What kind of Conflict Strategies exist?

What are sometimes of Conflict Resolution Strategies?

There are numerous strategies for conflict resolution. The most prevalent strategies in today's society are the Khun and Poole's model, the Dechurch and Mark's Meta-Taxonomy model and the most current model known as the Rahim model.

What is the Khun and Poole model?

Khun and Poole's model consists of two main sub-models, distributive and integrative. The distributive sub-model involves the allocation of wins and losses between the parties. The goal here is to have each party win some concessions. It builds up confidence in the individuals and make each think that they are benefiting. The integrative sub-model focuses on compromise. There are no winners or losers in this sub-model. The goal is to try to integrate the needs of both parties and meet halfway. Studies have shown that the integrative model is more effective than the distributive model.

What is the DeChurch and Mark's Meta-Taxonomy Model?

In the DeChurch and Mark's Meta-Taxonomy Model the researchers found that conflict resolution can be broken down into two basic subtexts. The first is activeness. This involves a parties directness in solving a problem, are they direct and assertive with what they want out of negotiations or are they passive and unpleasant. The second subtext is agreeableness. In agreeableness the parties are evaluated bases on how pleasant and relaxed they are. It comes as no surprise that parties that are more hostile to each other are much less likely to come to a compromise over matters. After the study was concluded the researchers found that no matter how positive the activeness portion was on the effectiveness of the outcome the more agreeable the parties were the more effective the outcome.

What is the Rahim approach?

The Rahim approach integrates five different approaches in one. The idea behind it is that there is no one conclusive model to conflict resolution. It involves integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising. Integration involves the open exchange of information between the parties and looking for alternatives. Obliging involves highlighting the similarities between the parties and minimizing the differences. Dominating involves one of the parties attempting to achieve complete success, giving little regard to the needs and wants of the other party. Avoiding involves the avoidance of both parties concerns and needs. Compromising involves a give and take solution where both parties attempt to relinquish some goal that they may have in order to gain in another aspect of the negotiation. There are different criteria that need to be met do decide on when and how to implement these different approaches. Some of them work well when matters are complex and others work well when the matters are of a trivial nature.