Conflict Management Analysis

There are five conflict-handling styles: Forcing Style, Collaborating Style, Compromising Style, Avoiding Style and Accommodating Style. The compromising style “refers to behaviors at an intermediate level of cooperation and assertiveness. (Hellriegel, Slocum pg. 392) ” The person using is style tries to meet a goal by give-and-take. The accommodating style “refers to cooperative and unassertive behavior. (Hellriegel, Slocum pg. 393) ” The person using this style tries to accomplish a goal by using unselfish acts that will promote cooperation in others by complying with their wishes. The collaborating style “refers to high levels of cooperative and assertive behavior. (Hellriegel, Slocum pg. 391) ” The person using this style is using a win-win approach to working with others and handling conflict. When the CEO of General Hospital, Mike Hammer first attempted to control physician-driven cost he used the collaborating style by trying to convince the Director of

In resolving conflict, ask the question, “How do we keep this from happening again?” The first thing is to be objective. This helps in managing conflict by keeping team members focused on the problem at hand (Huber, 2007)

The collaborative style views conflicts as problems to be solved and finding creative solutions that satisfy all the parties’ concerns. You don’t give up your self interest; you dig into the issue to identify the underlying concerns, test your own assumptions, and understand the views of others. Collaboration takes time and if the relationship among the parties is not important, then it may not be worth the time and energy to create a win-win solution. However, collaboration fosters respect, trust, and builds relationships. To make an environment more collaborative, address the conflict directly and in a way that expresses willingness for all parties to get what they need.

Separate assessments of my conflict style reveal that I have become primarily attuned with the integrating style of conflict management, which came as no surprise to me, as I found the results of the assessments to be accurate. However, the assessments also showed that I was nearly equal in the compromising style, leading them to be a near tie. I would be the first to admit that his has not always been the case. It has taken a fair amount of life experience and focused effort in order to move away from the predominate style of compromise

There are different conflict management styles, the dictatorial style, which insists that things are addressed their way and the low self -esteem style, which just allows others to have it their way. It is up to the individual to decide which way works for them. Additionally, the abdicator handles conflict by bowing out or walking away. This method is unhealthy because it robs the offended growth opportunity, which results from working through issues (Pegues, 2009, p.49). Another style is the collaborator, which often involves cooperation and pulling together to reach a common purpose and are emotionally balanced.

I find that my desire to avoid can put off the wrong vibe to those under my care. The last thing I want people to think of me when it comes to conflict is that I attempt to avoid it at all cost. That can be casted in a negative light. The greatest room for improvement for me in this area is using this style more out of habit than using it when necessary. Since I scored high, there is a good chance I am overusing this style. I have to be more intentional in how I deal with conflict. Though I tend to see conflict as a disruption in the flow and the work at hand and in my opinion it causes unnecessary stress so I only attempt to address it when it is unavoidable. This can hurt my leadership position in a lot of cases and I must learn to use it

Effective managers are successful within the workgroup and organization when a style is used to resolve a conflict. People do experience conflict in their lives. There has always been a lot of interest in how to manage conflict once it appears in the open, and that is important. What is not so common is a concern for preventing unnecessary conflict, so it does not start in the first place. Managers are capable of using all five resolutions skills to deal with conflict in the workplace.

Competition is when an individual “achieves a victory through force, superior skill, or domination”. This type of approach fails to address the root cause of the conflict and suppresses the desires of other conflicting individuals; therefore resulting in future conflicts over the same issues. Collaboration is when all conflicting parties recognize something is wrong and needs attention. This is an ideal approach. When collaborating, groups respect each others ideas, opinions, and suggestions, and understand each others point of view. This allows group members to eventually accept the logic of a different point of view and accept that logic; therefore resulting in a consensus. Compromise is when each group gives up something of value to the other group. This is an appropriate approach when: there is insufficient time, issue not worth time or energy, or there’s no realistic or easy agreement.

It is highly crucial that we understand conflict management and why it is important in our day to day lives because conflict can arise at any given time in one’s professional life. Thus, understanding conflict management will give us more insight on how we can cope and deal with workplace related conflict.

Integrating; this style of conflict management is concerned with identification of joint problem, confrontation of attitude and proposing the possible solution for the conflict. This style of conflict management is more effective for solving complex issues. Additionally, this style of conflict management tends to be more effective in long run. However, this style of conflict management may not be effective in managing the conflicts that surface out of differing values of employees.

The text book describes conflict as “a process that begins when one party perceives another party has or is about to negatively affect something the first party cares about.” There are different views on dealing with conflict. There is the traditional view that seeks to eliminate any conflict and the interaction group that seek to use conflict as a stepping stone to greater things. Conflict can arise in any situation and, following the managed conflict view, it is not necessarily something to be push under the table but something to

52). This common belief among users of this style drives them to search for answers using all of the tools at the team’s disposal. The different dynamics of the team become assets. They see the differences that distinguish the members of the team as points of view are respected and viewed objectively. Differences like a male versus a female’s perspective, race, culture, and even social or economic status are viewpoints that give all in the team a bigger picture of the different issues they may need to consider when coming to a conclusion about how best to achieve their goal. Though this style is thought of as the best route for teams to use, it is also one of the most difficult. Even a person who has a natural talent or personality that promotes this style of conflict management has to practice to be effective using this style in a team setting. A person cannot be judgmental and must be sure not to take anything said personally. This is something that most if not all of the team members must have an awareness of. All team members have to feel comfortable with the results and with what was given up from their own personal point of view to arrive at the team’s decision. This style is also very demanding so it requires a good amount of patience. Depending on how quick a decision is needed it is not always possible for a team to achieve and some in the team may not believe that their best interests were achieved.

In order to reach a collaborative solution, a team must work to resolve conflict in a productive manner. Avoidance is one resolution strategy many teams use. Avoidance is not a valid resolution strategy in most instances though. Avoidance sweeps conflict aside in order for the team to pursue more productive avenues. “If the conflict is not central to the work of the team, it may be best to set it aside so that the important work of the team can proceed” (Porter, ρ.3). Only under these circumstances should avoidance be used. Another technique, compromise, is similar to avoidance. Compromise is when “each person gives up something for the sake of agreement” (Porter, ρ.4). Again, this method does not produce the best results as it fails to address the entire issue and can force certain members of a team to concede points that would be

Conscientiousness, agreeableness, introversion and openness to experience all contribute to my conflict management style where I value cooperation and collaboration. Which would place me into a cooperativeness style of conflict management as identified by Yelsma and Brown (1985) and a collaboration and problem style approach by identified by Daves and Hollands’ (1989) revision of Follett (1924) conflict styles approach. Personality theories created by Freud, Jung and Adler are constantly being refined by current researchers and have been used to link personality attributes to conflict management styles with the belief that individual behaviour is inherently influence by personality (Daves & Holland, 1989).

The second form of conflict management is Compromising. This form brings along the idea that losing something is adequate when an individual gains a little. Both sides come to the middle to help serve the team and project on hand while making it possible for each person to maintain a portion of his or her original idea. The drawbacks of using this method are values and objectives can be lost in the process if they are compromised. Some of the demands from the other side may be too severe to come to a middle ground on. This method can also create other conflict if no respect for the compromise or the other team members exists. When this method is used to its full potential people of equal roles are equally committed to the team. “When the issue is to complex to just abandon the others ideas or perspectives and when the specific task that is being dealt with is only moderately important.” (Improving group, organizational or team dynamics when conflict occurs, 2008)