I've mostly benefited from hard realism approach and Actor theory (as applied by some: everyone has an agenda, to work with them: Align, make Peace, or Destroy).
It's actually a bit of a gap -- everything I've read tries very hard to assume positive intent; people will cooperate if you can create a sense within them that they can express themselves without fear of reprisal or judgement.
The reasoning in the literature for avoiding this topic is sound. If you provide the "destroy" option to folks, they're usually going to go with that pretty quickly, and only nominally go for the other methods of resolving conflict.
I've had someone make that determination about me at a previous role, which then put me obviously in a "what do I do with this person?" position which itself led me to the "ignore/destroy" answer. If it hadn't been an option, would this person and I have had a more pleasant working environment?
I've been collecting on that gap in personal interviews, I have observed it as well. CMS (Critical Management Theory ) had some tidbits that I found useful, since they criticize mainstream management and describe some of the tactics avoided by mainstream research.
The reasoning in the literature for avoiding this topic is sound. If you provide the "destroy" option to folks, they're usually going to go with that pretty quickly, and only nominally go for the other methods of resolving conflict.
I've had someone make that determination about me at a previous role, which then put me obviously in a "what do I do with this person?" position which itself led me to the "ignore/destroy" answer. If it hadn't been an option, would this person and I have had a more pleasant working environment?