3 page

61

Chapter 6

Seek to Understand: Conflict Styles and Approaches

Analyze, Identify and

Define

Seek to

Understand

Address the

Issue

Focus on the

Process

Facilitate CloseStep Back

“Seek to understand, then to be understood” (Covey, 2004).

Everyone is alike and is, at the same time, as different from everyone else as snowflakes are from one another.

Chapter Overview This chapter and the next represent the fourth step in the conflict management

process—Seeking to Understand. Seeking to understand extends analysis from the conflict as an object to the nature of the participants.

Have you ever wondered why a person did something you found to be completely irrational and very negative? “What were they thinking? Were they even thinking at all?”

The conflict styles or approaches discussed in this chapter and the issues cov- ered in the chapter the “People Side of Conflict Management” provide answers.

There is significant diversity in culture, thinking styles, conflict style, degree of emotional intelligence, knowledge, and more. People have different personalities and behavioral tendencies even in an environment where everyone is from the same culture and shares common beliefs and values.

35840_Ch06.indd 61 5/10/12 11:14 AM

C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 2 . P r o j e c t M a n a g e m e n t I n s t i t u t e .

A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . M a y n o t b e r e p r o d u c e d i n a n y f o r m w i t h o u t p e r m i s s i o n f r o m t h e p u b l i s h e r , e x c e p t f a i r u s e s p e r m i t t e d u n d e r U . S . o r a p p l i c a b l e c o p y r i g h t l a w .

EBSCO Publishing : eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost) - printed on 11/7/2021 9:09 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY AN: 594017 ; Pitagorsky, George.; Managing Conflict in Projects : Applying Mindfulness and Analysis for Optimal Results Account: s3642728.main.ehost

62

To better manage conflict, seek to understand how these differences will affect the reasons for disagreements, and the way you and others respond to one another and how you generally behave when confronted.

This chapter is based on the Thomas-Kilman Conflict Mode model. We will define the model and its styles, discuss the ideal approaches in different situations, explore how the choice of approach influences outcomes and relationships, and dis- cuss motivations to use one approach or another.

Conflict Style and Approach Conflict style is the distinctive way you behave in conflict situations. It is a general tendency; the collection of behaviors you typically exhibit when in conflict. Ap- proach, on the other hand, is the method used to accomplish something. Your style influences your approach, but it is not the only influence. You do best to consciously flex your style to choose an approach that is suited to your situation. For example, within a project, some situations may call for one of the parties to avoid conflict while another is pushing for a position he or she values.

Behavioral Models “Models are always wrong. But they can be useful” (Box & Draper, 1987, p. 424).

Behavioral models are powerful means to gain understanding. But be careful. They are very useful in identifying typical tendencies and in turning people towards self-analysis and awareness. They become harmful when they are used to stereotype people and over simplify the complex nature of individuals and the way they behave in relationships. Let’s explore how people typically operate in conflict.

The Conflict Mode Model There are a number of styles inventories and conflict approach models. The Thomas- Kilman Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) is a relatively simple and accurate style inventory that has become a virtual standard for defining the prevailing styles that people have in addressing conflict.

To determine an individual’s style, the model uses a basic instrument of 30 forced-answer questions (for example, “2. A. I try to find a compromise situation. Or B. I attempt to deal with all of his and my concerns.” (Thomas & Kilman, n.d.). There are variations that add a scale of strength of traits. Results are interpreted to obtain a sense of an individual’s tendency and comfort level regarding five conflict- handling modes.

The modes are defined using two dimensions (Figure 6-1): “(1) assertiveness: the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy his own concerns; and (2) coop- erativeness: the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy the other person’s

35840_Ch06.indd 62 5/10/12 11:14 AM

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/7/2021 9:09 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

63

concerns” (Thomas & Kilman, n.d.). Each axis is a continuum with infinite degrees of assertiveness and infinite degrees of cooperativeness.

Further, people’s assertiveness and cooperativeness change as the conflict becomes more intense and individuals become more or less stressed, anxious, or emotionally attached to their position, or fearful because of hierarchical- and power- based relationships. Therefore, the conflict handling modes are likely to be applied with varying degrees of intensity and may shift from situation to situation.

The five conflict handling modes are these:

Competing (Forcing) —An individual pursues his own concerns at the other person’s expense. Power is used to win or defend a position believed to be right.

Accommodating—The opposite of competing. It is characterized by neglect- ing one’s own concerns to satisfy the concerns of another. Motivations may be self-sacrifice; obeying another’s orders, or yielding to another’s point of view. Accommodating may also arise out of a value for cultivating long-term rela- tionships and promoting buy-in for an ultimate solution.

Avoiding—The individual does not address the conflict. “Avoiding might take the form of diplomatically sidestepping an issue, postponing an issue until a better time or simply withdrawing from a threatening situation” (Thomas & Kilman, n.d., pp. 8–9).

Collaborating—The parties work together to identify and address their con- cerns. They find alternatives and solutions that might combine elements of all positions. They problem solve and negotiate.

Uncooperative Cooperative

Forcing Collaborating

Avoiding Accommodating

Compromising

Assertive

Unassertive

Figure 6-1: The Thomas-Kilman Conflict Modes Model (Thomas & Kilman, n.d.).

35840_Ch06.indd 63 5/10/12 11:14 AM

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/7/2021 9:09 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

64

Compromising—Here parties find a mutually acceptable solution. The par- ties are partially satisfied as they balance competing and accommodating. Parties give up some of their demands to accommodate one another; splitting the differences, they seek a quick middle ground solution.

“Some authors have suggested that there is a subtle difference between col- laborating and another mode, confronting/problem solving” (Verma, 1996, p. 118). For our purposes, we will assume that collaborating implies that the parties are confronting the issue with problem solving and negotiating.

The Ideal Approach While a collaborative approach might seem to be ideal, it is not the right approach for every situation.

To achieve win-win solutions and strong ongoing relationships, collaborating is often the way to go. However, consider what would happen if one person was a col- laborator and everyone else were competitive. The collaborator would have to “con- vert” the others and get them to agree to a collaborative mode. This might be and usually is impractical, at least in addressing a relatively minor, short-term dispute or in the case of vendors competing for a job. Further, collaboration takes more time and effort than, say, forcing. Is the time available?

“All five modes are useful in some situations: each represents a set of useful so- cial skills. Our conventional wisdom recognizes, for example, that often “two heads are better than one” (Collaborating). But it also says, “Kill your enemies with kind- ness” (Accommodating), “Split the difference” (Compromising) “Leave well enough alone” (Avoiding), “Might makes right” (Competing/Forcing). The effectiveness of a given conflict-handling mode depends upon the requirements of the specific conflict situation and the skill with which the mode is used” (Thomas & Kilman, n.d., p. 9).

Consider your own comfort level with the modes and the requirements of the situation and then act accordingly.

When to Use Which Mode

The following table contains guidelines for when to use and not use the five modes.

Mode Use it Do not use it

Competing/Forcing (authority- and power- based— Usually has a win-lose result; leaves a dominated party)

When speedy decision and action is required

When unpopular actions may result

When you know you are right and the issue is critical

When you are dealing with people who won’t cooperate

When you have the power

When buy-in from all parties is needed to implement the resolution

When long-term goals include promoting a collaboration that empowers stakeholders

When you don’t have power

35840_Ch06.indd 64 5/10/12 11:14 AM

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/7/2021 9:09 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

65

Mode Use it Do not use it

Collaborative (usually results in a win-win result; takes more time, skill, patience and effort than other modes)

When it is important to find an optimal solution that result from merging aspects of multiple options and satisfies all parties

When learning by understanding the other parties’ positions and assumptions and testing your own is important

When long term commitment to the resulting decision is important

When cultivating long-term harmonious relationships among the parties is important

When time to a resolution is an essential factor

When the parties are not committed to open discussion and cooperation

When the parties are not skilled in a collaborative approach

Compromising (can lead to a lose-lose resolution where the parties agree to a watered down solution that ultimately satisfies no one, but may be quick and the result can be good enough)

When the resolution outcome is not of significant importance to warrant the time and effort involved in other, more assertive, approaches

When the parties are strongly committed to their own mutually exclusive objectives (for example, labor negotiations or disputes over assignment of staff in a project)

When trying to achieve a temporary solution to a complex issue

When either competition or collaboration doesn’t seem to be working

When the issue is critical and requires an optimal solution

When the original positions are inflated and unrealistic

When the commitment to implement the solution is doubted

Avoiding (may lead to a win-lose or lose-lose outcome, particularly if there is denial of the issue at hand, but may be quick and avoid unnecessary conflict)

When the issue is not worth the time and effort to engage in any of the other modes

When the effort and potential damage to relationships are greater than the benefits

When you realize that the other alternatives are as good as yours to address the issue at hand

When the issue is a smoke screen or “red herring” for another issue

When the issue is important

When the issue will not just go away or be resolved effectively without confronting it

When not confronting the issue will lead to feelings of resentment, suppressed anger or an inability to truly support the way forward

When avoiding will result in an image as being an easy mark

Accommodating (may lead to a win-lose or lose-lose outcome, particularly if there is a habitual tendency to accommodate others at one’s own expense)

When it is clear that your position is incorrect or unreasonable

When you want to satisfy the needs of others and maintain a cooperative relationship, for example you want a subordinate to gain experience and confidence or to learn from their own mistakes

When the issue is important

When you are sure that the other parties’ positions are inappropriate or would lead to sub-optimal resolutions

When losing would lead to feelings of resentment, suppressed anger or an inability to support the way forward

35840_Ch06.indd 65 5/10/12 11:14 AM

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/7/2021 9:09 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

66

How Conflict Mode Effects Outcome—A Trip to Abilene The story of the Trip to Abilene provides a wonderful example of how people’s con- flict mode effect the outcome. It is an example of how failure to risk a conflict (ac- commodating and avoiding) can hurt.

Jerry Harvey tells of his experience while visiting his in-laws in Coleman, Texas. He, his wife, and her parents were sitting on the porch on a hot, 104°F (40°C), dusty afternoon, sipping cold lemonade and playing Dominoes, when his father-in-law suggested that they all get in the un–air-conditioned car and drive 53 miles to Abilene to eat dinner at the cafeteria. Jerry’s wife said she thought it was a good idea and asked him what he thought. He was appalled at the idea, but did not say so. Instead, he and his mother-in-law agreed.

So, off they go to Abilene. The cafeteria was anything but a four-star restaurant. After a mediocre meal, a little heartburn, and a hot dusty drive, they returned to Coleman, exhausted. After a short while of silent cooling off, Harvey reports that he said, “Well, it was a great trip, wasn’t it?’’ His mother-in-law disagreed. She thought it was horrible and that she just went along because the others wanted to go. She had wanted to stay home.

They soon discovered that none of them really wanted to go. The father-in-law made the suggestion because he thought the others were bored,

the others went along out of courtesy and not wanting to keep the group from doing what it wanted to do. Everyone wanted to please everyone else. No one wanted to risk a conflict (Harvey, 1988, pp. 17–43).

How many trips to Abilene do you go on? Are they fun?

The Abilene Paradox

The Abilene paradox is the phenomena of groups and organizations making deci- sions and taking action in contradiction to the data at hand. They go on to compound problems and go off in the wrong direction. The data (in particular, the parties’ needs, wants, interests, facts, and opinions) are available, to the individuals, who keep it private rather than sharing it so the group can come to an effective agree- ment. In the TKI model, avoiding is identified as being low in assertiveness and cooperativeness.

What motivates a person to withhold the data that would make it possible for the group to come to an effective agreement, rather than one that sends them on a trip to Abilene? It might be lack of consciousness about the impact of not sharing, or fear of being responsible for actions that may be caused by his or her input, or fear of being different and separated from the group. It could be because of low self-esteem (“My input won’t matter”), anger expressed passive-aggressively, or laziness (“It’s not worth the effort to say what I’m thinking”). As in the story, the motivation might be “nice- ness,” wanting to be polite and accommodating.

35840_Ch06.indd 66 5/10/12 11:14 AM

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/7/2021 9:09 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

67

The paradox, Harvey points out, is that the fear of being held responsible for making a poor decision creates a certainty of making a poor decision. The desire to be “nice” leads to sub-optimal results when there is no communication and col- laboration.

Why? By avoiding conflict you disenable the exchange that would enable a good decision. The failure to speak up helps to perpetuate poor decisions, blaming and un- necessary conflict.

In this analysis, the focus was on avoiding conflict and how that can be damaging. It may be just as damaging to insist on your way by bowling over the opposition or to spend more time than it is worth collaborating or trying to save time by compromising when the compromise leads to a sub-optimal solution that is worse than either of the conflicting alternatives.

So, in conflicts, speak up, offer your information, and seek optimal resolutions using the right mode(s) for the situation.

Organization Cultures and Conflict Styles Individuals are not the only ones with styles. Organizations often have styles of their own that effect conflict management. Here we will describe passive-aggressive and authoritarian cultures. Be aware of their influences.

Passive-Aggressive

A very common form of avoidant conflict style is found as a trait in organization culture. It is passive-aggressive behavior that takes the form of people saying they publically agree to something and then privately disparaging it after the decision has been made. In passive-aggressive cultures, at the meeting to select the design approach, when asked if everyone is “on board” everyone expresses their agreement. As soon as the meeting is over, in small groups, people are saying things like “That will never work.”

If this style is operating in your organization, bring it to light and cultivate the cooperative atmosphere required for collaboration and honesty.

Authoritarian Cultures

In authoritarian and competitive cultures where power is exercised freely and there is top down decision making and control, there is a tendency to find people with competitive or forcing styles to have their way, if they are in the right place in the hierarchy. If they are not high enough in the power structure and they play out their natural style, they may encounter strong opposition from peers and penalties from superiors. Have you seen two people exercising forcing behavior where one is the ultimate decision maker? It is not a healthy situation for the one

35840_Ch06.indd 67 5/10/12 11:14 AM

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/7/2021 9:09 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

68

on the bottom nor is it healthy for the organization. The decision is pretty much of a foregone conclusion and the person at the lower end of the hierarchy is likely to withdraw and therefore not provide useful information or alternatives.

It is common to find many people with avoiding or accommodating styles, or people who take on these approaches in-order to survive, at lower levels in the hier- archy in an authoritarian culture.

Winning and Losing—Motivation to Use a Conflict Mode In both passive-aggressive and authoritarian cultures, there is often a distorted view regarding winning and losing and the motivation those views bring to the parties. What is your motivation to choose a particular conflict mode in a given situation? In conflicts, the motivation is often to win. But, sometimes wining is losing! It all depends of what you mean by winning and who you include in the winner’s circle.

Therefore, choosing the right mode requires being clear about what “winning” and “losing” mean.

A win is when the outcome of a dispute satisfies the needs of the parties and their organization. If one consciously avoids a conflict and the result is a workable outcome, both parties win, even though one party’s position has “lost.” In a project as in all personal relationships, everyone wins when the outcome satisfies higher- level values, goals, and objectives and meets individual needs.

Don’t win the battle at the expense of the war. If you win the dispute but lose the respect and trust of someone in an ongoing relationship, there is loss. Which is more important; the short-term win or the long-term loss? The answer depends on the situation and the answer will dictate your choice of approach.

If someone bullies his or her way through based on authority, gamesmanship, or wins because others avoid and accommodate and the team fails to adopt the best de- sign based on an objective assessment of alternatives, benefits, costs, and risks, the project and the organization losses. Depending on his or her values and the future impact of the decision on that person’s career, the proponent may also lose.

Case Study: The Centralization Project After attending a conference and having a couple of meetings with representatives of a consulting firm Amir “fell in love” with a design concept that required high consis- tency among branches, the acquisition of a major computer system to replace several existing systems and changes to business procedures and policies. The concept was elegant and the vendor promised installation and conversion of data from existing systems within a year.

Since Amir was the chief operating officer, he had the power to make the de- cision to pursue the change initiative and to prioritize it, fund it, and resource it,

35840_Ch06.indd 68 5/10/12 11:14 AM

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/7/2021 9:09 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

69

and motivate its execution. Amir’s natural style in conflict was competitive; he was highly assertive, confident of his judgment and liked getting his way. He was not particularly sensitive to the relationship and cooperative side of the process.

He presented his ideas to the head of IT and to his other direct reports. When questions and objections arose, and the desire to study alternatives and assess risks, costs, and benefits, Amir made it clear that the team did not need negativity and de- featists. “We need to pull together and make this happen.” “Let’s get on with this and get it done.” Knowing Amir and given his position of authority, no one said anything.

In the end, the project was chartered and the organization spent several mil- lions of dollars and many person hours of effort. After three years, the project was scrapped with only half the branches converted and productivity in those branches far below expectations.

Note that it is not only the forcing style of the person in authority that causes disasters. Sometimes there is the belief that taking the time to plan, assess risk, and consider alternatives is a waste. Sometimes the cause is avoidant styles on the part of the people who have held back. Often it is a combination of all of them.

What might have happened if one or more of Amir’s direct reports found a way to slow Amir down, make him confront some of the risks, and open his mind to alterna- tive possibilities? Maybe they could have asked a key question or quickly provided an eye-opening possible negative scenario. If they had, the organization could have experienced a successful transformation and a successful project.

What are your examples of how habitual application of natural styles affected your projects and relationships? How might have flexing your style affected the outcome?

Analyzing Your Mode Choices One of the powers of a conflict mode model is that it stimulates thinking about how style influences success. It opens the door to consciously choosing a situationally appropriate mode. Following is some good advice culled from the work of Thomas and Kilmann (TKI).

If your tendency is to be competitive and push for your way,

• Have you created a situation in which people are afraid of disagreeing with you or decide to avoid conflicts because they have given up on trying to influ- ence you?

• Are people afraid to admit uncertainty and ignorance with you, presenting strong arguments with seemingly great confidence, even when it is inappropriate?

• If so, your strong leaning towards a competitive mode maybe having a detri- mental effect and keeping you and your team from candidly exploring issues. Getting your own way may feel good for the moment but it is not always an effective way to manage conflict.

35840_Ch06.indd 69 5/10/12 11:14 AM

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/7/2021 9:09 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

70

If you tend to be weak in confronting you may want to assess the reasons for it and get stronger in this area. You may want to reassess your power so you can ap- propriately exert your influence.

If you spend too much time discussing issues that are not worthy of the time and effort, you may be overdoing collaboration. Collaboration to reach consensus takes time and effort. Make sure it is worth it.

If you find that efforts at collaboration (for example, asking questions rather than making assertions and seeking discussion of process before engaging in the content) fail to engage the other parties you may be facing mistrust, competitive- ness, ignorance or impatience and strong feelings. Look for subtle cues. Determine if it is time to shift your mode.

If you tend away from collaborative approach, you may be missing opportunities because you do not use conflicts and disputes as opportunities to transform relation- ships and achieve optimal solutions.

If you overdo compromise it may be a sign that you have lost track of long-term goals, quality principles and values and have succumbed to a desire to get a resolu- tion even if it is ineffective. You may also fall into a competitiveness that focuses on trading and bargaining rather than a search for optimal solutions.

If, on the other hand, you tend to be weak in compromise mode, it may be be- cause you are embarrassed to put forth your ideas, wants, and needs or because you find it hard to make concessions. People who have strong competitive tendencies find compromise difficult. Perfectionists find compromise difficult.

If you overdo avoiding, you are depriving your team of your inputs on issues. Confront the causes of your avoidance.

If on the other hand, you don’t avoid conflicts with trivial issues or in which the benefits of confrontation are outweighed by the liabilities, then you risk bogging yourself and others down on an unnecessary number of issues.

If you overdo accommodating, you may harbor anger and resentment because you feel that your own ideas and concerns are not getting the attention they deserve. Like avoiding, excessive accommodating deprives the group of valuable input. It may be a sign that you are more eager to make people feel good than reaching an effective outcome. Seek balance between concern for people and concern for task.

If you fail to accommodate when appropriate, you may appear unreasonable and uncaring or incapable of backing off your position even when it is wrong. Caring for and about others is a trait that can be cultivated by setting it as a valued intention.

Chapter Summary Know your tendency to force, avoid, accommodate, compromise, and collaborate in conflicts and make the point to choose an approach that, even if it is not your natural

35840_Ch06.indd 70 5/10/12 11:14 AM

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/7/2021 9:09 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

71

style, is best for the situation. Don’t just act out of your habits and conditioning when that robs your team of the ideas and questions that may be the difference between optimal performance and failure.

Openly assessing conflict styles is a powerful part of team building and relation- ship management. At the start of a project, knowing that conflicts will likely arise, include a conflict styles assessment and a discussion about the implications of the styles and the modes of addressing conflicts. The model promotes an analysis of the process. It brings the parties together in the recognition of the dynamics that are at work as they seek to address their conflicts.

The choice of your process and the analysis of the type of conflict, its nature, and the specifics regarding the subject and environment, and the people involved put you in a strong position to select the approach that has the right balance between assertiveness and cooperation.

The next chapter goes deeper into the nature of the people involved in the conflict.

35840_Ch06.indd 71 5/10/12 11:14 AM

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/7/2021 9:09 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use

35840_Ch06.indd 72 5/10/12 11:14 AM

EBSCOhost - printed on 11/7/2021 9:09 AM via TRIDENT UNIVERSITY. All use subject to https://www.ebsco.com/terms-of-use