There are traditionally three primary forms of negotiation used between management and labor. One is collective bargaining. Another is mediation. A third is legal action or justice system involvement. Collective bargaining has long been used by unions as a means of winning concessions for labor from management. Strikes, sit-downs, and other forms of work stoppage are basically employed as a means of coercing employers to give in to the demands of laborers. Pensions, health benefits, work conditions, pay rates, and a host of other issues often comprise the demands of laborers. Management, on the other hand, wishes to keep employee motivation, morale, and productivity high while lowering costs and increasing profitability. Often these goals are incompatible and an impasse is arrived at by management and labor. In such instances, collective bargaining, mediation, or legal resolution are typically the methods used to affect some kind of compromise between management and laborers.
Yet, despite which methods are used, it is often the dynamics of conflict resolution that most impact the individual worker or most influence management decision-making. In an era where increasing competition, cost-cutting, free markets, and globalization continue to see support for unions erode in many democracies, the rights and freedoms of workers continue to be threatened. As such, understanding the dynamics of conflict resolution enables us to find an integrative approach to conflict resolution that will ultimately find a manner and means of making both parties in conflict (management and labor) satisfied.
Before looking at different theories or strategies of conflict resolution, it is important to understand that each member of the group (management or labor) brings to the table a different conflict orientation. When individuals (collectively as with labor unions or individually as with managers) encounter conflict, in other words, they rea...