Theory of conflict management

Conflict is defined as disagreement between individuals. It can vary from a mild disagreement to a win-or-lose, emotion-packed, confrontation (Kirchoff and Adams, 1982). There are two theories of conflict management. y The traditional theory is based on the assumption that conflicts are bad, are caused by trouble makers, and should be subdued. y Contemporary theory recognizes that conflicts between human beings are unavoidable. They emerge as a natural result of change and can be beneficial to the organization, if managed efficiently. Current theory (Kirchoff and Adams, 1982) considers innovation as a mechanism for bringing together various ideas and viewpoints into a new and different fusion. An atmosphere of tension, and hence conflict, is thus essential in any organization committed to developing or working with new ideas.

Conflict management involves implementing strategies to limit the negative aspects of conflict and to increase the positive aspects of conflict at a level equal to or higher than where the conflict is taking place. Furthermore, the aim of conflict management is to enhance learning and group outcomes (effectiveness or performance in organizational setting) (Rahim, 2002, p. 208). It is not concerned with eliminating all conflict or avoiding conflict. Conflict can be valuable to groups and organizations. It has been shown to increase group outcomes when managed properly (e.g. Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 2000; Bodtker & Jameson, 2001; Rahim & Bonoma, 1979; Khun & Poole, 2000; DeChurch & Marks, 2001).

Conflict
While no single definition of conflict exists, most definitions seem to involve the following factors: that there are at least two independent groups, the groups perceive some incompatibility between themselves, and the groups interact with each other in some way (Putnam and Poole, 1987). Two example definitions are, process in which one party perceives that its interests are being opposed or negatively affected by another party" (Wall & Callister, 1995, p. 517), and the interactive process manifested in compatibility, disagreement, or dissonance within or between social entities (Rahim, 1992, p. 16). There are several causes of conflict. Conflict may occur when:
y y y y

A party is required to engage in an activity that is incongruent with his or her needs or interests. A party holds behavioral preferences, the satisfaction of which is incompatible with another person's implementation of his or her preferences. A party wants some mutually desirable resource that is in short supply, such that the wants of all parties involved may not be satisfied fully. A party possesses attitudes, values, skills, and goals that are salient in directing his or her behavior but are perceived to be exclusive of the attitudes, values, skills, and goals held by the other(s). Two parties have partially exclusive behavioral preferences regarding their joint actions.

Two parties are interdependent in the performance of functions or activities.

Models of Conflict Management

There have been many styles of conflict management behavior that have been researched in the past century. One of the earliest, Mary Parker Follett (1926/1940) found that conflict was managed by individuals in three main ways: domination, compromise, and integration. She also found other ways of handling conflict that were employed by organizations, such as avoidance and suppression.

Early Conflict Management Models

Blake and Mouton (1964) were among the first to present a conceptual scheme for classifying the modes (styles) for handling interpersonal conflicts into five types: forcing, withdrawing, smoothing, compromising, and problem solving. In the 1970s and 1980s, researchers began using the intentions of the parties involved to classify the styles of conflict management that they would include in their models. Both Thomas (1976) and Pruitt (1983) put forth a model based on the concerns of the parties involved in the conflict. The combination of the parties concern for their own interests (i.e. assertiveness) and their concern for the interests of those across the table (i.e cooperativeness) would yield a particular conflict management style. Pruitt called these styles yielding (low assertiveness/high cooperativeness), problem solving (high assertiveness/high cooperativeness), inaction (low assertiveness/low cooperativeness), and contending (high assertiveness/low cooperativeness). Pruitt argues that problem-solving is the preferred method when seeking mutually beneficial options.

Kozans Group Conflict Management Models

In the 1990s and 2000s, research began to focus more on models that would explain how conflict is managed within groups and organizations. Kozan (1997) established three normative (not prescriptive) models of group conflict management.
1. Confrontational model - In this model, conflicts are made of multiple sub-issues which are broken down and confronted by both parties. Both sides of the conflict are openly acknowledged, and a sense of reasonable compromise is important to the success of the resolution of the sub-issues involved. 2. Harmony model - In this model, conflict is managed mostly though avoiding it. This is accomplished through the observation of societal and organizational norms. Conflict is not seen as an opportunity to find solutions to problems, but as a harmful state of affairs. When conflict does occur, it is often handled through mediation by third parties.

3. Regulative model - In the regulative model, conflict is handled by strict rules and regulations. Bureaucratic means are used extensively to minimize conflicts or to aid conflict avoidance. When conflicts occur, they are defined in terms of general principles and resolved in a predetermined fashion.

Khun and Pooles Model

Khun and Poole (2000) established a similar system of group conflict management. In their system, they split Kozans confrontational model into two sub models: distributive and integrative.
y

Distributive - Here conflict is approached as a distribution of a fixed amount of positive outcomes or resources, where one side will end up winning and the other losing, even if they do win some concessions. Integrative - Groups utilizing the integrative model see conflict as a chance to integrate the needs and concerns of both groups and make the best outcome possible. This model has a heavier emphasis on compromise than the distributive model. Kuhun and Poole found that the integrative model resulted in consistently better task related outcomes than those using the distributive model.

DeChurch and Markss Meta-Taxonomy

DeChurch and Marks (2001) examined the literature available on conflict management at the time and established what they claimed was a "meta-taxonomy" that encompasses all other models. They argued that all other styles have inherent in them into two dimensions - activeness ("the extent to which conflict behaviors make a responsive and direct rather than inert and indirect impression") and agreeableness ("the extent to which conflict behaviors make a pleasant and relaxed rather than unpleasant and strainful impression"). High activeness is characterized by openly discussing differences of opinion while fully going after their own interest. High agreeableness is characterized by attempting to satisfy all parties involved In the study they conducted to validate this division, activeness did not have a significant effect on the effectiveness of conflict resolution, but the agreeableness of the conflict management style, whatever it was, did in fact have a positive impact on how groups felt about the way the conflict was managed, regardless of the outcome.

Current Conflict Management

Rahim (2002) noted that there is agreement among management scholars that there is no one best approach to how to make decisions, lead or manage conflict. In a similar vein, rather than

creating a very specific model of conflict management, Rahim created a meta-model (in much the same way that DeChurch and Marks, 2001, created a meta-taxonomy) for conflict styles based on two dimensions, concern for self and concern for others (as shown in Figure 2). Within this framework are five management approaches: integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising. Integration involves openness, exchanging information, looking for alternatives, and examining differences so solve the problem in a manner that is acceptable to both parties. Obliging is associated with attempting minimize the differences and highlight the commonalities to satisfy the concern of the other party. When using the dominating style one party goes all out to win his or her objective and, as a result, often ignores the needs and expectations of the other party. When avoiding a party fails to satisfy his or her own concern as well as the concern of the other party. Lastly, compromising involves give-and-take whereby both parties give up something to make a mutually acceptable decision. (Rahim, 2002). See the table on the right, as a quick reference for when a particular conflict management style is appropriate / inappropriate.

How to manage conflict

Overall conflict management should aim to minimize affective conflicts at all levels, attain and maintain a moderate amount of substantive conflict, and use the appropriate conflict management strategy--to effectively bring about the first two goals, and also to match the status and concerns of the two parties in conflict (Rahim, 2002). In order for conflict management strategies to be effective, they should satisfy certain criteria. The below criteria are particularly useful for not only conflict management, but also decision making in management.

International Conflict Management

Special consideration should be paid to conflict management between two parties from distinct cultures. In addition to the everyday sources of conflict, "misunderstandings, and from this counterproductive, pseudo conflicts, arise when members of one culture are unable to understand culturally determined differences in communication practices, traditions, and thought processing" (Borisoff & Victor, 1989). Indeed, this has already been observed in the business research literature. Renner (2007) recounted several episodes where managers from developed countries moved to less developed countries to resolve conflicts within the company and met with little success due to their failure to adapt to the conflict management styles of the local culture. As an example, in Kozans study noted above, he noted that Asian cultures are far more likely to use a harmony model of conflict management. If a party operating from a harmony model comes in conflict with a party using a more confrontational model, misunderstandings above and beyond those generated by the conflict itself will arise.

International conflict management, and the cultural issues associated with it, is one of the primary areas of research in the field at the time, as existing research is insufficient to deal with the ever increasing contact occurring between international entities. Conflict Management Strategies

5 types :
y y y y y

orcing - using formal authority or other power that you possess to satisfy your concerns without regard to the concerns of the party that you are in conflict with. Accommodating - allowing the other party to satisfy their concerns while neglecting your own. Avoiding - not paying attention to the conflict and not taking any action to resolve it. Compromising - attempting to resolve a conflict by identifying a solution that is partially satisfactory to both parties, but completely satisfactory to neither. Collaborating - cooperating with the other party to understand their concerns and expressing your own concerns in an effort to find a mutually and completely satisfactory solution (win-win).

Research on conflict management styles has found that each of us tends to use one or two of the above five strategies more than the others. For instance, some people predominantly use collaborating when in interpersonal conflict situations. In other words, although there are five different ways to handle conflicts, such a person is more likely to collaborate than they are to force, accommodate, avoid, or compromise. There are many advantages to using a collaborating strategy to handle interpersonal conflict situations. Collaborating with the other party promotes creative problem solving, and it's a way of fostering mutual respect and rapport. However, collaborating takes time, and many conflict situations are either very urgent or too trivial to justify the time it takes to collaborate. There are many conflict situations that should be handled with one of the other four conflict management strategies rather than collaboration. Managers who are very skilled at conflict management are able to (a) understand interpersonal conflict situations and (b) use the appropriate conflict management strategy for each situation.

Three Types of Conflict Management that Work

By: Jaceson Maughan Workplace conflict is commonplace, but managers who can incorporate certain types of conflict management strategies that work will soon be able to achieve their goals and minimize disruptions. Managers will successfully eliminate conflicts and turn the situation into a problem-solving opportunity that will ultimately benefit the entire office. Collaboration: This conflict management strategy is considered one of the most successful, but it needs the right environment to work. The idea is that both sides work together in a spirit of teamwork to reach goals and preserve relationships. It works best when there is a long-term business relationship in place and the common goals are what is best for the company.

An example of a collaborative conflict management strategy is this: Employees are notified that the company health care insurance policy will change and there are meetings held to review and choose a new plan. Some want a plan that offers a lower deductible with more limited options, while others seek a more comprehensive plan with a higher deductible. Collaborating allows employees to choose the plan that best suits the company as a whole. Compromise: This strategy requires both sides to give up something to gain something they feel is greater. It is best utilized in a situation where both sides are fairly equal in status and neither side puts forward too many demands. Ultimately, the solutions put in place cannot be in direct opposition to the long-term goals of the group or company. An example of compromise conflict management is: One group of employees is outraged that their work is made harder because of something that another group is failing to do. Both parties feel the duty belongs to the other. A compromise would allow both parties to restructure the flow of work and agree to take on shared aspects of the duty so neither side is overburdened. Force: This is a type of conflict management strategy that is effective in certain situations where time and decision-making abilities are most important. This situation works best when there is a formal authority that can be exercised or a conflict is potentially destructive or disruptive to the company. It can have drawbacks, as this method rarely addresses the concerns of the other party. However, many managers use this style to cease hostilities and end nonproductive behavior. Then they can revisit and resolve the underlying issues at a later time. An example of force conflict management is: Workers who use some expensive heavy-duty machinery have figured out a way to affect the performance of the machinery in an untested and unproven way. When the workaround is brought to management's attention, the manager demonstrates how the action puts the company in non-compliance and the practice will not be tolerated. Employees insist that it makes the job easier and they are willing to take the risks. The manager makes it a policy that any employee caught performing the workaround will be disciplined.

Conflict Resolution, Conflict Avoidance and Controversy Management

Communication both breeds and resolves conflict and controversy. Learn how to effectively resolve conflict and manage organizational controversy. Here are your keys to conflict resolution, conflict avoidance problems and controversy management. Workplace Conflict Resolution With People As an organization leader, manager or supervisor, you are responsible for creating a work environment that enables people to thrive. If turf wars, conflicts, disagreements and differences of opinion escalate into interpersonal conflict, you must intervene immediately. Conflict resolution, with you as mediator, is essential. Conflict resolution is an immediate priority for your organization. Overcome Your Fear of Confrontation and Necessary Conflict Meaningful confrontation is never easy but conflict is often necessary if you want to stick up for your rights at work. Whether the confrontation is over shared credit, irritating coworker habits and approaches, or to keep a project on track, sometimes you need to hold a confrontation with a

coworker. The good news is that while confrontation is almost never your first choice, you can become better and more comfortable with necessary conflict.

Four Basic Categories of Conflict

Intrapersonal [within a person]- Incompatibilities within a person's cognitive-informational processing system having to do with Goals, Actions, Outcomes. Interpersonal [between people]- Incompatibilities between the GAO's of two, or a few, people Intragroup [within a group]- Incompatibilities between two or more people in a group concerning the GAO's of the individuals, and those of the group. It can also be an incompatibility between the GAO of an individual and those of a group. Intergroup [between groups]- Incompatibilities between various members whose GAO's are incompatible with each other, but are consistent with those of their respective groups. ("Intra"=within; "Intrapersonal"= within a person "Intragroup"=within a group "Inter"=between; "Interpersonal"=between people "Intergroup"=between groups) For more information, see the WikEd conflict page.

Resolution Strategies
Gather new information: To process new information that helps an individual or group modify their incompatible Goals, Actions, and/or Outcomes, or perceptions of them. (Upon gaining new information, people in conflict may realize that they are not in conflict after all, or need not be.) Therapy: To engage the services of a trained professional to help an individual or group understand their GAO's. Fight: To win by imposing one's point of view at the expense of the other disputant's. Flight: To lose by strategically opting out of the conflict because the calculated risks of fight (or other strategies) are too high. Avoidance: To postpone until a later time dealing with the conflict in anticipation of some type of resolution which is not eminently available. Negotiation: Disputants discuss in a rather formal way, the incompatible GAO's between two individuals or groups with the express intent of understanding each other's viewpoints, and reaching a win-win solution. Negotiation is like Mediation without the 3rd party. Communication is key in this method.

 Mediation: When a neutral third party facilitates the negotiation process so that power, articulation and knowledge differences are neutralized. There are four main types of meditation (see next section). Arbitration: When a neutral third party directs the negotiation process and renders a "fair" solution to the conflict. (This sort of directive strategy is often used by teachers.) Litigation: When the disputants empower the justice system to render a solution to their conflicts. Most of the time, the system is so complicated that each disputant must engage an attorney to represent his/her side of the conflict. Most conflicts are resolved by negotiation between the attorneys; only about 5% of cases are left to a judge or jury to decide. In these final two strategies, arbitration and litigation, disputants give up their power of negotiation to an attorney.

The Five Most Common Types of Conflict In The Workplace

1. Interdependence Conflicts. A person's job depends on someone else's co-operation, output or input. For example a sales-person is constantly late inputting the monthly sales figures which causes the accountant to be late with her reports. 2. Differences in Style. People's style for completing a job can differ. For example, one person may just want to get the work done quickly (task oriented), while another is more concerned about having it done a particular way e.g. artistic or by including other people in the project. 3. Differences in Background/Gender. Conflicts can arise between people because of differences in educational backgrounds, personal experiences, ethnic heritage, gender and political preferences. 4. Differences in Leadership. Leaders have different styles. Employees who change from one supervisor to another can become confused, for example one leader may be more open and inclusive whilst another may be more directive. 5. Personality Clashes. These types of conflict in the workplace are often fueled by emotion and perceptions about somebody else's motives and character. For example a team leader jumps on someone for being late because she perceives the team member as being lazy and inconsiderate. The team member sees the team leader as out to get him.
Conflict Resolution : Conflict Resolution Confrontation and Problem-Solving Constructive Handling of Criticism Negotiating and Bargaining

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Techniques : Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Techniques Facilitation: Third party gets disputants to deal directly and constructively with each other. Conciliation: Neutral third party acts as communication link between disputants. Peer review: Impartial co-workers hear both sides and render decision that may or may not be binding. Ombudsman: Respected and trusted member of the organization hears grievances confidentially. Mediation: Trained third-party guides disputants toward their own solution. Arbitration: Neutral third-party hears both sides in a court-like setting and renders a binding decision.