The conflict management styles include collaborating, competing, avoiding, accommodating, and compromising. Each of these styles has its strengths and weaknesses. Think about how you might develop a conflict management style that you admire. For example, if you want to be a better collaborator, how can you use this information to develop more traits of that style? Read this page for an overview of conflict management styles. Answer the two concept check questions at the end.
Having examined specific factors that are known to facilitate conflict, we can ask how conflict comes about in organizations. The most commonly accepted model of the conflict process was developed by Kenneth Thomas. This model, shown in Exhibit 14.3, consists of four stages: (1) frustration, (2) conceptualization, (3) behavior, and (4) outcome.
Stage 1: Frustration. As we have seen, conflict situations originate when an individual or group feels frustration in the pursuit of important goals. This frustration may be caused by a wide variety of factors, including disagreement over performance goals, failure to get a promotion or pay raise, a fight over scarce economic resources, new rules or policies, and so forth. In fact, conflict can be traced to frustration over almost anything a group or individual cares about.
Stage 2: Conceptualization. In stage 2, the conceptualization stage of the model, parties to the conflict attempt to understand the nature of the problem, what they themselves want as a resolution, what they think their opponents want as a resolution, and various strategies they feel each side may employ in resolving the conflict. This stage is really the problem-solving and strategy phase. For instance, when management and union negotiate a labor contract, both sides attempt to decide what is most important and what can be bargained away in exchange for these priority needs.
Stage 3: Behavior. The third stage in Thomas's model is actual behavior. As a result of the conceptualization process, parties to a conflict attempt to implement their resolution mode by competing or accommodating in the hope of resolving problems. A major task here is determining how best to proceed strategically. That is, what tactics will the party use to attempt to resolve the conflict? Thomas has identified five modes for conflict resolution, as shown in Exhibit 14.3. These are (1) competing, (2) collaborating, (3) compromising, (4) avoiding, and (5) accommodating. Also shown in the exhibit are situations that seem most appropriate for each strategy.
Exhibit 14.3 A Model of the Conflict Process
The choice of an appropriate conflict resolution mode depends to a great extent on the situation and the goals of the party. This is shown graphically in Exhibit 14.4. According to this model, each party must decide the extent to which it is interested in satisfying its own concerns - called assertiveness - and the extent to which it is interested in helping satisfy the opponent's concerns - called cooperativeness. Assertiveness can range from assertive to unassertive on one continuum, and cooperativeness can range from uncooperative to cooperative on the other continuum.
Once the parties have determined their desired balance between the two competing concerns - either consciously or unconsciously - the resolution strategy emerges. For example, if a union negotiator feels confident she can win on an issue that is of primary concern to union members (e.g., wages), a direct competition mode may be chosen (see upper left-hand corner of Exhibit 14.4). On the other hand, when the union is indifferent to an issue or when it actually supports management's concerns (e.g., plant safety), we would expect an accommodating or collaborating mode (on the right-hand side of the exhibit).
| Five Modes of Resolving Conflict | |
|---|---|
| Conflict-Handling Modes | Appropriate Situations |
| Competing |
|
| Collaborating |
|
| Compromising |
|
| Avoiding |
|
| Accommodating |
|
Table 14.1
Exhibit 14.4 Approaches to Conflict Resolution
What is interesting in this process is the assumptions people make about their own modes compared to their opponents'. For example, in one study of executives, it was found that the executives typically described themselves as using collaboration or compromise to resolve conflict, whereas these same executives typically described their opponents as using a competitive mode almost exclusively.7 In other words, the executives underestimated their opponents' concern as uncompromising. Simultaneously, the executives had flattering portraits of their own willingness to satisfy both sides in a dispute.
Stage 4: Outcome. Finally, as a result of efforts to resolve the conflict, both sides determine the extent to which a satisfactory resolution or outcome has been achieved. Where one party to the conflict does not feel satisfied or feels only partially satisfied, the seeds of discontent are sown for a later conflict, as shown in the preceding Exhibit 14.2. One unresolved conflict episode can easily set the stage for a second episode. Managerial action aimed at achieving quick and satisfactory resolution is vital; failure to initiate such action leaves the possibility (more accurately, the probability) that new conflicts will soon emerge.
Source: J. Stewart Black and David S. Bright; OpenStax, https://openstax.org/books/organizational-behavior/pages/14-2-causes-of-conflict-in-organizations
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.