Common conflict styles
Current empirical data show that conflict styles are influenced by individualism-collectivism. People from individualistic cultures tend to favor styles of conflict resolution that are high in concern for the self, while collectivists are more likely to prefer styles that are high in concern for n-group members. When the others are members of an out-group, however, people from collectivistic cultures may be as concerned with their own outcomes as are people from individualistic cultures (Matsumoto 2001). Conflict styles range on a continuum from maximally direct to maximally indirect with several in-between styles that are only partially explicit. Further, there does not appear to be an absolute relationship between the directness of the style and the effects it has on interpersonal conflicts. Studies have observed that some harmonious couples communicate about conflicts very directly, whereas other harmonious couples avoid conflicts. Affect is a second important dimension of conflict styles. Some styles are hostile, others are neutral or friendly, and still other styles, such as conflict avoidance, are inconsistent or unclear in the sort of emotion expressed. The implications of affect are reasonably straightforward (Daly & Wiemann 1994).
Generally, people who are more compatible are friendlier to one another. For example, they make fewer confrontational statements, speak in a more positive vocal tone, sit closer together, touch one another more, and so forth. The main point of doubt about affect is whether negative communication is more a symptom or cause of incompatibility in relationships. Conflict styles tend to be reciprocal. Generally, inconsistent styles do not fit together comfortably (Daly & Wiemann 1994). It is more difficult and less plausible to deny the presence of conflict, for example, after the partner has disclosed deep-seated feelings of anxiety and resentment. There are also straightforward affective linkages between some styles (Daly & Wiemann 1994). There are various theories and studies that relate to conflict styles. Five of which were identified by Thomas and Killman. One conflict style aims to accommodate. This style pertains to the act where someone will just ignore the conflict so that the relationship will be maintained and acceptance can be given. The accommodation style wants to focus more on the working relationship than achieving the goals. The second conflict style aims to avoid. In this style one just wants to do anything he/she can to avoid in engaging in conflicts or engage in a confrontation. The avoid style doesn’t want to have unpleasant feelings. The third conflict style aims to collaborate. In this style the goal is to search for a clear and logical solution that will satisfy all parties. The collaboration style wants to balance the achievements of goals and the maintenance of relationships. The fourth conflict style aims to compete. In this style the goal is force one’s ideas because he/she believes that his/her idea is the best one. The conflict style just wants to achieve goals and satisfy individual needs. The last conflict style aims to compromise. In this style the goal is for both parties to make compromise that will ensure that equal ideas will be followed. The compromise style wants to meet halfway so that lengthy discussions will be avoided.
Handling Conflict Properly
Studies on the management of organizational conflict have taken two directions. Some researchers have attempted to measure the amount of conflict at various organizational levels and to explore the sources of such conflict. Implicit in these studies is that a moderate amount of conflict may be maintained for increasing organizational effectiveness by altering the sources of conflict. Others have attempted to relate the various styles of handling interpersonal conflict of the organizational participants and their effects on quality of problem solution or attainment of social system objectives (Rahim 2001). An organizational consultant may decide to use both process and structural intervention approaches for managing conflict. It should be noted that although process intervention is primarily designed to alter the styles of handling conflict of the organizational members through education and training, such an intervention may also affect their perception of the amount of conflict. On the other hand, the structural intervention is primarily designed to alter the amount of conflict by changing certain structural design characteristics; such an intervention may also affect the styles of handling conflict (Rahim 2001).
Interpersonal skill is one of a number of broadly similar terms that are sometimes used interchangeably. Other such terms include interactive skills, people skills, face-to-face skills, social skills and social competence. The study of interpersonal skills and interpersonal relationships is multidisciplinary and, at one level, each discipline has tended to focus attention on different contexts and different kinds of relationship (Hayes 2002). For one to negotiate well he/she must have interpersonal skills that can match qualities of various people. In negotiations, there is evidence that negotiators’ opening bids have an important influence on the expectations of opponents and that this can affect the outcome. There is also evidence that, in competitive negotiations, concessions are more likely to be reciprocated when the person offering the concession is perceived by opponents to be in a relatively strong position. It is possible for a negotiator to create this impression by behaving in certain ways Sometimes negotiations are one-off episodes and whatever happens between the parties is unlikely to have any long-term consequences. Often, however, they are embedded in ongoing relationships. It may be possible to compete and push the other party into making heavy concessions today, but this may motivate them to seek ways of evening the score sometime in the future. Accommodating some of their demands, on the other hand, may create a sense of indebtedness that could have a beneficial affect on their approach to subsequent negotiations (Hayes 2002). Negotiation strategies are needed to manage the conflict. Negotiation strategies can either be in the form of interest based or personal. The two strategies focus differently. The interest based strategies would require individuals to be cooperative so that the group’s goal can be achieved. The personal negotiation strategies maintain the individual goal and may lead to newer conflicts. To prepare to negotiate both parties need to identify what they want and how they want the negotiation process to run. In conducting negotiation both parties need to allow the other to express their opinion or ideas.
Conclusion
Often a group finds itself in conflict over facts, goals, methods or values. It is critical that it properly identify the type of conflict it is experiencing if it hopes to manage the conflict through to resolution. The more difficult type of conflict is when values are the root cause. It is more likely that a conflict over facts, or assumptions, will be resolved than one over values. There are various theories and studies that relate to conflict styles. One conflict style aims to accommodate. This style pertains to the act where someone will just ignore the conflict so that the relationship will be maintained and acceptance can be given. It tries to solve conflict by pretending that it did not happen. The second conflict style aims to avoid. In this style one just wants to do anything he/she can so that they will not have any encounter with someone he/she is in conflict with. The third conflict style aims to collaborate. In this style the goal is to solve conflict through meeting with all parties involved and brainstorming on what should be done to solve the conflict. The fourth conflict style aims to compete. In this style the goal is force one’s ideas because he/she believes that his/her idea is the best one. The last conflict style aims to compromise. In this style the goal is for both parties to make compromise that will ensure that equal ideas will be followed. Negotiation strategies are needed to manage the conflict. To prepare to negotiate both parties need to identify what they want and how they want the negotiation process to run. In conducting negotiation both parties need to allow the other to express their opinion or ideas.
References
Daly, JA & Wiemann, JM (eds.) 1994, Strategic interpersonal
communication, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Hayes, J 2002, Interpersonal skills at work, Routledge, New
York.
Matsumoto, D (ed.) 2001, The handbook of culture &
psychology, Oxford University Press, New York.
Rahim, MA 2001, Managing conflict in organizations, Quorum
Books, Westport, CT.
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment