MB13-01 : CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND NEGOTIATION SKILLS 1.2

Q3. Write short note on Conflict Resolution Styles.

A3. Conflict management style is often viewed in terms of a two dimensional model. Thompson suggested five styles: competitive, sharing, avoidant, collaborative and accommodating. The choice and use of the five conflict handling styles is likely to depend upon both the nature of the individual and the situational factors.

The following figure is reflective of a useful two-dimensional model for understanding and comparing the conflict resolution behaviors. These represent different combinations of assertiveness and cooperativeness. The two dimensions produce five types of conflict strategies:

1. Competition (dominance): The competitive style is high on assertiveness, and low on cooperativeness. This style is power oriented and is associated with direct physical aggression and heavy reliance on punishment, to gain control over weapons like fights, arguments, intimidation to achieve their goals. Such a style generally creates forces, which aggravate the struggle, and does little to discover innovative, constructive solutions acceptable to all.
2. Avoiding (withdrawal): This strategy is associated with behaviors such as withdrawal, indifference, evasion, apathy, flight reliance upon fate and isolation. Parties to conflict fail to address important problems. They may detach themselves from the conflict believing that conflict avoidance is more mature and reasonable than childish arguments. It is only a method of avoiding conflict. The person stays out of conflicts, ignores disagreements takes no position on the issues involved, and may even be hesitant to talk about the situation. As a result, the conflict is not effectively resolved, nor is eliminated.
3. Accommodating (smoothing): The accommodative style is low in assertiveness and high on cooperativeness. Parties will be generous and self- sacrificing. The emphasis is on the common interests of the conflicting group and a de-emphasis on their differences. Implicit in this style is the belief by the individual or group that others will cut off their relationship if he or she expresses self-oriented concerns. So better go along with whatever the other person requests, rather than get into difficulties of direct confrontation. "In a conflict issue that is associated with the expression of intense and aggressive feelings, the accommodative style may be very beneficial as a starting point." Smoothing is a more sensitive approach than the withdrawal approach. Smoothing can be used when a temporary solution is needed in the short run.
4. Compromising style (lose-lose): This is a traditional method of resolving conflicts. There is no distinct winner or loser because each party is expected to give up something of value for a concession. It is commonly used where the conflict involves differences in goals, attitudes or values. It is effective when the sought after goal (for example resource sharing) can be divided. In this style the emphasis is on the process of compromise and bargaining. It is based on a simple give-and-take process and typically involves negotiation and a series of sacrifices. The amount given up by each party in conflict, however, will be in direct relation to its strength.
5. Problem solving / confrontation / collaboration / win-win style: Problem solving is said to be the opposite of conflict because it demands a complete rethinking of the conflict situation. Parties openly share information, attempt to listen and develop empathy. There is an attempt to depersonalize the issue. Parties debate the issue bringing together all relevant information; consider full range of alternatives and try to solve the problem rather than merely trying to accommodate different points of view. Through sharing and communicating, the problem is mutually defined. Questions of who is right or wrong; who wins or loses are avoided. All parties are seen as playing a constructive role.

(i) Problem solving is characterised by the following.

(ii) Conflict is viewed as a non-zero sum game.

(iii) Other party is seen as a mutual problem solver.

(iv) Parties pursue joint outcomes.

(v) Issues are looked at objectively.

(vi) Open, honest sharing of information.

(vii) Flexibility.

(viii) Tries to solve the conflict in a way that will benefit both the.parties.

Q4. Explain the important Conflict management strategies?

A4. Conflict can produce functional as well as dysfunctional effects. If allowed to continue, it will have a disruptive influence over the entire organization procures will be wasted, people go off the track, targets may be missed and the entire organization may have to pay for such costly lapses in the long run. There are, therefore, very strong reasons for attempting to resolve conflicts in a rapid and effective manner. Fortunately, a number of methods are used for achieving this goal that seems to exist. These approaches to conflict management include the following:

Ignoring the conflict, if the conflict is not too severe and the consequences are not very serious, managers tend to ignore it and pretend that it does not exist. Some managers think conflicts speak badly about an organisation, so they ignore the conflict and hope it will eventually resource itself. Because the sources of conflict are neither identified nor resolved, this strategy fails to put out the fire in time. Eventually, the situation may go from bad to worse.

* Physical separation: If the warring factions or parties are physically separated, the likelihood of open hostility and aggression is reduced. Parties, however, may continue to indulge in sabotage and occasional acts of aggression unless the sources of conflict are eliminated. Physical separation may work when the two groups are not required to interact while achieving targets. If they need to interact, however, separation may not solve the issue.

* Withdrawal: Another way may be to withdraw from a conflict when it takes place. The withdrawal may be from a situation (fighting for resources, for promotion etc.) or from a relationship with the other group (one party may sever connection with the other as in the case of Proctor and Gamble and Godrej Soaps Ltd.).

* Dominance: The simplest conceivable conflict solution is elimination of the other party-to force opponents to flee and give up the fight, or slay them. Quite often managers use positional authority to fire a lower ranking subordinate they consider to be a troublemaker. Conflicting parties are told to maintain a calm composure, an appearance of grace and drop their fight and get on with the job. Positional authority enables a manager to serve as a situational authority, enables a manager to serve as a 'conflict sponge' to absorb the antagonistic feelings of the disputants. Sometimes, managers try to alleviate conflict through "physical separation". Groups are not allowed to interact with each other. Separation helps in attaining a temporary solution and provides enough time for more fundamental conflict resolution afterwards. It has the distinct advantage of preventing more damage from being done and of preventing the creation of further rationale for fighting. Individuals in an organisation, with rare exception, recognize and accept the authority of their superiors as an acceptable way of resolving conflicts. Although they may not be in agreement with these decisions, they abide by them. Stagner, after conducting research on executive decision-making in major corporations in America, found the (power of) chief executive to be the most widely employed arbiter of disagreement. However, it is always not possible to effectively resolve interdepartmental conflicts through the use of positional authority. The 'dominance approach' does little to prevent recurrence of conflict in a more violent form later on.

* Appeals procedures: A conventional method of resolving disputes in an organisation is for the people in disagreement to ask a higher authority to help them arrive at a solution by resolving the problem satisfactorily. A formal procedure for redressing grievances is demanded through an appeal made to "one's boss's boss". For if the faculty members could not decide on the allocation of work load, they may refer their disagreement to the principal of the college for a final, binding decision.

* Compromise: This is a traditional way of putting out fires. Here, there is no clean winner or loser and the decision arrived at is probably not ideal for either group. For example the management may offer to increase the wages by 4 per cent, while the union may be seeking 8 per cent. A compromise figure of 6 per cent may result in a reasonable settlement of the conflict. Compromise can be used very effectively when the goal sought (e.g. money) can be divided equitably. If this is not possible one group should be prepared to give up something of value as concession. Compromise may also involve third-party interventions as well as total group or representative negotiating and voting.

* Liaison groups / intermediaries / integrators: To arbiter differences between two warring factions a full-time integrator can be appointed who can speak the language of both the parties. The integrator has to use expertise and persuasion to achieve co-ordination and get people together. He must understand each group's problems and should be able to rally both groups toward a mutually agreeable solution. Lawrence and Lorsch found that many organisations have reduced interdepartmental conflicts by setting up special liaisons between the conflicting departments. One advantage of the liaison person is that he is perceived as not having a vested interest in either group or department. Sometimes, the third party consultant mostly human relations experts, can also be appointed to change attitudes and reduce conflicts.

* Member rotation: Inter organisational activities, sometimes, help in reducing conflict. Exchange of people between interdependent departments creates an atmosphere where the newcomer can exchange his views with the others. It helps him see the big picture and his role in it. As group members understand each other better they tend to lesson some of their perceptual distortions. Role reversal or empathy helps them in "shaking up" their narrow perspectives, departmental loyalties and misunderstandings created by the organisational boundaries.

* Reduce interdependence: The potential for conflict is very great in situations where two departments have to work in an interdependent fashion and share scarce resources. As a result of this mutual dependency there are more occasions for disagreement and conflict. One way to resolve conflict is to reduce interdependences by moving from reciprocal to sequential or from sequential to pooled interdependence. Departments may be provided with resources and inventories that are independent of those provided for other departments (known as 'decoupling'). However, decoupling is an expensive proposition; it increases costs because of duplication of effort and equipment. To avoid this, large 'buffers' (inventories) are created. For example department A might send its output into the buffer inventory and department B might be allowed to process goods from this inventory independently. Sometimes, formal integration departments may also be created to facilitate coordination and smooth work flow.

* Procedural and Structural changes: Conflict can occur because a procedure is illogically structured. When a credit manager and a sales officer were both about to be fined because of an irreconcilable personality conflict, it. Was found that the processing of credit applications too late in the credit procedure was the cause of their difficulty. The credit manager was forced to cancel too many deals already made. When the credit checks were placed earlier in the procedure, most of the conflict disappeared. In another case, the HR manager and the production manager were found to be hostile to the earlier order, a recruiting procedure which did not allow the production manager to review applications at an early stage of the living sequence and to offer comments. When the procedure was changed, many of the difficulties were resolved.

In some firms, one may find sales and distribution being handled by separate departments, each reporting to a senior manager. The division often creates conflict. Individuals in sales expect quick delivery response to customer requests. But the distribution department, keeps costs down, wants to make deliveries in full trucks and at fixed intervals. To resolve such situations, it, may be useful to combine both departments under one marketing Head who has experience in both sales and distribution.

Changes in physical layout also could be used effectively to reduce or eliminate conflict. People can use desks as barriers and buffers. Some offices have divided to separate employees. However, if a manager wants to encourage a problem solving atmosphere, a more often office arrangement may be used. When known antagonists are seated in a conference directly across each other, the amount of conflict inverses. When they are seated side by side, the conflict tends to decrease.

* Superordinate goals: A Superordinate goal is a common goal that appeals to all the parties involved and cannot be accomplished by the resources of any single party separately. Superordinate goals demand interdependence and co-operation between departments. It is believed that the possibilities for achieving harmony are greatly enhanced when disagreeing parties are brought together to work towards overriding goals which are real and compelling to all concerned. For example, national leaders use the ploy of claiming that their countries are about to be attacked in order to bring about (at least) a temporary unification on the opposing factions in their own countries.

* Identifying a common enemy: The classical study by Sherifand Sherif illustrates how a group in conflict temporarily resolves their differences to combat a common enemy. Sherif and their colleagues stimulated conflict by encouraging rivalry between groups at a boys' camp. When the conflict had become very intense, they experimented with two effective methods: One was creation of Superordinate goals and the other was to present a common 'threat' or 'enemy'. In the latter case, a camp truck was rigged to breakdown on the way to a camp out. Neither group could know how the truck was to be repaired independently. The boys got a rope, and both groups pulled together to start the truck. In the words of Boulding, "A strong enemy is a great unifying force; in the face of a common threat and overriding common purpose of victory or survival, the conflicting claims of the group fall into the background and are swallowed up into the single, measurable, overriding end of winning conflicts." The threat of Hitler, for example, produced an alliance between the Western powers and Russia that fell apart as soon as the common threat disappeared.

* Integrated problem solving: Another conflict management strategy tries to find a solution that incorporates the requirement of both parties. Both parties work together to define the problem and identify mutually satisfactory solutions. They freely exchange task related information. A minimum level of trust between parties is essential for this strategy to produce results. Since it takes time for parties to resolve issues through healthy interaction, there should be no pressure for a quick settlement of contentious issues. Problem solving is a healthy approach in that it recognizes that usually neither party is completely right nor wrong, granting a concession is not interpreted as a sign of weakness. Neither party feels that it has to win every rattle to maintain self-respect. For conflicts resulting from misunderstanding or Language problems, the problems solving or confrontation method has yielded good results. For solving more complex problems (e.g.. Conflicts where parties have different value systems), the method has not been very successful.