Face Negotiation Theory by Stella Ting-Toomey (1988, 1994, 1998,2001)

Theoretical Origins and Context

Face negotiation theory is a theory conceived by Stella Ting-Toomey in 1985, to understand how people from different cultures manage rapport and disagreements. The theory posited "face", or self-image when communicating with others, as a universal phenomenon that pervades across cultures (Rahim,2003 )

The theory was born as a result of Ting-Toomey's frustration with the interpersonal conflict communication theories that were popular in the 1980s. At that time, theories emphasized the value of self-disclosure (Rahim,2002) , which did not adequately account for cultural variations in communication and conflict management styles. 

Ting-Toomey (1988) drew on the work of Goffman (1955) and Brown and Levinson (1987) to develop the face-negotiation theory. The face-negotiation theory provides a sound explanatory framework for explaining differences and similarities in face and facework during conflict. In a nutshell, the face negotiation theory argues that: (a) people in all cultures try to maintain and negotiate face in all communication situations; (b) the concept of face becomes especially problematic in uncertainty situations (such as embarrassment and conflict situations) when the situated identities of the communicators are called into question;(c) cultural variability,individual-level variables, and situational variables influence cultural members’ selection of one set of face concerns over others (such as self-oriented face-saving vs. other oriented face-saving); and (d) subsequently, face concerns influence the use of various facework and conflict strategies in intergroup and interpersonal encounters (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey,2003).

 

Core Theoretical Concept: "Face" Ting-Toomey (1988, 1994, 1998,2001) 

The central concept of Face Negotiation Theory is "face," which refers to "face" as a metaphor for self-image . More comprehensively, the meaning of face is generally conceptualized as how we want others to see us and treat us and how we actually present ourselves in social interactions (Rahim & Bonoma, 1979). 

As social beings, most of us have the experiences of blushing, feeling embarrassed, awkward, shameful, or prideful. Many of these feelings are face-related issues. When our social poise is attacked or teased, we feel the need to restore or save face. When we are being complimented or given recognition, we experience face-enhancement.

Stella Ting-Toomey and Michael Cole explore the role of facework in intergroup and intercultural diplomatic communication. Drawing on the theoretical foundation of Face-Negotiation Theory (FNT), they argue that cross-cultural conflicts often stem from differing cultural expectations about how individuals manage face—the public image one tries to maintain in social interactions. (Ting-Toomey & Cole, 1990)

Fundamental Theoretical Propositions

Cultural Dimensions Framework

The theory is built upon Hofstede's cultural dimensions, particularly the individualism-collectivism continuum:

According to Hofstede (1980), an individualistic culture lays emphasis on the identity of the "I" while collectivist cultures place more importance on the "we" and the harmony in groups 

In Ting-Toomey's theory of face negotiation theory, individualism and collectivism are one of the main differences between Eastern and Western cultures. Individualistic cultures are less common than collectivistic cultures, as they make up only about ⅓ of the world  

Application to Conflict Management

The face negotiation theory explains how cultural difference in people influence in managing conflicts. The theory was formulated by Stella Ting-Toomey, professor of human communication at California State University 

Face Negotiation Theory seeks to explain and understand the dynamics of intercultural communication. People from individualistic cultures, including most Americans, and people from collectivistic cultures, such as Appalachia, use different ways to save face and resolve conflict (Flick, 2013) 

Theoretical Components and Framework

1. Types of Face Concerns

The theory identifies three primary types of face concerns:

• Self-Face: Concern for protecting one's own image and dignity
• Other-Face: Concern for protecting the other party's image and dignity
• Mutual Face: Concern for protecting both parties' images simultaneously

2. Face-Threatening Acts (FTAs)

Drawing from politeness theory, Face Negotiation Theory recognizes that certain communicative acts can threaten face, requiring strategic negotiation to maintain relationships while addressing conflicts.

3. Facework Strategies

The theory outlines various facework strategies used across cultures:

• Face-Saving: Preventive strategies to avoid face loss
• Face-Restoring: Corrective strategies to repair damaged face
• Face-Giving: Supportive strategies to enhance others' face

Cultural Variations in Face Negotiation

Individualistic Cultures:

• Emphasis on self-face and personal autonomy
• Direct confrontation and explicit communication
• Task-oriented conflict resolution
• Protection of individual rights and freedoms

Collectivistic Cultures:

• Emphasis on other-face and mutual face
• Indirect communication and harmony preservation
• Relationship-oriented conflict resolution
• Group cohesion and social stability priorities

Practical Applications and Implications

The Face Negotiation Theory is how people negotiate according to where they are from. For example, negotiators from the US value freedom and personal rights and incorporate that in their negotiation strategies 

The theory has significant applications in:

• Intercultural business negotiations
• International diplomacy 
• Cross-cultural conflict mediation
• Multicultural organizational management
• International education and exchange programs

Academic Significance and Contributions

Face Negotiation Theory represents a significant advancement in intercultural communication theory by:

1. Cultural Specificity: Moving beyond Western-centric communication theories to include diverse cultural perspectives
2. Practical Utility: Providing concrete frameworks for managing intercultural conflicts
3. Theoretical Integration: Combining anthropological, psychological, and communication theories
4. Empirical Foundation: Establishing measurable constructs for cross-cultural research

References

• Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

• Flink, C. M. (2013). Multidimensional Conflict and Organizational Performance. The American Review of Public Administration, 45(2), 182-200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074013490825 (Original work published 2015)

• Goffman, E. (1955). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry, 18, 213-231

• Rahim, M. A., & Bonoma, T. V. (1979). Managing organizational conflict: A model for diagnosis and intervention. Psychological Reports, 44(3_suppl), 1323–1344.

• Rahim M.A (2002). Toward a Theory of Managing Organizational Conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

• Rahim M.A (2003) . Toward a Theory of Managing Organizational Conflict October 2003 International Journal of Conflict Management 13(3)

• Ting-Toomey, S. (1988). Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. In Y. Y. Kim & W. B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Theories in intercultural communication (pp. 213-235). Sage Publications.

• Ting-Toomey, S., & Cole, M. (1990). Intergroup diplomatic communication: A face-negotiationperspective. In F. Korzenny & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communicating for peace: Diplomacy and negotiation across cultures (pp. 77-95). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

• Ting-Toomey, S., & Kurogi, A. (1998). Facework competence in intercultural conflict: An updated face-negotiation theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 22(2), 187-225.

• Ting-Toomey, S. (1994). The challenge of facework: Cross-cultural and interpersonal issues. SUNY Press.

• Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2001). Managing intercultural conflict effectively. Sage Publications.

• Oetzel, J., & Ting-Toomey, S. (2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: A cross-cultural empirical test of the face negotiation theory. Communication Research, 30(6), 599-624.

Dr. M. Afzalur Rahim 's work on CONFLICTS

Introduction

Conflict is an inevitable phenomenon in organizations, communities, and interpersonal relationships. Among the leading scholars in the study of conflict and conflict management, Dr. M. Afzalur Rahim stands as a seminal figure. His contribution to conflict theory—especially through the development of the Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory-II (ROCI-II) and his conceptualization of conflict management styles—has deeply influenced the fields of organizational behavior, communication, and leadership studies. This article explores Rahim’s key contributions to the understanding of conflict, with a focus on definitions, types, conflict styles, their implications for leadership, and conflict resolution strategies. References to his core publications and interpretations by other scholars are integrated to offer a detailed academic account.

Rahim describes conflict as "an interactive process manifested in incompatibility, disagreement, or dissonance within or between social entities" (Rahim, 2002:207). This definition emphasizes the processual and interactive nature of conflict, moving beyond static conceptualizations to highlight its dynamic characteristics.

______________________________________________________

The Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory–I (ROCI–I) and Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory–II (ROCI–II) are standardized tools developed by M. Afzalur Rahim, a prominent scholar in conflict management, to assess interpersonal conflict in organizations.

Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory–I (ROCI–I) Rahim, M. A. (2001, 1983)

Purpose:

Measures the types of interpersonal conflict (not how they are managed) that occur within organizations.

Key Dimensions:

ROCI–I classifies organizational conflict into three types:

1. Intrapersonal conflict – Conflict within an individual (e.g., role conflict, goal conflict).

2. Interpersonal conflict – Conflict between two or more individuals.

3. Intergroup conflict – Conflict between groups or departments within the organization.

Use Case:

• To diagnose where and what type of conflict is present in an organization.

• Useful for identifying systemic issues or stress points in the organizational structure.

---

Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory–II (ROCI–II) Rahim, M. A. (2001, 1983)

Purpose:

Measures the styles or strategies individuals use to manage interpersonal conflict.

Based on:

Rahim’s adaptation of Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid and Thomas-Kilmann’s conflict-handling model.

Key Dimensions (5 Conflict-Handling Styles):

1. Integrating (collaborating): High concern for self and others – win-win.

2. Obliging (accommodating): Low concern for self, high concern for others – self-sacrifice.

3. Dominating (competing): High concern for self, low concern for others – win-lose.

4. Avoiding: Low concern for self and others – withdrawal.

5. Compromising: Moderate concern for self and others – middle-ground.

Use Case:

• Often used in leadership training, team development, and organizational diagnostics.

• Helps individuals and managers become aware of their own and others’ conflict styles to improve resolution strategies.

---

Understanding Conflict: Rahim's Definitions

Rahim defines conflict as “an interactive process manifested in incompatibility, disagreement, or dissonance within or between social entities” (Rahim, 2001, p. 17). Unlike earlier views that treated conflict as purely dysfunctional or pathological, Rahim emphasizes that conflict is neutral in nature, and its outcome—functional or dysfunctional—depends on how it is managed.

In Managing Conflict in Organizations, Rahim (2001) argues that conflict can stimulate creativity, promote group cohesion, and lead to improved decision-making, provided it is handled appropriately. Therefore, he advocates not for the elimination of conflict but for its effective management.

---

Classification of Conflict

Rahim offers a nuanced classification of conflict in organizational settings, dividing it into intrapersonal, interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup conflict (Rahim, 2011). This typology provides a layered understanding of where conflict arises and its relational context.

1. Intrapersonal Conflict – Occurs within an individual and often relates to role ambiguity or ethical dilemmas.

2. Interpersonal Conflict – Arises between two individuals due to personality differences, value mismatches, or communication problems.

3. Intragroup Conflict – Found within a group, often due to incompatible goals or competition for resources.

4. Intergroup Conflict – Occurs between different groups or departments, usually as a result of differentiation and interdependence.

Such classification has been widely adopted in management research and practice (Jehn & Mannix, 2001; De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008).

---

Rahim’s Conflict Management Styles

Perhaps Rahim's most notable contribution to the field is his articulation of five conflict management styles, adapted from and building upon earlier models by Blake and Mouton (1964) and Thomas and Kilmann (1974). Rahim (1983, 2001) classifies conflict management styles along two dimensions: concern for self and concern for others. The resulting five styles are:

1. Integrating (Collaborating) – High concern for self and others; emphasizes open dialogue and mutual problem-solving.

2. Obliging (Accommodating) – Low concern for self, high concern for others; focuses on satisfying the other party.

3. Dominating (Competing) – High concern for self, low concern for others; uses assertive or forceful tactics.

4. Avoiding – Low concern for both self and others; involves withdrawal or suppression of conflict.

5. Compromising – Moderate concern for both parties; seeks a mutually acceptable middle ground.

Rahim’s ROCI-II instrument measures individuals' preference for these styles, and has been validated across cultures and disciplines (Rahim, 1983; Rahim & Bonoma, 1979). His work has helped establish that no single style is universally effective; instead, the appropriateness of each style depends on the conflict situation, the relational dynamics, and the desired outcomes.

---

Functional vs. Dysfunctional Conflict

Rahim draws a clear distinction between functional and dysfunctional conflict. Functional conflict leads to constructive outcomes such as innovation, improved performance, and team cohesion. Conversely, dysfunctional conflict leads to reduced performance, interpersonal hostility, and organizational breakdown (Rahim, 2001). He advocates that managers should act as diagnosticians and facilitators, determining whether a conflict is functional or dysfunctional and managing it accordingly.

---

Leadership and Conflict Management

A major theme in Rahim's work is the role of leadership in managing conflict. In his collaborative work with Golembiewski (1992), Rahim emphasizes that leaders must develop competencies in emotional intelligence, communication, and negotiation to foster healthy conflict management. Effective leaders should not suppress conflict but rather channel it into constructive dialogue and innovation. Integrating and compromising styles are often associated with transformational leadership and employee satisfaction (Rahim, Garrett, & Buntzman, 1992).

Rahim also stresses the importance of organizational culture in shaping conflict responses. Cultures that promote openness, trust, and shared goals tend to support integrative conflict styles, while authoritarian or rigid cultures may foster avoidance or domination.

---

Cross-Cultural Validity and Applications

One of the strengths of Rahim’s conflict framework is its cross-cultural applicability. Studies in various countries—including China, India, the U.S., Malaysia, and Egypt—have confirmed the relevance of his five styles across diverse contexts, albeit with cultural nuances (Rahim & Magner, 1995; Ting-Toomey, 2005). For example, obliging and avoiding are more prevalent in collectivist cultures, where harmony is prioritized over confrontation.

---

Critiques and Evolving Interpretations

While Rahim’s framework has been widely lauded, it is not without critiques. Some scholars argue that the static classification of conflict styles oversimplifies the dynamic nature of interpersonal conflict (Putnam, 2006). Others caution against over-reliance on self-reported inventories like ROCI-II, which may not capture context-specific variations in behavior (Wall & Callister, 1995). However, Rahim’s model remains a foundational tool in conflict resolution education and organizational training programs.

---

Dr. Rahim's four key theoretical contributions:

1. Multidimensional Approach

Dr. Rahim's multidimensional approach represents a comprehensive framework that analyzes conflict across multiple organizational levels simultaneously. This approach recognizes that organizational conflict cannot be understood through a single lens but requires examination across various dimensions:

Structural Dimensions:

The management of organizational conflict involves the diagnosis of and intervention in conflict at intrapersonal, interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup levels (Rahim, 1985; Rahim, 2002). These levels include:

• Intrapersonal Level: Internal conflicts within individuals (role conflicts, value conflicts)

• Interpersonal Level: Conflicts between two or more organizational members

• Intragroup Level: Conflicts within teams or work groups

• Intergroup Level: Conflicts between different organizational units or departments

Content Dimensions:

Affective and substantive conflicts at the interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup levels (Rahim, 2002):

• Substantive Conflicts: Task-related disagreements about goals, procedures, and resource allocation

• Affective Conflicts: Emotional and relational tensions between parties

2. Process Orientation

Rahim's process orientation conceptualizes conflict as a dynamic, interactive phenomenon rather than a static event. Key aspects include:

Dynamic Nature:

Conflict as "an interactive process manifested in incompatibility, disagreement, or dissonance within or between social entities"  (Rahim, 2002, p. 207). This definition emphasizes:

• Temporal Evolution: Conflict develops and changes over time

• Interactive Dynamics: Conflict involves ongoing exchanges between parties

• Emergent Properties: Conflict characteristics emerge through the interaction process

Behavioral Manifestations:

The process orientation focuses on observable behaviors and communication patterns that indicate conflict presence and intensity, rather than solely on outcomes or static conditions.

3. Diagnostic Framework

Dr. Rahim's diagnostic framework provides a systematic approach to conflict assessment and analysis:

Assessment Components:

A diagnosis should indicate whether there is need for intervention and the type of intervention needed (Rahim, 1985). The diagnostic framework includes:

• Conflict Identification: Determining the presence and nature of conflict

• Level Analysis: Identifying which organizational levels are affected

• Type Classification: Distinguishing between substantive and affective conflicts

• Intensity Measurement: Assessing the severity and impact of conflicts

• Causal Analysis: Understanding underlying factors contributing to conflict

Systematic Evaluation:

Conflicts in each category result from various personal-cultural and organizational structure factors (Rahim & Bonoma, 1979). The framework examines:

• Personal and cultural factors

• Organizational structural elements

• Environmental influences

• Relationship dynamics

4. Practical Application

Rahim's theoretical work translates into concrete tools and interventions for organizational use:

Measurement Instruments:

Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory (ROCI): The ROCI consists of 28 statements where respondents should indicate how they handle their disagreement or conflict on a 5-point Likert scale  (University of Florida, 2024). This instrument measures conflict management styles across five dimensions:

• Integrating (high concern for self and others)

• Obliging (low concern for self, high concern for others)

• Dominating (high concern for self, low concern for others)

• Avoiding (low concern for both self and others)

• Compromising (moderate concern for both self and others)

Intervention Strategies:

The practical application framework includes:

• Style-based Interventions: Matching intervention approaches to appropriate conflict management styles

• Level-specific Solutions: Tailoring interventions to the particular organizational level affected

• Training Programs: Developing conflict management competencies in organizational members

• Organizational Design: Modifying structural elements to prevent or manage conflicts

_____________________________________________________________________

Conclusion

Dr. M. Afzalur Rahim's contributions to conflict research have significantly shaped how conflict is understood, measured, and managed within organizations. His definitions, classification of conflict types, and five-style model offer a flexible yet structured approach to navigating disputes constructively. By emphasizing the functional potential of conflict and providing leaders with tools to manage it effectively, Rahim has reoriented the conversation from conflict elimination to conflict transformation. His insights remain vital in an era where diversity, complexity, and rapid change make effective conflict management not just desirable—but essential.

---

References

• Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The Managerial Grid. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.

• De Dreu, C. K. W., & Gelfand, M. J. (2008). The psychology of conflict and conflict management in organizations. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–251.

• Rahim, M. A., & Bonoma, T. V. (1979). Managing organizational conflict: A model for diagnosis and intervention. Psychological Reports, 44(3_suppl), 1323–1344.

• Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of Management Journal, 26(2), 368–376.

• Rahim, M. A. (2001). Managing conflict in organizations (3rd ed.). Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

• Rahim, M. A. (1985). A strategy for managing conflict in complex organizations. Human Relations, 38(1), 81-89.

• Rahim, M. A., Garrett, J. E., & Buntzman, G. F. (1992). Ethics of managing interpersonal conflict in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 11(5–6), 423–432.

• Rahim, M. A., & Magner, N. R. (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(1), 122–132.

• Rahim, M. A. (2002). Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(3), 206-235.

• Rahim, M. A., & Bonoma, T. V. (1979). Managing organizational conflict: A model for diagnosis and intervention. Psychological Reports, 44(3), 1323-1344.

• Ting-Toomey, S. (2005). The matrix of face: An updated face-negotiation theory. In W. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 71–92). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• Wall, J. A., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of Management, 21(3), 515–558.

• Putnam, L. L. (2006). Definitions and approaches to conflict and communication. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication (pp. 1–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

What is a Conflict ?

 1. Definition of Conflict

Conflict is generally defined as a disagreement or incompatibility between individuals or groups arising from differences in needs, values, goals, or perceptions (Deutsch, 1973; Rahim, 2011). In academic settings, conflict often manifests when individuals or teams perceive that their interests or ideologies are being challenged or obstructed.

According to Thomas (1992), conflict is "the process which begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something the first party cares about."

Conflict is a state of discord or disagreement arising from differences in values, needs, goals, or interests between individuals or groups (Deutsch, 1973). In an academic setting, particularly within departments such as Physics in secondary or tertiary institutions, conflict may emerge due to competing priorities (e.g., teaching vs. research), resource allocation (e.g., lab time, equipment), or interpersonal tensions among colleagues or students.

In educational psychology, conflict is considered a normal and sometimes constructive element of institutional dynamics (Johnson & Johnson, 1995). It becomes dysfunctional when it escalates and impedes performance, collaboration, or well-being.

Lewis Coser (1956) – Sociology

“Conflict is a struggle over values and claims to scarce status, power and resources in which the aims of the opponents are to neutralize, injure or eliminate their rivals.”
— Coser, L. A. (1956). The Functions of Social Conflict.

• Coser emphasized the social function of conflict in maintaining group boundaries and promoting social change.

Morton Deutsch (1973) – Social Psychology

“Conflict exists whenever incompatible activities occur; one party is interfering, obstructing, or in some way making another party's actions less effective.”
— Deutsch, M. (1973). The Resolution of Conflict.

• Deutsch sees conflict as arising from incompatibility and focuses on interpersonal and group dynamics.

Kenneth Thomas (1976) – Organizational Behavior

“Conflict is the process that begins when one party perceives that another has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something the first party cares about.”
— Thomas, K. W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management.

• Thomas introduces the perception aspect of conflict, and his model forms the basis of the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument.

Rahim, M. Afzalur (1983) – Organizational Conflict

“Conflict is an interactive process manifested in incompatibility, disagreement, or dissonance within or between social entities.”
— Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict.

• Rahim focuses on the interpersonal and organizational aspects of conflict.

Kurt Lewin (1948) – Psychology

“Conflict is the simultaneous occurrence of two or more mutually antagonistic impulses or motives.”
— Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving Social Conflicts.

• Lewin sees conflict as primarily intrapersonal, often involving opposing desires or motivations.

Barbara Gray (1989) – Environmental and Organizational Conflict

“Conflict is a process of social interaction involving a struggle over claims to resources, power, and status, beliefs, and other preferences and desires.”
— Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems.

• Gray highlights the social construction and interactive nature of conflict.

Mary Parker Follett (1925) – Management

“Conflict is not necessarily a wasteful outbreak of incompatibilities but a normal process by which socially valuable differences register themselves for the enrichment of all concerned.”
— Follett, M. P. (1925). Constructive Conflict.

• Follett was among the first to argue that conflict can be constructive, not merely destructive.

Stephen P. Robbins (1998) – Organizational Behavior

“Conflict is a process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected or is about to negatively affect something that the first party cares about.”
— Robbins, S. P. (1998). Organizational Behavior.

• Robbins' definition is widely used in business and management and focuses on perceived interference.

Dean G. Pruitt & Peter J. Carnevale (1993) – Negotiation Theory

“Conflict is perceived divergence of interest, or a belief that the parties’ current aspirations cannot be achieved simultaneously.”
— Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in Social Conflict.

• These scholars underscore the perceived incompatibility in interests, crucial in negotiation contexts.

John Burton (1990) – Conflict Resolution

“Conflict occurs when deeply held human needs—such as identity, security, and recognition—are denied.”
— Burton, J. (1990). Conflict: Resolution and Prevention.

• Burton’s definition is human-needs-based, often used in peace studies and international relations.

Author	Discipline	Key Feature of Conflict
Coser	Sociology	Struggle for power/status
Deutsch	Psychology	Incompatible activities
Thomas	Organizational Behavior	Perceived negative impact
Rahim	Organizational Conflict	Interaction & incompatibility
Lewin	Psychology	Intrapersonal motives
Gray	Management	Social interaction & claims
Follett	Management	Constructive potential
Robbins	Organizational Behavior	Perceived threat to concerns
Pruitt & Carnevale	Negotiation	Diverging interests
Burton	Peace Studies	Denial of human needs

---

2. How Conflict Arises ?

Conflict can arise in educational institutions due to several factors:

• Communication Breakdown: Misunderstandings, lack of clear information, or misinterpretations.

• Differences in Goals and Expectations: Teachers may have different priorities (e.g., student-centered learning vs. syllabus coverage).

• Resource Allocation: Limited time, lab equipment, or classroom space.

• Personality Clashes: Differences in temperament or values among staff.

• Power and Authority Disputes: Especially in hierarchical structures such as departments or school administration.

Example (School Physics Department):

In a high school physics department, conflict may arise between two teachers when one wants to adopt project-based learning to improve conceptual understanding, while another insists on traditional lecture methods to prepare students for exams. The disagreement intensifies when both teachers request the same time slots for lab use, leading to disputes over resource allocation and teaching philosophy.

Causes of Conflict in a School Physics Department

1. Resource Constraints: Limited lab equipment can lead to scheduling clashes among teachers.

2. Curriculum Changes: Differing opinions on syllabus priorities (e.g., whether to emphasize quantum physics or mechanics) can create friction.

3. Teaching Styles: Disparities in pedagogical approaches (e.g., traditional lectures vs. inquiry-based learning) may lead to disagreement.

4. Student Behaviour: Disruptive classroom dynamics or group project disputes.

5. Assessment Standards: Conflicts may arise regarding grading policies or performance expectations in practical experiments.

Resolution may involve collaborative problem-solving, such as implementing a lab booking system or negotiating alternate schedules, aligning with the Interest-Based Relational (IBR) approach (Fisher, Ury & Patton, 1991).

---

3. Four Levels of Conflict : Types of Conflict

According to Rahim (2002) and Whetten & Cameron (2011) , conflict can be categorized as:

• Intrapersonal – Within an individual (e.g., a Physics teacher feeling torn between administrative duties and research commitments).

• Interpersonal – Between individuals (e.g., a disagreement between two Physics teachers over laboratory scheduling).

• Intragroup – Within a group (e.g., conflict among students working on a group Physics project).

• Intergroup – Between groups (e.g., between the Physics department and administration over budget cuts).

---

a. Intrapersonal Conflict

• Definition: Conflict that occurs within an individual.

• Cause: Internal struggle due to competing demands, roles, or goals.

• Example: A physics teacher is torn between completing the curriculum and giving students time for inquiry-based learning. The teacher feels conflicted about sacrificing conceptual depth for exam readiness.

---

b. Interpersonal Conflict

• Definition: Conflict between two or more individuals.

• Cause: Personality clashes, communication issues, or differing values.

• Example: Two teachers in the physics department disagree on how to grade practical work. One prefers rigid rubrics, while the other allows flexibility.

---

c. Intragroup Conflict

• Definition: Conflict within a team or department.

• Cause: Disagreements on task roles, strategies, or group norms.

• Example: In a departmental meeting, members of the physics department cannot agree on how to divide responsibilities for the annual science fair, leading to internal tension and frustration.

---

d. Intergroup Conflict

• Definition: Conflict between two or more departments or groups.

• Cause: Competition for resources, lack of collaboration, or conflicting departmental goals.

• Example: The physics department and the IT department disagree on who should manage and schedule the shared laboratory space. The IT team argues for tech-based experiments, while the physics team insists on classical experiments needing the same space.

---

4. Importance of Conflict Management

Effective conflict management in educational settings enhances collaboration, professional respect, and student outcomes. It aligns with transformational leadership practices, where leaders proactively mediate disputes and foster a collegial culture (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005).

5. Conclusion

Understanding conflict in educational settings, especially at different levels, allows school leaders and teachers to address the root causes and promote constructive dialogue. In physics departments, where collaboration is key for laboratory access, curriculum planning, and innovation, it is essential to recognize conflict early and manage it effectively using established conflict resolution frameworks.

---

References

• Deutsch, M. (1973). The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes. Yale University Press.

• Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Penguin.

• Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Creative Controversy: Intellectual Challenge in the Classroom. Interaction Book Company.

• Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). Transformational Leadership. In B. Davies (Ed.), The Essentials of School Leadership. Sage

• Rahim, M. A. (2002). Toward a Theory of Managing Organizational Conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(3), 206–235.

• Rahim, M. A. (2011). Managing Conflict in Organizations. Transaction Publishers.

• Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management. In J. W. Newstrom & K. Davis (Eds.), Organizational Behavior: Human Behavior at Work (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

• Whetten, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. (2011). Developing Management Skills (8th ed.). Pearson Education.

leadership

▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ CHANGE MANAGEMENT MODELS    ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

1.Lewin’s Model
2.Kotter’s 8-Step
3.ADKAR
4.McKinsey 7-S
5.Bridges’ Model
6.Nudge Theory
7.Kübler-Ross Curve
8.Satir Change Model
9.Resistance to Change
10.PDCA Cycle
11.Stephen Covey Model
12.Kaizen Model
13.LaMarsh Model
14.John Fisher Model
15.Maurer’s Resistance Model

Source : Steve Rogers Transformation Scene - Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)

▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒ CONFLICT MANAGEMENT MODELS   ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

a) What is a Conflict ?    21/07/25 

b) Face Negotiation Theory by Stella Ting-Toomey (1988, 1994, 1998,2001)   21/07/25 

c) Dr. M. Afzalur Rahim 's work on CONFLICTS     21/07/25 

 

1. Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI Model)
2. Rahim’s Meta-Conflict Management Model
3. Pondy’s Model of Organizational Conflict
4. Dual Concern Model
5. Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid
6. Interest-Based Relational (IBR) Approach
7. Circle of Conflict Model (Christopher Moore)
8. Glasl’s Nine-Stage Model of Conflict Escalation
9. The Harvard Negotiation Project (Principled Negotiation)
10. Ury’s Five Steps to Break Through Conflict (The Third Side)
11. Lederach’s Conflict Transformation Model
12. Collaborative Problem-Solving Model
13. The GRPI Model (Goals, Roles, Processes, Interpersonal Relationships)
14. Hot Stove Rule (Douglas McGregor)
15. Transformative Mediation Model