Resolving Conflict For Managers
The conflict resolution requires great managerial skills. Here we are trying to give a solution to a conflict turning it in a constructive side.
If one party exercises the principles of interaction, listens, and us the six steps of collaborative resolution, that party may be able to end the conflict constructively. At the very least, he or she may be able to prevent the conflict from turning into a fight by choosing an alternative to destructive interaction?”
There is a difference between resolving a conflict and managing conflict. Resolving a conflict ends the dispute by satisfying the interests of both parties. Managing a conflict contains specialized interaction that prevents a dispute from becoming a destructive battle. Managing a conflict attends to the personal issues so as to allow for a constructive relationship, even though the objective issues may not be resolvable. For example, the former Soviet Union and the United States managed their conflict during the Cold War by using a variety of mechanisms. The objective issues in the dispute were not resolved, and neither were the personal issues, which contained significant perceptual differences. However, both sides attended significantly to the relationship to keep the disagreement from turning into a destructive battle.
Our goal in conflict always should be to seek a resolution based on mutual gain. Realistically, however, resolution is not always possible. When this is the case, we must manage the conflict to ensure that the relationship is constructive and that open communication is maintained. We Listen to Conflict to understand the other party and demonstrate the acceptance required to maintain the relationship
1. The Framework for conflict resolution
When conflicts arise, we assess a variety of factors before selecting our approach to the situation. We may choose to compete, or dominate, where we try to impose our will on the other side through physical or psychological means, or we may choose to accommodate, or surrender, and cede victory to the other side.
Likewise, we may decide to withdraw by either doing nothing or refusing to participate in the conflict altogether, or we may collaborate and reach a constructive and mutually acceptable solution. And if none of those approaches proves effective, we might choose third-party intervention, a form of collaboration in which an individual or group external to the conflict intercedes to move both parties toward agreement.
While each of the above orientations represents a way to manage conflict, only two collaboration and third-party intervention-are, by definition, focused on mutual gain and resolution. These two approaches consider the interests of both parties and are most likely to use empathic listening as the primary tool to enhance understanding. The other methods deal unilaterally with the conflict and fail to manage the interdependence of the dispute.
In order to understand the mechanisms behind the four orientations to conflict, it is useful to examine how these orientations can be applied. The study of negotiation, one form of conflict resolution, provides two opposite approaches for dealing with disputes. Most often, we think of negotiation in the formal sense seen in the business or diplomatic environment, where two or more parties bargain to reach agreement. However, two types of negotiation, competitive bargaining and collaboration, also provide good models for understanding different ways of resolving our conflicts.
2. Competitive Bargaining
When most people think of negotiation, they think of competitive bargaining. In this type of negotiation, a seller asks for more than he expects and a buyer offers less than she is willing to pay. Then, through a series of concessions, the two sides meet somewhere in the middle where each side is reasonably satisfied. This form of negotiation also is frequently called distributive bargaining or concession-convergence. It maintains a competitive, win-lose orientation, with the goals of one party and the attainment of those goals in direct conflict with the goals of the other party. In other words, competitive bargaining is a positional conflict in which “winning” is determined by how much of the original position was obtained. The parties believe that resources are fixed and limited, and that they must battle to maximize their share of the wealth.
In competitive bargaining, each party uses strategy, tactics, and tricks to achieve its objective, and whether one of both parties will achieve their goal depends upon their ability to “play the game.” Each party seeks to extract information from the other party that will help in identifying appropriate counteroffers, while revealing as little accurate information as possible about its own preferences. The final agreement often depends on the willingness of one party to stake out a tough and extreme position that causes the other party to make concessions. Labor management disputes and international negotiations often use this model of conflict resolution.
The competitive bargaining process is unappealing to many of us and often produces unwise agreements. Some of us simply do not have the skills or the temperament to play the game. We see the process as being unnecessary tough, deceitful, or manipulative. Perceptions of power & control also are a significant factor in the effectiveness of competitive bargaining. If you do not have the power in the relationship, or if you perceive that you do not, you are more likely to obtain an unsatisfactory resolution. Your lack of power will prevent you from using authority or aggression to resolve, or win, the dispute. In competitive bargaining this form of aggression is often played as a trump card to achieve the win for the party who is able to acquire the most power.
The positional approach of competitive bargaining also causes unnecessary issue rigidity. Our egos become so invested in our positions that we are prevented from accepting alternatives. Therefore, even if a better solution is created, it is unlikely that we will back down. Another problem with competitive bargaining is that it often ignores the personal issues that affect the resolution process. In competitive bargaining, we care about the other party’s needs only as a means to identify an opportunity for trade. For example, we will trade one day at the beach (the other party’s need) for one day visiting museums (our need). But even if the trade satisfies one need, competitive bargaining still requires some amount of persuasion, deception, and manipulation if we are going to resolve all of the objective issues in a satisfactory manner. Over time, this usually breaks down the trust between the parties and places a significant strain on the relationship.
Competitive bargaining tends not to resolve conflict. It merely manages it for his short term. It is based on an attitude of limits and is fundamentally a process of reaching a settlement within a bargaining range. Both parties know that they are going to have to settle for something less than they would prefer, but they each hope that the deal will be better than their bottom line. Parties who do not think they got the best deal possible or who believe that they “lost” typically try to find ways to recoup their losses later. Even if one party believes that it “won,” it still knows that it left something on the bargaining table and will try to acquire it in future negotiations. Labor and management, for example, may reach an agreement, but it is not long before they are back at the bargaining table, renegotiating issues that one or both sides thought had been settled previously.
There is an alternative that breaks the destructive cycle of competitive bargaining. It builds relationships and opens the door to constructive resolution. The alternative not only helps you correctly identify the objective issues, but also manages, if not resolves, the personal issues in the dispute. It is based on principles of interaction that endeavor to understand all of the underlying interests that must be satisfied to reach sustained agreement.
The collaborative approach to conflict resolution, also called mutual gains or integrative bargaining, argues for the possibility of solutions that all sides find acceptable. It embodies the notion of “win-win,” a core component of our principle of mutual gain. Collaboration is about identifying a common, shared, or joint goal and developing a process to achieve it. It is a process in which both parties exchange information openly, defines their common problems, and creates options to solve these problems. And while the collaborative process cannot guarantee that agreement will always be reached, more often than not, the analysis of interests, needs, and desires helps the resolution process and ultimate agreement.
There are many reasons why people don’t pursue this model of conflict resolution. First, people in conflict often do not recognize the potential for collaboration. This often is the result of an attitude of limits, either-or thinking, or a fixed-pie mentality. When parties remain positional or see only a limited number of solutions that will satisfy their interests, they do not use their creativity to solve the problem.
The history of the relationship between the two parties also can prevent collaboration. Over time, destructive conflict can build resentment, if not contempt. And, as John Gottman notes in Why Marriages Succeed or Fail (1994), contempt breeds the intent to “insult and psychologically abuse” the other party. This is not always major abuse; it may be small, nit-picking criticisms that add up over time. The personal issues become so overwhelming that the objective issues of the conflict cannot be examined, and parties often cannot be in the same room together, let alone identify ways of resolving the conflict.
Another barrier to collaboration relates to the complexity of most conflicts. Some elements are conducive to collaboration, and some elements require competitive bargaining. Each mode of conflict resolution requires different skill sets, and you can send mixed messages unless you handle them carefully.
Finally, people often have a lack of faith in their problem-solving ability. Parties that enter the resolution process believing that they can work together usually find a way to collaborate. Those who do not have a solid self-concept will be less willing to follow the Principles of interaction& use listening to seek collaborative resolution.
There are many obstacles that make collaboration more difficult. Given our inherent competitiveness and the various factors that surround many of our disputes, it is a wonder that constructive collaboration occurs at all. However, it does occur if one or both of the parties in conflict outcomes, the following conditions must be established at some point during the process:
- Face-to-face interaction: The Listening to Conflict approach to dispute resolution requires developing an understanding of the total message another party is trying to communicate. The most effective way to accomplish this is through face-to-face interaction, where we can see the nonverbal expressions that give us clues to underlying emotional needs.
- High acquaintance potential: Without the ability to accept and have positive regard for the other party, collaboration will not be possible. We have to like the person as a person and be willing to establish a relationship that goes beyond the issues of the dispute. This will allow the personal issues to be dealt with separately from the objective issues in the particular conflict so that we can explore options for mutual gain.
- Constituency support: The parties in conflict will not be able to collaborate if outside constituencies try to force competitive and positional norms. Third parties must be supportive of the collaborative process or risk nullifying the positive steps taken toward collaboration by reneging on constructive agreements established between the two interacting parties. We must prevent or resolve any conflict with our constituencies prior to interacting with the other party in the primary dispute.
- Cooperative tasks: Acceptance goes a long way toward diffusing head-to-head competition in conflict, but unless a joint or mutual task is established, there will be no need to collaborate. We at least must frame the conflict as a problem to be solved together in order to establish a collaborative environment.
- Shared exploration: Sharing in the process of understanding the problem and creating solutions keeps both parties involved. This saves one party from the trap of inventing all of the solutions, and the inevitable dependence and resentment that accompanies that responsibility. When both parties are involved, there will be stronger commitment to the final solutions.
- No fixed agenda: An agenda creates a positional interaction that is based on satisfying the needs of one party without understanding how the interests of both are related. Having an agenda sends the message that you are not interested in the other party’s issues and needs issues and needs. The only agenda should be to follow the steps of collaboration and work toward mutual gain.
Adherence to collaborative process steps. Successful resolution requires that we follow the steps of collaboration. If we skip a step, we risk sending the other party mixed signals that will; propel that party toward a defensive, competitive mode.