Keeping Away Confrontation : A Competitive Level Of Problem Solution

A collaborating style is a type of conflict management style that is “high in both assertiveness and cooperativeness.” When I took the “Where Are You on the Grid?” In Family Communication I got a 31 on collaborating. I also took a quiz on Buzzfeed called “How Blunt Are You Actually?” And I was deemed “Very Blunt”. The quiz elaborated and said “You’re incredibly honest, but you know the line between honest and mean.” I personally, believe communication is more efficient when an individual says whatever they need to say. While there is fine line between mean and honest, I have defiantly found that working as a Student Advisor. The book mentioned collaborating requires individuals to “integrate the needs of both parties to the conflict so that

Conflict is something that some people can't handle it.how people best respond to conflict'i am Malala'' she responded to conflict by trying to make a difference in peoples lives when things were not ate their best​ she really tried to make a difference in the world not with her hands but with the most important thing in the world her voice she spoke out to people who gave up in the world to try and them to rise up and also speak what they think is right and what needs to change if they want the people to remain neutral,to all that they are doing wrong to all the people. the Taliban hated how malala spoke out and tried to gain people's trust but the Taliban wanted the people to remain scared and helpless because if all the people spoke

These pages are about resolving conflict and they have a few strategies, but they list avoiding as a short term fix. The articles say “You avoid mostly as a short term strategy, recognizing that conflict will not go away.” Sometimes, people can’t understand the situation, and this is what the article says, “Avoiding is a helpful response to conflict when you are too upset to deal with the situation rationally.” Avoiding also means that you don’t particularly care, “To avoid is to decide that the relationship, nor achieving your goals is

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)

The avoidance strategy can be a positive approach because it can reduce tension between two parties because there are more similarities than differences between them. Avoidance can also be positive because these groups of people will be more productive by facilitating

This involves analyzing the issue and determining what you want the outcome to be. Nancy Foster states that “Resolving conflicts is a creative act. There are many solutions to a single problem.” Addressing the conflict can be a positive experience for both sides because it helps them achieve the best results for everyone. If people do not address the problem directly, the situation can fester and escalate into a far more serious situation. According to Naomi Drew, “In this era of school and workplace shootings, road rage, airport rage, and even supermarket rage, knowing how to resolve conflicts can save a life.” Unresolved conflicts can lead to explosive arguments and potentially violent situations. A possible reason for avoiding conflict is that the parties feel uncomfortable and hope that turning their backs on it will make it go away. However, avoiding a conflict means that it is not resolved. If something has been swept under the rug it sits in the background and can come up again at any

For centuries, violence has been the go to way to settle conflicts, but it has also been very controversial throughout the years. While some say war is important in order to maintain our freedom, it is actually a very unnecessary and destructive way of settling conflicts because it kills so many innocent people and it hardly ever accomplishes anything for such a hefty price.

What bothered me most about the book were the six strategies for effective confrontation. I’ve always had with confronting conflict in my life; I would avoid it at any and every cost. My biggest issue was confronting without offending. I was a great listener, so that was not the problem. I could negotiate future behavior, even though I never address the issue. Releasing the offender was not a problem for me because forgiveness of others was easy, forgive myself was hard. Owning the problem went hand and hand with forgiveness, but the two that did me in was speaking the right words and preparing for the encounter. Pegues stated in the book that “words are our tools of communication. They never die. They live on and on in the heart

By doing so we disconnect ourselves from our emotions and can focus on our BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) to decide whether it is a wise decision to negotiate. It is important to recognize the tactic the other party may play to make us react to the situation. They may either plat stone walls (demonstrate no flexibility), may attack by forcing us and making us uncomfortable (so that you surrender to the situation ) or may play tricks such as manipulating the data and making additional last minute demand. Identifying the tactic played helps to neutralize its effect. It is also important to recognize what we are feeling by the tactics played or to the emotional susceptibilities i.e. hot buttons. Once we have recognized them, we can then prepare to control your natural reaction when the other party triggers our hot buttons. The author suggests not taking decisions on the spot, instead suggests buying time. He recommends either pausing or taking a break to buy time for oneself for going to the balcony.

Collaboration can help the professionals learn from one another’s skills and help them to identify their own useful skills. This can motivate professionals on diving deeper with specific topics and furthering their knowledge and education in order to benefit not only themselves, but everyone that they work with.

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.

The Collaborating tactic may be used when your whole objective on the conflict is to learn. Also it is a good idea to use the Collaborating tactic when you want to work through feeling that have interfered with the relationship with the other person in the conflict. Competing tactic is excellent when you want to cut the through all of the non sense and get to a resolution of the conflict quickly. When quick decisive resolutions are very important, or when people attempt to disagree with you and your right without a doubt. The last tactic that Rahim and Magner talk about is the Compromising tactic. This is good for when, goals are important to you but they are not worth all the trouble they may cause. To achieve rather quick and easy resolutions to rather complex disagreements

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 trying to resolve the conflict between Reece and Patel, Edwards used an avoidance strategy. Instead of speaking directly about the root causes, or sources, of the conflict, Edwards focused on the behaviors and treated Reece and Patel like children. Edwards scolded them, and sent them off without bothering to find out what was bothering the two. Of course, this type of conflict resolution is ineffective because it fails to address the underlying issues. As Anderson (n.d.) points out, addressing the problem is key to conflict resolution. "When a conflict does happen, a manager needs to focus the conflicting parties on the issue and have them leave out any personal problems they may be having," (Anderson, n.d.).

Conflict is inevitable and occurs all around us all the time. Conflict is not about whether something is good or bad, but what is important is how we deal with this conflict. There are many types of conflict and one prominent conflict that I remember in my life is an intragroup conflict. This was in grade 10, when I and three others were working on a Business ED project. The conflict was that I had a really good idea and I was expressing my opinion, but my groupmates were not listening and kept constantly interrupting or calling my idea stupid. This led to a buildup of a lot of tension between us and therefore affected our teamwork as we ended up not working efficiently towards our goal of a good mark. The resolution style I used for this particular conflict was avoidance. This is because eventually, I just let my idea go and just did as the other people in my group said and suppressed my own opinions. This conflict was left unresolved and resulted in us getting a lower mark than expected in the project. At this point, I was thinking of just submitting to their wants and letting my opinions get put to the side. Although I did not act like I was angry on the outside, like most other avoiding individuals, I built up my anger by not releasing it, which in the end just went away. Also, I became less verbal and let the other three lead rather than taking an active role in this project. One advantage of avoiding a conflict is that for a short-term, it allows us to delay solving and facing the issue, giving us time to think about solutions. Another advantage is that individuals that avoid conflict tend to help calm the atmosphere down and realize that the conflict will most likely resolve itself, which was also what I believed for my conflict. However, this tends to make these individuals deny and avoid the conflict entirely, sometimes making it even worse. Also, avoiding a conflict leads to the opinions and needs of those individuals get suppressed, which also happened to me. Avoiding this conflict led the situation to never get resolved, and because of this, I still do not really talk to those individuals. So, for this intragroup conflict scenario, I used the conflict resolution