Conflict Management
Strategies for Managing Conflict
When we ask others what they want to do when they experience conflict, most of the time, they say, “resolve it.” While this is understandable, also important to understand is that conflict is ongoing in all relationships, and our approach to conflict sometimes should be to manage it instead of always trying to resolve it.
One way to understand options for managing conflict is by knowing five major strategies people may use. As you read about these, you will see that some will likely be more successful than others.
Figure 6.7.1: Five Styles of Interpersonal Conflict Management.
1. Competing
When people select the competing or the win-lose approach, they exhibit high concern for the self and low concern for the other person. The goal here is to win the conflict. This approach is often characterized by loud, forceful, and interrupting communication. Again, this is analogous to sports.
Too often, we avoid conflict because we believe the only other alternative is to try to dominate the other person. In relationships where we care about others or in conflicts at work, it's no wonder this strategy can seem unappealing. Competing sometimes leads to aggression, although not always. Aggressive communication may involve insults, profanity, yelling, or threats of punishment if you do not get your way.
2. Avoiding
When people avoid a conflict, they may suppress feelings of frustration or walk away from a situation. This style of conflict management often indicates a low concern for self and a low concern for the other, and no direct communication about the conflict takes place. This is not always the case, however. There may be times when this is the best strategy. Take, for example, a heated argument between D'Shaun and Pat. Pat is about to make a hurtful remark out of frustration. Instead, she decides to avoid this argument until she and D'Shaun can come back and discuss things more calmly. Or we may decide to avoid conflict for other reasons.
If you view the conflict as unimportant, it may be better to ignore it. If the person you are having conflict with will only be working in your office for a week, you may perceive a conflict as temporary and choose to avoid it. In general, avoiding does not work.
For one thing, you can not communicate. Even when we try to avoid conflict, we may intentionally or unintentionally give our feelings away through our verbal and nonverbal communication, such as rolling our eyes or sighing. Consistent conflict avoidance over the long term generally has negative consequences for a relationship because neither person is willing to participate in the conflict management process.
3. Accommodating
The accommodating conflict management style indicates a moderate concern for self and others. Sometimes, this style is viewed as passive or submissive, in that someone complies with or obliges another without providing personal input. However, it could be that the person involved in the conflict values the relationship more than the issue. The context for and motivation behind accommodating play an important role in whether or not it is an appropriate strategy.
For example, if there is little chance that your own goals can be attained, or if the relationship might be damaged if you insist on your own way, accommodating could be appropriate. On the other hand, if you constantly accommodate with little reciprocation by your partner, this style can be personally damaging.
4. Compromising
The compromising style is evident when both parties are willing to give up something to gain something else. It shows a moderate concern for self and others. When environmental activist Julia Butterfly Hill agreed to end her two-year-long tree-sit in Luna as a protest against the logging practices of Pacific Lumber Company (PALCO) and pay them $50,000 in exchange for their promise to protect Luna and not cut within a 20-foot buffer zone, she and PALCO reached a compromise. If one of the parties feels the compromise is unequal they may be less likely to stick to it long term.
When conflict is unavoidable, many times, people will opt for a compromise. One of the problems with compromise is that neither party fully meets their needs. If you want Mexican food and your friend wants pizza, you might agree to compromise and go someplace that serves Mexican pizza. While this may seem like a good idea, you may have been craving a burrito, and your friend may have been craving a pepperoni pizza. In this case, while the compromise brought together two food genres, neither person got their desire met.
Compromising may be a good strategy when time limitations or prolonging a conflict may lead to relationship deterioration. Compromise may also be good when both parties have equal power, or other resolution strategies have not worked.
5. Collaborating
Finally, collaborating demonstrates a high level of concern for both self and others. Using this strategy, individuals agree to share information, feelings, and creativity to reach a mutually acceptable solution that meets their needs. In our food example above, one strategy would be for both people to get the food they want, then take it on a picnic in the park. This way, both people are getting their needs met fully, and in a way that extends beyond original notions of win-lose approaches for managing the conflict.
The downside to this strategy is that it is very time-consuming and requires high levels of trust.