ACCA Applied Knowledge · Business and Technology

Sources of conflict and techniques for conflict resolution: formula sheet

Full chapter guide

Key formulas

Levels of conflict: Individual | Group (within a team) | Intergroup (between teams or departments); First decide who is in conflict. Then name the type.
Main causes checklist: Scarce resources | Clashing goals | Poor communication | Interdependence | Role ambiguity | Differing values | Change | Perceived unfairness; Use as a prompt list. Pick the cause that the scenario facts point to, not all of them.
Functional conflict: Conflict that supports organisational objectives = functional (constructive); Look for better ideas, better decisions, innovation and improved understanding.
Dysfunctional conflict: Conflict that hinders organisational objectives = dysfunctional (destructive); Look for stress, hostility, poor cooperation, lower productivity and loss of focus on goals.
Three levels of effect: Individual → Team → Organisation; Structure any answer around these three levels so you do not miss marks.
Competing: High assertiveness + low cooperativeness; Win-lose. Use for emergencies, vital rules or unpopular but necessary decisions.
Collaborating: High assertiveness + high cooperativeness; Win-win. Use when the issue is important, both views matter and time allows.
Compromising: Medium assertiveness + medium cooperativeness; Partial win for each side. Use when time is short or a deadlock needs breaking.
Avoiding: Low assertiveness + low cooperativeness; Lose-lose or postponed. Use for trivial issues or to allow a cooling-off period.
Accommodating: Low assertiveness + high cooperativeness; Lose-win. Use to keep the peace, build goodwill or when the other side's issue matters more.
Third-party methods: Negotiation: parties decide. Mediation: neutral helps, parties decide. Arbitration: neutral decides.; Arbitration is usually binding. Mediation is not.
Win-win (integrative) negotiation: Focus on interests, not positions → generate options → agree using fair criteria; Use this when the relationship matters and there is room for joint gain.
Win-lose (distributive) negotiation: Fixed resource: one side's gain = other side's loss; Typical for one-off price haggling. It can damage long-term relationships.
Mediation vs arbitration: Mediator helps parties agree; arbitrator decides; Mediation is usually voluntary and non-binding in its outcome unless the parties agree. Arbitration decisions are usually binding.
Manager's conflict process: Identify → understand causes → choose approach → agree actions → follow up; A simple structure for any scenario question.
Ethical handling checklist: Honest, impartial, confidential, fair, documented; Link to integrity, objectivity and confidentiality.

Quick revision

Conflict is a perceived incompatibility of goals, values or interests between individuals or groups.
Common causes: scarce resources, unclear roles, differing goals, personality clashes, poor communication and change.
Functional conflict improves performance, ideas or decisions; dysfunctional conflict harms morale, cooperation and results.
Conflict is not always bad. Some can be useful if it stays controlled and focused on the task.
Thomas-Kilmann has five modes: competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding and accommodating.
Competing is high assertiveness, low cooperation. Accommodating is low assertiveness, high cooperation.
Avoiding is low on both. Collaborating is high on both. Compromising sits in the middle.
Collaborating suits important issues where both sides' concerns matter and time allows.
Compromise gives partial satisfaction to both sides. Neither gets everything.
Avoiding can suit trivial issues or give time to cool down, but it leaves the problem unsolved.
Ethical negotiation means honesty, fairness and respect for the other party.
In scenarios, identify the cause first, then the effect, then the best mode.

Common mistakes

Treating conflict as always harmful. Fix: Define conflict neutrally as perceived incompatibility. Effects are judged separately.
Calling a clash between two departments group conflict. Fix: Use group conflict for members within one group. Use intergroup for separate groups or departments.
Saying all conflict is bad. Fix: Remember the exam view: conflict can be functional. Always ask whether it supports the organisation's goals.
Classifying by how it feels instead of by its result. Fix: Judge the outcome, not the tone. A loud debate that improves a plan is functional.
Treating compromise and collaboration as the same thing. Fix: Ask whether both sides lose something. If yes, it is compromise. If both needs are fully met, it is collaboration.
Saying competing is always bad and collaborating is always best. Fix: Match the mode to the situation. In an emergency, collaboration takes too long and competing is right.
Confusing mediation with arbitration Fix: Remember: the mediator helps, the arbitrator decides.
Assuming all conflict is harmful Fix: Recognise that conflict can be functional when it leads to better ideas, but needs managing.

Exam tips

Always decide the level first: individual, group or intergroup. Many options differ only on this.
Match the cause to a scenario keyword such as limited, targets, not informed, unclear role or unfair.
Check the question verb. If it asks for causes or sources, do not choose resolution techniques or effects.
In multiple response questions, select exactly the number asked and avoid options that go beyond the facts.
Revise this topic together with effects of conflict and resolution techniques, as the same scenario can be used for all three.
Always classify by outcome for the organisation, not by how heated the disagreement is.
Expect statements about conflict in multiple choice. Eliminate options that say conflict is always good or always bad.
In longer multi-task questions, give at least one effect for individuals, teams and the organisation.