Conflict Management: Definition And Different Styles

  • Words 1426
  • Pages 3
Download PDF

Conflict Management is a process in which disputes can be sensibly, objectively and effectively defined and managed. Because business disputes are a natural part of the workforce, it is important for people to understand and learn how to resolve conflicts. This is more relevant than ever in today’s market. Everyone tries to show how important they are to the organization for which they operate and, at times, this can contribute to conflicts with other team members.

Styles in conflict management Conflicts arise. How an individual responds or handles disputes can impair and allow the effectiveness of the employee. There are five confrontation types that the director will use according to Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann: a host leader is an individual with a high degree of communication. It can be at the detriment of the director himself to actually work against his own goals, objectives and expected performance. That approach works if the other party is the specialist or has a better solution.

Click to get a unique essay

Our writers can write you a new plagiarism-free essay on any topic

Avoiding an issue is one strategy for a director to try to resolve a dispute. This type of conflict does not encourage other employees to accomplish their goals and does not benefit the director who ignores the dilemma and cannot support his or her own priorities. It functions especially well if the question is insignificant or if the director has no chance to win.

Operating together, executives become allies or couples to accomplish both of their targets. This is how administrators break away from the win – win model to search for the win – win. This can be useful if the supervisors need a novel solution to complex scenarios.

Competition: That’s the win-lose strategy. A director behaves in a very strict manner by trying to partner with other workers to accomplish their own objectives, and it can be at the cost of the others. That method can be ideal in situations where space is necessary.

Compromising: This is the losing situation in which no person or director really accomplishes what they want. This needs a moderate degree of engagement and collaboration. It may be ideal in situations that need a temporary solution or that both parties have equally important goals.

Conflict can occur in any situation involving more than one human. Conflict triggers vary from philosophical differences and divergent motives to power imbalances. Unmanaged and poorly managed disputes contribute to moral collapse and loss of productivity. For small businesses where progress always relies on the unity of a few, loss of confidence and profitability may mark the death of the company. With a fundamental understanding of the five conflict management techniques, small-scale businesses may handle conflict best before they go beyond repair.

Accommodation The tactic basically requires supplying the opposite side with what it needs. The use of mediation also happens when one group wants to maintain stability and sees the issue as trivial. For instance, an organization that requires formal clothing might enforce a ‘casual Friday’ policy in order to maintain peace with the rank and file in low stakes. Nevertheless, workers who use housing as a primary strategy of conflict management will control and anger.

Avoiding The evasive tactic tries forever to delay confrontation. The opponent assumes that the conflict can be settled without violence by avoiding and overlooking the fight. Those who actively avoid confrontation often have little respect or a low power role. In certain cases, avoidance may be a profitable strategy for conflict management, for instance after a famous yet unproductive worker is fired. The recruitment of a more efficient job substitute alleviates many of the tension.

Collaboration operates by multiple people’s synthesis of concepts. The goal is to find a creative approach that is appropriate to all. The teamwork requires a significant contribution to resources, not appropriate for all disputes. For example, the owner of a business must work with the supervisor in order to develop strategies, but cooperative decision-making regarding office supplies waste more time on other tasks.

The negotiation approach typically requires all sides of the conflict to surrender aspects of its position to find an appropriate, if not reasonable, solution. This technique most often prevails in disputes where the parties have about the same strength. Throughout contract negotiations with other firms, business owners often use concessions when each side has to sacrifice something important, like a client or a required product.

Competition functions as a zero-sum game in which one side wins and another loses. Highly motivated individuals frequently fall back on rivalry as a tool of conflict management. In a small number of conflicts, such as disasters, the strategic strategy works well. Generally speaking, the business owners profit by reserving their competitive strategy for disasters or aggressive actions such as wage cuts and lay-offs.

A conflict arises when the desires, requirements, goals and principles of the parties concerned intervene. Conflicts are normal and necessary in the workforce. Various participants may have different priorities; conflicts may impact team members, teams, programs, companies and clients, manager or subordinate organizations and their needs. A disagreement is often a product of interpretation. Was peace bad? Is tension bad? Not needed. Not actually. Often there are incentives for change in a dispute. Nonetheless, various conflict resolution methods should be recognized.

Rivalry against opposition from another man, an entity firmly pursues his / her own concerns. This may include promoting one point of view at the detriment of someone else and sustaining strong opposition to the actions of another.

In certain cases when any other option, less coercive, is not effective or ineffectual when you need to protect your own interests, avoid provocation and intimidation when it is necessary to resolve issues quickly and use force (e.g., life-threatening situations to prevent violence) Cooperation involves trying to work with the other person to find a win – win solution to the problem at hand-the one that better satisfies the two parties ‘ problems. The win – win strategy views conflict resolution as an incentive for a mutually beneficial result. This involves recognizing the fundamental issues of your adversary and seeking a solution that addresses the needs of every faction.

When it is necessary for other entities to have agreement and agreements In a collaborative environment if working with various partners requires a high level of trust when a long-term relationship is essential when you have to work through hard emotions, resentment, etc. For the same cause, teamwork cannot be feasible if time becomes critical and a quick solution or reply becomes needed If one or more parties loses their confidence in an adversary, the connection falls back to other forms of conflict resolution. A win – win outcome cannot be obvious. Both interested entities must therefore pursue joint efforts to maintain a cooperative partnership, which is also defined as negotiation. Compromising finds a compromise that is expedient and mutually acceptable and respects all parties.

The objectives are reasonably significant and are not worth using more assertive or more active methods, such as pressuring and co-operating to achieve a provisional resolution of complex issues, to arrive at reasonable solutions to major issues. Compromise may become more realistic if time is a consideration Can provide a temporary solution while still finding a win – win solution Reduces conflict-related stress and conflicts Any warnings on compromising: may lead to a situation in which the participants are not satisfied with the outcome (a lose-loose situation) This is when an individual does not follow his own or his opponent’s concerns. The dispute is not dealt with, but is suspended, delayed and completely removed.

Definitions of where withdrawing can be appropriate: if it’s insignificant and not necessary If important issues are required and you don’t have time to deal with them In cases where postponing the answer is better for you, for instance— if it’s not the right time to deal with the problem Withdrawing strategy involves some skills and experience without having a negative impact on your own role. If several parties are involved, withdrawing can adversely affect your partnership with a group who needs your intervention. Smoothing usually tackles certain people’s concerns rather than prioritizing one’s own problems. (Kindler,2009).

It is necessary to provide a temporary relief from confrontation and purchase a period of time, until you are in an ideal position to react and push back when the issue is not so important to you as it is for the other party. Therefore, it is important to ensure the right balance, which needs certain expertise that can influence the confidence in the ability to react to an offensive adversary. It will make it harder for some backers to turn into a win – win strategy in the future. 


We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.