The conflict resolution requires great managerial skills. Here we are trying to give a solution to a conflict turning it in a constructive side.
If one party exercises the principles of interaction, listens, and us the six steps of collaborative resolution, that party may be able to end the conflict constructively. At the very least, he or she may be able to prevent the conflict from turning into a fight by choosing an alternative to destructive interaction?"
There is a difference between resolving a conflict and managing conflict. Resolving a conflict ends the dispute by satisfying the interests of both parties. Managing a conflict contains specialized interaction that prevents a dispute from becoming a destructive battle. Managing a conflict attends to the personal issues so as to allow for a constructive relationship, even though the objective issues may not be resolvable. For example, the former Soviet Union and the United States managed their conflict during the Cold War by using a variety of mechanisms. The objective issues in the dispute were not resolved, and neither were the personal issues, which contained significant perceptual differences. However, both sides attended significantly to the relationship to keep the disagreement from turning into a destructive battle.
Our goal in conflict always should be to seek a resolution based on mutual gain. Realistically, however, resolution is not always possible. When this is the case, we must manage the conflict to ensure that the relationship is constructive and that open communication is maintained. We Listen to Conflict to understand the other party and demonstrate the acceptance required to maintain the relationship

1. The Framework for conflict resolution
When conflicts arise, we assess a variety of factors before selecting our approach to the situation. We may choose to compete, or dominate, where we try to impose our will on the other side through physical or psychological means, or we may choose to accommodate, or surrender, and cede victory to the other side.
Likewise, we may decide to withdraw by either doing nothing or refusing to participate in the conflict altogether, or we may collaborate and reach a constructive and mutually acceptable solution. And if none of those approaches proves effective, we might choose third-party intervention, a form of collaboration in which an individual or group external to the conflict intercedes to move both parties toward agreement.
While each of the above orientations represents a way to manage conflict, only two collaboration and third-party intervention-are, by definition, focused on mutual gain and resolution. These two approaches consider the interests of both parties and are most likely to use empathic listening as the primary tool to enhance understanding. The other methods deal unilaterally with the conflict and fail to manage the interdependence of the dispute.
In order to understand the mechanisms behind the four orientations to conflict, it is useful to examine how these orientations can be applied. The study of negotiation, one form of conflict resolution, provides two opposite approaches for dealing with disputes. Most often, we think of negotiation in the formal sense seen in the business or diplomatic environment, where two or more parties bargain to reach agreement. However, two types of negotiation, competitive bargaining and collaboration, also provide good models for understanding different ways of resolving our conflicts.
2. Competitive Bargaining
When most people think of negotiation, they think of competitive bargaining. In this type of negotiation, a seller asks for more than he expects and a buyer offers less than she is willing to pay. Then, through a series of concessions, the two sides meet somewhere in the middle where each side is reasonably satisfied. This form of negotiation also is frequently called distributive bargaining or concession-convergence. It maintains a competitive, win-lose orientation, with the goals of one party and the attainment of those goals in direct conflict with the goals of the other party. In other words, competitive bargaining is a positional conflict in which "winning" is determined by how much of the original position was obtained. The parties believe that resources are fixed and limited, and that they must battle to maximize their share of the wealth.
In competitive bargaining, each party uses strategy, tactics, and tricks to achieve its objective, and whether one of both parties will achieve their goal depends upon their ability to "play the game." Each party seeks to extract information from the other party that will help in identifying appropriate counteroffers, while revealing as little accurate information as possible about its own preferences. The final agreement often depends on the willingness of one party to stake out a tough and extreme position that causes the other party to make concessions. Labor management disputes and international negotiations often use this model of conflict resolution.
The competitive bargaining process is unappealing to many of us and often produces unwise agreements. Some of us simply do not have the skills or the temperament to play the game. We see the process as being unnecessary tough, deceitful, or manipulative. Perceptions of power & control also are a significant factor in the effectiveness of competitive bargaining. If you do not have the power in the relationship, or if you perceive that you do not, you are more likely to obtain an unsatisfactory resolution. Your lack of power will prevent you from using authority or aggression to resolve, or win, the dispute. In competitive bargaining this form of aggression is often played as a trump card to achieve the win for the party who is able to acquire the most power.
The positional approach of competitive bargaining also causes unnecessary issue rigidity. Our egos become so invested in ourpositions that we are prevented from accepting alternatives. Therefore, even if a better solution is created, it is unlikely that we will back down. Another problem with competitive bargaining is that it often ignores the personal issues that affect the resolution process. In competitive bargaining, we care about the other party’s needs only as a means to identify an opportunity for trade. For example, we will trade one day at the beach (the other party’s need) for one day visiting museums (our need). But even if the trade satisfies one need, competitive bargaining still requires some amount of persuasion, deception, and manipulation if we are going to resolve all of the objective issues in a satisfactory manner. Over time, this usually breaks down the trust between the parties and places a significant strain on the relationship.
Competitive bargaining tends not to resolve conflict. It merely manages it for his short term. It is based on an attitude of limits and is fundamentally a process of reaching a settlement within a bargaining range. Both parties know that they are going to have to settle for something less than they would prefer, but they each hope that the deal will be better than their bottom line. Parties who do not think they got the best deal possible or who believe that they "lost" typically try to find ways to recoup their losses later. Even if one party believes that it "won," it still knows that it left something on the bargaining table and will try to acquire it in future negotiations. Labor and management, for example, may reach an agreement, but it is not long before they are back at the bargaining table, renegotiating issues that one or both sides thought had been settled previously.
There is an alternative that breaks the destructive cycle of competitive bargaining. It builds relationships and opens the door to constructive resolution. The alternative not only helps you correctly identify the objective issues, but also manages, if not resolves, the personal issues in the dispute. It is based on principles of interaction that endeavor to understand all of the underlying interests that must be satisfied to reach sustained agreement.
3. Collaboration
The collaborative approach to conflict resolution, also called mutual gains or integrative bargaining, argues for the possibility of solutions that all sides find acceptable. It embodies the notion of "win-win," a core component of our principle of mutual gain. Collaboration is about identifying a common, shared, or joint goal and developing a process to achieve it. It is a process in which both parties exchange information openly, defines their common problems, and creates options to solve these problems. And while the collaborative process cannot guarantee that agreement will always be reached, more often than not, the analysis of interests, needs, and desires helps the resolution process and ultimate agreement.
There are many reasons why people don’t pursue this model of conflict resolution. First, people in conflict often do not recognize the potential for collaboration. This often is the result of an attitude of limits, either-or thinking, or a fixed-pie mentality. When parties remain positional or see only a limited number of solutions that will satisfy their interests, they do not use their creativity to solve the problem.
The history of the relationship between the two parties also can prevent collaboration. Over time, destructive conflict can build resentment, if not contempt. And, as John Gottman notes in Why Marriages Succeed or Fail (1994), contempt breeds the intent to "insult and psychologically abuse" the other party. This is not always major abuse; it may be small, nit-picking criticisms that add up over time. The personal issues become so overwhelming that the objective issues of the conflict cannot be examined, and parties often cannot be in the same room together, let alone identify ways of resolving the conflict.
Another barrier to collaboration relates to the complexity of most conflicts. Some elements are conducive to collaboration, and some elements require competitive bargaining. Each mode of conflict resolution requires different skill sets, and you can send mixed messages unless you handle them carefully.
Finally, people often have a lack of faith in their problem-solving ability. Parties that enter the resolution process believing that they can work together usually find a way to collaborate. Those who do not have a solid self-concept will be less willing to follow the Principles of interaction& use listening to seek collaborative resolution.
There are many obstacles that make collaboration more difficult. Given our inherent competitiveness and the various factors that surround many of our disputes, it is a wonder that constructive collaboration occurs at all. However, it does occur if one or both of the parties in conflict outcomes, the following conditions must be established at some point during the process:

• Face-to-face interaction: The Listening to Conflict approach to dispute resolution requires developing an understanding of the total message another party is trying to communicate. The most effective way to accomplish this is through face-to-face interaction, where we can see the nonverbal expressions that give us clues to underlying emotional needs.

• High acquaintance potential: Without the ability to accept and have positive regard for the other party, collaboration will not be possible. We have to like the person as a person and be willing to establish a relationship that goes beyond the issues of the dispute. This will allow the personal issues to be dealt with separately from the objective issues in the particular conflict so that we can explore options for mutual gain.

• Constituency support: The parties in conflict will not be able to collaborate if outside constituencies try to force competitive and positional norms. Third parties must be supportive of the collaborative process or risk nullifying the positive steps taken toward collaboration by reneging on constructive agreements established between the two interacting parties. We must prevent or resolve any conflict with our constituencies prior to interacting with the other party in the primary dispute.

• Cooperative tasks: Acceptance goes a long way toward diffusing head-to-head competition in conflict, but unless a joint or mutual task is established, there will be no need to collaborate. We at least must frame the conflict as a problem to be solved together in order to establish a collaborative environment.

• Shared exploration: Sharing in the process of understanding the problem and creating solutions keeps both parties involved. This saves one party from the trap of inventing all of the solutions, and the inevitable dependence and resentment that accompanies that responsibility. When both parties are involved, there will be stronger commitment to the final solutions.

• No fixed agenda: An agenda creates a positional interaction that is based on satisfying the needs of one party without understanding how the interests of both are related. Having an agenda sends the message that you are not interested in the other party’s issues and needs issues and needs. The only agenda should be to follow the steps of collaboration and work toward mutual gain.

Adherence to collaborative process steps. Successful resolution requires that we follow the steps of collaboration. If we skip a step, we risk sending the other party mixed signals that will; propel that party toward a defensive, competitive mode.

Decision-making involves a number of steps which need to be taken in a logical manner. This is treated as a rational or scientific ‘decision-making process’ which is lengthy and time consuming. Such lengthy process needs to be followed in order to take rational/scientific/result oriented decisions. Decision-making process prescribes some rules and guidelines as to how a decision should be taken / made. This involves many steps logically arranged. It was Peter Drucker who first strongly advocated the scientific method of decision-making in his world famous book ‘The Practice of Management’ published in 1955. Drucker recommended the scientific method of decision-making which, according to him, involves the following six steps:

1. Defining / Identifying the managerial problem,
2. Analyzing the problem,
3. Developing alternative solutions,
4. Selecting the best solution out of the available alternatives,
5. Converting the decision into action, and
6. Ensuring feedback for follow-up.

The figure given below suggests the steps in the decision-making process:-

1. Identifying the Problem: Identification of the real problem before a business enterprise is the first step in the process of decision-making. It is rightly said that a problem well-defined is a problem half-solved. Information relevant to the problem should be gathered so that critical analysis of the problem is possible. This is how the problem can be diagnosed. Clear distinction should be made between the problem and the symptoms which may cloud the real issue. In brief, the manager should search the ‘critical factor’ at work. It is the point at which the choice applies. Similarly, while diagnosing the real problem the manager should consider causes and find out whether they are controllable or uncontrollable.
2. Analyzing the Problem: After defining the problem, the next step in the decision-making process is to analyze the problem in depth. This is necessary to classify the problem in order to know who must take the decision and who must be informed about the decision taken. Here, the following four factors should be kept in mind:

• Futurity of the decision,
• The scope of its impact,
• Number of qualitative considerations involved, and
• Uniqueness of the decision.

3. Collecting Relevant Data: After defining the problem and analyzing its nature, the next step is to obtain the relevant information/ data about it. There is information flood in the business world due to new developments in the field of information technology. All available information should be utilised fully for analysis of the problem. This brings clarity to all aspects of the problem.
4. Developing Alternative Solutions: After the problem has been defined, diagnosed on the basis of relevant information, the manager has to determine available alternative courses of action that could be used to solve the problem at hand. Only realistic alternatives should be considered. It is equally important to take into account time and cost constraints and psychological barriers that will restrict that number of alternatives. If necessary, group participation techniques may be used while developing alternative solutions as depending on one solution is undesirable.
5. Selecting the Best Solution: After preparing alternative solutions, the next step in the decision-making process is to select an alternative that seems to be most rational for solving the problem. The alternative thus selected must be communicated to those who are likely to be affected by it. Acceptance of the decision by group members is always desirable and useful for its effective implementation.
6. Converting Decision into Action: After the selection of the best decision, the next step is to convert the selected decision into an effective action. Without such action, the decision will remain merely a declaration of good intentions. Here, the manager has to convert ‘his decision into ‘their decision’ through his leadership. For this, the subordinates should be taken in confidence and they should be convinced about the correctness of the decision. Thereafter, the manager has to take follow-up steps for the execution of decision taken.
7. Ensuring Feedback: Feedback is the last step in the decision-making process. Here, the manager has to make built-in arrangements to ensure feedback for continuously testing actual developments against the expectations. It is like checking the effectiveness of follow-up measures. Feedback is possible in the form of organised information, reports and personal observations. Feed back is necessary to decide whether the decision already taken should be continued or be modified in the light of changed conditions.

Every step in the decision-making process is important and needs proper consideration by managers. This facilitates accurate decision-making. Even quantitative techniques such as CPM, PERT/OR, linear programming, etc. are useful for accurate decision-making. Decision-making is important as it facilitates entire management process. Management activities are just not possible without decision-making as it is an integral aspect of management process itself. However, the quality of decision-making should be always superior as faulty/irrational decisions are always dangerous.

1. Decision making implies choice: Decision making is choosing from among two or more alternative courses of action. Thus, it is the process of selection of one solution out of many available. For any business problem, alternative solutions are available. Managers have to consider these alternatives and select the best one for actual execution. Here, planners/ decision-makers have to consider the business environment available and select the promising alternative plan to deal with the business problem effectively. It is rightly said that “Decision-making is fundamentally choosing between the alternatives”. In decision-making, various alternatives are to be considered critically and the best one is to be selected. Here, the available business environment also needs careful consideration. The alternative selected may be correct or may not be correct. This will be decided in the future, as per the results available from the decision already taken. In short, decision-making is fundamentally a process of choosing between the alternatives (two or more) available. Moreover, in the decision-making process, information is collected; alternative solutions are decided and considered critically in order to find out the best solution among the available. Every problem can be solved by different methods. These are the alternatives and a decision-maker has to select one alternative which he considers as most appropriate. This clearly suggests that decision-making is basically/fundamentally choosing between the alternatives. The alternatives may be two or more. Out of such alternatives, the most suitable is to be selected for actual use. The manager needs capacity to select the best alternative. The benefits of correct decision-making will be available only when the best alternative is selected for actual use.
2. Continuous activity/process: Decision-making is a continuous and dynamic process. It pervades all organizational activity. Managers have to take decisions on various policy and administrative matters. It is a never ending activity in business management.
3. Mental/intellectual activity: Decision-making is a mental as well as intellectual activity/process and requires knowledge, skills, experience and maturity on the part of decision-maker. It is essentially a human activity.
4. Based on reliable information/feedback: Good decisions are always based on reliable information. The quality of decision-making at all levels of the Organisation can be improved with the support of an effective and efficient management information system (MIS).
5. Goal oriented process: Decision-making aims at providing a solution to a given problem/ difficulty before a business enterprise. It is a goal-oriented process and provides solutions to problems faced by a business unit.
6. Means and not the end: Decision-making is a means for solving a problem or for achieving a target/objective and not the end in itself.
7. Relates to specific problem: Decision-making is not identical with problem solving but it has its roots in a problem itself.
8. Time-consuming activity: Decision-making is a time-consuming activity as various aspects need careful consideration before taking final decision. For decision makers, various steps are required to be completed. This makes decision-making a time consuming activity.
9. Needs effective communication: Decision-taken needs to be communicated to all concerned parties for suitable follow-up actions. Decisions taken will remain on paper if they are not communicated to concerned persons. Following actions will not be possible in the absence of effective communication.
10. Pervasive process: Decision-making process is all pervasive. This means managers working at all levels have to take decisions on matters within their jurisdiction.
11. Responsible job: Decision-making is a responsible job as wrong decisions prove to be too costly to the Organisation. Decision-makers should be matured, experienced, knowledgeable and rational in their approach. Decision-making need not be treated as routing and casual activity. It is a delicate and responsible job.

Decision-making is an essential aspect of modern management. It is a primary function of management. A manager’s major job is sound/rational decision-making. He takes hundreds of decisions consciously and subconsciously. Decision-making is the key part of manager’s activities. Decisions are important as they determine both managerial and organizational actions. A decision may be defined as “a course of action which is consciously chosen from among a set of alternatives to achieve a desired result.” It represents a well-balanced judgment and a commitment to action.

It is rightly said that the first important function of management is to take decisions on problems and situations. Decision-making pervades all managerial actions. It is a continuous process. Decision-making is an indispensable component of the management process itself.

Mintzberg’s observations and research indicate that diverse manager activities can be organized into ten roles. For an important starting point, all ten rules are vested with formal authority over an organizational unit. From formal authority comes status, which leads to various interpersonal relations, and from these comes access to information, which, in turn, enables the manager to make decisions and strategies.

The ten roles are divided into three categories: interpersonal, informational, and decisional.

Interpersonal Roles

Three of the managers’ roles involve basic interpersonal relationships:

The figurehead role: Every manager must perform some duties of a ceremonial nature (e.g., the president greets the touring dignitaries, the sales manager takes an important customer to lunch). These activities are important to the smooth functioning of an organization.

The leader role: This role involves leadership directly (e.g., the manager is responsible for hiring an training his own staff). The leader role encompasses relationships with subordinates, including motivation, communication, and influence.

The liaison role: in this role the manager makes contacts inside and outside the organization with a wide range of people: subordinates, clients, business associates, government, trade organization officials, and so on.

Informational Roles

The processing of information is a key part of the manager’s job. Three roles describe the informational aspects of managerial work:

The monitor role: This role involves seeking current information from many sources. For example, the manager perpetually scans his environment for information, interrogates liaison contacts and subordinates and receives unsolicited information.

 The disseminator role: In their disseminator role, managers pass information to other, both inside and outside the organization.

The spokesperson role: In their spokesman role, managers send some of their information to people outside the organization about company policies, needs, actions, or plans.

Decisional Roles

The manager plays the major role in his unit’s decision-making system. Four roles describe the decisional aspects of managerial work:

The entrepreneur role: In his entrepreneur role,� managers search for improvement his unit to adopt it to changing conditions in the environment.

The disturbance handler role: This role involves responding to high-pressure disturbances. For example, manager must resolve conflicts among subordinates or between manager’s department and other departments.

The resource allocator role: In their resource� allocator role, managers make decisions about how to allocate people, budget, equipment, time and other resources to attain desired outcomes.

The negotiator role: The negotiations are duties of the manager’s job. These activities involve formal negotiations and bargaining to attain outcomes for the manager’s unit responsibility.

These ten roles are not easily separate: “No role can be pulled out of the framework and the job be left intact”. However, this description of managerial work should be important to managers: “…the managers’ effectiveness is significantly influenced by their insight into their own work” (L. Gulick).

As organizations continue to restructure to work teams, the need for training in conflict resolution will grow. Conflict arises from differences, and when individuals come together in teams, their differences in terms of power, values, and attitudes contribute to the creation of conflict.

To avoid the negative consequences that can result from disagreements, most methods of resolving conflict stress the importance of dealing with disputes quickly and openly. Conflict is not necessarily destructive; however, when managed properly, conflict can result in benefits for a team. Conflict arises from differences.

When individuals come together in work teams their differences in terms of power, values and attitudes, and social factors all contribute to the creation of conflict. It is often difficult to expose the sources of conflict. Conflict can arise from numerous sources within a team setting and generally falls into three categories: communication factors, structural factors and personal factors. Barriers to communication are among the most important factors and can be a major source of misunderstanding.

Communication barriers include poor listening skills; insufficient sharing of information; differences in interpretation and perception; and nonverbal cues being ignored or missed. Structural disagreements include the size of the organization, turnover rate, levels of participation, reward systems, and levels of interdependence among employees.

Personal factors include things such as an individual’s self-esteem, their personal goals, values and needs. In order for conflict to be dealt with successfully, managers and team members must understand its unpredictability and its impact on individuals and the team as a whole.

Conflict in work teams is not necessarily destructive, however conflict can lead to new ideas and approaches to organizational processes, and increased interest in dealing with problems.

Conflict, in this sense, can be considered positive, as it facilitates the surfacing of important issues and provides opportunities for people to develop their communication and interpersonal skills. Conflict becomes negative when it is left to escalate to the point where people begin to feel defeated and a combative climate of distrust and suspicion develops. Negative conflict can destroy a team quickly, and often arises from poor planning

Complaint systems (also known as a conflict management systems or internal conflict management systems or integrated conflict management systems[1]) are sets of procedures used in organizations to address complaints and resolve disputes. They are also known as dispute systems.

Complaint systems in the US have undergone several innovations especially since since about 1970 with the advent of extensive workplace regulation. Notably in many countries, conflictmanagement channels and systems have evolved from a major focus on labor-management relations to a much wider purview that includes unionized workers and also managers, non-union employees, professional staff, students, trainees, vendors, donors, customers etc.

There is a substantial early history of scholarly work on due process, and union and non-union grievance procedures within organizations. This work focused primarily on rights-based conflictresolution between unionized and non-union workers and their managers. Scholarly work has evolved to cover both a wider range of conflict management channels, and, also, a much wider range of disputants.

In the 1970s and 1980s much interest arose in the United States, in dealing with conflict informally as well as formally, and in learning from conflict and managing conflict. In contemporary language, these discussions centered on the "interests" of all who would consider themselves stake-holders in a given conflict—and on systems change—as well as resolving grievances.

These discussions led to questions of how to think about complaint systems and how to link different conflict management offices and processes within an organization. Papers began to appear about a systems approach for dealing with complaints—and all kinds of disputes—within organizations.

The concept of an integrated conflict management system was conceived and developed by Mary Rowe, in numerous articles in the 1980s and 1990′s. She saw the need to offer options for complainants and therefore a linked systems of choices within an organizational system.
The idea of a systems approach has endured well. In recent years however, there has been discussion as to whether conflict should be "managed" by the organization——or whether the goal is to understand, deal with and learn from conflict. There is also concern about practical and theoretical issues in "integrating" a system, with some observers preferring the idea of "coordinating" a conflict system.

There is also a major need to collect, review and understand the nature of conflict management and complaint systems around the world.

Studies and citations are needed about how complaint systems work for women as well as men. Research is needed as to how systems work for many different national groups, for people of different socio-economic classes, and different ages, and different religions, and especially for contract workers and immigrant workers, in every country. Studies (and citations) are needed about complaint systems in health care, in faith-based organizations, in schools, in political organizations, in the military and in many specialized occupations. Studies are needed about important specialized issues like free speech