1.5 a conflict management

RKHS HOSPITALITY MANAGERS’ DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

YOU ARE EXPECTED TO LEARN . . .

You should be able to clarify concepts and answer the questions listed below. You can

use this as a kind of checklist for your pre-work study and / or as a review during the

workshop.

MODULE OBJECTIVES

Understanding Intra personal Conflicts

Understanding Inter personal Conflicts

Handling Individual Differences

My Conflict Management Profile

SESSION OBJECTIVES

Conflict Management Profile

Discovering My Style Of Handling Conflict

Types Of Intra Personal Conflicts

Types Of Inter Personal Conflicts

Ego Conflicts

Power Conflicts

Value Conflicts

Page – 2 to 8

Page – 9 to 14

FURTHER READINGS

HMDP/Conflict Management/participants handout/page - 1


ANALYSIS OF CONFLICT UTILIZATION

The following ideas are presented to stimulate small group discussion about the subject of

conflict, whether it is between individuals or groups.

1. CONFLICT IS A RELATIONSHIP : It takes at least two persons, groups or even nations to

have a conflict. Do we permit the experience to develop so that issues, not personalities can

be confronted ? Exploring differences can result in useful insight and information IF we do not

cutoff the relationship before data is sufficiently generated for analysis.

2. CONFLICT IS ENERGY : Human effort is necessary to maintain it, so the critical question is

whether we can use this energy constructively or permit it to be wasted. Conflicts cannot

always be resolved when their source, for example, is a sick sense of self. Sometimes the

individuals have to be honest with one another and “ agree to disagree” while respecting one

another.

3. CONFLICT CAN BE DEFUSED OR UNFUSED : If we do not deliberately seek and promote

conflict, there is strategy, which a leader can pursue to minimize unnecessary conflict in the

organization or community. When the situation that can lead to conflict is not yet critical, when

it is still simmering, an innovative supervisor can “ head it off at the pass”. Like the bomb

detection squad that deactivates weapons of potential destruction, a manager can confront or

resolve situations that might end up in serious conflict. He can keep combustibles apart. He

can deal with differences of opinion before they get out of hand.

4. CONFLICT IS AIDED BY HARDENING OF POSITIONS : When people become inflexible and

rigid out of a sense of fear or threat, they tend to set hard boundary rules, to draw lines and

dare anyone to step over, to polarize in their positions. In periods of profound transition, like

today, conflict seems to be growing as people experience “ future shock.” Pluralistic societies

require cooperation rather than dogged adherence to past traditions and positions.

5. PERSONS ARE IN CONFLICT : Human relationships are strained, tension is increased and

emotions run high during conflict situations. Reason can work only when the situation is

“cooled,” objectivized rather than subjectivized. Keep in focus that “ feelings” are involved,

and try to shift discussion to the issues. Yet it is just as bad to over-emphasize the inter-

personal elements in conflict as it is to de-personalize inter-group conflict.



6. CONFLICT INVOLVES PERCEPTION : The apparent conflict may sometimes be caused by

misunderstanding or misperception of the situation. Clarify each person’s true position, and

you might discover that there is no real conflict, or at least it is not so great that it cannot be

handled.

7. THE OPPOSITE OF CONFLICT IS COLLABORATION : One way to reduce undesirable

conflict in organizations is to encourage team building, consulting skills and the development

of a “ helping relationship” among the staff.



HOW TO REDUCE CONFLICT BETWEEN GROUPSIn competitive situations a win-lose outlook is inevitable. Take a football match. There, one team

can win only if the other team loses. This is true of competitive sports, but frequently we interpret

other situations as competitive (win -lose) when they would be much better seen as collaborative

(win-win) i.e. when both parties have much more to gain by cooperating than by competing. Here

are some trips to remember when you next find yourself in an inter-group conflict situation.

1. Be analytic. Often conflict or protest can be very in-formative. What is it that this protest or

demonstration is feeding on ?

2. Avoid simplistic interpretations e.g. “ This student demonstration is arising because the leader

is a known leftist.” It is much more profitable to look at the pressures and forces working on

the leader rather than to speculate about forces, motives and traits in the leader. He wouldn’t

be a leader unless he were responding to situational forces.

3. Avoid, as far as possible, third party interventions. Sometimes however, impartial, modest and

quiet meditation can be helpful if the group’s attitudes have not become frozen.

4. In conflict situations, prejudice and stereotypes become rife and heat up the situation. Limited

cooperation towards small and modest goals unrelated to the conflict can modify the negative

images each group has of the other and improve the climate for broader cooperation.

5. Joint committees can provide a convenient first step when there is an impasse and can reduce

and defuse conflict. They can be set up, 1) initially merely to define (not solve) the problems

that exist between the groups and, 2) thereafter (not solve but) to draw up a list of possible to

alternate solutions which may be negotiated later. Such joint committees turn people’s

attention to facts, free them from the pressure of finding solutions immediately, open up real

communication again and foster the development to problem solving attitudes.

6. A group will not assume a new behavior or attitude towards another group unless the group

has accepted as a group norm the attitude or behavior. Until that is done, individuals will be

afraid of acting differently for fear of lack of support of their own group. Example : Unless the

whole college staff accept as a group norm to teat the student union with respect, individual

teachers who would like to do so, will hesitate to do so for fear of criticism and lack of support.

7. Always try for a solution that enables both to win and avoid one that forces one side to

lose.



WIN / LOOSE SITUATION

Win / Lose situations pervade our culture. In the law course we use the adversary system. Political

parties strive to win elections and win points in legislatures. Debates are common at schools,

universities and in the media. The put-down in generally regarded as wit. Competing with the

defeating and opponent is the most widely published aspect of a good deal of our sports and

recreation.

The language of business, politics, and even education is dotted with win/lose terms. One “wins” a

promotion, “ beats” the competition, buy a lubricant to obtain the racer’s edge for his auto.

Students strive to “ top the class” or “outsmart” the teacher. Although we do recognize

cooperative effort and collaboration, it seems that we tend to emphasize “ healthy” competition.

In an environment that seems to stress winning, it is no wonder that the competitive behavior

persists where it is not appropriate. Imagine a typical committee meeting to decide on a suitable

program for Club Members interrupt each other to introduce their own ideas. Proposals are made

which other members do not even acknowledge. Partnerships and even power blocs are formed to

support one program against proponents of another. When members of such a committee are

enabled to analyze the operation of the group, they commonly agree that they all were not

listening to each other because they were thinking of ways to state a case to counter the

proposals of others. They were interrupting to get a point out before the speaker clinched the sale

of his idea. In these ways they were acting as competing individuals rather than as a collaborating

group. They had started out to reach the best decision regarding the best decision regarding the

program, but had slipped into a win / lose contest. Very often the original purpose is completely

over shadowed by the struggle to win. This is a common failing of committees.

Group meetings are not the only sphere in which win / loose can arise. Visualize a consultant

discussing a client’s problem. For any number of reasons the client may perceive his helpful

suggestions not as the consultant intends but as criticisms of the client’s methods or behavior. As

a result, the client may also feel that he is in competition with the consultant. The contest would

revolve around whose methods were more effective, or who would do the job better. Instead of

listening to the consultant’s recommendations, the client would by trying to shoot them down. For

his part, the consultant would be concentrating on defending his expertise. When a consultant

and client are locked in win/ loose match, the chances are very small that the consultant’s advice

will be used.

Win / Loose contests can also develop in an organization. Individuals may strive for a dominant

position. Battles can rage discreetly and otherwise between departments. For example, a planning

department might develop a new assembly procedure. When it is introduced to the assembly

department, the workers might resent it and lock horns with the planners. It is easy to interpret

the situation in win/ loose terms. The planners are showing that they know more and can design a

procedure better than the men on the job. If the new procedure works well, the planners “Win.”

On the other hand, if the innovation does not improve production, the planners “Loose”, and in a

sense, the assemblers “Win” because their normal operation proved superior. Seen in this light, it

should be expected that the workers will not be committed to giving the innovation a fair trial. In

extreme cases, they may even sabotage it to show those theoretical snobs in planning. In fact, all



efforts to plan for others are plagued by win / loose traps. In some companies and institutions

internal win / loose rivalries absorb more effort than the main production or service.

POTENTIAL RESULTS OF WIN/ LOOSEAlthough there are obviously some instances where win/ loose is a positive factor, it is generally

destructive. Win / loose is too often poison to interpersonal relationships and organizational

effectiveness. Suppose a husband loses an argument with his wife so that they go to a dance

instead of a horse race.

He can retaliate by being sullen and obnoxious. He has turned a win / loose situation into an

ordeal where both partners are miserable. Often win/ loose victories become losses for both

parties. This has been termed a loss/ loose result.

Some of the negative results of win / loose have been shown in the examples already given. Here

is a list of fourteen problems, which may arise from win / loose confrontations. They are not in any

particular order, nor are they comprehensive.

WIN / LOOSE MAY:

1. Divert time and energy from the main issues.

2. Delay decisions

3. Create deadlocks

4. Drive unaggressive committee members off the sidelines

5. Interfere with listening

6. Obstruct exploration of more alternatives.

7. Decrease or destroy sensitivity.

8. Cause members to drop out or resign from committees.

9. Arouse anger that disrupts a meeting

10. Interfere with empathy.

11. Leave losers resentful.

12. Incline underdogs to sabotage.

13. Provoke personal abuse

14. Cause defensiveness.



ADJUSTING WIN / LOOSESince win / loose events will undoubtedly be experienced by us in the course of time, it is

important to know how to cope with them. Since the predominant trend of win / loose contests is

toward loose / loose outcomes. It becomes a matter of redirecting them toward win / win results.

In a win / win result everyone comes out on top.

It is extremely difficult for one person alone to reorient win / loose. You are likely to be treated as

a third party in the scrap, or you may have both adversaries on you. Although it would be ideal to

have all partial committed to avoid win / loose, the efforts of a significant segment of a group can

usually be effective.

In one-to-one contests, one of the parties can often turn off the contest. It takes two to fight. The

more persons in a win / loose situation who recognized the dangers in such a struggle and want to

adjust the situation, the more likely they will succeed. Supposing such a sub group exists in

committee what can they do to help ?

SOME MEANS OF ADJUSTMENT : 1. Have clear goals, understood and agreed upon. Use the goals to test whether issues are

relevant or not.

2. Be on the lookout for win / loose. It can develop subtly. if you feel under attack, or feel yourself lining up support, you are likely in a win / loose.

3. Listen empathetically to others. Stop yourself from working on counter-arguments while another person is speaking. Take the risk or being persuaded. Try the other person’s reasoning on for size

4. Avoid absolute statements that leave no room for modification. “ I think this is the way....” is better than “ This is THE ONLY way...”

5. If you are planning for others, provide some means for their involvement. The doers should feel that they could have influence on the decisions that affect them.

6. Try to make decisions by consensus rather than victory of the majority.

7. Test to see that trade - offs and compromises are accepted by all.

8. Draw a continuum line and have members place themselves on it regarding the issue. If often occurs that the different “sides” are not far apart.

9. Be alert to winning or selling strategies in others and avoid using them yourself. “Any intelligent person can see the advantage.....” is a danger signal.

*** *** ***



IS IT ALWAYS RIGHT TO BE RIGHT?

This parable by Warren H. Schmidt appeared in the Lost Angeles Times on November 9, 1969.

With little adaptation of cultural context it can speak strongly to all of us.

There one was a land where men were always right.

They knew it … and they were proud of it.

It was a land where a man was proud to say, “I am right” or “Your are wrong.” For these are

words of conviction, of strength, and of courage.

No one was ever heard to say, “I may be wrong” or “You may be right.”

For these were words of weakness, uncertainty, and cowardice.

When differences arose among the people of this land, they sought not to reexamine and explore,

but only to justify and persuade.

When differences arose between the old and the young, the older would say :

We have worked hard to build this great and prosperous land.

We have produced cars and highways that permit us to move quickly from place to place.

We fly planes that surpass the speed of sound.

We have built computers that solve problems in mili-seconds.

We have even touched the moon.

We expect those who inherit this good land to appreciate what we have accomplished and to build

on the heritage we have given to them.

THESE OLDER PEOPLE WERE RIGHT, OF COURSE … AND THEY KNEW IT AND WERE PROUD OF IT.

But the younger people of that land would respond :

We see around us a land that has been befouled and exploited.

People starve where food is plentiful.

Laws and practices prevent some from having an equal chance to develop and to influence.

Noble and moral words are matched by selfish and sordid deeds.

Leaders urge us to fight wars to preserve peace – and the fighting does not end.

The whole scene is phony and polluted and inhuman and out of control.

We want no part of this money – mad Establishment.

THE YOUNGER PEOPLE WERE RIGHT, OF COURSE … AND THEY KNEW IT AND WERE PROUD OF IT.

…And the gap between the generations grew wider

When differences arose between men of different races, those from the majority race would say:

We are working steadily to build a land of justice and equality for all our citizens.

We have made considerable progress – but social progress does not come swiftly.



Those whom we seek to help and lift can only hurt their own cause when they push and intrude

and pressure us.

Let them show some patience – and let them use more fully the opportunities we have already

supplied.

Then we will feel like doing even more for them,

THESE PEOPLE OF THE MAJORITY WERE RIGHT. OF COURSE … AND THEY KNEW IT AND THEY

WERE PROUD OF IT.

But those from the minority group would reply :

We have been pushed around too long and we are angry.

We have been confined to a ghetto

Our children’s education has been stunted in second – rate schools.

We have seen jobs go to the less qualified while our people are rejected or shunted into menial

tasks.

We see a thousand subtle signs that brand us and our children as second – class citizens in this

land.

We will tolerate lefty promises and meager deeds no longer.

THESE PEOPLE FROM THE MINORITY WERE RIGHT, OF COURSE … AND THEY KNEW IT AND WERE

PROUD OF IT.

… and the gap between the races grew wider

And so it went in this land …

Group after group defined the right

And took their stand

And upheld their position against those who opposed them.

It happened between those who taught in the school and those who provided the funds.

It happened between those who gave priority to a strong defense and those who gave priority to

better cities.

It happened between those who pleaded for peace at any price and those who argued for national

honor at any cost.

EVERYONE WAS RIGHT, OF COURSE … AND THEY KNEW IT AND WERE PROUD OF IT.

… and the gaps between groups grew wider

Until the day cam when the rigidity of rightness caused all activity to come to a halt.

Each group stood in its solitary rightness

Glaring with proud eyes at those too blind to see their truth

Determined to maintain their position at all costs

(For this is the responsibility of being right.)

No one traveled across the giant gapsHMDP/Conflict Management/participants handout/page - 9


No one talked to those on the other side

No one listened

The quality of life declined

And grew more grim

People became more angry and more afraid

Violence increased …

Then …

One day a strange new sound was heard in the land.

Someone said, “I may be wrong … You may be right.”

The people are shocked that anyone could be so weak

And so confused

But the voice persisted

And some began to listen.

It now seemed safe to listen to opposing – and even

“wrong” – views

As they listened, they discovered common beliefs they had not known before.

They even began to see signs of humanity and noble purpose in those whom they once only knew

as adversaries.

Here and there men expressed their common desires in deeds – and bright examples of joint

action were seen in the land.

With each new effort, men’s faith in one another grew …

And their faith in the future …

And in their ability to shape their own destiny.

They stated these beliefs in a Declaration of Interdependence which read in parts …

All men are created equal – but each develops in a unique way.

All men are endowed with certain inalienable rights – but each must assume certain inevitable

responsibilities.

In this land men had learned how two rights could make a costly wrong.

That it may take less courage to point the finger of blame than to extend the hand of partnership

and less wisdom to defend a narrow right than to seek a broader understanding.

Most important of all, the people of this land had learned that the quest for truth is never over …

that the challenge is always the same.

To stop fighting long enough to listen

To learn from those who differ

To try new approaches



To seek and test new relationships

And to keep at a task that never ends …



COPING WITH CONFLICT

Conflict between and among individuals, groups, organizations, and nations pervades our society.

Definition of conflict cover a wide range and usually include such dimensions are conditions,

perceptions, emotions, behavior and outcome. Conflict is defined here as a process that begins

one of the parties to the interaction perceives that another has frustrated, or is about to frustrate,

one of his or her needs or concerns (Thomas, 1976, P 891). By viewing conflict in this way or

considering the diversity of people’s values, attitudes, beliefs motives and goals - it is no wonder

that conflict is so pervasive. Given the potential for real or perceived frustration of some need or

concern, opportunities for conflict are abundant and conflict is inevitable.

The ability to cope successfully with conflict is among the most important social skills one can

acquire. As people mature they usually develop behaviors for coping with conflict : there is even

some evidence that they develop certain preferred styles(Thomas & Kilmann, 1974). Almost

invariably conflict management skills are acquired without formal education or guidance. Usually

behavior are modeled after the behavior of others. If one is fortunate to have good models, and

if one is lucky enough to be in situations in which the modeled style is effective, one is usually

successful, if not, one may learn an effective style too late. The best way to minimize failure is to

learn what styles are available, in what situations they are most effectively employed, and how to

use them.

A model developed by Thomas (1976) provides an excellent framework for learning various

conflict management behaviors their situation specific assets and liabilities, and the

consequences of using a particular style too much or too little. As shown in Figure 1. the model

describes the behaviors of each party in a conflict situation along two behavioral dimensions : (1)

assertiveness - the extent to which an individual attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns, and

(2) cooperativeness - the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy the other person’s

concerns. These two dimensions define five distinct styles for coping with conflict : competition,

collaboration, avoidance, accommodation and compromise. Much of the following discussion is

based on Thomas and Kilmann (1974)

COMPETITION

Competition reflects a desire to meet one’s own needs and concerns at the expense of the other

party. As the model illustrates, the most assertive and least cooperative people use the

competitive style. To achieve the desired outcome, the competitor uses whatever power is

available and acceptable e.g. position or rank, information, expertise, persuasive ability, economic

sanction or coercion . If the stakes are high enough, a very competitive person’s use power may

well be limited only by some grater external power such as the law or social taboos.

Some advocate the use of the competitive style in all actual or potential conflict situation, which is

not surprising given the endless models and reward systems that foster and support competition

in our society. Others condemn the competitive style as a win/lose strategy. Competing (or any

other style) is neither good nor bad but one of the many styles that may be appropriate and

effective or otherwise depending on the situation.



Life threatening situations requiring quick, decisive action may require a power oriented

competitive style. Generals in battle or parents in certain circumstances might choose to control

soldiers or children without considering their needs and concerns. A competitive style may also be

necessary at times to protect oneself from others who tend to take advantage of non competitive

behavior.

COLLABORATION

Collaboration involves the maximum use of both cooperation and assertion. Those using a

collaborative style aim to satisfy the needs and concerns of both parties. Collaborating means (1)

acknowledging that there is a conflict : (2) identifying and acknowledging each others needs

concerns and goals : (3) identifying Alternative resolutions and their consequences of each

person : (4) selecting the alternative that meets the needs and concerns and accomplishes the

goals of each party ; and (5) implementing the alternative selected and evaluating the results.

COOPERATIVENESS

Major styles of coping with conflict

Collaborating requires more commitment than the other styles and takes more time and energy. It

follows that such commitment must be warranted by situations in which the needs and concerns

are extremely important and cannot be ignored. Collaboration is also the best style to use when it

is essential that the parties to a conflict be committed to the resolution because an outcome that

meets the needs of both parties is more likely to have the required support and commitment.

Going through the collaboration process can also lead to personal growth as the parties in

potential solutions.

AVOIDANCE

Avoidance is characterized by both uncooperative and unassertive behavior by both

uncooperative and unassertive behavior by both parties. Those employing this style simply do not

address the conflict and are indifferent to each other’s needs and concerns. They evade the issue,

withdraw from the discussion, or may not even stay for the resolution.


COMPETE COLLABORATE

COMPROMISE

AVOID ACCOMMODATE

ASSERTIVENESS


Avoidance can be employed effectively as either an interim or a permanent strategy. For

example, if discussion is heated, it may be useful to allow the other person to cool down. At times

avoiding a situation until more information is available or analysis of the problem has been made

is the most productive approach. Temporarily avoiding a situation is also hopeful if the issue is

relatively unimportant, if there is not enough time available to come to a resolution, or if the issue

is thought to be only a symptom or a more extensive problem that must be dealt with later.

As a permanent strategy, avoidance of the situation is indicated if the probability of satisfying

one’s own needs and concerns is exceedingly low and there is n o concern for the other party’s

needs and concerns. Total avoidance is also called for if others can resolve the conflict more

easily.

ACCOMMODATION

Accommodation is characterized by cooperative and unassertive behavior. Accommodation

means placing the other party’s needs and concerns the situation (which produces the conflict).

Accommodation is appropriate and effective if one party is not as concerned as the other.

Accommodating to the needs of the first party builds goodwill and leads to cooperative

relationships. Accommodation is also effective when preserving harmony and avoiding disruption

are especially important or when one person has a great deal more power than the other.

COMPROMISE

Compromise is midway between competition and collaboration and avoidance and

accommodation. Moderate amounts of cooperativeness and assertiveness are required to effect a

compromise. The person compromising expects that the outcome will be partial fulfillment of the

needs, concerns and goals of both people. Both search for a mutually acceptable, partially

satisfying solution. Compromise result in more aggregate needs being met than would be met by

collaboration. Through compromise more issues are confronted than would be confronted through

avoidance, but issues are confronted less thoroughly than they would be through collaboration.

Although the solution to a compromise is mutually acceptable, it only partially satisfies each

person’s needs and wants. Therefore competition is second to collaboration in degree of

satisfaction produced.

Compromise is appropriate and effective when temporary solutions are sough for complex issues

or when time is short. Compromise is also appropriate when the goals of the parties are

moderately important but not worth the efforts and time required for collaboration. Compromise is

preferred when the parties are strongly committed to mutually exclusive goals and it is unlikely

that either party has the power to dominate the other. Compromise may also be considered an

effective strategy in case an affront to collaborate fails.

WHICH STYLE TO USE Whether a particular conflict management styles is appropriate is specific to the situation. To be

effective at managing conflict, one should be able to use any of the styles and know when each

style is appropriate. However, people tend to develop one preferred style and use it in most

situations. As a consequence people may neglect styles that could be more effective. A brief



description of the potential adverse consequences or over or under use of the styles of coping

with conflict discussed earlier follows :

COMPETITION

Someone who uses a competitive style to the exclusion of other styles may find that other people

to being forced into win-lose situations. Competitors do not yield their positions and often express

anger and frustration openly and aggressively towards those who disagree. Other people learn

that confronting a competitor brings negative consequences, so consistent competitors may not

receive important information and feedback from others. Consistent competitors may be seen as

belligerent and may ultimately be cut off from interaction with others.

People who never use the competitive style may also suffer adverse consequences. They may feel

powerless against competitors especially. In addition, the individual may be ineffective from lack

of practice if he or she elects to use the style.



COLLABORATION

Collaboration requires a substantially greater commitment than do the other conflict management

styles. Many issues simply do not warrant the time and energy required to seek optimal solutions,

and not all conflicts are worth resolving or even lend themselves to resolution. Collaboration is

being over-employed if seeking resolution to conflict is tapping energy needed for other activities.

One-sided commitment to collaboration can also result in advantage being taken of the person

who attempts to reach a mutually satisfying resolution. Because collaboration requires openness

and trust, if only one of the parties to the conflict is willing to be open and trusting, that party will

be at a disadvantage.

Creative ideas and solution to complex problems are more likely to emerge through collaboration.

A person who never uses the collaborative style risks loss of truly innovative ideas and resolutions

to the conflict.

Many people assume that there are no adverse consequences associated with avoiding conflict.

They assume that if they withdraw, they have no responsibility and therefore there can be no

negative consequences. On the contrary, too much avoidance of conflict can create problems for

both parties. Participation in decision making fosters commitment to and subsequent

implementation of the decision. If one person withdraws, decisions will be made and goals will be

set with or without that person's input resulting in poor implementation of the decision and low

levels of commitment to it.

The person who rarely avoids conflict may also encounter adverse consequences. Selectively

avoiding conflict can be a good tactic to employ. Those who confront every conflict head on can

hurt others' feelings and stirrup their hostilities. Selective avoidance is also the best way to keep

from becoming overwhelmed by conflict, a distinct possibility in our society. The importance of

every potential conflict needs to be weighed and a determination must be made about whether to

avoid the situation.

ACCOMMODATION

Those who use accommodation to excess may feel that their own ideas, needs and concerns are

not receiving the attention they deserve. Accommodators generally are 'quiet' and are perceived

that way to the extent that they are often not heard when they do make a contribution. Their

influence, respect and recognition may erode.

On the other hand, those who rarely use accommodation, may be seen as unreasonable, and they

may fail to maintain good relations with others because they do not acquire the goodwill that

accommodation can bring.

COMPROMISE

Those who always compromise risk losing sight of what it would be like to have all their needs

met. People become caught up in the tactics and strategies of compromise and lose sight of

improvement values and principles and myriad possibilities.



On the other hand, people who never compromise may never develop the skills needed to bargain

or negotiate when necessary. They may be unable to make concessions and may not be able to

extricate themselves from potentially no-win confrontations.

SUMMARY

Nothing is inherently right or wrong about any of the conflict management styles; each may be

more or less appropriate and effective depending on the situation and the parties involved.

Each of us has access to a variety of conflict management behaviours but we tend to prefer

certain ones and to use them to the exclusion of other styles that could be more effective in a

given situation - with adverse consequences. We must develop the skills to execute any of the

styles when we diagnose conflict situations and choose the appropriate way to deal with whatever

comes up, depending on our needs at the time and the importance of coming to a resolution

within a prescribed time frame.

*********


1.5 a conflict management

Documents