Conflict Resolution

Resolving Conflict Rationally and Effectively

Resolve conflict effectively,
with James Manktelow & Amy Carlson.

In many cases, conflict in the workplace just seems to be a fact of life. We've all seen situations where different people with different goals and needs have come into conflict. And we've all seen the often-intense personal animosity that can result.

The fact that conflict exists, however, is not necessarily a bad thing: As long as it is resolved effectively, it can lead to personal and professional growth. In many cases, effective conflict resolution can make the difference between positive and negative outcomes.

The good news is that by resolving conflict successfully, you can solve many of the problems that it has brought to the surface, as well as getting benefits that you might not at first expect:

  • Increased understanding: The discussion needed to resolve conflict expands people's awareness of the situation, giving them an insight into how they can achieve their own goals without undermining those of other people.
  • Increased group cohesion: When conflict is resolved effectively, team members can develop stronger mutual respect, and a renewed faith in their ability to work together.
  • Improved self-knowledge: Conflict pushes individuals to examine their goals in close detail , helping them understand the things that are most important to them, sharpening their focus, and enhancing their effectiveness.

However, if conflict is not handled effectively, the results can be damaging. Conflicting goals can quickly turn into personal dislike. Teamwork breaks down. Talent is wasted as people disengage from their work. And it's easy to end up in a vicious downward spiral of negativity and recrimination.

If you're to keep your team or organization working effectively, you need to stop this downward spiral as soon as you can. To do this, it helps to understand two of the theories that lie behind effective conflict resolution:

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 cooperativeness 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 made fast; when the decision is unpopular; or when defending against someone who is trying to exploit the situation selfishly. However it can leave people feeling bruised, unsatisfied and resentful when used in less urgent situations.

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 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 him- or herself 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 "favor" you gave. However people may not return favors, and overall 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.

Understanding The Theory: The "Interest-Based Relational Approach"

The second theory is commonly referred to as the "Interest-Based Relational (IBR) Approach". This type of conflict resolution respects individual differences while helping people avoid becoming too entrenched in a fixed position.

In resolving conflict using this approach, you follow these rules:

  • Make sure that good relationships are the first priority: As far as possible, make sure that you treat the other calmly and that you try to build mutual respect. Do your best to be courteous to one-another and remain constructive under pressure.
  • Keep people and problems separate: Recognize that in many cases the other person is not just "being difficult" – real and valid differences can lie behind conflictive positions. By separating the problem from the person, real issues can be debated without damaging working relationships.
  • Pay attention to the interests that are being presented: By listening carefully you'll most-likely understand why the person is adopting his or her position.
  • Listen first; talk second: To solve a problem effectively you have to understand where the other person is coming from before defending your own position.
  • Set out the "Facts": Agree and establish the objective, observable elements that will have an impact on the decision.
  • Explore options together: Be open to the idea that a third position may exist, and that you can get to this idea jointly.

By following these rules, you can often keep contentious discussions positive and constructive. This helps to prevent the antagonism and dislike which so-often causes conflict to spin out of control.

Using the Tool: A Conflict Resolution Process

Based on these approaches, a starting point for dealing with conflict is to identify the overriding conflict style employed by yourself, your team or your organization.

Over time, people's conflict management styles tend to mesh, and a "right" way to solve conflict emerges. It's good to recognize when this style can be used effectively, however make sure that people understand that different styles may suit different situations.

Look at the circumstances, and think about the style that may be appropriate.

Then use the process below to resolve the conflict:

Step One: Set the Scene

If appropriate to the situation, agree the rules of the IBR Approach (or at least consider using the approach yourself.) Make sure that people understand that the conflict may be a mutual problem, which may be best resolved through discussion and negotiation rather than through raw aggression.

If you are involved in the conflict, emphasize the fact that you are presenting your perception of the problem. Use active listening   skills to ensure you hear and understand other's positions and perceptions.

  • Restate.
  • Paraphrase.
  • Summarize.

And make sure that when you talk, you're using an adult, assertive   approach rather than a submissive or aggressive style.

Step Two: Gather Information

Here you are trying to get to the underlying interests, needs, and concerns. Ask for the other person's viewpoint and confirm that you respect his or her opinion and need his or her cooperation to solve the problem.

Try to understand his or her motivations and goals, and see how your actions may be affecting these.

Also, try to understand the conflict in objective terms: Is it affecting work performance? damaging the delivery to the client? disrupting team work? hampering decision-making? or so on. Be sure to focus on work issues and leave personalities out of the discussion.

  • Listen with empathy and see the conflict from the other person's point of view.
  • Identify issues clearly and concisely.
  • Use "I" statements.
  • Remain flexible.
  • Clarify feelings.

Step Three: Agree the Problem

This sounds like an obvious step, but often different underlying needs, interests and goals can cause people to perceive problems very differently. You'll need to agree the problems that you are trying to solve before you'll find a mutually acceptable solution.

Sometimes different people will see different but interlocking problems – if you can't reach a common perception of the problem, then at the very least, you need to understand what the other person sees as the problem.

Step Four: Brainstorm Possible Solutions

If everyone is going to feel satisfied with the resolution, it will help if everyone has had fair input in generating solutions. Brainstorm possible solutions, and be open to all ideas, including ones you never considered before.

Step Five: Negotiate a Solution

By this stage, the conflict may be resolved: Both sides may better understand the position of the other, and a mutually satisfactory solution may be clear to all.

However you may also have uncovered real differences between your positions. This is where a technique like win-win negotiation   can be useful to find a solution that, at least to some extent, satisfies everyone.

There are three guiding principles here: Be Calm, Be Patient, Have Respect.

Key Points

Conflict in the workplace can be incredibly destructive to good teamwork.

Managed in the wrong way, real and legitimate differences between people can quickly spiral out of control, resulting in situations where co-operation breaks down and the team's mission is threatened. This is particularly the case where the wrong approaches to conflict resolution are used.

To calm these situations down, it helps to take a positive approach to conflict resolution, where discussion is courteous and non-confrontational, and the focus is on issues rather than on individuals. If this is done, then, as long as people listen carefully and explore facts, issues and possible solutions properly, conflict can often be resolved effectively.

This site teaches you the skills you need for a happy and successful career; and this is just one of many tools and resources that you'll find here at Mind Tools. Click here for more, subscribe to our free newsletter, or become a member for just $1.

Add this article to My Learning Plan

Comments (16)
  • MichaelP wrote Over a month ago
    Claudine I believe the editorial team wrote the article how can they help you?
  • Claudine wrote Over a month ago
    Who wrote this article?
  • Dianna wrote Over a month ago
    Well said! Diversity yields greatness so we need to learn to appreciate our differences.

    Have you found that your positive example has influenced people around you?

    Dianna
  • mariadelmar wrote Over a month ago
    What do you do when people disagree with your ideas
    I don't look at other coworkers as confronters as much as partners in an argument where their input, as long it is shared with professionalism, has the same value as my own and needs to be respected, within the right perspective, considering the rank or position of responsibility. Without arguments and diversity of opinions situations became stagnant and there is no growth. The ability to engage in positive communication and to see different perspectives allows a dynamic participation and natural compromised towards a shared outcome.
    It is always helpful to set yourself aside from a problem, to take an objective approach independently from personal emotions, and mind map the problem to be able to analyze it effectively with the purpose to have a line of action and a way to evaluate the progress.
  • rtab wrote Over a month ago
    Hi,

    One thing that I have learnt about myself is that I am not comfortable being in conflict with someone (is anyone?!). And I either avoid or accommodate. Now I feel that I have to get to a position where I am comfortable to be in disagreement and conflict with someone and able to communicate and come to a negotiated solution. I guess I feel it is hard to resolve a conflict when you're busy trying to run away and hide!

    The process of conflict management helps, being self aware helps as it helps you to control your emotions and keep your professionalism.

    Thoughts anyone?

    Cheers
    RT
  • bigk wrote Over a month ago
    Hi all

    I agree with Michael about how the summary describes being proactive in conflict to use respect and understanding to get to know more about how or what it is, that is in conflict.

    If being in conflict can be recognized or acknowledged, it might make it easier to take actions or to make suggestions about what the issues are that need explored.
    1: to resolve the conflict.
    2: to improve the communication.
    3: to make progress to improve the current or future working partnerships or the perceptions of the people involved now or further ahead, to help get these people a better understanding of each other and the view points that might need changed.

    Conflict can perhaps be reduced to, not having a good understanding of how issues or actions are affecting the people involved.
    Perhaps conflict can be improved by just allowing some extra time to communicate with and about any difficulties when any conflict appears.
    This could help the people communicating get a better outcome or improve communication between each other to help all the people involved grow.

    Growing can become learning,
    learning can become knowledge,
    knowledge can become the way to help each other grow or develop while moving toward the outcome that will help each other understand or accept greater responsibility to improve the working partnerships.

    This might seem difficult but it is important to resolve conflict successfully and be able to communicate, to allow for unexpected issues or adjustments. When recognized, conflict can be used to get progress and success when the issues are capable of being resolved.

    If the issues are in conflict because there is no resolve, why are they presented as conflict rather than just presented as issues that need change or to be changed?

    There might be reasons, most of the time there are no reasons. Collaboration, support or moving forward despite what seem to be conflict, are issues about what might or must have change to address an imbalance of anticipated or expected actions needed to get to a result.

    Maybe the final result expected is not the total outcome required. The conflict might have been unnecessary.

    Bigk
  • Yolande wrote Over a month ago
    Hi all

    So much to learn from this thread...

    @Michael, I really like the idea of asking someone whether they agree about being in conflict. When I started thinking about that, I realised that it could actually defuse certain situations there and then (obviously not all situations). A great point for future use!

    Kind regards
    Yolandé
  • MichaelP wrote Over a month ago
    Nagendra, what an interesting and delicate situation - conflict between a team and senior management.

    The general approach I would use is one of respect, communication and alignment.

    If Management is telling the team to do something, they also need to be communicating the 'why' and also how this action is aligned with the big picture. Otherwise the team is unlikely to be motivated. If management has a 'shut up and just do what I say attitude!' I would encourage the team to take a positive action and earn the right to go back for a more open discussion. Doing nothing or not doing what was clearly instructed usually escalates a conflict.

    For a team to initiate activities unaligned with the senior stakeholders is 'dangerous'. Possible, but dangerous. In this case I would encourage the team to document and publish a one page plan/report stating the intention, reasons and acknowledging management concerns. With a plan to keep management regularly updated on progress and invite them to participate.

    Senior managers are people too! with their own WIFM (what's in it for me) issues and insecurities. Give them security and options and treat them with respect and the doors usually quickly open to communication allowing the IBR approach to work.

    good luck and keep us posted.
  • psnagendra wrote Over a month ago
    On Conflict Management, I liked the IBR approach. Most often it is most likely that we can use IBR approach with peer teams/managers etc. How about managing conflicts with upper management, where we are facing mandate at times and we might have to do things even when they are in conflict of what the team wants? Are there any conflict resolution techniques to use during such times?

    Thanks,
    Nagendra
  • bigk wrote Over a month ago
    Hi

    What I find is that competitive often is a temporary compromise and a deferred solution only until a collaborative resolution can be used. After collaboration the areas affected in conflict often need a collaborative solution to be used to fully get good resolution to the conflict.

    I feel conflict is often needed to make certain that change can happen and that better outcomes are available to progress.

    However I feel that in most situations a collaborative approach is best but not always the best as often a direct one option solution is implemented but is still temporary as indicated earlier.
    Perhaps this is conflict does not always give enough time to find the most appropriate solution needed for a longer term resolution. A collaborative style might give a better result for longer term when there is more time available to get a better resolution.
    Maybe these are just all situational issues.

    An interesting article, I need more time to reply with any more useful comments.

    I feel more inclined to use collaborative in most situations but this is also because I feel team dynamics need more collaborative working than competitive actions and solutions.

    A team can still be competitive but a team often works better when collaborative while still competitive itself but find a team negotiated solution to move forward.

    Any other ideas welcome...

    Bigk
Show all comments

Where to go from here:

Join the Mind Tools Club

Click to join Mind Tools
Printer-friendly version
Return to the top of the page

Create a Login to Save Your Learning Plan

This ensures that you don’t lose your plan.


Connect with…

Or create a Mind Tools login. Existing user? Log in here.
Log in with your existing Mind Tools details
Lost Username or Password
You are now logged in…

Lost username or password?

Please enter your username or email address and we'll send you a reminder.

Thank You!

Your log in details have been sent to the email account you registered with. Please check your email to reset your login details.

Create a Mind Tools Login
Your plan has been created.

While you're here, subscribe to our FREE newsletter?

Learn a new career skill every week, and get our Personal Development Plan workbook (worth $19.99) when you subscribe.


Thank You!

Please check your Inbox, and click on the link in the email from us. We can then send you the newsletter.