Organizational Conflict at Your Workplace

ruain1.wilkxns

AUO_L7450_M6_L6.html.html.zip

Home >Business & Finance homework help >Operations Management homework help >Organizational Conflict at Your Workplace

AUO_L7450_M6_L6.html.html

Responding to Conflict

Now that we have discussed the functions of conflict, let’s look at how we respond to conflicts.

Styles and Tactics

Although the potential for interpersonal conflict is everywhere—on the freeway when someone “cuts you off” in traffic, at work when a colleague criticizes your performance, or at home when a family member doesn’t do a chore, not every potential conflict becomes a conflict interaction. On some occasions, you choose to avoid the conflict by not expressing your feelings or the other party refuses to engage.

However, sometimes you must engage in conflict. If you are to resolve differences, maintain relationships, and feel that you are being treated fairly, you will have to engage in conflict at least occasionally.

When faced with interpersonal conflict, you have to decide how to respond.

Is it best to confront the party and to try working out a solution?
Should the issue be avoided—either temporarily or permanently?
Should you just give in?

No single response is appropriate and effective for every conflict. Instead, you should make a choice based on the situation, the issue, the other party, your relationship with that person, and your goals.

To understand the types of responses that are more or less effective in specific contexts, scholars have studied the conflict tactics and styles that participants enact (see Blake & Mouton, 1964; Putnam & Wilson, 1982). And these tactics and styles still apply in the twenty-first century. A conflict tactic is the individual behavior that a person uses when engaged in conflict (such as shouting, threatening, persuading, or withdrawing), while conflict style describes the pattern of tactics that an individual uses repeatedly across parties and contexts (Shockley-Zalabak, 2015). For example, a threat is a specific strategy that is common when one uses a competitive style. Therefore, threatening once to fire an employee if his or her performance does not improve is a competitive tactic; consistently threatening, verbally abusing, and acting aggressively towards employees is indicative of a competitive style.

Choosing a Conflict Response Style

Although the collaborative or problem-solving style represents an “ideal” conflict style, all five conflict styles are appropriate in specific contexts and with specific individuals. For example, compromise is an effective style when the issue is not too important and one is equally concerned with one’s own and the other party’s interests. On the other hand, avoidance may be appropriate when the issue is minor or the time is wrong for addressing a difficult topic.

How you respond to conflict often depends on how direct or indirect you wish to be and how willing you are to work toward accomplishing your own and others’ goals (Kilmann & Thomas, 1975; Sahu & Pathardikar, 2015). When you are the most concerned with accomplishing your own goals, you may choose to engage directly in conflict by choosing to respond competitively. Alternately, you may wish to be indirect when you aren’t particularly concerned about addressing your own or the other person’s goals. In this case, you might decide to accommodate the other person to avoid direct confrontation.

However, when conflict erupts, individuals are likely to respond in ways that feel familiar and comfortable, regardless of the issue, context, or other party. Therefore, analysis and practice often are required before people can develop a diverse repertoire of conflict skills and become highly effective at conflict management. For example, most people tend to respond to personal attacks with defensiveness and counterattack. However, once you recognize this tendency, you can choose to respond differently. You might tell the other person you are willing to talk, but only if he or she refrains from personal attacks.

Alternatively, you may opt to avoid the conflict until both of you are calmer. Again, you could choose to focus on the content of the complaint and ignore the other party’s hostility. Of course, even the most skillful person isn’t always effective or able to choose the “right” or best tactic for a given conflict.

References:

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid: The key to leadership excellence. Houston, TX: Gulf.

Kilmann, R. H., & Thomas, K. W. (1975). Interpersonal conflict handling behavior as a reflection of Jungian personality dimensions.Psychology Reports, 37, 309–325.

Putnam, L. L., & Wilson, C. E. (1982). Communicative strategies in organizational conflicts: Reliability and validity of a measurement scale.In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (Vol. 6, pp.629–652). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Sahu, S., & Pathardikar, A. D. (2015). Managing conflict through transformational leadership: Is collaborative style a solution. Delhi Business Review, 16(1),59–74.

Shockley-Zalabak, P. (2015). Fundamentals of organizational communication (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

ca6b754c-6db1-4c6f-8e5d-73cbf123f6a6/AU_L7450_M6_G3.pdf

2 Styles and Tactics Competing

A competing or dominating style represents a high concern for self and low concern for another

party (Friedman, Tidd, Currall, & Tsai). This style is useful when you are willing to accomplish your own goals at the expense of others. When you compete with others, you focus on your own concerns and interests. You have little investment in helping the other person achieve his or her goals. You are probably familiar with competitive responses to conflict; they can include threats, aggression, even violence.

When people act competitively, they want to win—sometimes at any cost. While competing may

occasionally be an appropriate response, it can cause problems if you use it frequently or it becomes your preferred style. You may need to act competitively if your rights are being violated and the other party is not responsive to more collaborative tactics. However, maintaining a relationship can be more difficult if you consistently respond to conflict competitively. Competition makes it harder for parties to reach a resolution, and such behavior may damage the relational ties you have with others. Very few people enjoy losing, and if you insist on winning all of the time, other parties may choose to withdraw from a relationship.

Although a competitive response focuses only on your own goals, you can communicate your

goals more effective or less effective ways. Competitive responses that are direct and non- aggressive are likely to be more effective and less damaging than indirect competitive responses (Canary & Lakey, 2006). For example, you can argue for what you want and try to persuade others to your view. At times, however, you may be tempted to compete directly and aggressively. (These behaviors are the ones that come most easily to mind when you think of responding competitively.) People are direct and aggressive when they attack others in the attempt to achieve their goals. A final, and frequently ineffective, response is competing indirectly and aggressively. You probably have heard the term “passive aggressive.” A passive aggressive response is one where you appear to be avoiding or accommodating but then act aggressively when others don’t expect it. For example, you might agree to help your friend move, then “forget” to show up, or you work late at your boss’s request then deliberately do a poor job on the project to get even.

Collaborating

A collaborating or problem solving style involves a high concern for the self and the other party.

When you use this style, you show your concern for fulfilling the goals of all parties (Ben-Yoav & Pruitt, 1984; Fisher & Ury, 1991). Examples of collaborative or problem solving strategies include communicating openly and creating integrative solutions.

Collaboration requires that you look for solutions that satisfy the concerns of all parties. It can be

one of the more difficult conflict responses to enact.

Collaboration requires that each party identify his or her central concerns and issues. However, it can be difficult for people to recognize what is truly important to them, much less for them to recognize what is important to others.

Page 2 of 5 Interpersonal and Organizational Communication

3 Styles and Tactics

Although collaboration can be a very productive way to handle a conflict, sometimes it is not possible. The parties’ interests may be so divergent that a mutual solution is impossible, or people may lack the skills or time necessary to develop a truly collaborative outcome. Nonetheless, when possible, a collaborative response to conflict can be the most effective. It allows for “win-win” solutions and helps people maintain, and even improve, their relationships.

Compromising

A compromising style represents a moderate concern for self and other (Conerly & Tripathi,

2004). It involves developing solutions that meet some of the needs of each party, though not all. Compromising strategies involve each party giving up some of their own goals and desires in order to get others to come on board. For example, if you want a raise and more vacation time while your boss prefers to give you neither, the two of you may compromise, with you receiving the vacation time but not the raise. Compromising often is the first response people think of when they are confronted with a conflict.

Compromising can be a useful response to conflict. It can be more efficient than collaboration. You

may be able to decide quickly which issues are most important and work out a deal that lets each conflict participant get what he or she most desires. Everyone has to give up something and everyone gets something.

Compromising is effective for conflict situations where the participants’ primary goals are

different or where the issues are not very complex. However, compromising is not the best response to every conflict. Some conflicts are too complex to settle with a compromise, or it may not be possible for a compromise truly to satisfy both partners. If you want children and your spouse does not, there really is no effective way to compromise on having children. In addition, when you compromise you may give up things that are important to you. Finally, people can manipulate the compromise process by pretending to want things they do not actually want. Thus, you might mistakenly give up something important to you while your conflict partner actually “gives up” something he or she didn’t want in the first place.

Many of the tactics discussed under collaboration are the same skills you will need if you decide to

compromise. To be effective at compromising, you must be able to provide information, solicit information, provide support, and accept responsibility, just as you do in collaboration. In addition, you also need to be able to develop and offer concessions. Specifically, you have to determine which issues are of most and least importance to you and articulate what you are giving up. You may have to help the other party think through his or her needs as well.

Overall, a compromising response to conflict requires that you and the other party be willing to

make sufficient concessions so that everyone will be satisfied with the outcome of the conflict. Accommodating

An accommodating or obliging style entails a low concern for self and a high concern for the other

party. Strategies for accommodating or obliging include giving in to the other party’s

Page 3 of 5 Interpersonal and Organizational Communication

4 Styles and Tactics desires and giving up one’s own goals (Friedman, Tidd, & Currall, 2000; Wayne, Liden, Graf, & Ferris, 1997.)

Sometimes you may determine that the issues you are arguing about are not important to you or

that your goals are not with fighting for. For example, you might conclude that you don’t care which shift you work, or that you are willing to do more than your share of the housework because you do it better.

Consequently, you may decide to accommodate your partner’s goals and give up your own.

However, you need to be sure that you are truly accommodating, that is, giving up your own goals. If you are actually just trying to avoid the conflict temporarily, when you feel like resolving it later, the other party may resent that you have changed your position.

Although accommodation sounds like a positive response to conflict, you can accommodate in

ways that are constructive or destructive to the relationship. You can strengthen your relationship with another if you give in to your conflict partner by acknowledging you were wrong or by acknowledging that his or her goals are more important. Thus, you can say, “You’re right. You put in for your vacation first, so you should get the weeks in June.” Or, you can accommodate by being patronizing and sarcastic (Nicotera, 1993.) If you say, “Go ahead and take your vacation in June, it will be a vacation for me just to have you gone,” you may be accommodating your partner, but your behavior will probably escalate the conflict and would damage your relationship.

Avoiding

An avoiding style involves a low concern for self and the other, because one refuses to engage in

interactions that would allow either party’s needs to be met (Jones, 2005). Avoiding strategies include withdrawing, joking around, and ignoring. While some people believe it is important to air all differences if a relationship is to succeed, many happy couples do avoid conflict, at least on some issues (Alberts & Driscoll, 1992) or some occasions (Caughlin & Vangelisti, 2006). However, it is probably not a good idea to avoid conflict all of the time. When does it make sense to avoid conflict?

It may be helpful for you to avoid conflict over issues that are not resolvable. If you do not like

your friend’s significant other, it probably wouldn’t help for the two of you to engage in lengthy arguments over the partner’s merits and shortcomings. The arguments likely will not change either of your opinions and, in fact, may generate animosity and weaken your relationship. In cases such as this, you may choose to engage in long-term avoidance of conflict.

On other occasions, you may feel the need to address an issue, but you decide to wait until a more

appropriate time. The morning before a big presentation at work probably is not the best time to discuss a team member’s weak contributions. You will not be able to communicate as clearly and calmly as you might like. In addition, early in a relationship you may want to wait before addressing some of the conflicts you are feeling. In situations similar to these, you may choose to engage in short-term avoidance. However, like competing, if avoiding becomes your preferred response to conflict, it is less likely that you will be able to achieve your goals and maintain strong relationships.

Page 4 of 5 Interpersonal and Organizational Communication

5 Styles and Tactics

References

Alberts, J. K., & Driscoll, G. (1992). Containment versus escalation: The trajectory of

couples’ conversational complaints. Western Journal of Communication, 56, 394–412.

Ben-Yoav, O., & Pruitt, D. G. (1984). Resistance to yielding and expectation of cooperative future interaction in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 323– 335.

Canary, D. J., & Lakey, S. G. (2006). Managing conflict in a competent manner: A mindful look

at events that matter. In J. G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication (pp. 185–210). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Caughlin, J. P., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2006). Conflict in dating and marital relationships. In J.

Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), The Sage handbook of conflict communication (pp. 129–157). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Conerly, K., & Tripathi, A. (2004). What is your conflict style? Understanding

and dealing with your conflict style. Journal of Quality and Participation, 27(2), 16–21.

Fisher, R., & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York: Viking.

Friedman, R. A., Tidd, S. T., Currall, S. C., & Tsai, J. C. (2000). What goes around comes

around: The impact of personal conflict style on work conflict and stress. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1), 32-55.

Jones, D. A. (2005, October). Proactive conflict management in community

groups. The Forum for Family and Consumer Sciences. 10(2). Abstract retrieved May 16, 2007, from http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/fcs/pub/10_2/ar3.html

Nicotera, A. M. (1993). Beyond two dimensions: A grounded theory model of conflict-handling

behavior. Management Communication Quarterly, 6, 282–306.

Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Graf, L. K., & Ferris, G. R. (1997). The role of upward influence tactics in human resource decisions. Personnel Psychology, 50, 979– 1006.

Page 5 of 5 Interpersonal and Organizational Communication

http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/fcs/pub/10_2/ar3.html