-
Assess the source of conflict
Conflicts have causes. Since your approach to resolving a conflict is likely to be determined largely by its causes, you need to determine the source of the conflict. Research indicates that conflicts have varying causes, they can generally be separated into three categories: communication differences, structural differences and personal differences
- Communication differences
Communication differences are disagreements arising from semantic difficulties, misunderstandings and noise in the communication channels. What might first look like an interpersonal conflict based on poor communication is usually upon closer analysis, to be a disagreement caused by different role requirement goals, personalities, value systems or similar factors.
Options. Available:
Each of these five styles is appropriate in some situations and inappropriate in others; supervisors therefore need not only to be able to use each of them, but also to know when each should be used.
Avoidance - withdrawal from of conflict or suppression. Avoiding is unassertive and unco-operative: you pursue neither own concerns nor those of the other person, but “let sleeping dogs”, sweeping the conflict “under the carpet” and pretending it isn’t there or perhaps hoping it will go away. Inappropriately avoiding issues leads to resentment, displacement of feelings and griping, general discontent and gossiping.
Of course, avoiding might also take the form of diplomatic
sidestepping an issue, postponing discussion until a better time, or simply withdrawing from a threatening situation. So avoiding can have its uses especially if neither the relationship nor the issue is important to you. Many potential conflict situations are just not worth the time and effort of getting involved. Or you may want to collect more information rather take immediate action. Sometimes temporary avoidance is the best policy to let everyone “cool down”. Avoidance is also a good choice when it is more appropriate for others to handle the conflict
Accommodation - resolving conflicts by placing another’s needs and concerns above one’s own. Accommodating is unassertive and co-operative - the opposite of competing. It could also be called passive or submissive, because you are putting the other party’s wishes before your own. Accommodating might take the form of selfless generosity or charity, agreeing to another person’s request when you would prefer not to, yielding to another’s point of view against your better judgment, or resentfully submitting to another’s wishes. Even when they are sure they are right, some people don’t like taking a stand. Supervisors like this may be uncomfortable with using their power or afraid of losing the friendship or co-operation of their staff. The danger of this approach is that their staff often do not take them or their ideas seriously. But whenever an issue is less important than the relationship, accommodating behaviour may be called for — for example, when building a relationship is more important than the particular conflict or when your “stake” in the conflict or issue isn’t high. When you have a hope of having your wishes met, you may also decide to accommodate as a way of minimising your losses and maintaining a climate of Co-operation with the other party
Forcing - resolving conflict through the use of formal authority. Forcing is assertive and unco-operative; in other words, it is aggressive because you pursue your own concerns at the expense of the other person. This method of managing conflict is based on power. Whatever power seems appropriate - your ability to argue, to pull rank, to use economic sanctions and so on — is used to impose a solution on the otherr party. The usual response to this is resentment, antagonism, hostility and lack of co-operation. Supervisors who continually compete in conflict situations, who look only for a win-lose solution, are often surrounded by “yes men”. They are often considered “hard to get on with” and don’t know when to admit they are wrong. They find it difficult to build up a good working relationship with people. When speed and decisiveness are at a premium, as they are in emergencies, it might be quite an appropriate style. When you are in conflict with parties who refuse to co-operate and who are trying to take advantage of you, competitively managing the conflict may be your best option. When safety issues are at stake or a difficult or unpopular decision needs to be made, a competitive stance may be necessary
Compromise - a solution of conflict in which each party gives up something of value. Compromising is intermediate, in both assertiveness and co- operativeness. It involves “splitting the difference” to arrive at a solution acceptable to both parties. This falls on a middle ground between competing and accommodating, where you give up more than in but less than in accommodating. It addresses issues more directly avoiding but doesn’t explore them in as much depth as collaboratinng. Compromising can be quick, however, and although leaves neither satisfied, it can be useful in situations where time is running out or when collaboration and/or competition have failed. It can also provide a temporary, short-term solution to a conflict while collaborative discussions continue. And sometimes, settling for a workable compromise is the best you can do.
Collaboration takes time but is particularly useful in situations where
both the issue and the relationship are important, and where an outcome
which satisfies both parties is desirable. Collaboration is also useful when all parties need to be committed to the solution and when a creative deal or solution is needed
What are the differences between win-lose and win-win methods?
The orientation of the parties to handling the conflict is quite different between the win-lose and win-win methods. With win-lose there is a clear “us versus them” approach, while with a win-win orientation, there is an “us together versus the problem” approach. Where the energies of the parties are directed also differs: under win-lose, energies are directed towards total victory or total defeat. With win-win, the atmosphere is one constructive co-operation and a search for outcomes desirable to both “Let’s work together to resolve this” is the attitude. Empathy also differs; under win-lose, people see the issue only from their own point of view, rather than appreciating it also from the other’s. The focus is different too, with the emphasis being on reaching a solution under win-lose and on goals, outcomes and longer term issues under win-win.
With a win-lose approach, conflicts are often personalised rather than treated objectively and impersonally, as they are with a win-win approach. In win-lose, the parties are conflict-oriented rather than relationship-oriented as they are with win-win, with the immediate disagreement taking priority over the long-term effects of the conflict and how it is resolved.
What are the steps for resolving conflict?
Step 1: Initiate a discussion
Deal with it openly and honestly. This does not mean starting an argument! It is important not to begin by attacking or demeaning the other party or communicating blame or judgement in any way. This would only result in a defensive response which would block conflict resolution. Make a statement which “sets the scene” and explains to the other party what you want to discuss.
Step 2: Give good information
You will then need to be able to state your point of view clearly. The
techniques involved here are “I” messages and “I” language. Explain the tangible or real effects the conflict has on you.
Step 3: Get good information
Listen to the other’s point of view. Use the techniques of active empathic listening to make sure you really hear and show that you heard. Avoid defensiveness, attacks, telling the other person what and a hard-line approach, as these will only increase the conflict. Instead ask clarifying questions and summarise whenever you can.
Step 4: Problem-solve
Once both parties have had their say and been heard, it is time to turn to
problem-solving. The steps are as follows:
1. Summarise the problem. What is the issue? Where does each party does each party stand? What are the facts, feelings and concerns of each party? Don’t define the problem as a conflict between competing solutions, but rather in terms of conflicting needs. And don’t be in a hurry: be sure you have fully explored the problem. Frequently, a problem will be redefined as it is discussed and new light is shed on it. Be sure you understand each other’s point of view before moving on and be sure you state your own point of view accurately, assertively and congruently.
2. Search for mutually acceptable solutions. Generate as many solutions as you can before evaluating them and deciding which one to adopt. The more solutions you have to choose from, the more successfully resolved your conflict is likely to be.
3. Evaluate the possible solutions. Generally it will become apparent when to move on to this step. Take special care to be honest; remember,
you are trying to reach a good, workable solution, not just any solution. Are there any flaws in any of the possible resolutions? Any reasons solution might not work? Will it be too hard to implement or carry out? Is it fair to both parties?
Decide together. The solution most acceptable to both should be chosen. A mutual commitment is essential. Don’t make the mistake of trying to persuade or push a solution on the other party; if a solution is not freely chosen, chances are it will not be carried out.
Plan the implementation of the solution together and don’t forget
evaluate it after it has been in operation for a while. If it isn’t working, begin the problem-solving process again.
Some tips for settling disputes
• Keep all “weapons” out of reach. Then you won’t be tempted to use them. Pulling rank, resorting to threats, put-downs or point scoring, hiding behind a clearly outdated corporate “policy” or becoming personal are all “weapons” which are best avoided.
• Search for common ground. Once you have identified something you
both want or something you both want to avoid, you have set the scene for working together, not against each other. Seek your common
ground and work towards it.
• Stick to the facts. Attacking the person really heats up the conflict!
• Bring in a trusted third party. Mediators can often help both parties deal with the conflict calmly and objectively. Try tackling the easiest problems first, not as a way of avoiding the tough ones but because the progress you make will encourage you to find solutions to the tough problems too. Keep early discussions informal. It’s always easier to “toughen up”
than “soften down
• Emphasise the relationship. If both parties are clear that a continued good relationship is a desired outcome, then both will work harder towards that end.
• Limit each discussion to a few issues. Otherwise the “mountain” will
look insurmountable.
• Keep a long-term view in mind. This helps keep things in perspective.
• Look for and foster flexibility and creativity. How can you both get what you want? Don’t limit yourself by grasping the first solution that
suggests itself.
• Listen carefully and summarise frequently. Summarise the other’s point of view, especially before disagreeing.
• Adopt a “problem-solving” approach. See the dispute as a problem to be solved rather than a battle to be won.
• Test your assumptions. Bring your thoughts out into the open so they can be verified. State clearly your position and your understanding of the
other’s position. Making assumptions about what the person does or
doesn’t know or want can be a recipe for going round in circles,