Conflict Management and Approaches to Conflict

Management
Conflict has been defined from several stand points in literature. In one approach, it has been
related with tension and defined as expression of hostility, negative attitude, antagonism,
misunderstanding, aggression, rivalry, stereotypes, etc. In political science and economics, it has
been associated with situations, bodying contradictory or irreconcilable interest between two
opposing groups. Conflict is also considered a special kind of competition and as a break down,
delay and difficulty in the decision making process. In general, conflict has been defined as a
process in which an individual purposefully makes a concerted effort to offset the efforts of
another individual by some form of blockage that causes frustration to the better in accomplishing
his goals or furtherance of his interests.

Meaning and Concept of Conflicts

Conflict is a normal part of daily life and of every organization. There is always the potential
for conflict to occur at some level or another if more than one person participates in
organizational activities. When conflict does occur, the result may be positive or negative,
depending on how this result is involved to approach. Individuals have to deal with conflict within
them; groups may be in conflict with other groups. Organizations have to survive despite the
conflicts. Managers often have to assume the role of conflict manager, mediating between parties
in conflict. They may also be involved on an almost daily basis. There are a number of
techniques available for use in dealing with conflicts, which may vary in applicability according to
the nature of the conflict. The different approaches discussed to manage conflict in the
organization are:

Approaches to Conflict Management
Conflict arises from different sources. It is inevitable to avoid conflict in organizational setting. So
with appropriate technique, conflict should be managed. There are different approaches to
manage conflict. But in management literature, the highly adopted approaches are as follows:
Interpersonal Conflict Management Approaches

1. Dominance / Forcing
This is the easiest technique to manage conflict. In this technique, manager will eliminate the
conflicting parties. By dismissing the conflicting parties the conflict can be managed. But this is a
short-term solution not a long term.

The forcing response (assertive uncooperative) is an attempt to satisfy one's own needs at the
expenses of the needs of the other individual. This can be done by using formal authority, physical
threats, manipulation plays, or by ignoring the claims of the other party. The open use of the
authority of one's office or a related form of intimidation is generally evidence of a lack of
tolerance or self-confidence. The use of manipulation or feigned ignorance is a much more subtle
reflection of an egoistic leadership style. Manipulative leaders often appear to be democratic by
proposing that conflicting proposals be referred to a committee for further investigation.
However, they ensure that the composition of the committee reflects their interests and
preferences so that what appears to be selection based on merit is actually an authoritarian act. A
related play (accounting plan on action for own advantage) some managers use is to ignore a
proposal that threatens their personal interests. If the originator inquires about the disposition of
his or her memo, the manager will plead ignorance, will blame the mail clerk or new secretary
and then will suggest that the proposal be redrafted. After several of these encounters,
subordinates generally get the message that the boss isn't interested in their ideas.

The problem with the repeated use of this conflict management approach is that

it breeds hostility and resentment. While observers may intellectually admire authoritarian or
manipulative leaders because they appear to accomplish a great deal, their management styles
generally produce a backlash in the long run as people become increasingly unwilling to absorb the
emotional costs and work to undermine the power base of the authoritarian leader.

2. Avoidance
Conflict can be managed by avoiding it. In this technique one party avoids the conflict and let the
conflicting parties to win. Moreover, redefining the goals and not making over-lapping of goals can
also manage conflict.

The avoiding response (uncooperative, unassertive) neglects the interests of both parties by
sidestepping the conflict or postponing a solution. This is often the response of managers who are
emotionally ill-prepared to cope with the stress associated with confrontations, or it might reflect
recognition that a relationship is not strong enough to absorb the fallout of an intense conflict.
The repeated use of this approach causes considerable frustration for others because issues never
seem to get resolved. Really tough problems are avoided because of their high potential
for conflict and subordinates engaging in conflict are reprimanded for undermining the harmony of
the work group. Sensing a leadership vacuum, people from all directions rush to fill it, creating
considerable confusion and aversion in the process.

3. Smoothing
In this technique, the differences between two parties are disguised while similarities are
highlighted. This make the other party feel that they are not much a part from each other. This
shared viewpoint enhances the possibility of working together for common goals. However
smoothing, it is a temporary solution only.

4. Compromise
In this technique, the conflicting parties' compromise with each other on certain points
and conflict is resolved. The party provides something else to other parties in exchange for the
desired outcomes. But this is also a temporary solution. If the desired outcome is not
achieved, conflict again arises.

The compromising response is intermediate between assertiveness and cooperativeness. A

compromise is an attempt to obtain partial satisfaction for both parties, in the sense that both
receive the proverbial "half loaf." To accommodate this, both parties are asked to make sacrifices
to obtain a common gain. While this approach has considerable practical appear to managers, its
indiscriminate use is counterproductive. If subordinates are continuously told to "split the
differences", they may conclude that their managers are more interested in resolving disputes
than solving problems. This creates a climate of expediency that encourages game playing, such as
asking for twice as much as you need.

A common mistake made in mergers is placing undue emphasis on "being fair to both sides" by
compromising on competing corporate policies and practices as well as on which redundant staff
members get laid off. When decisions are made on the basis of "spreading the pain evenly" or
"using half of your procedures and half of ours", rather than on the basis of merit, then harmony
takes priority over value. Ironically, actions taken in the name of "keeping peace in the merged
families" often end up being so illogical and practical that the emerging union is doomed to
operate under a pall of constant internal turmoil and conflict.

5. Hierarchical Decision Making

In this technique, a common superior can be requested to use his authority to
resolve conflict through a proper decision. However, it is very widely accepted technique but it
loses its goodness when the authority figure fails to understand the issue properly and the
subordinates do not respect them.

6. System restructuring
Sometime, by restructuring system, conflict can be managed in the organization, system
restructuring technique involves the clarifying demands and segregating roles in different position,
and people can resolve role conflict.

7. Problem solving
In this technique, problem is solved through face-to-face confrontation and tries to accomplish
the common interest of the parties in conflict. In this technique, area of common interest is
identified and information's views are shared and effort is made to achieve mutual common
interest. However this technique is effective to remove misunderstanding among the parties but it
is time consuming technique.

The collaborating approach (cooperative, assertive) is an attempt to address fully the concern of
both parties. It is often referred to as the "problem-solving" mode. In this mode, the intention is
to find solutions to the cause of the conflict that is satisfactory to both parties rather than to find
fault or assign blame. In this way, both parties can feel that they have "won". This is the only win-
win strategy among the five. The avoiding mode results in a lose-lose outcome and the
compromising, accommodating and forcing modes all represent win-lose outcomes. Although the
collaborative approach is not appropriate for all situations, when used appropriately, it has the
most beneficial effect on the involved parties. It encourages norms of collaboration and rust while
acknowledging the value of assertiveness. It encourages individuals to focus their disputes on
problems and issues rather than on personalities. Finally, it cultivates the skills necessary for self-
governance, so that effective problem solvers feel empowered. The collaborative approach to
problem solving and conflict resolution works best in an environment supporting openness,
directness and equality.

8. Bargaining
In this technique, parties in conflict bargain each other to solve the conflict. Here, the use of
bargaining power is highly used.

9. Accommodating
The accommodating approach (cooperative, unassertive) satisfies the other party's concerns while
neglecting one's own. Unfortunately, as in the case of boards of directors of failing firms who
neglect their interest and responsibilities in favor of accommodating the wishes of management,
this strategy generally results in both parties "losing". The difficulty with the habitual use of the
accommodating approach is that it emphasizes preserving a friendly relationship at the expense of
critically appraising issues and protecting personal rights.

The table shows a comparison of conflict management approaches. In this table, the fundamentals
of each approach are laid out including its objective, how that objective is reflected in terms of
an expressed point of view, and a supporting rationale. In addition, the likely outcomes of each
approach are summarized. 

Approach Objective Point of View Supporting Rationale Likely Outcome

 Forcing Get your "I know what's It I better to risk You feel
way right. Don't causing a few hard vindicated but
question my feelings than to other party feels
judgment or abandon an issue you defeated and
authority." are committed to. possibly
humiliated.
Avoiding Avoid "I'm neutral on that Disagreements are Interpersonal
having to issue." "Let me inherently bad problems don't
deal with think about it." because they create get resolved,
conflict "That's someone tension. causing long-
else's problem." term frustration
manifested in a
variety of ways.
Compromising Reach an "Let's search for a Prolonged conflicts Participants
agreement situation we can distract people from become
quickly both live with so their work and conditioned to
we can get on with engender bitter seek expedient,
our work." feelings. rather than
effective
solutions.
Accommodating Don't "How can I help Maintaining The other person
upset the you feel good harmonious is likely to take
other about this relationships should advantage of
person encounter?" "My be our top priority. you.
position isn't so
important that it is
worth risking bad
feelings between
us."
Collaborating Solve the "This is my The positions of both The problem is
problem position. What is parties are equally most likely to be
together yours?" "I'm important (though resolved. Also,
committed to not necessarily both parties are
finding the best equally valid). Equal committed to the
possible solution." emphasis should be solution and
"What do the facts placed on the quality satisfied that they
suggests?" of the outcome and have been treated
the fairness of the fairly.
decision making
process.

(Source: Whetten, D.A., & Cameron, K. S. (2011), Developing Management Skills)

The following identifies four important incident-specific circumstances that can be used to select
the appropriate conflict management approach. These can be stated in the form of diagnostic
questions with accompanying examples of high and low responses. 
 Situational Conflict Management Approach
Considerations Forcing Accommodating Compromising Collaborating Avoiding
Issue High Low Med. High Low
Importance
Relationship Low High Med. High Low
Importance
Relative Power High Low Equal Low-High Equal
Time Med.- Med.-High Low Low Med.-
Constraints High light

(Source: Whetten, D.A., & Cameron, K. S. (2011), Developing Management Skills)

The advantage of this table is that it allows you to quickly assess a situation and decide if a
particular conflict management approach is suitable. As noted in the following descriptions, it is
important to keep in mind all of the situational considerations that are not equally important for
selecting a particular approach. 

The forcing approach is the most appropriate when a conflict involves values or policies and one
feels compelled to defend the "correct" position; when a superior-subordinate relationship is
involved; when maintaining a close, supportive relationship is not critical; and when there is a
sense of urgency. An example of such a situation might be a manager insisting that a summer
intern follow important company safety regulations. 

The accommodating approach is most appropriate when the importance of maintaining a good
working relationship outweighs all other considerations. While this could be the case regardless of
your formal relationship with the other party, it is often perceived as being the only option for
subordinates of powerful bosses. The nature of the issues and the amount of time available play a
secondary role in determining the choice of this strategy. Accommodation becomes especially
appropriate when the issues are not vital to you and when interest and the problem must be
resolved quickly. 

Trying to reach a compromise is the most appropriate when the issues are complex and
moderately important, there are no simple solution and both parties have a strong interest in
different facts of the problem. The other essential situational requirement is adequate time for
negotiation. The classic case is a bargaining session between representative of management and
labor to advert scheduled strike. While the characteristics of the relationship between the parties
are not essential factors, experience has shown that negotiations work best between parties with
equal power who are committed to maintaining a good long-term relationship. 

The collaborating approach is the most appropriate when the issues are critical, maintain an
ongoing supportive relationship between peers is important, and time constraints are not pressing.
Although collaboration can also be an effective approach for resolving conflicts between a
superior and subordinate, it is important to pint out when a conflict involves in peers, the
collaborative mode is more appropriate than either forcing or accommodating approach. 

The avoidance approach is the most appropriate when one's stake in an issue is not high and there
is not a strong interpersonal reason for getting involved, regardless of whether the conflict
involves superior, subordinate or peer. A server time constraint becomes a contributing factor
because it increases the likelihood of sign avoidance, by default. While one might prefer other
strategies that have a good chance of resolving problems without damaging relationships, such as
compromise and collaboration, these are ruled out because of time pressure. 
Structural Conflict Management Approach 
The change in organization structure or some part of it can reduce dysfunctional conflicts. It is
observed that conflicts can be reduced by decentralization, restricting to remove obvious
differentials in status symbols between hierarchical interest groups, development of cycles of
work, with opportunity to employees to complete tasks and sharing in organizational rewards.
Such structural variables, more specifically, can be used in the following ways: 

a) Reduction in Interdependence 
The reason of having inter-group conflict is interdependence among them. Whenever there is less
interdependence, the various divisions of the organization are relatively self-contained and
independent. In sequential interdependence, there is high degree of interdependence between
two or more departments which might be using the product of others in a particular sequence.
The units are more interdependent when the interdependence is reciprocal, that is, the outcome
of various units becomes input to others. According to conflict model, the degree of conflict is
high in the case of latter two relationships, that is, more the interdependence, more the chances
for conflict. In organizations, such interdependence cannot altogether be avoided, however,
instead of separating units organizationally, they can be separated physically. Physically
separating the conflicting groups has the distinct advantage of preventing more damage from
being done and of preventing the creation of further rationale for fighting. 

b) Reduction in Shared Resources 

The potential for conflict increase whenever two or more than two units are required to share
resources, particularly scarce ones. The management of conflict suggests reducing such sharing.
One technique for reducing such sharing is the increase in such resources so that each unit is
independent in using them. However, since resources are scarce, it is not always possible to do so.
As such, measures may be adopted for their optimum allocation. 

c) Exchange of Personnel 
In a research study, it was found that the exchange of people program was effective at reducing
conflict and speeding agreement. Personnel of the conflicting groups may be exchanged for a
specified period as a way to reducing and managing conflict. An exchange of people is very similar
to role reversal, which is aimed at greater understanding between people by forcing each to
present and defend the others position. 

d) Certain of Special Integrators 

Lawrence and Lorsch have found that in certain situations, particularly when there are much
differentiation between departments in terms of time span, goals and values, the use of special
integrator departments or individuals facilitate the management and resolution of
interdepartmental conflicts. For example, they found that integrators were more effective when
they were viewed as about intermediate in position between the conflicting departments, where
they were viewed as high in influence, and where they perceived that their rewards were tied to
the total performance of the two groups they were integrating. 
To resolve conflict, organization may create provisions for the appointment of special integrators
who may manage the interdependence of various groups so that unresolved matters can be solved
through them. 

e) Reference to Superior's Authority 

If resolution cannot be attained by two organizational members, they may take the issue to a
common superior who resolves the conflict by making a decision; such a decision is usually
accepted by organizational members because of the recognized superior authority of high-ranking
individual. Such a decision may not necessarily bring agreement but it will usually be accepted.