IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ilrrev/v73y2020i2p254-280.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Advancing Dispute Resolution by Understanding the Sources of Conflict: Toward an Integrated Framework

Author

Listed:
  • John W. Budd
  • Alexander J. S. Colvin
  • Dionne Pohler

Abstract

Organizational leaders, public policymakers, dispute resolution professionals, and scholars have developed diverse methods for resolving workplace conflict. But inadequate recognition has been given to the idea that the effectiveness of a dispute resolution method depends on its fit with the source of a particular conflict. Consequently, it is essential to better understand where conflict comes from and how this affects dispute resolution. To these ends, this article uniquely integrates scholarship from multiple disciplines to develop a multidimensional framework to conceptualize the sources of conflict. This framework provides an important foundation for theorizing and identifying effective dispute resolution methods. Such methods are increasingly important as the changing world of work raises new issues, conflicts, and institutions.

Suggested Citation

  • John W. Budd & Alexander J. S. Colvin & Dionne Pohler, 2020. "Advancing Dispute Resolution by Understanding the Sources of Conflict: Toward an Integrated Framework," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 73(2), pages 254-280, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:ilrrev:v:73:y:2020:i:2:p:254-280
    DOI: 10.1177/0019793919866817
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0019793919866817
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0019793919866817?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paharia, Neeru & Vohs, Kathleen D. & Deshpandé, Rohit, 2013. "Sweatshop labor is wrong unless the shoes are cute: Cognition can both help and hurt moral motivated reasoning," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 81-88.
    2. George, Jennifer M. & Dane, Erik, 2016. "Affect, emotion, and decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 47-55.
    3. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1449-1475, December.
    4. Sarah Kaplan, 2008. "Framing Contests: Strategy Making Under Uncertainty," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(5), pages 729-752, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Christine A. Riordan & Alexander M. Kowalski, 2021. "From Bread and Roses to #MeToo: Multiplicity, Distance, and the Changing Dynamics of Conflict in IR Theory," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 74(3), pages 580-606, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hanqing “Chevy” Fang & Esra Memili & James J. Chrisman & Linjia Tang, 2021. "Narrow‐Framing and Risk Preferences in Family and Non‐Family Firms," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(1), pages 201-235, January.
    2. Winter, Peter, 2007. "Managerial Risk Accounting and Control – A German perspective," MPRA Paper 8185, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. J. Silvestre, & T. Araújo & M. St. Aubyn, 2016. "Economic growth and individual satisfaction in an agent-based economy," Working Papers Department of Economics 2016/19, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, Universidade de Lisboa.
    4. Luigi Guiso, 2015. "A Test of Narrow Framing and its Origin," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 1(1), pages 61-100, March.
    5. Yuliya Snihur & Llewellyn D. W. Thomas & Robert A. Burgelman, 2018. "An Ecosystem‐Level Process Model of Business Model Disruption: The Disruptor's Gambit," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(7), pages 1278-1316, November.
    6. Stefan Gröschl & Patricia Gabaldón & Tobias Hahn, 2019. "The Co-evolution of Leaders’ Cognitive Complexity and Corporate Sustainability: The Case of the CEO of Puma," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 741-762, March.
    7. Lex Borghans & Angela Lee Duckworth & James J. Heckman & Bas ter Weel, 2008. "The Economics and Psychology of Personality Traits," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 43(4).
    8. B Kelsey Jack, "undated". "Market Inefficiencies and the Adoption of Agricultural Technologies in Developing Countries," CID Working Papers 50, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    9. Kelly, Scott & Shipworth, Michelle & Shipworth, David & Gentry, Michael & Wright, Andrew & Pollitt, Michael & Crawford-Brown, Doug & Lomas, Kevin, 2013. "Predicting the diversity of internal temperatures from the English residential sector using panel methods," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 601-621.
    10. Gavin M Schwarz & Karin Sanders & Dave Bouckenooghe, 2020. "In the driving seat: Executive’s perceived control over environment," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 45(2), pages 317-342, May.
    11. Chris Hydock & Neeru Paharia & T. J. Weber, 2019. "The Consumer Response to Corporate Political Advocacy: a Review and Future Directions," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 6(3), pages 76-83, December.
    12. Becker, Gary S. & Rubinstein, Yona, 2011. "Fear and the response to terrorism: an economic analysis," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121740, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Coleman, S., 2010. "Russian Election Reform and the Effect of Social Conformity on Voting and the Party System: 2007 and 2008," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, issue 5, pages 73-90.
    14. Das, Willy & Das, Satyasiba, 2018. "Role of Heuristic Principles On Crowd-Funder's Investment Decision Making," 6th International OFEL Conference on Governance, Management and Entrepreneurship. New Business Models and Institutional Entrepreneurs: Leading Disruptive Change (Dubrovnik, 2018), in: 6th International OFEL Conference on Governance, Management and Entrepreneurship. New Business Models and Institutional Entrepreneurs: Leading Disrupt, pages 443-452, Governance Research and Development Centre (CIRU), Zagreb.
    15. Hernan Mondani & Petter Holme & Fredrik Liljeros, 2014. "Fat-Tailed Fluctuations in the Size of Organizations: The Role of Social Influence," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-9, July.
    16. Blackburn, Nivea & Brown, Judy & Dillard, Jesse & Hooper, Val, 2014. "A dialogical framing of AIS–SEA design," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 83-101.
    17. Mao, Luke Lunhua & Huang, Haiyan, 2016. "Social impact of Formula One Chinese Grand Prix: A comparison of local residents’ perceptions based on the intrinsic dimension," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 306-318.
    18. Randall Holcombe, 2005. "Government growth in the twenty-first century," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 95-114, July.
    19. Shastitko, Andrey & Golovanova, Svetlana, 2016. "Meeting blindly… Is Austrian economics useful for dynamic capabilities theory?," Russian Journal of Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 86-110.
    20. Steven Andrew Culpepper & James Joseph Balamuta, 2017. "A Hierarchical Model for Accuracy and Choice on Standardized Tests," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 82(3), pages 820-845, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ilrrev:v:73:y:2020:i:2:p:254-280. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.