Conflict Resolution

Two-Way Models of Public Relations

Conflict resolution in public relations evolved from the four models of public relations. The most sophisticated of the four models are the two-way asymmetrical and the two-way symmetrical models. As these two models of public relations evolved, James E. Grunig (1989) described the two-way symmetrical model as “public relations efforts which are based on research and evaluation and that use communication to manage conflict and to improve understanding with strategic [Page 177]publics” (p. 17). In 1995, the new model of symmetry as two-way practices was developed where the win-win zone uses negotiation and compromise to allow organizations to find common ground among their separate and sometimes conflicting self-interests. By doing so, it did not exclude the use of asymmetrical means to achieve symmetrical ends, according to David Dozier, Larissa Grunig, and James Grunig.

Mixed Motives

Although the two-way symmetrical model would seem to be the ideal for conflict management, it is difficult to determine the exact point for appropriate behavior on a continuous scale between two-way asymmetric and two-way symmetric communication. Priscilla Murphy (1991) suggested that a mixed motive version of the two-way symmetrical model might better describe what is happening in the actual practice of public relations because it incorporates both asymmetrical and symmetrical strategies. More recent studies acknowledge the more frequently practiced model is the one termed mixed motives.

In mixed motives, each side in a stakeholder relationship retains a strong sense of its own interests, yet each is motivated to cooperate to attain at least some resolution of the conflict. They may be on opposite sides of an issue, but it is in their best interests to collaborate. Mixed motive games provide a broad third category that describes behavior as most public relations people experience it: a multidirectional scale of competition and cooperation in which organizational needs must be balanced against constituents’ needs. These cooperative protagonists struggle to satisfy their own interests with the knowledge that satisfaction is best accomplished through satisfying each other's interests.

Mixed Motive Model of Public Relations

In 2000, Kenneth D. Plowman, William G. Briggs, and Yi-Hui Huang established a number of negotiation strategies that fit into what Plowman called a mixed motive model for public relations that encompassed the entire spectrum between the two-way asymmetrical and the two-way symmetrical models. It now includes the strategies of contention, avoidance, accommodation, compromise, cooperation, unconditionally constructive and win-win or no deal, principled, and mediated or cultural. In 2007, Plowman added a tenth strategy, perseverance.

Contingency Model of Conflict

Since 1997, Glen Cameron and his colleagues (see Cancel, Cameron, Sallot, & Mitrook, 1997) have been developing a continuum ranging from pure advocacy to pure accommodation as the basis for a contingency model of organization-public relationships. Accommodation is not viewed in the classic sense as giving in to the other party. Rather, it is “the degree of willingness to entertain change for the benefit of others” (Shin, Jin, Cheng, & Cameron, 2003, p. 9). Research by Shin and colleagues regarding conflicts played out in the media have shown that an organization uses the advocate strategy more when its key stakeholder advocates in an escalating spiral, indicating the media may be a separate power-brokering party. As the field of conflict resolution and public relations becomes more developed, the more complex are strategies, factors, and tactics. This is evidenced by the 86 factors featured by contingency theorists.

...