Conflict resolution is a tricky term, even though it seems like it shouldn’t be.
It’s obvious meaning is the resolution of conflict where resolution means parties’ interests or needs are satisfactorily met. Satisfactory means parties view their agreemetn as the best chance – or as better than alternatives – of meeting their stated needs or interests. (One hallmark of effective conflict prevention and resolution is that parties intend to implment the agreement in good faith.)
Despite technical differences, interest-based problem solving, interest-based negotation, integrative negotation, principled negotation, getting to yes (actually the title of an important book by Roger Fisher and Bill Ury), win-win, and other labels mean the same thing.
Unfortunately, the term conflict resolution is also used more broadly, and confusingly.
Interest-based approaches are commonly juxtaposed with rights-based and power-based approaches, and all three are sometimes referred to as conflict resolution. While not a big problem, it’s worth keeping in mind that rights- and power-based approaches are intended to bring conflicts to a close through other means, often for different reasons. You can refer to the three as conflict resolution as long as you remember to distinguish between them for deeper discussion or use. More on that in other content.
The conflict literature distinguishes between conflict management, settlement, termination, and resolution to keep the lines clear, but that introduces terminological complications we don’t need to concern ourselves with here. I’ll use the term conflict resolution as an umbrella term, and I’ll distinguish among interest-based, rights-based, and power-based approaches where it matters.
« Back to Glossary Index