training manual for conflict management
manuelledezma
Managingtheconflictclimatechapter6.pptxManaging the conflict climate
Chapter 6
Conflict climate
Conflict climate= psychological atmosphere
The climate surrounding us affect the way we manage conflict
Competent conflict managers do what they can to create a climate that facilitates a constructive conflict management.
Harmful conflict climate
Power abuse
Competition
Distrust
Defensiveness
**These threats may foster avoidance and accommodation or competition
Nurturing conflict climate
Power
Cooperation
Trust
Supportive behavior
**These behavior result in openness, assertiveness, collaboration and mutually satisfying outcomes.
Factors affecting conflict climate
Imbalance of power versus equity
Competition versus cooperation
Distrust versus trust
Defensive versus supportive behavior
Groupthink versus decision making
Converting power differences in conflict
Power- The ability to influence or control events.
We all vary in capabilities and resources; therefore, power often shifts from one situation to another
Different people having power at different times.
When power is perceived as a threat, it contributes to a harmful conflict climate (power abuse).
Powerful people may be seen as intimidating or threatening.
Those who abuse power create worry, anger and resentment in the less powerful.
Powerless people may respond by avoiding, accommodating, or not asserting themselves.
When power is abused, there is no mutually satisfying outcome.
Dominance
Dominant people do not have authority power another, unless the person grants this power to him or her.
We have choices in how we respond to others (unless the use of physical violence or weapons are involved).
Dominant people often use threats or thromises.
Threat- Statement that links noncompliance with negative outcomes.
Thromise- Sounds like a promise (e.g. if you do x, you will receive y), but also includes penalty for noncompliance.
Dominant people use powerful speech.
Interrupting others
Speaking loudly
Controlling topic of conversation
Sounding “right” (Implying the other is wrong).
Strive for middle ground: neutral speech
While dominant speech is too aggressive, powerless speech is not strong enough. Below are characteristics of powerless versus neutral speech:
Powerless speech
Talking up to others.
Making requests or asking questions.
Speaking softly
Sounding tentative
Including disclaimers and hedges (“It could be that…”)
Neutral Speech
Talks to others as equals (not down to them, or up to them).
Seeks input to make decisions.
Treat others like they would want to be treated.
Sharing power
Change in power dimensions must come from the powerful.
If change is demanded by the people without power, they may be perceived as disrespectful and disobedient.
Decisions made with others’ input is more effective than decisions made without input from others (this includes dissenting views).
Better results.
People feel better about themselves.
Strategies to sharing power:
Give up power resources and symbols of authority e.g. Hat and Jacket loaded with rank insignia.
Make power resources accessible to everyone e.g. Allow one employee to take command for a day.
Person with less interest could increase level of interest in relationship.
Give power to the relationship e.g. Married person may engage in behaviors due to marital status.
Sharing power
As a subordinate, here are approaches you can take to gain power:
Be assertive, stand up for yourself, and offer your opinion.
Ask for reconsideration or appeal but use a different rationale.
Offer suggestions. Solutions, and your rationale behind them.
Ask for more responsibility and show that you deserve it.
Let your feelings, wants, needs, and interests be known but let it be known you are willing to be a team player.
Ask for another chance but next time try harder to produce results.
Converting competition to cooperation
Competition
Parties are positioned against each other.
Emphasis is on winning conflict.
Problematic when losses are seen as a reflection of their personal competence.
Outcome= win-lose.
Cooperation
Working together rather than against each other.
Emphasis on quality of relationship rather than winning conflict.
Increased sensitivity to common interests rather than on differences or threats.
Openness, honesty and collaboration.
Outcome= win-win
Converting distrust to trust and avoiding unhealthy trust
Trust- The belief that another is benevolent or honest towards the trusting individual.
Distrust- We lack confidence in another person.
Unhealthy trust- Inflexible, rigid, and inconsistent in actions towards others, without regard for the situation.
Healthy trust- Gain trust of others over time.
Trusting individuals- More likely to assume positive implication of behavior.
Distrusting individuals- More likely to overemphasize the importance of negative events.
Gaining trust
Begin by trusting others.
Perform cooperative actions.
Avoid suspicious activities.
Reciprocate in trusting ways.
Defensive behavior
Defensive behavior- Associated with feelings of inadequacy, insecurity, fear.
Every conflict has some degree of defensiveness and supportiveness.
Nurturing climate- Has more supportive than defensive behaviors.
Harmful climate- Has more defensive than supportive behaviors.
Converting defensiveness to supportive behavior
| Defensiveness Arises From | Supportiveness Arises From |
| Evaluation- Praise and Blame | Nonjudgmental description- Does not threaten |
| Control- Attempt to dominate | Problem orientation- Focus on issue |
| Strategy- Motives and agendas | Spontaneity- Straightforward; unplanned |
| Neutrality- Lack of concern | Empathy- Taking interest in others |
| Superiority- “Pulling rank” | Equality- Desire to cooperate |
| Certainty- Dogmatic e.g. “all” or “every” | Provisionalism- Tentativeness; Withhold judgment until all the facts are in. |
Overcoming groupthink by asserting individual responsibility
Groupthink- People are so committed to the people, goals, and/ideals of a group that they fail to engage in conflict when they should.
The Abilene Paradox- People experience anxiety over choosing a particular course of action.
The Lucifer Effect- Individuals get so caught up in the situation they are experiencing that they begin to act in ways that are harmful or even illegal e.g. Stanford Prison experiment.
