PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9748908

Creating constructive outcomes in conflict.

B Orchard
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

1. Conflict and disagreement are a fact of business life. Effort toward optomizing differences rather than minimizing them is a value added activity--leading to greater creativity, increasing levels of respect in relationships, and better solutions. 2. Proactively looking at potential conflict--where diasgreeing parties are often inherent and/or predictable--can save energy, relationships, and costly mistakes. Diagnosing or "reading" a situation and planning an approach is wise. 3. Several options or responses are available when facing conflict. Knowing when to use a given response is an important interpersonal skill. Relying on learned, habitual, and exclusive approaches to conflict may be limiting. 4. Implementation of effective conflict resolution is a function of attitude, initiative, and flexibility. An exploratory posture and a willingness to learn are constructive in attempting to reach agreements with optimum short and long term effect.

Explore related subjects

Conflict, PsychologicalCooperative BehaviorHumansInterprofessional RelationsNegotiatingOccupational HealthProblem SolvingWorkplaceJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B Orchard. 1998. Creating constructive outcomes in conflict.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9748908/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2002

Intergroup bias.

This chapter reviews the extensive literature on bias in favor of in-groups at the expense of out-groups. We focus on five issues and identify areas for future research: (a) measurement and conceptual issues (especially in-group favoritism vs. out-group derogation, and explicit vs. implicit measures of bias); (b) modern theories of bias highlighting motivational explanations (social identity, optimal distinctiveness, uncertainty reduction, social dominance, terror management); (c) key moderators of bias, especially those that exacerbate bias (identification, group size, status and power, threat, positive-negative asymmetry, personality and individual differences); (d) reduction of bias (individual vs. intergroup approaches, especially models of social categorization); and (e) the link between intergroup bias and more corrosive forms of social hostility.

Conflict, Psychological↗
PubMed2001

The decisional conflict scale: further validation in two samples of Dutch oncology patients.

The importance of patient involvement in medical decision making is indisputable. Yet, decision making concerning medical treatment options is a difficult task for most patients. In order to study decision-making processes in health care, O'Connor developed the decisional conflict scale (DCS). The DCS assesses the level of 'decisional conflict' that patients experience while making health care decisions, and encompasses the following three subscales: (1) uncertainty about choosing among alternatives; (2) factors contributing to uncertainty; (3) perceived effectiveness of the decision. The aim of the present study is to investigate the reliability and validity of the Dutch version of the DCS. A written version of the DCS was administered in two samples of Dutch cancer patients. One sample consisted of cancer patients faced with the decision whether or not to undergo palliative chemotherapy (N=29). The other sample included women with early stage breast cancer who had to choose between mastectomy or lumpectomy followed by radiation therapy (N=141). The response rates were 76% and 91%, respectively. The reliability coefficients of the three subscales were 0.52, 0.80, 0.84, and 0.74, 0.83, 0.83 in the two samples, respectively. Construct validity was partly supported. Criterion validity was substantiated. In evaluating the factorial validity, it was found that the original three-factor model had to be rejected (chi(2)(87)=293, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)=0.137). A subsequent exploratory factor analysis suggested an alternative four-factor model. The psychometric properties of the DCS were partly confirmed in Dutch cancer patients. Improved 'wording' of certain items, e.g. to avoid double negatives, could further increase the factorial validity of the DCS. Then, this scale may be a valuable tool for studies that address the quality of medical decision making.

Conflict, Psychological↗