Nowadays, organisations are accepting that conflicts can be good if managed properly, to stimulate staff to be creative in order to remain competitive in a fast growing cutthroat economy.
This newer approach can present many problems for managers and organisations. Therefore it is vital that managers manage the situations by implementing conflict resolution approaches. This will reduce or eliminate the immediate conflict. Conflict resolution refers to a process, which has as its objective, the ending of the conflict between the disagreeing parties.
Kenneth Thomas (1976) distinguished five conflict resolution approaches, based on:
- How assertive or unassertive each party is in pursuing its own concerns;
- How co-operative or uncooperative each is in satisfying the concerns of the other.
Thomas labelled these approaches as:
- Competing/forcing
- Avoiding
- Compromising
- Accommodating
- Collaborating
Thomas also identified the types of situation in which each conflict resolution style was to be preferred over another. Unless the manager was flexible and capable of switching between styles, their ability to resolve conflicts effectively would be diminished. In practice, all individuals, whether managers or not, use only a limited number of styles to resolve all conflicts in which they are involved. It is hardly surprising that their success is limited in a high number of conflict resolution attempts. So to comprehensively manage conflict situations, it is vital that managers adapt to the different styles to increase their success rate. Below these five conflict resolution approaches are analysed in some greater detail and examples given for when the different styles should be adopted.
- Approach No. 1 Competing/Forcing;
Individuals who use the competing mode seek to satisfy their own concerns. They are unwilling to satisfy others’ concerns even to a minimal degree, regardless of how the outcome effects the other parties to the conflict. A competing/ Forcing style tends to maximise assertiveness for your own position and maximise co-operative responses. In doing so, you tend to frame the conflict in strict win-lose terms. Examples would be attempting to achieve your goal at the sacrifice of the other parties goal, attempting to convince another that your conclusion is correct and his or hers is mistaken, and trying to make some one else accept the blame. Bill Gates, the billionaire chairman of Microsoft, tends to pursue the competing styles.
Gates is famously confrontational. If he strongly disagrees with that you are saying, he is in the habit of blurting out, “That’s the stupidest thing I have ever heard!” People tell stories of Gates spraying saliva into the face of some hapless employee as he yells, “this stuff isn’t hard! I could do this stuff over the weekend!” What you’re supposed to do in a situation like this, as in encounters with grizzly bears, is stand your ground. If you flee, the bear will think you’re game and will pursue you, and you can’t out run the bear.
The competing/ Forcing style holds promise when you have a lot of power, you’re sure of your facts, the situation is truly win-lose, or you won’t have to interact with the other party in the future.
The question surrounding Competing/Forcing is, when is it appropriate to use this type of approach? It is appropriate in emergency situations, when expedient action is required, when you know you are right, in situations that are vital to organisations welfare or in important issues relating to the enforcement of rules or discipline.
Is to get your own way.
I know what’s right. Don’t question my judgement or authority.
It is better to risk causing a few hard feelings than to abandon the issue.
You feel vindicated, but the other party feels defeated and possibly humiliated.
Overall this resolution approach seems very domineering and could escalate the conflict to another level and turn nasty. This is especially so if the other person involved is as strong minded and determined as the individual competing. The impression one would get from this type of approach is that it only favours people in powerful organisational positions who can use their position of power to control the conflict to their favour. The approach has similarities to Taylorism, also known as scientific Management, where one is told sternly what to do and how to do it without being competitively challenged because of the fear factor.
The avoiding style is characterised by low assertiveness of one’s own interests and low cooperation with the other party. This is the “hiding the head in the sand” response. Although avoidance can provide some short-term stress reduction from rigours of conflict, it doesn’t really change the situation. Thus the effectiveness is often limited.
Of course, avoidance does have its place. If the issue is trivial, information is lacking, people need to cool down, or if the opponent is very powerful or very hostile, avoidance might be the sensible response.
Avoid having to deal with conflict.
I’m neutral on that issue. Let me think about it or that’s somebody else’s problem.
Disagreements are inherently bad because they create tension.
Interpersonal problems don’t get resolved, causing long-term frustration which manifests itself in a variety of ways.
This approach can be adopted when there are more important issues pending or when one realises that their need is not going to be satisfied no matter what approach is used so the energy can be used in a more productive manner. All of these examples can be seen to a certain extent as positives, but on the other side of the spectrum you can be taken as a push over and be targeted whenever anybody wants anything from you. You can be seen as a person that is too easy going especially when confronted and will avoid getting involved in conflict situation.
- Approach No.3 Compromising;
Compromise represents an immediate behaviour on both the assertiveness and cooperation dimensions, It can include sharing of positions but not the extremes of assertiveness or cooperation. It generally doesn’t result in the maximum satisfaction of both parties. This style works well when the groups in conflict have equal power, value the goals enough to act assertively, or experience time pressures.
It is itself a compromise between pure competition and pure accommodation. In a sense, you attempt to sacrifice rather than maximise your outcomes and hope that the same occurs for the other party. . Also, compromise doesn’t always result in the most creative response to conflict. Compromise isn’t so useful for resolving conflicts that stem from power asymmetry, because the weaker party may have little to offer the stronger party. However, it is a sensible reaction to conflict stemming from scarce resources. Also, it is a good fallback position.
Quickly reach an agreement.
Lets search for a solution we can both live with and get on with our work.
Prolonged conflicts distract people from their work and cause bitter feeling.
Participants go for the expedient solution rather than the effective solution.
This approach can be quite effective in the short term however it leaves individuals vulnerable to further conflict. It is useful in situations where a speedy conclusion can benefit both parties especially when both are of equal power within the organisation. It can also be effective in situations where the conflict is of a complex nature and requires further deliberation. This approach gives both parties a sense that they both won rather than a winner / loser scenario, in other words it’s an easier pill to swallow, however there is the assumption that there is a loser in this approach but they are willing to accept the situation.
- Approach No. 4 Accommodating:
Individuals or groups who accommodate demonstrate a willingness to cooperate in satisfying others’ concerns while at the same time acting unassertively in addressing their own needs. Smoothing over conflict in this way can build social credits for later issues; result in harmony and stability, while satisfying others. If people see accommodation as a sign of weakness it does not bode well for further interactions. However, it can be an effective reaction when you’re wrong, the issue is more important to the other party or you want to show goodwill.
Don’t upset the other person.
How can I help you feel good about this situation? My position is not so important that it’s worth risking bad feelings between us.
Maintaining harmonious relationship is paramount.
The other person is likely to take advantage.
This approach is likely to give the wrong impression and it is human nature to exploit that to a level where one is being taken advantage of on a continuous basis, although it can be used as a tactic to let people cool down in heated exchanges or trivial issues. It is reasonable to expect that people could lose respect for individuals that constantly embrace this approach, and it could be seen in the top management spectrum as more of a weakness than a strength and could affect an individual’s progress within the organisation. On the flip side of the coin it is a way to admit that you were wrong.
-
Approach No. 4 Collaborating;
In the collaborating mode both assertiveness and cooperation are maximised in the hope that an outcome can be achieved that satisfies both parties. Emphasis is put on a win-win resolution in which there is no assumption that someone must lose something. It gives the impression that the solution to the conflict leaves both parties in a better position. Ideally collaboration occurs as a kind of problem solving exercise, it probably works best when the conflict is not intense and when each party has information that is useful to the other.
Solve the problem together.
This is my problem, what’s yours? I’m committed to finding the best solution possible to suit both of us.
Emphasis should be put on the quality of the outcome and the fairness of the decision process.
The problem is most likely to be resolved and both parties are committed to the solution and satisfied that they were both treated fairly.
This approach seems by far the best, however it may be very time consuming before an amicable solution is found. There could well be pressure associated with it for both parties and this could affect their work until the conflict is resolved. At the end of the conflict resolution it is unlikely that any ill feeling will reoccur between the parties on the same issue because there is no loser. They both win. It could also create a mutual respect and understanding between the two parties after a resolution is reached. This approach may require expert help to promote the collaboration between the two parties.
It is true to say that people have a preferred conflict management style, but they will use different styles in different circumstances. The key to successful conflict management is to apply the correct style for each different situation. The collaborating approach is the style preferred in dealing with conflict resolution, but only under certain conditions. These conditions refer specifically to when the parties do not have compatible interests but have enough trust and openness to share information. Collaboration is usually desirable because there is no win lose situations and it promotes creativity from both parties to find a solution to the conflict.
References:
Class notes (WIT BBS4, Negotiation and conflict, 2003.)
David Whetton, Kim Cameron and Mike Woods, Developing Management Skills, Harper Collins, 2nd Edition 1994,P.384.
Organisation Behaviour A Diagnostic Approach 6th Edition Judith R Gordon, p.282
Social Behaviour and organisational approaches, p452
David Whetton, Kim Cameron and Mike Woods, Developing Management Skills, Harper Collins, 2nd Edition 1994,P.384.
David Whetton, Kim Cameron and Mike Woods, Developing Management Skills, Harper Collins, 2nd Edition 1994,P.384.
Robbins, Organisational behaviour 8th edition p.442
David Whetton, Kim Cameron and Mike Woods, Developing Management Skills, Harper Collins, 2nd Edition 1994,P.384.
Organisation Behaviour A Diagnostic Approach 6th Edition Judith R Gordon, p.282)
David Whetton, Kim Cameron and Mike Woods, Developing Management Skills, Harper Collins, 2nd Edition 1994,P.384.
David Whetton, Kim Cameron and Mike Woods, Developing Management Skills, Harper Collins, 2nd Edition 1994,P.384.