7.4: Conflict Management

What is conflict?

What is conflict?  What constitutes a conflict? Conflict is the physical or psychological struggle associated with the perception of opposing or incompatible goals, desires, demands, wants, or needs (McLean, 2005). How does conflict make you feel? Previous experience with conflict affects how you view it. When most people think about conflict, they have a negative reaction. The word conflict might conjure thoughts of crisis, war, or interpersonal issues with family members or group project members. Adler (2022) indicates that the Chinese ideogram for “conflict” is a combination of “danger” and “opportunity.” Similarly, Lipman-Blumen (2006) indicates that the Chinese ideogram for “crisis” represents “risk” and “opportunity.” However, these depictions seem to have been controversially inspired by a speech made by JFK. Perhaps it’s more of a semantics issue, but in a LinkedIn article, corporate executive and best-selling author Emily Chang states that the 2nd symbol means “crucial point, when something begins to change.” Chang (2020) states that the more accurate translation may be even more inspiring as “In a crisis, we must remain cognizant of the danger and do everything we can to drive for a positive outcome." This translation of the Chinese ideogram helps us understand that the way in which we handle and communicate about conflict, in pursuit of positive solutions, is key to achieving our instrumental and relational goals.

Types of Conflict

It is not often that when working with others, all parties agree. Conflict is not a bad thing if all parties participate respectfully. In fact, engaging in respectful task conflict is often a necessary element for functional teams to engage in.  If facts can be presented and perspectives can be heard, a healthy debate and decision-making process can take place without feelings of exclusion.  The existence of this conflict provides a clearer path to execution without breeding hidden agendas or unsupportive behaviors. 

Task conflict refers to disagreements or disputes within a team that are focused on the content of the work being done, such as differing opinions on how to approach a task, conflicting ideas on the best course of action, or disagreements on the goals and objectives of the team (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). This type of conflict typically arises from differences in perspectives, ideas, or strategies related to the tasks at hand. Task conflict can be beneficial for team performance when managed effectively, as it can lead to increased scrutiny of task issues, deeper processing of information, learning, and the development of innovative solutions Task conflict can involve issues on topics in the workplace such as scheduling, resources, budget, or compensation; or issues on processes in the workplace such as how to go about accomplishing something. Though process conflict, how things get done, often involves both task conflict and relationship conflict.   

Relationship conflict is where things can get sticky – this is probably more danger than opportunity, to refer to the Chinese ideogram. Relationship conflict refers to conflicts within a team that are more personal in nature, focusing on interpersonal issues, emotions, values, or communication styles rather than the actual tasks or goals of the team (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Examples of relationship conflict include disagreements about personal viewpoints, communication styles, ego issues (e.g. debates over who is control of certain items, identity issues (e.g. someone trying to make you look bad), or privacy issues (e.g. someone shared something that was shared in confidence)(Adler et al., 2022). Relationship conflict can decrease satisfaction and interfere with task performance. Unlike task conflict, which can have some benefits when managed properly, relationship conflict is generally seen as detrimental to team effectiveness.

Conflict Management Styles

Individuals vary in the way that they handle conflicts. Thomas and Kilmann (1974) developed an assessment tool that gauges an individual's behavior in conflict situations.  This tool, the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI®), identifies the five common styles of handling conflicts. These styles can be mapped onto a grid showing each style's varying degrees of cooperation and assertiveness (Image 7.4). Let us look at each. 

Avoidance

The avoiding style is uncooperative and unassertive. People exhibiting this style seek to avoid conflict altogether by denying that it is there. They are prone to postponing any decisions in which a conflict may arise. People using this style may say things such as, "I don't really care if we work this out," or "I don't think there's any problem. I feel fine about how things are." Conflict avoidance may be habitual to some people because of personality traits such as the need for affiliation. While conflict avoidance may not be a significant problem if the issue at hand is trivial, it becomes a problem when individuals avoid confronting important issues because of a dislike for conflict or a perceived inability to handle the other party's reactions.

Accommodation

The accommodating style is cooperative and unassertive. In this style, the person gives in to what the other side wants, even if it means giving up one's personal goals. People who use this style may fear speaking up for themselves or place a higher value on the relationship, believing that disagreeing with an idea might hurt the other person. They will say things such as, "Let's do it your way" or "If it's important to you, I can go along with it." Accommodation may be an effective strategy if the issue is more important to others than oneself. However, if a person perpetually uses this style, that individual may start to see that personal interests and well-being are neglected.

Compromise

The compromising style is a middle-ground style, in which individuals have some desire to express their own concerns and get their way but still respect the other person's goals. The compromiser may say things such as, "Perhaps I ought to reconsider my initial position" or "Maybe we can both agree to give in a little". In a compromise, each person sacrifices something valuable to them. For example, in 2005 the luxurious Lanesborough Hotel in London advertised incorrect nightly rates for £35, as opposed to £350. When the hotel received a large number of online bookings at this rate, the initial reaction was to insist that customers cancel their reservations and book at the correct rate. The situation was about to lead to a public relations crisis. As a result, they agreed to book the rooms at the advertised price for a maximum of three nights, thereby limiting the damage to the hotel's bottom line as well as its reputation.

Competition

People exhibiting a competing style want to reach their goal or get their solution adopted regardless of what others say or how they feel. They are more interested in getting the outcome they want as opposed to keeping the other party happy, and they push for the deal they are interested in making. Competition may lead to poor relationships with others if one is always seeking to maximize their own outcomes at the expense of others' well-being. This approach may be effective if one has strong moral objections to the alternatives or if the alternatives one is opposing are unethical or harmful.

Collaboration

The collaborating style is high on both assertiveness and cooperation. This is a strategy to use for achieving the best outcome from conflict - both sides argue for their position, supporting it with facts and rationale while listening attentively to the other side. The objective is to find a win–win solution to the problem in which both parties get what they want. They'll challenge points but not each other. They'll emphasize problem solving and integration of each other's goals. For example, an employee who wants to complete an MBA program may have a conflict with management when he wants to reduce his work hours. Instead of taking opposing positions in which the employee defends his need to pursue his career goals while the manager emphasizes the company's need for the employee, both parties may review alternatives to find an integrative solution. In the end, the employee may decide to pursue the degree while taking online classes, and the company may realize that paying for the employee's tuition is a worthwhile investment. This may be a win–win solution to the problem in which no one gives up what is personally important, and every party gains something from the exchange.

Which Style Is Best?

Like much of organizational behavior, there is no one "right way" to deal with conflict. Much of the time, it will depend on the situation. However, the collaborative style has the potential to be highly effective in many different situations. We do know that most individuals have a dominant style that they tend to use most frequently. Think of your friend who is always looking for a fight or your coworker who always backs down from a disagreement. Successful individuals are able to match their style to the situation. There are times when avoiding a conflict can be a great choice. For example, if a driver cuts you off in traffic, ignoring it and going on with your day is a good alternative to "road rage." However, if a colleague keeps claiming ownership of your ideas, it may be time for a confrontation. Allowing such intellectual plagiarism to continue could easily be more destructive to your career than confronting the individual. 

Sometimes situations that require giving feedback can feel like conflict and you may approach these situations in the same way that you would approach conflict. Consider that you notice someone on your team wearing attire that is against the company dress code policy.

• If you don’t address the issue, this already lends itself to avoidance because you anticipate this understated existence of conflict. 

• If you condone the issue, you may be accommodating this behavior of breaking the dress code policy. 

• If you address an issue to uphold a standard, you are likely to be competing. The standards/norms of the organization are now competing with the individual’s behavior. 

• If you decide to discuss the issue to find a solution that does not take away from either the organization or the individual/group, you are collaborating. 

• And if you discuss the issue to find a way to at least temporarily work through an impasse and end up bending the standards or norms, you are likely compromising.

Negotiation

If you complete, collaborate, or compromise, you will likely engage in some type of negotiation. According to the Oxford Dctionary, negotiation occurs when discussion takes place that is aimed at reaching an agreement. There are many approaches to negotiation. For instance, a competative approach may lead to a win-lose outcome in which one party reaps all the gains and the other party is worse off than before.  Some situations, like job opportunities, can only favor one party.  Some negotiation situations can lead to a lose-lose outcome, where both parties do not gain advantages and the relationship is generally destroyed.  Sometimes it is better to compromise than to risk a lose-lose outcome (Adler et al., 2022). Though not always possible, a win-win outcome in which both parties have favorable gains can occur through collaboration.  

There are many tactics that can be utilized in the negotiation process, but a popular approach to principled negotiation was presented by Fisher and Ury (1981) in their book, “Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In.” The idea of principled negotiation seeks to identify solutions that are acceptable to all parties by differentiating between needs that are non-negotiable and those that are adaptable during the negotiation process. Here are the key principles proposed by Fisher and Ury:

1. Separate the People from the Problem: Take emotions and personality issues out of the equation long enough to understand what the problem is. 

2. Focus on Interests, Not Positions: Go beyond "what" is being requested to get to the "why." Through the process of discovery, identify the underlying interests, consisting of needs, wants, and motivations (Shonk, 2024). 

3. Invent Options for Mutual Gain: Explore creative solutions that benefit both parties beyond the first agreement. Consider taking the time to brainstorm.  You never know when you might encounter a hidden win-win situation. 

4. Insist on Using Objective Criteria: Base decisions on fair and objective standards that both parties can agree on. Some examples of these could be standards such as market value, expert opinion, industry protocol, or law. Another example of such criteria is forced choice, where one party determines the allocated benefit options and the other party chooses. 

Summary

Conflict is inevitable, but how we handle conflict is essential. Task conflict can be productive, but relationship conflict can be detrimental. Process conflict often overlaps both tasks and relationships. We all approach conflict differently and situations may call for different styles of handling conflict.  These styles include avoiding, accommodating, competing, compromising, and collaborating. The latter three generally involve some type of negotiation leading to a win-lose, lose-lose, or win-win outcome. The practitioner literature on negotiation tactics and approaches is vast, but a popular approach is principled negotiation.

Attribution: 

Information for the 'Conflict Management Styles' section was modified from 

Organizational Behavior (Bus 209) Provided by The Saylor Foundation (2011) under Creative Commons Attribution License, except where otherwise noted. 

References:

Adler, R. B., Elmhorst, J. M., Maresh, M. M., & Lucas, K. (2022). Communicating at work: Strategies for success in business and the professions. (13th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741 

Chang, E. (2020, April 2). The Chinese word for crisis.​ LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chinese-word-crisis-emily-chang

Lipman-Blumen, J. (2006). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and corrupt politicians--and how we can survive them. Oxford University Press, USA.

McLean, S. (2005). The basics of interpersonal communication. Allyn & Bacon.

Shonk, K. (2024, February 9). Principled negotiation: focus on interests to create value. PON - Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/principled-negotiation-focus-interests-create-value/ 

Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument [Dataset]. In PsycTESTS Dataset. https://doi.org/10.1037/t02326-000