Conflict management style

Last updated

Conflict management is the process of handling disputes and disagreements between two or more parties. Managing conflict is said to decrease the amount of tension; if a conflict is poorly managed, it can create more issues than the original conflict.

Contents

Conflict can be defined as an encounter between individuals or groups of people who have differing aims, values, expectations, purposes, ideas, etc. [1] Five modes are offered as solutions to managing a conflict, with each mode ranked on scales of assertiveness and cooperativeness. [2] Assertiveness is the extent to which an individual attempts to satisfy their concerns, while cooperativeness is their willingness to satisfy other parties. [3] Studies have been conducted on the modes of conflict management and their effects on relationships.

A model called the "Thomas-Kilmann model" was designed by two psychologists, Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann. It demonstrates how individuals display conflict management styles when they handle disagreement. The Thomas-Kilmann model suggests five modes that guide individuals in resolving conflicts. These are collaborating, competing, compromising, accommodating, and avoiding. [4] [5]

Background

Conflict is usually found in an individualistic culture, where competition and individual achievement is stressed over interdependence. [6] Communication is often seen as crucial to maintaining a healthy relationship, and the way one resolves conflict is important to maintaining healthy relationships. [7]

Thomas and Kilmann proposed five modes of conflict management, developed from 1960 to 1975, which can be used to handle particular conflicts. [2] The United States Institute for Peace has published a free modified version of the Thomas-Kilmann test. [8] In that test collaborating is called problem solving.

Conflict modes

According to Thomas and Kilmann, there are five modes that are used to resolve conflicts when they arise. [2] These modes can be assessed based on scales of assertiveness and cooperativeness. [2]

Collaborating

According to Thomas and Kilmann, collaborating is mutual problem solving that aims to satisfy the needs of all parties. This mode ranks high on both the assertiveness and cooperativeness scales. [2] This mode can be facilitated when personal relationships are close, because such individuals are apt to dig deeper to find the root of the conflict and alternate solutions. One learns the other party's insights to try and find a creative solution to the conflict. [3] This mode is best used when one needs an integrative solution, because all parties needs are too important to not be addressed, and because one wants to combine insights, or work through hard feelings in the relationship. [3] However, if time or scale is concerned, collaborative conflict management can be both time-consuming and emotionally draining, due to its intensive nature. Collaborating is required from both parties to come to a logical conclusion. Furthermore, to obtain effective results, parties should be well experienced and capable of discussing their needs and wants. This conflict style is not good for solving smaller, more trivial issues due to its in-depth nature.

Competing

The competing mode is one in which each individual prioritizes their own position; it is assertive and often results in one-sided communication. In this mode the individual will be standing up for their rights, defending their position, or simply trying to win. [2] Competitiveness can exasperate the initial conflict and potentially harm a close relationship. [3] This mode is typically used when a quick decision needs to be made, when someone needs to protect themselves, or when someone believes their point of view is wholly correct. Participants in this mode may be closed off to accepting others' ideas, and use of this mode does not always arrive at a permanent solution, in fact, it can escalate the issues instead. [3] Although this may be true, when speaking to larger groups, professionally, one can more easily gain trust and success.

Compromising

Compromising requires making concessions; both parties will give up a goal or need in order to resolve the conflict. This mode is intermediate in terms of assertiveness and cooperativeness. [2] Compromising is similar to collaborating, in that one finds a mutually beneficial solution to the problem. The difference is that compromising does address the issue, but it doesn't seek the root of the conflict, as is done in collaborating. [3] Compromising is used when issues are important but not worth taking an assertive approach, one wants a temporary fix, or when collaboration or competing fail. [3] Some pros of compromising as a mode of conflict management include: all parties can get some form of satisfaction, it facilitates constructive communication, helps maintain relationships, and the group's power dynamics remain the same. On the other hand if there are no boundaries and an unbalanced power dynamic it can be difficult to find a solution. Some negatives of this method may include: if someone is not willing to compromise it does not work, no party is fully satisfied, outcomes are less creative, less passion and effort is involved ("easy way out"), and is more likely a temporary solution. The animal associated with this style is fox. [9]

Accommodating

Rather than trying to impose one's own point of view, in the accommodating mode an individual satisfies the other parties goals while being unassertive and cooperative. [2] When accommodating, an individual sacrifices their own needs in order to leave the other party content. This can be good in a relational sense, but can also lead to the party that is making sacrifices becoming burnt out. [3] Accommodation can be appropriate when the accommodator knows they are wrong, possibly needs to build up credit for a later situation that may be more important to them, or would rather just keep the peace. [3] Accommodators seek to preserve personal relationships with others. Accommodation often leads to an imbalance in the power dynamic of a relationship, where the person accommodating has less power and their needs are not met. Alternatively, the accommodator may feel that the responsibility falls on them to solve all issues in the relationship. Accommodating can be useful for settling inconsequential and trivial conflicts. Resentment is a possible outcome when accommodation is used to settle conflicts frequently, due to needs consistently not being met. Resulting resentment could be internal, towards the other party, or between parties.

Avoiding

The avoiding mode simply averts conflict by postponing or steering clear of it. Often this style is viewed as having low regard for both the issue at hand and your relationship with the other party. This style is unassertive and uncooperative. [2] Avoiding is stepping out of the way, delaying, or simply avoiding a situation. This mode can be beneficial in moderation, but eventually, ignoring conflicts could lead to a build-up of tension and unhealthy relationships. [3] This mode tends to be adopted when one finds an issue unimportant, the issue could resolve itself in time, or another problem is more pressing. [3] This mode can also be beneficial when emotions are running high, and one or both parties need time to calm down before addressing the conflict at hand. The animal associated with this style is turtle.

Studies on conflict management

Cross-cultural studies

In a study written in the Management International Review different subcultures in Turkey were studied with regard to the modes of conflict management they prefer to use. Although this study took place in Turkey, it opened up the door for cross-cultural research into conflict management. [10] The study defined each of the five modes as to how it scored with regard to assertiveness and competitiveness: [10] competing is high in assertiveness, collaborating is high in both, accommodating is high in cooperativeness, avoiding is low in both, and compromise is the mid-point. Researchers studied the choice of mode and what influenced that choice, using Schwartz's inventory of value. [10] What they found was that the traditional main culture used the avoiding style, the power-seeking culture preferred competing, and egalitarians chose accommodation. [10] This study shows that there is a correlation between cultures and their chosen modes of conflict management, and not every culture uses only one mode. [11]

First conflict as a relationship milestone

Relationship theorists study relationships in terms of stages of their development. The first time those in a close relationship encounter conflict and come out of it is a breakthrough in many of those relationships. John Siegert and Glen Stamp write about the "FBF", or First Big Fight, as an episode of conflict where for the first time feelings that may include doubt or disappointment about the relationship are discussed. This event becomes memorable because of its intensity or timing. [12] The intensity of the conflict may put the relationship at risk, and the timing may occur after a couple officially enters a relationship or are clarifying what the relationship is to them. [12] This study was given to over 250 undergraduate communication students at a university, who were split into three categories based upon if they had survived a FBF with their partner, individuals who had not yet had a FBF with their partner, and individuals who had ended a relationship due to the FBF. Interviews of 50 participants were conducted, and those participants were asked open-ended questions about their first FBF, such as where it happened how it could be classified. [12] The results were divided according to the relational circumstance, outcomes and effects of the fight on the relationship, and the difference between those who stayed in the relationships and those who did not. Researchers found that the FBF is a significant turning point that impacted the future of the relationship, either positively or negatively depending on the preliminary circumstances and feelings about the relationship. [12]

Avoiding conflict in marriage

Conflicts arise frequently in marriages, and a study was conducted on the effect of relational power and an individual's decision to withhold their complaints in order to avoid a conflict. According to Solomon, et al., the first step is deciding whether to voice a complaint or not; this decision is based on the amount of power one's spouse holds over the complaining partner. [13] This is determined by interpersonal power, or the degree of influence one exerts over the other in a relationship through the ability to influence costs and rewards for the partner. [13] Marital schemas are cognitive structures that contain organized knowledge about marriage relationships. [13] This research was conducted by having communication students present a questionnaire, to a married individual, that used six different types of power as independent variables. The dependent variables were the conflicts that were not brought to the spouse's attention. [13] There were a few different results from the findings: the first being that partners felt more comfortable expressing concerns in a relationship where they had more power; the second being that when a spouse shows aggression, more information that could cause conflicts is withheld from them. [13] Marital schemas can foresee what information will be withheld and shapes individuals' decisions on what to express to their spouses. [13]

Application

The most widely used tool for this is a conflict-type inventory, typically a short questionnaire filled out by a user, with interpretation of the scores given in writing or by an instructor. The point is not to categorize the user, but rather to give him or her a framework in which to assess responses and options. Conflict mode inventories include the Thomas Kilmann [14] and Style Matters: The Kraybill Conflict Style Inventory [15]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Negotiation</span> Dialogue intended to reach an agreement

Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more parties to resolve points of difference, gain an advantage for an individual or collective, or craft outcomes to satisfy various interests. The parties aspire to agree on matters of mutual interest. The agreement can be beneficial for all or some of the parties involved. The negotiators should establish their own needs and wants while also seeking to understand the wants and needs of others involved to increase their chances of closing deals, avoiding conflicts, forming relationships with other parties, or maximizing mutual gains. Distributive negotiations, or compromises, are conducted by putting forward a position and making concessions to achieve an agreement. The degree to which the negotiating parties trust each other to implement the negotiated solution is a major factor in determining the success of a negotiation.

Conflict resolution is conceptualized as the methods and processes involved in facilitating the peaceful ending of conflict and retribution. Committed group members attempt to resolve group conflicts by actively communicating information about their conflicting motives or ideologies to the rest of group and by engaging in collective negotiation. Dimensions of resolution typically parallel the dimensions of conflict in the way the conflict is processed. Cognitive resolution is the way disputants understand and view the conflict, with beliefs, perspectives, understandings and attitudes. Emotional resolution is in the way disputants feel about a conflict, the emotional energy. Behavioral resolution is reflective of how the disputants act, their behavior. Ultimately a wide range of methods and procedures for addressing conflict exist, including negotiation, mediation, mediation-arbitration, diplomacy, and creative peacebuilding.

Assertiveness is the quality of being self-assured and confident without being aggressive to defend a right point of view or a relevant statement. In the field of psychology and psychotherapy, it is a skill that can be learned and a mode of communication. Dorland's Medical Dictionary defines assertiveness as:

Conflict management is the process of limiting the negative aspects of conflict while increasing the positive aspects of conflict. The aim of conflict management is to enhance learning and group outcomes, including effectiveness or performance in an organizational setting. Properly managed conflict can improve group outcomes.

The Thomas–Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) is a conflict style inventory, which is a tool developed to measure an individual's response to conflict situations.

A conflict style inventory is a written tool for gaining insight into how people respond to conflict. Typically, a user answers a set of questions about their responses to conflict and is scored accordingly.

Conflict resolution is any reduction in the severity of a conflict. It may involve conflict management, in which the parties continue the conflict but adopt less extreme tactics; settlement, in which they reach agreement on enough issues that the conflict stops; or removal of the underlying causes of the conflict. The latter is sometimes called "resolution", in a narrower sense of the term that will not be used in this article. Settlements sometimes end a conflict for good, but when there are deeper issues – such as value clashes among people who must work together, distressed relationships, or mistreated members of one's ethnic group across a border – settlements are often temporary.

Communication accommodation theory (CAT) is a theory of communication, developed by Howard Giles, concerning "(1) the behavioral changes that people make to attune their communication to their partner, (2) the extent to which people perceive their partner as appropriately attuning to them". This concept was later applied to the field of sociolinguistics, in which linguistic accommodation or simply accommodation is the process of individuals adapting their style of speaking to become more like the style of their conversational partners.

The two-factor model of personality is a widely used psychological factor analysis measurement of personality, behavior and temperament. It most often consists of a matrix measuring the factor of introversion and extroversion with some form of people versus task orientation.

Organizational dissent is the "expression of disagreement or contradictory opinions about organizational practices and policies". Since dissent involves disagreement it can lead to conflict, which if not resolved, can lead to violence and struggle. As a result, many organizations send the message – verbally or nonverbally – that dissent is discouraged. However, recent studies have shown that dissent serves as an important monitoring force within organizations. Dissent can be a warning sign for employee dissatisfaction or organizational decline. Redding (1985) found that receptiveness to dissent allows for corrective feedback to monitor unethical and immoral behavior, impractical and ineffectual organizational practices and policies, poor and unfavorable decision making, and insensitivity to employees' workplace needs and desires. Furthermore, Eilerman argues that the hidden costs of silencing dissent include: wasted and lost time, reduced decision quality, emotional and relationship costs, and decreased job motivation. Perlow (2003) found that employee resentment can lead to a decrease in productivity and creativity which can result in the organization losing money, time, and resources.

Conflict avoidance is a person's method of reacting to conflict, which attempts to avoid directly confronting the issue at hand. Methods of doing this can include changing the subject, putting off a discussion until later, or simply not bringing up the subject of contention. Conflict prevention can be used as a temporary measure to buy time or as permanent means of disposing of a matter. The latter may be indistinguishable from simple acquiescence to the other party, to the extent that those avoiding the conflict subordinate their own wishes to the party with whom they have the conflict. However, conflict prevention can also take the form of withdrawing from the relationship. Thus, avoidance scenarios can be either win-lose, lose-lose or possibly even win-win, if terminating the relationship is the best method of solving the problem.

Organizational conflict, or workplace conflict, is a state of discord caused by the actual or perceived opposition of needs, values and interests between people working together. Conflict takes many forms in organizations. There is the inevitable clash between formal authority and power and those individuals and groups affected. There are disputes over how revenues should be divided, how the work should be done, and how long and hard people should work. There are jurisdictional disagreements among individuals, departments, and between unions and management. There are subtler forms of conflict involving rivalries, jealousies, personality clashes, role definitions, and struggles for power and favor. There is also conflict within individuals – between competing needs and demands – to which individuals respond in different ways.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Face negotiation theory</span> Theory in social science

Face negotiation theory is a theory conceived by Stella Ting-Toomey in 1985, to understand how people from different cultures manage rapport and disagreements. The theory posited "face", or self-image when communicating with others, as a universal phenomenon that pervades across cultures. In conflicts, one's face is threatened; and thus the person tends to save or restore his or her face. This set of communicative behaviors, according to the theory, is called "facework". Since people frame the situated meaning of "face" and enact "facework" differently from one culture to the next, the theory poses a cross-cultural framework to examine facework negotiation. It is important to note that the definition of face varies depending on the people and their culture and the same can be said for the proficiency of facework. According to Ting-Toomey's theory, most cultural differences can be divided by Eastern and Western cultures, and her theory accounts for these differences.

Communicative behaviors are psychological constructs that influence individual differences in expressing feelings, needs, and thoughts as a substitute for more direct and open communication. More specifically, communicative behaviors refer to people's tendency to express themselves using indirect messages. Much of our communication is, in fact, non-verbal.

The Effective Group Decision-Making Theory is one of several theories of intercultural communication.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Interpersonal communication</span> Exchange of information among people

Interpersonal communication is an exchange of information between two or more people. It is also an area of research that seeks to understand how humans use verbal and nonverbal cues to accomplish several personal and relational goals. Communication includes utilizing communication skills within one's surroundings, including physical and psychological spaces. It is essential to see the visual/nonverbal and verbal cues regarding the physical spaces. In the psychological spaces, self-awareness and awareness of the emotions, cultures, and things that are not seen are also significant when communicating.

Workplace relationships are unique interpersonal relationships with important implications for the individuals in those relationships, and the organizations in which the relationships exist and develop.

The Conflict Lens is an on-line conflict management tool which identifies an individual's behavior in conflict situations and assesses the outcome.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conflict (process)</span> Friction, disagreement, or discord within a group

A conflict is a situation, in which inacceptable differences in interests, values, expectations and opinions occur in or between individuals or groups.

How to set boundaries in a relationship

References

  1. ↑ Nakayama, Thomas (2008). Experiencing Intercultural Communication. New York: Mc Graw Hill. p. 211.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Womack, Deanna F. (1988). "Assessing the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Survey". Management Communication Quarterly. 1 (3): 321–349. doi:10.1177/0893318988001003004. S2CID   144741192.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Thomas, K. W. (2008). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode. TKI Profile and Interpretive Report, 1-11.
  4. ↑ JD (11 March 2011). "Five Conflict Management Styles at A Glance". Sources of Insight. Retrieved 11 May 2021.
  5. ↑ "The Thomas-Kilmann Model – Conflict Resolution". 2012. Archived from the original on 7 July 2020. Retrieved 11 May 2021.
  6. ↑ Craig, Grace (2010). Understanding Human Development. Boston: Prentice Hall. p. 7.
  7. ↑ "Conflict Resolution". Loveisrespect . Retrieved 14 May 2021.
  8. ↑ "Conflict Styles Assessment". United States Institute of Peace. Retrieved November 10, 2021.
  9. ↑ "Conflict Resolution Style Animals – Conflict Resolution Education Connection" . Retrieved 2024-01-24.
  10. 1 2 3 4 Kozan, M. Kamil (2002). "Subcultures and Conflict Management Style". Mir: Management International Review. 42 (1): 89–105. JSTOR   40835909.
  11. ↑ Limbare, Sameer (2012). "Leadership Styles & Conflict Management Styles of Executives". Indian Journal of Industrial Relations. 48 (1): 172–180. JSTOR   23509775.
  12. 1 2 3 4 Siegert, J. R. & Stamp, G. H. (1994). Our First Big Fight: As a Milestone in the Development of Close Relationships [PDF]. Communication Monographs, 61, 345-360.
  13. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Solomon, D. H., Knobloch, L. K., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2004). Relational Power, Marital Schema, and Decisions to Withhold Complaints: An Investigation of the Chilling Effect on Confrontation in Marriage [PDF] Communication Studies, 55(1), 146-167
  14. ↑ "Thomas Kilmann". Archived from the original on February 8, 2006. Retrieved November 10, 2021.
  15. ↑ "Conflict Management Starts with Self Management". www.riverhouseepress.com. Retrieved November 10, 2021.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.