The purpose of the present article is to examine the prevailing model of systematic organizational conflict management from an organizational communicative perspective and to suggest directions for improvement. Particularly the model of conflict management system (CMS) is examined at the macro-level from the novel theoretical perspective of social complexity augmented with an interpretive view of organizational communication. Specifically two models -the dual function of communication and the arena model -are utilized to illustrate weaknesses and points of development in traditional CMS thinking. CMS was found to represent a rather limited vision of contemporary conflict management. It is rooted in a mechanistic view of organizational communication, which, we assert, is problematic from the organizational conflict management perspective, both theoretically and practically. The differences between CMS and social complexity approaches are identified, and a fresh framework for strategic conflict management is introduced.

In recent years, a growing body of literature has emerged from the intersection of complex systems science and organizational communication. However, due to the incoherence and immaturity of complexity science, this body of research is slightly disorganized. This article explores this research node using a meta-paradigmatic framework to untangle and clarify the different paradigmatic assumptions in the field of organizational communication research that has adopted the complexity science perspective. Our analysis revealed five research clusters that differ from each other in their understanding of what complexity is and in how they define communication. Based on our research, we present suggestions for finding common ground and reaching beyond simplistic dichotomies in complexity-based research.

The purpose of this article is to broaden the understanding of managerial conflict influence by suggesting a social complexity perspective on organizational conflict. From this perspective, influence is essentially a meaning‐based phenomenon that represents an interpretive view of organizational communication. Although some research exists that holds similar notions of managerial conflict influence, most research embodies a transmission view of communication and influence. Based on a qualitative analysis of 30 semi‐structured interviews, managerial conflict influence can be conceptualized according to two theoretical dimensions, directness and communicative influence, including five subdimensions: direct, indirect, distant, constraining, and enabling. A tentative typology of managerial conflict influence using the identified dimensions is proposed. Finally, theoretical and practical notions as well as limitations of the study are discussed.