 , 898–917.
• Lewin, K. (1938). The conceptual representation and the measurement of psychological forces . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Liu, J. , Fu, P. , & Liu, S. (2009). Conflicts in top management teams and team/firm outcomes: The moderating effects of conflict-handling approaches. International Journal of Conflict Management , 20 , 228–250.
• Lovelace, K. , Shapiro, D. L. , & Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing cross-functional new product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal , 44 , 779–793.
• Lu, J. F. , Tjosvold, D. , & Shi, K. (2010). Team training in China: Testing and applying the theory of cooperation and competition. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 40 , 101–134.
• McClintock, C. (1977). Social motives in settings of outcome interdependence. In D. Druckman (Ed.), Negotiations: Social psychological perspective (pp. 49–77). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
• Maltarich, M. A. , Kukenberger, M. , Reilly, G. , & Mathieu, J. (2018). Conflict in teams: Modeling early and late conflict states and the interactive effects of conflict processes. Group & Organization Management , 43 , 6–37.
• Mason, R. O. , & Mitroff, I. I. (1981). Challenging strategic planning assumptions: Theory, cases, and techniques . New York: Wiley.
• Mayer, D. M. , Aquino, K. , Greenbaum, R. L. , & Kuenzi, M. (2012). Who displays ethical leadership, and why does it matter? An examination of antecedents and consequences of ethical leadership. Academy of Management Journal , 55 , 151–171.
• Messick, D. M , & McClintock, C. G. (1968). Motivational bases of choice in experimental games. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 4 , 1–25.
• Mitchell, R. , Nicholas, S. , & Boyle, B. (2009). The role of openness to cognitive diversity and group processes in knowledge creation. Small Group Research , 40 , 535–554.
• Mooney, A. C. , Holahan, P. J. , & Amason, A. C. (2007). Don’t take it personally: Exploring cognitive conflict as a mediator of affective conflict. Journal of Management Studies , 44 , 733–758.
• Nauta, A. , De Dreu, C. K. , & Van der Vaart, T. (2002). Social value orientation, organizational goal concerns and interdepartmental problem-solving behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 23 , 199–213.
• Nemeth, C. , & Owens, P. (1996). Making groups more effective: The value of minority dissent. In M. A. West (Ed.), Handbook of work group psychology (pp. 125–141). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
• Ohbuchi, K. I. , & Atsumi, E. (2010). Avoidance brings Japanese employees what they care about in conflict management: Its functionality and “good member” image. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research , 3 , 117–129.
• Peterson, R. S. , & Nemeth, C. J. (1996). Focus versus flexibility majority and minority influence can both improve performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 22 , 14–23.
• Pondy, L. R. (1967). Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly , 12 , 296–320.
• Poon, M. , Pike, R. , & Tjosvold, D. (2001). Budget participation, goal interdependence and controversy: A study of a Chinese public utility. Management Accounting Research , 12 , 101–118.
• Pruitt, D. G. , & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict . Buckingham, U.K.: Open University Press.
• Pruitt, D. G. , Carnevale, P. J. , Ben-Yoav, O. R. L. Y. , Nochajski, T. H. , & Van Slyck, M. (1983). Incentives for cooperation in integrative bargaining. Aspiration Levels in Bargaining and Economic Decision Making , 213 , 22–34.
• Pruitt, D. G. , & Lewis, S. A. (1975). Development of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 31 , 621–633.
• Pruitt, D. G. , & Rubin, J. (1986). Social conflict . New York: Random House.
• Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal , 26 , 368–376.
• Rahim, M. A. (1992). Managing conflict in organizations . 2nd ed. New York: Praeger.
• Rahim, M. A. (1995). Confirmatory factor analysis of the styles of handling interpersonal conflict: First-order factor model and its invariance across groups. Journal of Applied Psychology , 80 , 122–132.
• Rahim, A. , & Bonoma, T. V. (1979). Managing organizational conflict: A model for diagnosis and intervention. Psychological Reports , 44 , 1323–1344.
• Rispens, S. , Greer, L. , Jehn, K. A. , & Thatcher, S. (2011). Not so bad after all: How relational closeness buffers the association between relationship conflict and helpful and deviant group behaviors. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research , 4 , 277–296.
• Salas, E. , Rosen, M. A. , & DiazGranados, D. (2010). Expertise-based intuition and decision making in organizations. Journal of Management , 36 , 941–973.
• Schei, V. , & Rognes, J. K. (2003). Knowing me, knowing you: Own orientation and information about the opponent’s orientation in negotiation. International Journal of Conflict Management , 14 , 43–59.
• Schweiger, D. M. , Sandberg, W. R. , & Ragan, J. W. (1986). Group approaches for improving strategic decision making: A comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy, and consensus. Academy of Management Journal , 29 , 51–71.
• Shaw, J. D. , Zhu, J. , Duffy, M. K. , Scott, K. L. , Shih, H. A. , & Susanto, E. (2011). A contingency model of conflict and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology , 96 , 391–400.
• Sinkula, J. M. , Baker, W. E. , & Noordewier, T. (1997). A framework for market-based organizational learning: Linking values, knowledge, and behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 25 , 305–318.
• Smith, P. B. (2003). Meeting the challenge of cultural difference. In D. Tjosvold & K. Leung (Eds.), Cross-cultural foundations: Traditions for managing in a cross-cultural world (pp. 59–71). Farnham, U.K.: Ashgate.
• Somech, A. , Desivilya, H. S. , & Lidgoster, H. (2009). Team conflict management and team effectiveness: The effects of task interdependence and team identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 30 , 359–378.
• Spector, P. E. , & Bruk-Lee, V. (2008). Conflict, health, and well-being. In C. K. W. De Dreu & M. J. Gelfand (Eds.), The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations (pp. 267–288). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and practice . New York: Free Press.
• Tekleab, A. G. , Quigley, N. R. , & Tesluk, P. E. (2009). A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group & Organization Management , 34 , 170–205.
• Tetlock, P. E. , Armor, D. , & Peterson, R. S. (1994). The slavery debate in antebellum America: Cognitive style, value conflict, and the limits of compromise. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 66 , 115–126.
• Thiel, C. E. , Harvey, J. , Courtright, S. , & Bradley, B. (2017). What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger: How teams rebound from early-stage relationship conflict . Journal of Management , 45 (4), 1623–1659.
• Thomas, K. W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 889–935). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
• Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations. In L. M. Hough & M. D. Dunnette (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology , 2nd ed., Vol. 3 (pp. 651–717). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
• Tjosvold, D. (1984). Effects of crisis orientation on managers’ approach to controversy in decision making. Academy of Management Journal , 27 , 130–138.
• Tjosvold, D. (1985). Implications of controversy research for management. Journal of Management , 11 , 19–35.
• Tjosvold, D. (1988). Effects of shared responsibility and goal interdependence on controversy and decision making between departments. Journal of Social Psychology , 128 , 7–18.
• Tjosvold, D. (1990a). The goal interdependence approach to communication in conflict: An organizational study. In M. A. Rahim (Ed.), Theory and research in conflict management (pp. 15–27). New York: Praeger.
• Tjosvold, D. (1990b). Flight crew collaboration to manage safety risks. Group and Organization Studies , 15 , 177–191.
• Tjosvold, D. (2002). Managing anger for teamwork in Hong Kong: Goal interdependence and open-mindedness. Asian Journal of Social Psychology , 5 , 107–123.
• Tjosvold, D. , Cho, Y. H. , Park, H. H. , Liu, C. , Liu, W. C. , & Sasaki, S. (2001). Interdependence and managing conflict with sub-contractors in the construction industry in East Asia. Asia Pacific Journal of Management , 18 , 295–313.
• Tjosvold, D. , Dann, V. , & Wong, C. L. (1992). Managing conflict between departments to serve customers. Human Relations , 45 , 1035–1054.
• Tjosvold, D. , & Halco, J. A. (1992). Performance appraisal of managers: Goal interdependence, ratings, and outcomes. Journal of Social Psychology , 132 , 629–639.
• Tjosvold, D. , Hui, C. , & Law, K. S. (1998). Empowerment in the manager–employee relationship in Hong Kong: Interdependence and controversy. Journal of Social Psychology , 138 , 624–636.
• Tjosvold, D. , Law, K. S. , & Sun, H. (2006). Conflict in Chinese teams: Conflict types and conflict management approaches. Management and Organization Review , 2 , 231–252.
• Tjosvold, D. , & Leung, K. (2003). Cross-cultural management: Foundations and future . Farnham, U.K.: Ashgate.
• Tjosvold, D. , Poon, M. , & Yu, Z. Y. (2005). Team effectiveness in China: Cooperative conflict for relationship building. Human Relations , 58 , 341–367.
• Tjosvold, D. , & Su, F. S. (2007). Managing anger and annoyance in organizations in China: The role of constructive controversy. Group & Organization Management , 32 , 260–289.
• Tjosvold, D. , & Tjosvold, M. (2015). Teamwork with customers. In Building the team organization (pp. 141–150). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Tjosvold, D. , Wedley, W. C. , & Field, R. H. (1986). Constructive controversy, the Vroom-Yetton model, and managerial decision-making. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 7 , 125–138.
• Tjosvold, D. , Wong, A. S. , & Chen, N. Y. (2014a). Constructively managing conflicts in organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior , 1 , 545–568.
• Tjosvold, D. , Wong, A. S. H. , & Chen, N. Y. F. (2014b). Cooperative and competitive conflict management in organizations. In N. Ashkanasy , K. Jehn , & R. Ayoko (Eds.), Handbook of research in conflict management (pp. 33–50). Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar.
• Tjosvold, D. , Wu, P. , & Chen, Y. F. (2010). The effects of collectivistic and individualistic values on conflict and decision making: An experiment in China. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 40 , 2904–2926.
• Tjosvold, D. , & Yu, Z. (2007). Group risk taking: The constructive role of controversy in China. Group & Organization Management , 32 , 653–674.
• Todorova, G. , Bear, J. B. , & Weingart, L. R. (2014). Can conflict be energizing? A study of task conflict, positive emotions, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology , 99 , 451–467.
• 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.
• Van de Vliert, E. , & Kabanoff, B. (1990). Toward theory-based measures of conflict management. Academy of Management Journal , 33 , 199–209.
• Van de Vliert, E. , Nauta, A. , Giebels, E. , & Janssen, O. (1999). Constructive conflict at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 20 , 475–491.
• Van Lange, P. A. (1999). The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 77 , 337–349.
• Van Lange, P. A. , & Kuhlman, D. M. (1994). Social value orientations and impressions of partner’s honesty and intelligence: a test of the might versus morality effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 67 , 126–141.
• Walton, R. E , & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations . New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Weingart, L. R. , Behfar, K. J. , Bendersky, C. , Todorova, G. , & Jehn, K. A. (2015). The directness and oppositional intensity of conflict expression. Academy of Management Review , 40 , 235–262.
• Wong, A. S. H. , Liu, Y. , & Tjosvold, D. (2015). Service leadership for adaptive selling and effective customer service teams. Industrial Marketing Management , 46 , 122–131.
• Wong, A. S. H. , Tjosvold, D. , & Yu, Z. Y. (2005). Organizational partnerships in China: Self-interest, goal interdependence, and opportunism. Journal of Applied Psychology , 90 , 782–791.
• Wong, A. S. H. , Wei, L. , & Tjosvold, D. (2014). Business and regulators partnerships: Government transformational leadership for constructive conflict management. Asia Pacific Journal of Management , 31 , 497–522.
• Wong, A. , Wei, L. , Yang, J. , & Tjosvold, D. (2017). Productivity and participation values for cooperative goals to limit free riding and promote performance in international joint ventures. Journal of World Business , 52 , 819–830.
• Wong, A. , Yang, J. , & Tjosvold, D. (2018). Ethical leaders manage conflict to develop trust. Manuscript, Lingnan University, Hong Kong.
• Wong, E. M. , Ormiston, M. E. , & Tetlock, P. E. (2011). The effects of top management team integrative complexity and decentralized decision making on corporate social performance. Academy of Management Journal , 54 , 1207–1228.
• Xu, J. , & Thomas, H. C. (2011). How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? Leadership and Organization Development Journal , 32 , 339–416.
• Zhang, X. A. , Cao, Q. , & Tjosvold, D. (2011). Linking transformational leadership and team performance: A conflict management approach. Journal of Management Studies , 48 , 1586–1611.

Related Articles

• The Personality Underpinnings of Strategic Leadership: The CEO, TMT, and Board of Directors
• Managing Team Diversity in the Workplace
• Is There a Female Leadership Advantage?

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Business and Management. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 10 October 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [81.177.182.154]
• 81.177.182.154

Character limit 500 /500

Login | Register

• Editorial Board
• Author Guidelines
• Review Process
• Author Copyright
• More for Authors
• Reviewer Guidelines
• Special Issue Editors
• Open Research
• Publication Ethics

About the Journal

Negotiation and Conflict Management Research (NCMR) publishes articles that develop theory and report research on negotiation and conflict management across levels, including interpersonal conflict, intergroup conflict, organizational conflict, and cross-cultural conflict, across a range of domains including environmental conflict, crisis negotiations, and political conflict, as well as across a variety of approaches, including formal and informal third party intervention, mediation and arbitration.

Our readership includes scholars and practitioners studying conflict management in family, organizational, societal, and international settings.

As of January 2021, NCMR has transitioned from the Wiley Online Library to become an Open Access and Open Science journal hosted by the Carnegie Mellon University Library Publishing Service .

Featured Articles

Lily Morse, Taya R. Cohen

Predicting monitoring failures using the HEXACO framework: The effects of honesty-humility and agreeableness

Kristen R.V. Thornton, Shannon Fletcher

Remotely Different: Two Soft Skills to Effectively Navigate Conflict in Today’s Workplace

Mona Bassyiouny, Ronny Ehlen, Maximiliane Wilkesmann, Caroline Ruiner, Birgit Apitzsch, Lena Schulz

The Sequence Effect and its Impact on Cooperation, Conflicts, and Conflict Management in IT Freelancer-Client Relationships

Laura Rees, Ming‐Hong Tsai, Shirli Kopelman, Hsiu-Hua Hu

Can Confidence Influence Persuasiveness in Disagreements by Conveying Competence versus Dominance? The Moderating Role of Competitiveness

Chiara Trombini, Modupe Akinola, Hannah Riley Bowles

Self-Affirmation Increases Men’s Openness to Women’s Dominance Behaviors

Oliver Fink, Wilfried Graf, Shashanka Subrahmanya, Aadesh Salecha, Johannes C. Eichstaedt

The Language of Conflict Transformation: Assessing Psychological Change Patterns in Israeli-Palestinian Track Two Interactive Problem Solving

Tamara Montag-Smit, Cassondra Batz-Barbarich, Karoline Evans, Ursula Sanborn-Overby

Transparency increases negotiation initiation likelihood when it is fair

Micheale Kihishen Gebru, Kjetil Tronvoll

Examining the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) Non-Interference Principle as a Conflict Management Strategy in the Horn of Africa

Chih-Chieh Chu, Raymond A Friedman, Shu‐Cheng Steve Chi

Early-Life Power and Self-Interested Behavior: The Interplay Between Past and Present

Shannon Cruz, Xun Zhu, Rachel A Smith, James P Dillard, Lijiang Shen, Xi Tian

Different Politics, Different Realities? The Structure of Partisan Sensemaking About COVID-19

Colleen Tolan, Deborah A Cai, Edward L. Fink

Expectations, Conflict Styles, and Anchors in Negotiation

Mei-Ju Huang

Burnout among Sports Centers’ Frontline Service employees: Does Service Climate matter?

Dominik Sondern, Guido Hertel

Building Negotiator Trust Through Social Presence – Effects of Communication Media and Information Reprocessability on Trust in Negotiations

Mark H Davis, Jake Duggan, Madison Gumprecht, Octavia Loll, Brittany Poulo

Testing the assumptions underlying the dual concerns model: the role of motivation and emotion regulation skills

Nazli Bhatia, Rosalind Chow, Laurie Weingart, Matthew Diabes

Your Cost or My Benefit? : Effects of Concession Frames in Distributive Negotiations

David Hunsaker, Teng Zhang, McKenzie Rees

An Angry Face and a Guilty Conscience: The Intrapersonal Effects of Fake Anger in Negotiation

Carolin Schuster, Fieke Harinck, Roman Trötschel

Activating an Integrative Mindset Improves the Subjective Outcomes of Value-Driven Conflicts

Catherine Elizabeth Kleshinski, Kelly Schwind Wilson, D Scott DeRue, Donald E Conlon

Does Justice Need to be in the Eyes of Both Beholders? Examining Face-to-Face and Virtual Negotiators’ Interactional Justice Congruence

Jan Alexander Häusser, Emma Halfmann, Joachim Hüffmeier

Negotiating Through the Night: How Sleep Deprivation Can Affect Negotiation Outcomes

Peter Kaiser, Gerald Eisenkopf, Andrej Marc Gabler, Felix L. B. Lehmann

Qualities and Long-Term Effects of Mediation

Wolfram Emanuel Lipp, Remigiusz Smolinski, Peter Kesting

Toward a Process Model of First Offers and Anchoring in Negotiations

Volume 17 • Issue 3 • 2024

Lily Morse and Taya R. Cohen

2024-08-24 Volume 17 • Issue 3 • 2024 • 182-207

Kristen R.V. Thornton and Shannon Fletcher

2024-08-24 Volume 17 • Issue 3 • 2024 • 208-228

Mona Bassyiouny, Ronny Ehlen, Maximiliane Wilkesmann, Caroline Ruiner, Birgit Apitzsch and Lena Schulz

2024-08-24 Volume 17 • Issue 3 • 2024 • 229-254

Most Popular Articles

Michael L. Elliott, Sanda Kaufman

Enhancing Environmental Quality and Sustainability through Negotiation and Conflict Management: Research into Systems, Dynamics, and Practices

Amira Schiff

Readiness Theory: A New Approach to Understanding Mediated Prenegotiation and Negotiation Processes Leading to Peace Agreements

Deborah A. Cai, Edward L. Fink, Cameron B. Walker

Robert R. Blake, With Recognition of Jane S. Mouton

Shirli Kopelman

Tit for Tat and Beyond: The Legendary Work of Anatol Rapoport

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Conflict Management: A Literature Review and Study

• PMID: 30514033

"Management of conflict is extremely important for the effective functioning of organizations and for the personal, cultural, and social development of individuals. The manner in which the conflict is managed can cause more tension in the situation rather than the conflict itself. " This literature review analyzes five modes to dealing with conflict along two dimensions of behavior: compet- ing (assertive and uncooperative), accommodating (unassertive and cooperative), avoiding (unassertive and uncooperative), compromising (falls into the middle), and collaborat- ing (assertive and cooperative). " In a study, technologists preferred a cooperating conflict management style when feelings have not yet esca- lated, and a compromising conflict management style after the conflict has become heated. The study also showed education.level did not have any effect on their preferred conflict management styles.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• Conflict management styles in the health professions. Sportsman S, Hamilton P. Sportsman S, et al. J Prof Nurs. 2007 May-Jun;23(3):157-66. doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2007.01.010. J Prof Nurs. 2007. PMID: 17540319
• Conflict in schools: student nurses' conflict management styles. Kantek F, Gezer N. Kantek F, et al. Nurse Educ Today. 2009 Jan;29(1):100-7. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2008.07.007. Epub 2008 Sep 9. Nurse Educ Today. 2009. PMID: 18783853
• Conflict resolution in healthcare management. Lipcamon JD, Mainwaring BA. Lipcamon JD, et al. Radiol Manage. 2004 May-Jun;26(3):48-51. Radiol Manage. 2004. PMID: 15259690
• Putting conflict management into practice: a nursing case study. Vivar CG. Vivar CG. J Nurs Manag. 2006 Apr;14(3):201-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2934.2006.00554.x. J Nurs Manag. 2006. PMID: 16600008 Review.
• A gender perspective on conflict management strategies of nurses. Valentine PE. Valentine PE. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2001;33(1):69-74. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2001.00069.x. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2001. PMID: 11253585 Review.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.