Comprehensive Guide to Conflict Management Styles
Overview of Conflict Management Styles
Conflict management is categorised into five primary styles: Avoiding, Accommodating, Compromising, Competing, and Collaborating.
These styles are often evaluated based on a "win/lose" outcome framework: - I win/You lose: One party gets their way at the expense of the other. - Lose/Lose: Neither party gets their needs met because the conflict is not addressed. - Win/Win: Both parties find a way to meet their needs.
The selection of a style depends on the level of concern for the outcome versus the level of concern for the relationship.
Style 1: Avoiding (Lose-Lose)
Definition: This style occurs when both parties avoid discussing a specific topic or dealing with the conflict entirely.
Associated Behaviours: - Denial of the conflict. - Silence or being sullen. - Complete withdrawal from the situation. - Procrastination or failing to complete work/tasks. - Criticism and sarcasm. - Passive-aggressive behaviours, such as habitually showing up late to meetings to avoid work or interaction. - Failing to pay attention when the other person is speaking.
Effectiveness (When to use): - When an individual is feeling overwhelmed by too many issues at once. - When there is a need to clear priorities. - When it is appropriate to delegate the issue to others.
Pitfalls and Negative Consequences: - Issues remain unresolved, which can be described as "sweeping things under the rug." - Unresolved issues can fester beneath the surface, leading to a breakdown in communication and relationships. - Over-reliance on avoidance suggests a fear of confrontation, often stemming from childhood experiences or previous negative encounters with conflict. - Continuous avoidance ensures that topics of real importance are never settled.
Style 2: Accommodating (I Lose, You Win)
Definition: A style where one person gives in to the demands of others, placing themselves in a "lose" position while the other person "wins."
Example: Deciding where to go for dinner. If one person does not care about the choice, they may accommodate the other's preference entirely.
When it becomes problematic: - When it becomes a consistent pattern, creating one-sided relationships. - When the other person is forced to do all the decision-making, which puts pressure on the relationship.
Over-use Implications: - The individual loses influence; people stop paying attention to their ideas. - Accommodators may be reluctant to change and anxious about the future. - They may eventually see themselves as victims. - They may appear overly helpful but secretly harbour resentment.
Style 3: Compromising (Middle Ground)
Definition: Seeking a middle ground where both parties give a little and lose a little. It sits in a moderately assertive and moderately cooperative stance.
Mechanism: You sacrifice part of what you want and persuade the other party to do the same.
Appropriate Usage: - For moderately important issues (not life-or-death or core values). - When parties have equal power in the relationship. - When parties hold equally strong views.
Food Example: One person wants Mexican food, the other wants Thai. - Compromise A: Mexican tonight and Thai tomorrow. - Compromise B: Person A chooses the restaurant tonight; Person C chooses next week.
Negative Consequences of Constant Compromise: - It can suggest a lack of firm values or beliefs, making others cynical or untrusting. - The original conflict might never truly be resolved.
Consequences of Avoiding Compromise: - Frequent power struggles. - Unnecessary confrontations. - Ineffective negotiating.
Style 4: Competing (I Win, You Lose)
Definition: A highly uncooperative and aggressive style where the goal is to get one's way regardless of the cost.
Behaviours: Can include verbal threats and a refusal to cooperate.
Beneficial Usage: - When quick, decisive action is vital (e.g., emergencies). - For important but unpopular actions, such as a business needing to cut staff, enforce unpopular rules, or take disciplinary action. - When an issue is vital to company welfare. - To protect against people who take advantage of others or those unable to stand up for themselves.
Negative Consequences: - The individual never receives contrary feedback because they are surrounded by "yes" people (accommodators). - Creates hidden tension and anger. - Can lead to "temper tantrums" when the individual does not get their way.
Style 5: Collaborating (Win-Win)
Definition: Using other-oriented strategies to explore all possible solutions to find a win-win outcome.
Goal: To solve the actual problem rather than settling for a "quick fix."
Requirements: Commitment from all parties to resolve the issue and the empowerment of everyone involved.
Negative Consequences of Over-use: - Spending excessive time and energy on trivial issues. - Overloading participants with the effort required to talk through everything. - Diffusion of Responsibility: In a workplace, because everyone is responsible for the decision, individuals might assume someone else has handled a specific task or put in equal effort.
Conceptual Framework: Outcome vs. Relationship
Conflict management styles can be mapped by measuring Concern for the Outcome against Concern for the Relationship: - High Outcome / High Relationship: Collaborating. - Low Outcome / Low Relationship: Avoiding (e.g., a casual acquaintance in class talking over you; the relationship isn't worth the energy/time needed to address it). - Low Outcome / High Relationship: Accommodating (e.g., going to dinner with liked colleagues and not caring about the restaurant choice). - High Outcome / Low Relationship: Competing (e.g., First Responders, Police, or Workplace Health and Safety Officers who must prioritize safety/rules over individual relationships). - Moderate Outcome / Moderate Relationship: Compromising (sits in the dead centre of the model).
Comparative Scenario: The Savings Conflict
Scenario: A couple has saved for collective use. One partner wants a holiday to Cairns because they are tired after a long trimester. The other partner wants a new car for work transportation.
The Compromise Approach: - The couple buys a cheaper, less reliable car (not the preferred model or year). - The couple goes on a less expensive holiday (e.g., Sunshine Coast or Gold Coast instead of Cairns). - Result: Both get a bit of what they want, but neither is satisfied.
The Collaborating Approach: - The couple discusses the underlying issues: Why is the Cairns trip specifically needed? What specific needs must the vehicle meet? - They work toward a solution that addresses the root needs of both parties without requiring a compromise on those fundamental needs.
Questions & Discussion
Question: Is avoiding ever effective?
Answer: It is not black and white. It is effective if you are overwhelmed or need to prioritize. However, if used too much, issues remain unresolved and communication breaks down.
Question: Should we always use the collaborating style?
Answer: Not necessarily. It can lead to spending too much time on trivialities and can cause a diffusion of responsibility in a professional setting.