Conflict management is the practice of being able to identify and handle conflicts sensibly, fairly, and efficiently. Since conflicts in a business are a natural part of the workplace, it is important that there are people who understand conflicts and know how to resolve them. This is important in today's market more than ever. Everyone is striving to show how valuable they are to the company they work for and at times, this can lead to disputes with other members of the team.
Conflicts happen. How an employee responds and resolves conflict will limit or enable that employe's success.
Here are five conflict styles that a manager will follow according to Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann:
A combination of being assertive and cooperative, those who collaborate attempt to work with others to identify a solution that fully satisfies everyone’s concerns. In this style, which is the opposite of avoiding, both sides can get what they want and negative feelings are minimized. “Collaborating works best when the long-term relationship and outcome are important—for example, planning for integrating two departments into one, where you want the best of both in the newly formed department,” Dr Benoliel says.
Those who compete are assertive and uncooperative and willing to pursue one’s own concerns at another person’s expense. Dr Benoliel explains using this style works when you don’t care about the relationship but the outcome is important, such as when competing with another company for a new client. But, she cautions, “Don’t use competing inside your organization; it doesn’t build relationships.”
Those who avoid conflict tend to be unassertive and uncooperative while diplomatically sidestepping an issue or simply withdrawing from a threatening situation. “Use this when it is safer to postpone dealing with the situation or you don’t have as great concern about the outcome, such as if you have a conflict with a co-worker about their ethics of using FaceTime on the job.”
The opposite of competing, there is an element of self-sacrifice when accommodating to satisfy the other person. While it may seem generous, it could take advantage of the weak and cause resentment. “You can use accommodating when you really don’t care a lot about the outcome but do want to preserve or build the relationship,” Dr Benoliel says, “such as going out for lunch with the boss and agreeing, ‘If you want to go for Thai food for lunch, that’s OK with me.’”
This style aims to find an expedient, mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties in the conflict while maintaining some assertiveness and cooperativeness. “This style is best to use when the outcome is not crucial and you are losing time; for example, when you want to just make a decision and move on to more important things and are willing to give a little to get the decision made,” Dr Benoliel says. “However,” she adds, “be aware that no one is really satisfied.”
Keep your eyes and ears open for changes in workplace climate and any early signs of developing conflict. Don’t turn a blind eye to symptoms of hidden conflict. Conflict can only be safely ignored if it is momentary and unlikely to escalate. Ignoring conflict may be an easy option initially, but in most cases, it does not help and will create a more difficult situation to resolve later.
Stay calm and ensure that you are able to take a considered, rational and impartial approach to the situation. If you are personally involved, you may need to ask someone else to handle the issue. Avoid the temptation to adopt the instinctive reactions of ‘fight or flight’. Neither of these approaches is constructive: ‘flight’ avoids the issue and doesn’t resolve the conflict; ‘fight’ provokes greater conflict and may intimidate the parties involved. Avoid passive behaviour - do not take an apologetic stance and accept all points of view whether they are right or wrong. Similarly, avoid aggressive behaviour – do not take an authoritarian approach and fail to listen to reasoned argument Instead, aim to take an assertive stance, while treating all parties with respect and listening to all points of view. Take care with your use of language and your body language while dealing with people involved in conflict situations. Careless or thoughtless comments can cause offence and exacerbate the conflict. Listen carefully to any evidence offered and take notes. Most importantly, be neutral and focus on the facts.
Take time to find out what has happened, who is involved, how people are feeling, and what the issues are. Don’t prejudge the issue or jump to conclusions. Speak individually and confidentially to those involved and listen actively to make sure you understand their point of view. This can be checked by summarising what they have said and reflecting it back to them. Try to identify any underlying causes of conflict which may not be immediately obvious. For example, a member of staff may be in apparent conflict with colleagues, while the root cause is their perception that a supervisor is treating them unfairly. Be aware that those involved may have differing perceptions of the same situation. Avoid being pulled into the middle of the argument and taking sides.
Having examined the situation, decide what kind of action is appropriate.
› Is this a serious matter or relatively trivial? Could it become serious?
› Should organisational discipline or grievance procedures be invoked?
› Is the matter within your sphere of authority or should it be referred to a superior?
› Are any legal issues involved? In situations where the law comes into play (e.g. the Equality Act 2010) it is advisable to consult with your HR department before you take any action
› Would the participation of a trade union representative be appropriate?
› Would it be best to make a ruling on the issue yourself, or would an informal gathering to discuss the problem be helpful? Will the parties accept your ruling?
› Is time needed for heated emotions to subside before moving forward?
The answers to these questions will help you decide what action to take. For all sorts of reasons, there may be situations where formal processes, including legal proceedings, may need to be invoked – if in doubt, consult your HR department. However, many issues can be resolved without resorting to costly legal cases.
In most cases a mutually agreed mediated solution will be more effective than an imposed solution which may leave all parties dissatisfied. Consider how you can get those involved together to exchange views and explore the issues. Do you have access to mediators (formal or informal)?
If you are able to get the parties together, you may be able to reach a satisfactory solution. Take a positive, friendly and assertive approach to the meeting and set ground rules for the session. Assertive behaviour will encourage the parties to express their thoughts honestly and openly, understand the causes of conflict and All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Find solutions. Make sure that everyone has the chance to explain their point of view and concerns. People will be more willing to relinquish entrenched positions and consider compromise if they feel that their point of view has been understood and their concerns taken on board.
The following steps may be helpful in reaching agreement:
If no progress is made, a period of reflection may help, but ultimately it may be necessary to bring in another manager or to consider external assistance from a specialist in mediation, ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) or arbitration. In these difficult cases, where complete consensus is impossible, you should aim for a way forward that is acceptable to all, even if it is not the preferred option for all parties involved.
It is important to ensure that everyone is clear about what has been decided and takes personal responsibility for any actions which have been agreed. In some cases, a written agreement may be appropriate. Be careful here if there is any embarrassment of any of the parties involved, for example, if it involves public apologies.
Don’t assume that the issue has been finally resolved. Continue to keep an eye on the situation and evaluate how well the solution is working. If the problem reappears it may be necessary to take further action.
Think about the lessons that can be learned from the conflict and the way it was handled. What could be done better next time? How could you develop your conflict management skills? You may wish to consider training or other forms of professional development on influencing, mediation or dispute resolution techniques for yourself or a colleague.
Looking at the broader context, consider what action can be taken to improve working relationships and encourage a culture of open communication and consultation. Fostering a sense of group identity and encouraging employees to see themselves as working towards a common cause is a good way of lessening conflict in the future. Consider whether an organisational procedure for dispute resolution or mediation is needed. Think about whether there is something about the way the unit works that encourage this conflicting behaviour and if this can be ‘fixed’.
Conflict resolution as a discipline has developed theoretical insights into the nature and sources of conflict and how conflicts can be resolved through peaceful methods to effectuate durable settlements.
One of the first to develop insight into the beneficial consequences of cooperation as an academic enquiry was Morton Deutsch. In his view, a number of factors like the nature of the dispute and the goals each party aims at are pivotal in determining the kind of orientation a party would bring to the negotiating table in its attempt to solve the conflict. Two basic orientations exist. These are competitive and cooperative.
Deutsch further predicts the type of interactions which would occur between negotiating parties as a result of their disputing style. Cooperative disposition of the party would evoke an atmosphere of trust and eventually lead to mutually beneficial options for settlement. On the other hand, the competitive approach leads to win-lose outcomes. This approach is inclined to intensifying animosity and distrust between parties and is generally considered destructive.
Some critics of this approach argue both cooperation and competition are essential to some extent to effectuate resolution of conflict since negotiating a desirable agreement always includes common and diverse goals. Thus finding a balance between these two approaches is the key to successful negotiation.
Other theorists who advocated cooperative conflict behaviour include Roger Fisher and William Ury. They put forward four principles for effective negotiation. These four principles are:
At each stage of the negotiation process, the above principles should be observed. Developing a method for reaching good agreements is central to this model.
This model asserts that "separate people from their problem". However, this could make matters worse if the human needs of the people are the problem. Moreover, conflicts between ethnic groups are mostly needs-based conflicts since one group feels that its basic needs of identity, security, recognition or equal participation are being neglected. Here human needs model can be more useful than an interest-based model.
John Burton's work is of immense significance in the field of human needs model. He argues when an individual or group is denied its fundamental need for identity, security, recognition or equal participation within the society, protracted conflict is inevitable. To resolve such conflict, it is essential that needs that are threatened be identified and subsequent restructuring of relationships or the social system take place in a way that needs of all individuals and groups are accommodated. For instance, this model can be useful in the case of the Maldives where there are restraints on freedom and participation of its citizens in political life.
Theorists of conflict transformation, while referring to the interest-based and the human needs models argue, a solution that satisfies each country's interests and needs could be reached through these models. However, if negative attitudes developed in each country during the conflict are not addressed, these could serve to generate further conflicts sometime later. Whereas conflict transformation aims at a fundamental change in attitude and/or behaviour of individuals and/or the relationship between two or more disputing parties.
This approach is very well exemplified in Bush and Folger's theory of transformative mediation and Lederach's model of conflict transformation. Lederach uses the term conflict resolution to refer to peacebuilding. For building peace destructive or negative communication patterns need to be transformed or replaced by constructive or positive interaction patterns. Like Bush and Folger, Lederach stresses the need to transform the disputing parties by empowering them to understand their own situation and needs, as well as encouraging them to recognize the situation and needs of their opponents.
Those theorists, who practice conflict transmutation argue that conflict transformation may transform relationships, however, it does not go far enough in addressing the underlying sources of conflict behaviour. Conflict transmutation is centred on the principles found in alchemy as a set of contemplative practices that transform deeply encrusted feeling and thoughts that fuel destructive conflict behaviour.
As we take a closer view of world events as well as mundane day to day reality of life, it becomes apparent that conflict is an indisputable fact of our physical and mental existence.
Conflict, in fact, permeates each and every strand of human existence and often takes shape of diabolic cyclical violence unless dealt with creatively and constructively. Though each conflict resolution theory has its own limitations yet conflict resolution as a discipline can be of immense significance in this respect and as we ruminate the current world politics where the power does not have qualms about resorting to force at any given opportunity, conflict resolution theories are emblematic of how military force is not always the right approach for dealing with conflict effectively.
PeopleHum is an end-to-end, one-view, integrated human capital management automation platform, the winner of the 2019 global Codie Award for HCM that is specifically built for crafted employee experiences and the future of work.Get Started Free