The primary objective of managing team conflict is not to eliminate it but to handle it effectively. Poorly managed team conflict can lead to a decrease in employee morale, disruption of healthy relationships, and hindrance in achieving goals.
In order to avoid or resolve conflicts, reaching a consensus through collaboration is essential, as are controlling emotional outbursts, enhancing self-esteem, preserving individual dignity, listening carefully and with empathy, and being honest about concerns.
It is also crucial to avoid letting individual egos interfere with management style. Here are the top 5 conflict management styles for Individuals/HRs to use in distinct situations at different times.
1. Mary Follett, 1940 Model
In 1940, Mary Follett was the first to suggest three main styles of handling conflict: domination, compromise and integration. Later, she added two avoidance and suppression, making it a 5-model style. With Mary Parker Follett&rsquos work, the organization theory of scientific management shifted to human relations and contingency theory.
2. Rahim and Bonoma, 1979 Model
With an eye toward the concepts already in place, Afzalur M. Rahim and Thomas V. Bonoma created a two-dimensional conflict management model predicated on concern for self and others. Concern for others refers to the extent to which an individual tries to address the wants or problems of others at the price of their concerns. In contrast, concern for self describes how an individual addresses their needs or concerns. The five scientific conflict management approaches the Rahim and Bonoma model created include: avoiding, obliging, integrating, dominating, and compromise.
Avoiding involves ignoring or withdrawing from the conflict situation.
Obliging involves accommodating the other party&rsquos needs and concerns.
The Integrating approach involves finding a mutually beneficial solution that satisfies both parties&rsquo needs.
The Dominating approach involves using power and authority to resolve the conflict.
Compromising involves finding a middle ground that partially satisfies both parties&rsquo needs.
3. Thomas-Kilmann Model, 1974 Conflict Management Styles
The five conflict management styles of the Thomas-Kilmann Model comprise: Competing, Avoiding, Compromising, Accommodating, and Collaborating.
The horizontal axis represents assertiveness, while the vertical axis represents cooperativeness. The competing and avoiding styles are stationary on the horizontal axis. The intermediary stage of assertiveness and cooperativeness is where compromise lies. These conflict styles demonstrate the aggressive dimension-how people try to meet their own needs-and the cooperative dimension-how much they try to meet other&rsquos needs.
Here is a brief synopsis of the Thomas-Kilmann Model, 1974 Conflict Management Styles conflict management styles:
Competing: It is characterized by a high degree of assertiveness and a low degree of cooperativeness. Often used when one party tries to win the conflict at the other party&rsquos expense.
Avoiding: It is the vice versa of competing. Avoiding is characterized by low assertiveness and low cooperativeness when one party avoids conflict.
Accommodating: Accommodating is characterized by low assertiveness and high cooperativeness. It is used when one party tries to fulfill the other party&rsquos crises at their own expense.
Collaborating: This style is characterized by a high degree of assertiveness and a high degree of cooperativeness. A collaborating technique is applied when both parties find a mutually beneficial solution to the conflict.
Compromising: An intermediate degree of assertiveness and a medium degree of cooperativeness define a compromising style. It is used when both parties agree to satisfy each other on common ground.
As the styles are discussed, it becomes clear that the avoidance style exhibits low levels of cooperativeness and assertiveness. It&rsquos been said that choosing not to make a decision is a lose-lose scenario.
4. Linda Putman and Charmaine Wilson model, 1982.
Linda Putman and Charmaine Wilson introduced the three-conflict management styles model: non-confrontation (obliging), solution-oriented (integrating) and Control (dominating).
The non-confrontation or obliging style of conflict management involves minimizing or avoiding disagreements.
The solution-oriented or integration style is employed while looking for original, imaginative, and integrative solutions. This can also be used in situations involving compromise.
The dominating or control style is linked to a constant demand for one&rsquos stance using powerful nonverbal cues or arguments.
5. Suping and Jing, 2006 Model
Suping and Jing&rsquos Model (2006) claims that it is arguably the most extensively utilized strategy in both the applied and academic fields. The model consists of cooperativeness (i.e., attempting to address others&rsquo concerns) and assertiveness (i.e., trying to manage one&rsquos own concerns). This model introduces 5 distinct conflict-handling philosophies, which people can utilize to handle disputes in their daily lives.
Conflict Management vs Conflict Resolution
Conflict management and conflict resolution are two different processes that can shape the way conflict is dealt with. Conflict resolution is a process of solving, settling, or finalizing a conflict, while conflict management is a process of mediating, handling, and coping with a conflict.
Moreover, conflict resolution is often used to solve short-term disagreements that are relatively easy to resolve if the parties are willing to work together. But conflict management addresses persistent issues in a relationship.
How to Resolve Conflict in the Workplace
tips to resolve conflicts
Unresolved workplace conflicts can lead to various negative consequences. Furthermore, purposefully ignoring or not escalating situations of verbal abuse, harassment, or resentment eventually disrupts the organizational culture and, later, its success.
According to the Diagnosis and Intervention Model of conflict resolution in workplaces, conflicts should be systematically addressed by first diagnosing root causes. Then, analyze communication breakdowns, interpersonal dynamics, and organizational structures. Subsequently, tailored interventions such as targeted training or improved communication protocols must be implemented to resolve issues and foster a positive workplace culture.
Well, using the correct measures, conflicts can be resolved anyway. And some of the common ways are:
Clear communication: Promote open and honest communication between parties involved in the friction.
Active Listening: Assure that all parties feel heard and understood by practicing active listening, allowing each person to express their perspectives.
Mediation: Assess the involvement of a neutral third party, such as a mediator, to facilitate communication and guide the resolution process.
Identifying the issue: Recognize and define the issues causing the conflict to ensure a focused and targeted solution.
Relinquishing and evaluating: Specify areas of agreement or shared interests to build a foundation for finding mutually beneficial resolutions.
Empathy: Foster feelings of empathy among teams.
Compromise: Cultivate a spirit of compromise where all parties are willing to give and take to reach a solution that meets everyone&rsquos needs.
Policies and programs: Implement and communicate clear workplace policies and guidelines that address potential sources of conflict.
Training: Offer training programs on conflict resolution and interpersonal communication to manage conflicts effectively.
Scope out: Monitor the resolution over time and schedule follow-up meetings to guarantee the effectiveness of the solution.
