“EXPERIENCE is not what happens to you — it’s how you interpret what happens to you” — Aldous Huxley
In my articles I want to give you some tools on various topics in business that actually help you improve. Should my help through this column not be enough for your teams, then I’m always able to train them at your location. In my managerial career I’ve had to solve or help solve many conflicts. I have some tips for you. So, let’s get going.
Managing conflict
As a manager you are responsible for the activities of your team of people. You may also be working alongside other managers who are responsible for their own teams. As you will be well aware, people don’t always see eye to eye. Your team members may fall out among themselves, or with you. They may be at odds with people in other managers’ teams. Some may express hostility towards “the organisation”. Managing such conflicts may take up a large slice of your managerial time. It may also present you with some of your most testing and stressful problems.
Understanding the theory: Conflict styles
In the 1970s Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann identified five main styles of dealing with conflict that vary in their degrees of co-operativeness and assertiveness. They argued that people typically have a preferred conflict resolution style. However, they also noted that different styles were most useful in different situations. They developed the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) which helps you to identify which style you tend towards when conflict arises.
Thomas and Kilmann’s styles are:
Competitive: People who tend towards a competitive style take a firm stand, and know what they want. They usually operate from a position of power, drawn from things like position, rank, expertise, or persuasive ability. This style can be useful when there is an emergency and a decision needs to be make fast; when the decision is unpopular; or when defending against someone who is trying to exploit the situation selfishly.
Collaborative: People tending towards a collaborative style try to meet the needs of all people involved. These people can be highly assertive but unlike the competitor, they cooperate effectively and acknowledge that everyone is important. This style is useful when a you need to bring together a variety of viewpoints to get the best solution; when there have been previous conflicts in the group; or when the situation is too important for a simple trade-off.
Compromising: People who prefer a compromising style try to find a solution that will at least partially satisfy everyone. Everyone is expected to give up something, and the compromiser also expects to relinquish something. Compromise is useful when the cost of conflict is higher than the cost of losing ground, when equal strength opponents are at a standstill and when there is a deadline looming.
Accommodating: This style indicates a willingness to meet the needs of others at the expense of the person’s own needs. The accommodator often knows when to give in to others, but can be persuaded to surrender a position even when it is not warranted. This person is not assertive but is highly cooperative. Accommodation is appropriate when the issues matter more to the other party, when peace is more valuable than winning, or when you want to be in a position to collect on this “favour” you gave. This approach is unlikely to give the best outcomes.
Avoiding: People tending towards this style seek to evade the conflict entirely. This style is typified by delegating controversial decisions, accepting default decisions, and not wanting to hurt anyone’s feelings. It can be appropriate when victory is impossible, when the controversy is trivial, or when someone else is in a better position to solve the problem. However, in many situations this is a weak and ineffective approach to take.
Once you understand the different styles, you can use them to think about the most appropriate approach (or mixture of approaches) for the situation you’re in. You can also think about your own instinctive approach, and learn how you need to change this if necessary.
Ideally you can adopt an approach that meets the situation, resolves the problem, respects people’s legitimate interests, and mends damaged working relationships.
“You can’t solve problems until you understand the other side.”
Next week we look at Part 3, “Interest-Based Relational (IBR) Approach” and use of these theories or styles. I would like to conclude with a quote from the great Muhammad Ali, who has just passed on.
“Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they’ve been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It’s an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It’s a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing.”
See you next week! Wishing you good business!
* Coles International Training and Corporate Consultancy is based in Australia. It researches, develops and delivers learning and organizational solutions to clients’ needs and problems around the world. For more information, please visit www.colestraining.com, or email: colestraining@gmail.com
