Managing Conflict

I. Interpersonal conflict management. The chapter begins with the observation that too much agreement or a lack of conflict among managers in organizations is a leading cause of business failure. Managing disagreements and conflicts are needed to break the cycles of dysfunction in organizations that can result from groupthink, narrow-mindedness, overconfidence, or complacency. The increasing globalization of business and greater diversity in organizations are trends that also fuel the need to be able to manage disagreements in organizations. Conflict can spark creativity, energy, and personal improvement, when it is managed in constructive ways. As most are aware, mismanaged conflict can result in destructive effects sapping energy, destroying creativity, and weakening interpersonal relationships. Mixed feelings about conflict Many people intellectually accept the value of conflict but in practice, feel uncomfortable when they themselves get involved in conflict situations. The example of Ross Perot on GMs board and the experiment involving a Devils advocate in groups illustrate this tendency. These mixed feelings may result from a lack of understanding of the causes and forms of interpersonal conflict or a lack of confidence in ones ability to manage it effectively. Four key points should be emphasized about conflict 1. Interpersonal conflict in organizations is inevitable. 2. Conflicts over issues or facts enhance the practice of management. 3. Despite the intellectual acceptance of the value of conflict, there is a widespread tendency to avoid it. 4. The key to increasing ones comfort level with conflict is to become proficient in managing all forms of interpersonal disputes (both productive and unproductive conflicts). The remainder of the chapter addresses how to develop the skills needs to manage conflict. II. Diagnosing the type of interpersonal conflict. The first step to managing conflict is developing the ability to diagnose types, or focus of conflict, and the sources of conflict. Figure 7.2 provides a helpful framework for diagnosing conflict. Conflict focus Conflicts can be categorized as being focused on people or issues. People-focused conflicts refer to negative conflicts - the kinds of confrontations where there is intense emotional heat. These may involve accusations of harm, injustice, or feelings of resentment between conflicting parties. Over time, these thoughts and feelings can grow stronger and become harmful or even devastating. In these situations, relationships can also grow farther apart.

In organizations, a considerable amount of time and energy can be consumed in dealing with people-focused conflicts. Evidence suggests that this happens in both small businesses as well as large corporations. Issue-focused conflicts are more like rational negotiations and problem-solving activities among decision-makers about allocating scarce resources. They often involve different parties representing the interests of their own groups, functions, or organizations. These types of conflicts may or may not become negative, depending on peoples skills in negotiating through their respective differences. The focus of conflict is the same as the content of conflict and it answers the question, What is this conflict about? Conflict source The source of conflict answers the question, How did the conflict get started? While managers often attribute most sources of conflict to a bad person or behavior, research suggests otherwise. As summarized in Table 7.1, there are at least four categories of sources of conflict; personal differences, informational differences, role incompatibilities, and environmental stress. Personal differences may include conflicts in values, work experience, cognitive styles, priorities, expectations, etc... These tend to arise from differences in socialization and background and these sources of differences often lead people-focused types of conflicts. Herein lies the challenges of managing a diverse workforce and the promise it holds for creativity and innovation in the workplace. Information deficiencies can occur when individuals receive information from different sources or misinterpret or misunderstand information. They may arise when someone does not receive an important message, from situations where a managers instructions may be misunderstood, or when people arrive at different decisions because of differences in their respective access to information. Since these differences tend to be based on some fact, information deficiencies are therefore easier to resolve; you simply improve the communication processes. Role incompatibility stems from conflicting expectations, pressures from job assignments, and incompatible goals and responsibilities. The more interdependent peoples tasks are, the more likely this could be a source of conflict. Environmentally induced stress stems from budget reductions, other resource scarcities, and forms of environmental uncertainty such as rapid change or a depressed economy. Cross culture research suggests that individuals tend to vary in how they cope with environmental uncertainty. III. Selecting the appropriate conflict management approach. The next step in the process of dealing with conflict, once it is identified, is to manage it. The five styles identified in the assessment vary on the two dimensions shown in Figure 7.3; coorperativeness, or the degree to which parties tend to satisfy the others concerns, and assertiveness, or the degree to which parties tend to satisfy their own concerns. The five specific conflict management approaches are explained and compared in Table 7.2.
1.

The forcing approach attempts to satisfy ones needs at the expense of the other persons. This may involve the use of authority, threats, or manipulation to satisfy ones self interest. Used repeatedly, this approach can breed hostility, resentment, or a backlash.

2.

The accommodating approach attempts to satisfy the other partys concerns while neglecting ones own. This may be used to preserve a friendly relationship but when used repeatedly, could result in exploitation or a lower self-esteem. The avoiding approach neglects the interests of both parties by postponing or sidestepping the problem. This may be used in a variety of situations, including newly formed relationship or when one or both parties lack skills in dealing with differences. This too can result in problems over time, since the causes of conflict are not dealt with. The compromising approach, an intermediate strategy between assertiveness and cooperativeness, tries to obtain some satisfaction for both parties. In these situations, both parties give something up or split the difference. When used indiscriminately, it can lead to dysfunctional games among negotiators. The collaborating approach attempts to fully satisfy the needs of both parties. This is also called the problem-solving or win-win approach to resolving conflicts. While this approach is not appropriate in all situations, it can by design - yield the greatest benefit to all interested parties.

3.

4.

5.

Comparing conflict management and negotiation strategies Negotiation strategies are closely linked to the five conflict management strategies and there are two types of negotiation strategies. Each strategy reflects the values that interested parties bring to resolving differences. The integrative approach is comparable to the collaborative form of conflict management in that it focuses on trying to find a solution that is best for both parties. Integrative negotiations focus on shared interests instead of positions and seek to create win-win resolutions. The distributive approach assumes there will be winners and losers and parties may see one another as competitors, or worse, adversaries. Distributive negotiations often focus on positions and see interests as a fixed pie to be divided among interested parties. This approach encompasses the accommodating, avoiding, compromising, and forcing conflict management strategies. In these situations, one or both parties must sacrifice some of their concerns to resolve the conflict. Selection factors When faced with a conflict situation, one must deal with the following questions: Which conflict management strategy is best?, and Which one should I use in this situation? Answers to these questions depend on ones personal preferences and the nature of the situation at hand. Personal preferences revolve around three factors, ethnic culture, gender, and personality type. Ethnic cultures can shape peoples preferences. For example, Asians tend to prefer accommodating or avoiding approaches, while Americans tend to prefer a forcing approach.

Compromising is an approach that is preferred by many cultures. While some research suggests that preferences vary with gender, the literature generally fails to find significant differences between how men and women prefer to manage conflict. Personality types include; (a) a altruistic-nurturing personality, which prefers accommodation and (b) an assertive-directing personality, which prefers forcing, and (c) an analytic-autonomizing personality, which may prefer a problem-solving or avoidance approach, depending on the situation. The advantage of flexibility occurs when managers feel comfortable using a variety of conflict management tools. As Figure 7.4 shows, evidence suggests that some managers may prefer a forcing approach twice as often as a problem-solving approach. Other studies provide additional evidence that managers tend use a forcing pattern in resolving conflicts. Ideally, as described in Table 7.4, managers should match the conflict management approach with the situation they face. Four salient situational variables should be considered; the importance of the issue, the importance of the relationship, the relative power of the parties, and time constraints. When the issue is very important, then forcing or collaboration may be appropriate. When the relationship, especially an ongoing one, is important, the accommodation and collaboration may be useful. When there are significant differences in power, then forcing, accommodation, or collaboration may be appropriate, depending on the relationship. Otherwise, when power is equal among parties, compromising or avoiding may be useful. Since in practice, compromising and collaboration may require relatively more time, then they should be used in situations when there is plenty of time to resolve the conflict. In general, both parties, regardless of culture tradition, must agree on how to reach a resolution to a conflict. IV. Resolving interpersonal confrontations using the collaborative approach. While the collaborative approach generally produces the best results, it requires more skill than the other four approaches. This can be considered the default approach to dealing with both people- and issue-focused conflicts. A general framework for collaborative problem-solving The following summarizes the six-steps to integrative negotiations (i.e. collaborative problem solving). 1. Establish superordinate goals. This step involves both parties identifying the goals that they share in common, thus establishing a basis for mutual benefits. 2. Separate the people from the problem. This step involves identifying the real issue or problem at hand. 3. Focus on interests, not positions. This step involves identifying the interests, or the underlying reasons behind demands or positions. It is often easier to establish mutual agreement on interests than it is positions. 4. Invent options for mutual gain. This step involves developing creative and mutually agreeable solutions. 5. Use objective criteria for evaluating alternatives. This step involves building fairness into the process by developing a set of standards or criteria for judging alternatives.

6. Define success in terms of real gains, not imaginary losses. This step involves using mutually agreed upon standards to judge criteria and seeking mutual gains in a resolution. Four phases of collaborative problem solving Given the complexity of resolving issue-focused conflicts, the four phases of the problem-solving process is discussed to provide additional guidance on developing the skills needed to resolve different kinds of conflicts. The four phases are (1) problem identification - which along with solution generation - sets the tone for the entire process, (2) solution generation, (3) action plan formulation and agreement, and (4) implementation and follow up. The first two of these phases are the most difficult and therefore require especially skillful actions. The behavioral guidelines for this process are organized under headings relating to the various roles that disputants assume when resolving issue-focused conflicts. These roles are the (I) initiator, the (R) responder, and the (M) mediator (if needed). (I) Initiator Problem identification 1. Maintain personal ownership of the problem. Make it clear that this is your problem and show accountability for your feelings. 2. Succinctly describe your problem in terms of behaviors, consequences, and feelings. Use a process such as I have a problem. When you do X, Y results, and I feel Z. X are behaviors, Y are observable consequences, and Z are your feelings. Table 7.5 provides an example. 3. Avoid drawing evaluative conclusions and attributing motives to the respondent. The key at this phase is to work together to understand the problem. Making accusations hinders this and may increase defensiveness. 4. Persist until understood. Look for an acknowledgement that that your problem is understood. Use variations but dont change the problem. 5. Encourage two-way discussion. Encourage the other party to express opinions and ask questions. Listen to their view of the problem. 6. Manage the agenda: Approach multiple or complex problems incrementally. Dont raise a whole series of issues at once, particularly at the beginning. Focus initially on simple problems and build rapport in working through the others. 7. Focus on commonalities as the basis for requesting a change and in generating a solution. When beginning to generate solutions, work from common goals, values, and/or interests. (R) Responder Problem identification. The responder is the person who supposedly is the source of the problem. 1. Establish a climate for joint problem solving by showing genuine interest and concern. Do not under-react, over-react, or become defensive. Your reactions will likely set the tone for the resolution. Discuss how and when you want to move forward. 2. Seek additional information about the problem by asking questions. Figure 7.5 describes a series of helpful ways to approach these questions. 3. Agree with some aspect of the complaint. Look for areas in the initiators presentation in which you genuinely agree and express this agreement. You do not need to agree, however, with their conclusions or evaluations of the problem. 4. Ask for suggestions of acceptable alternatives. Once the complaint is understood, then ask for recommended solutions.

(M) Mediator Problem identification. When a mediator is called in, it often means that disputants were unable to solve the problem on their own. 1. Acknowledge that a conflict exists and propose a problem-solving approach for resolving it. The first step is to establish a framework for problem-solving. Avoid the pitfalls described in Table 7.6 at the beginning of the process. Instead, adopt a three step format, such as those described in Table 7.7, beginning with awareness and motivation, then probing into the nature of the relationship and the problem. 2. In seeking out the perspectives of both parties, maintain a neutral posture regarding the disputants - if not the issues. The mediator must maintain impartiality, even in private conversations. Try to keep problems and people separated. 3. Serve as a facilitator, not as a judge. Dont evaluate solutions and instead help disputants come up with alternatives. 4. Manage the discussion to ensure fairness - Keep the discussion issue oriented, not personality oriented. Keep a collaborative, balanced climate and maintain a focus on issues and the consequences of failing to resolve the conflict. Expressions of emotion may be natural. Set and enforce ground rules about conduct. (M) Mediator Solution generation. 1. Explore options by focusing on interests, not positions. Look for where interests meet and where they conflict. Ask probing why questions to clarify interests. 2. Make sure all parties fully understand and support the solution agreed upon, and establish a mechanism for follow up. These are the last two phases of the problem solving process, so be sure and dont terminate the entire process prematurely. Make sure that mutual understandings are achieved, a plan is in place, and follow ups are discussed. V. Summary. The comprehensive model of conflict management in Figure 7.6 highlights the four elements of managing conflict; (1) diagnosing the sources of conflict and the associated situational considerations, (2) selecting an appropriate conflict management strategy, based on the results of the diagnosis combined with personal preferences, (3) effectively implementing the strategy, in particular the collaborative problem-solving process, which leads to (4) a successful resolution of the dispute. Analytic skills are needed to diagnose the type (source) of conflict and match conflict management strategies with personal preferences and situational considerations. Behavioral skills are needed to implement the conflict management strategy, especially in situations where the collaborative (problem-solving) approach is selected. Note that in general, managing conflict may involve resolving the conflict. In other cases, however, managing conflict may mean just that - managing - but not altogether eliminating the conflict. The skills discussed in this chapter can be improved by following the key behavioral guidelines.