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