Introduction Over the years, conflicts have been considered inevitable occurrences in human living. They transpire between people involved in any kind of relationships and settings; it can be, business, family members, colleagues, or political related. Scholars explained that it is not the differences in values that cause conflicts directly but individuals’ attempts to force others to leave their beliefs and adopt theirs. If we can understand and manage it well, productivity and satisfaction of relations in terms of business and social life can be improved. To maximize the positive impacts of conflicts and minimize their negative outcomes, it is vital to understand the general approaches and various methods applied to solve the disagreements. Methods of Conflict Resolution Based on the Structural and Realist Theories there are two categories of conflicts: Intra-personal conflicts, popularly known as man against himself. It is an internal urge of an individual to compete and battle, and the surrounding environment contributes to it (Folarin, 2015). Inter-personal conflict describes the disagreement between two or more people. It could manifest in terms of arguments between shared resources or where each wants their ideas followed. This level of conflict is also present in the business context and may result in poor performance (Isa, 2015). There are a few techniques discussed to settle these disparities and their negative implications. Arbitration In the traditional setup, arbitration was used to settle differences without any formal procedures. However, its use in the contemporary world has been more complex with increased proceedings and legal activities involved. Through this method, the warring individuals use a neutral party to resolve their conflicts (Ranjbar & Dehshiri, 2017). The arbitration process begins with a notice letter setting the expected rules to govern the entire course including the expected pay. Upon agreeing to it, the case is presented through phone or in-person; sometimes in form of writing. Using all the evidence derived from the hearing, the mediator sets a date for issuing the best decision and after considering all viable solutions, sends a printed document to the parties stating what they should do to end their conflict. Advocators of this method prefer it due to its advantages, some of them outlined:  1. It provides the participants with control over their case hearing, unlike legal structures where everything is under the system’s discretion.  2. It allows parties have a range of choices on suggested procedures to apply (Ranjbar & Dehshiri, 2017). Additionally, the method assures confidentiality since the meetings are not held publicly.  3. Chances of corruption are minimal while using arbitration to solve disputes. A mediator is a neutral person who is unknown to the conflicting parties and takes no sides.  4. The process is less tedious and uses less duration time (Isa, 2015). However, critics of this method do not recommend it based on different arguments:  1. It requires a mutual agreement of both parties at war for it to work.  2. In a business setting, arbitration agreements are occasionally stated in manual handbooks which employees agree to in advance without consent (Isa, 2015).  3. While solving detailed cases, longer procedures may be applied, thus large costs.  4. Sometimes, the arbitrator may use personal