7

Five Styles of

Conflict Management

Conflict may be approached in several different ways, all of which are appropriate under certain conditions, and none of which is either appropriate or feasible all the time. Knowing these approaches and their varying strengths and limitations allows one to choose the most efficient and effective approach for each conflict situation. The five approaches and their attributes are defined by Roy Fisher and William Ury:

¶ Competition (win/lose): This approach places individuals or groups in direct competition with each other. Individuals who use this method are in a power-oriented mode and can be assertive and uncooperative, often pursuing their concerns at the expense of others.

They may draw others into the conflict as they attempt to use whatever connections and resources they have to enhance their individual positions. If competition is handled in a positive manner, it has the potential to draw out the strengths of both parties.

It can be used to protect yourself against people who take advantage of noncompetitive behavior. Either way, the ultimate outcome is that one side wins and the other side loses. This method may be used when a quick, decisive action is vital. Or, when unpopular courses on important issues need to be implemented such as, cost-cutting, enforcing unpopular rules, or disciplining a staff member. It is also used on issues vital to the organizational welfare, if you're convinced that you're right.

¶ Compromise (lose/lose): This approach brings together the individuals or groups in a conflict together and asks each side to give up a part of what it desires to create a common ground that both sides can tolerate. In essence, both sides give up something lose. The object is to find some expedient, mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties. This approach falls on a middle ground between competition and accommodation.

Compromising gives up more than competing but less than accommodating.  Likewise, it addresses an issue more directly than avoiding, but doesn't explore it in as much depth as collaborating. This approach is more desirable in many situations than those approaches that are either win/lose or lose/win because both sides are equally dissatisfied.

Compromise requires time and opportunity for the two sides to meet and come to an agreement; thus, it may not always be cost-effective or feasible. Generally, if the issue is fairly significant to those involved, the time is worth investing to avoid a win/lose or lose/win situation with its accompanying latent conflict. Examples in the workplace where this method would be effective include: labor-management bargaining, achieving temporary settlements to complex issues, and arriving at expedient solutions under time pressure.

This method may also be considered as a backup mode when collaboration or competition fails to be successful. The areas where this approach is not usually a viable option are those that involve strongly-held beliefs or values, or those where goals must not be compromised.

¶ Accommodation (lose/win): This approach reflects nonassertive stance of one side to a conflict situation that allows the other side "to win." The accommodating side gives in for a variety of reasons, including when the issue is more important to the other side than to itself, and when preserving harmony and avoiding disruption are important.

It may also be useful if you are outmatched or are losing an issue. It does not usually resolve the underlying conflict, and is definitely the opposite of competing.

This approach can be effective in situations where the relationships involved are valued more highly than the conflict issue, or when the particular issue is not as important as other conflict issues. Accommodating might take the form of selfless generosity or charity, obeying another person's order when one would prefer not to, or yielding to another's point of view. An example of this method in the workplace would be the managerial development of subordinates by allowing them to experiment and learn from their mistakes.

¶ Avoiding (lose/lose): This approach is a noncooperative, nonassertive one that has those involved in a potential conflict situation choosing not to 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.

This may be effective in situations where there is a strong imbalance of power, when the issue is not seen as significant enough to attempt resolution, or when one perceives there is no viable solution. It can even be used if there are others who can resolve the conflict more effectively. It is not a viable option when resolution is necessary for individuals or systems to move forward.

¶ Collaboration (win/win): This approach is both assertive and cooperative, and is the desired approach in many situations. Collaboration is the opposite of avoiding. It consists of both sides of a conflict situation coming together, working to understand and validate each other's issues and problem-solving together to develop a solution that fully satisfies both sides.

Collaborating finds an integrated solution when both sets of concerns are too important to be compromised. A critical concept here is that no blame is assigned to anyone, and the issue is kept in focus. This is time-consuming and may be costly if many individuals are involved. It may also require significant management time to assist in the collaborative process. Frequently, these are the situations that breed new and progressive practices and the cost may be worth more than one might think at face value.

Each conflict situation exists at a point within a larger time span and framework. The approach one chooses to take has impact beyond the immediate situation and should be chosen with future relationship needs and concerns in mind. While each person is capable of using all five conflict-handling modes and no one should be characterized as having a single, rigid style of dealing with conflict, any given individual may use some modes better than others and, therefore, may rely upon those modes more heavily than others, either because of temperament or practice. Available time, management's ability to facilitate resolution, and the degree of severity of the conflict are all additional considerations in the approach chosen.

[Roy Fisher and William Ury. Getting to Yes (Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Muffin Publishers, 1981), 143].

A few conclusions can be made after reviewing the five styles:

u Generally, better solutions occur when both parties collaborate or compromise.  This assumes that both parties have accurate knowledge, common goals, practical alternatives, and time to work things out.

u Persons who compete to a higher degree usually get a solution more in their favor.

u When one or both sides avoid or accommodate too much it is difficult to get a solution.

u Solutions depend on both parties asserting and cooperating more.

Let's take a look at putting some of the new conflict solutions in place with the examples stated below. Read through the example and decide which one of the five methods would best apply to the situation.

v One: You are the evening charge nurse and the entire late shift has called in sick. You notify three agency nurses to work and approve their double time.

v Two: You have been assigned a new office mate. He/she is compulsive, has rearranged the furniture four times and ordered new pictures.

v Three: The staff has been working excessive overtime and the present schedule is not working. You meet with staff members to share your concerns and agree to let them come up with a new rotational staffing plan, with a commitment to safe patient care.

v Four: You have just received a call from home that deserves your immediate attention. You notify your boss and negotiate a later deadline to turn in the budget that was due this week.

v Five: You are the pediatric nurse manager. An upset surgeon calls and yells at you regarding the incorrect posting of a pediatric surgical case.

Answers

v One: Competition

The charge nurse had to make a quick decision in the interest of patient care and the organization. As a second step, it would probably be in her best interest to meet with the shift and find out what some of the problems and "conflicts" are in the unit.

v Two: Accommodation

The office "look" and furniture arrangement is more important to the new office mate than you. In the interest of preserving harmony and maintaining a good working relationship, you let the individual rearrange to her heart's content.

v Three: Collaboration

An integrated solution by staff and management resolved the conflict by merging insights and discussing the issues. There was no blame placed and the decision was both assertive and cooperative in a problem solving approach by coming up with a new staffing schedule.

v Four: Compromise

You discuss the situation with your boss and he/she allows you to take care of the crisis at home with the commitment to work overtime the next two days to complete the budget later next week.

v Five: Avoiding