In contemporary organizations, the human resource department is responsible for identifying conflicting issues and devise solutions to mitigate them properly. Furthermore, the concept of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is also synonymous to conflict resolution and is becoming an important aspect in the emerging organizations (Constantino & Merchant, 1995).
Kazan (1997) postulated that conflicts can be resolved through "reasonable compromise aids" regardless of its confrontational nature. This is based on the theory that conflicts are based on subissues which if identified and fixed properly can help mitigate the entire conflict in a matter of time. There are two models through which conflict management and resolution is perceived. The harmony model postulates that conflict management aims to minimize the conflict. It ensures that the mutual obligations are fully observed and proper order of the status is maintained. In case of harmony model, the conflict resolution can be achieved through accommodating and avoidance style. Kazan (1997) argued that "less emphasis is placed on procedural justice as on maintenance of face of self and others" (p. 338). Furthermore, the concept of third party is the backbone of conflict resolution through harmony model. On the other hand, the regulative model requires that the third parties intervene formally to resolve a conflict.
This paper aims to compare and contrast the transactional leadership and manager’s approaches to conflict management and resolution. In order to achieve this aim, the paper will conduct a literature review of the researches conducted till date that have explored the transactional leadership and manager’s approaches to resolving and mitigating conflicts in a workplace.
leadership style and widely adopted in contrast to charismatic and transformational leadership style. Every manager has to face