Approaches to Dealing with Conflict | Tools for Team Leadership: Delivering the X-Factor in Team eXcellence

According to the model developed by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann (2002), the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), there are five basic approaches to handling conflict: avoiding, accommodating , competing, compromising , and collaborating. Each approach has some advantages and some disadvantages. The key is to match the approach with the situation. Ideally you want all members to be able to use all five approaches. You should consider training team members in how and when to use them. Start by identifying what the participants already know about conflict. Experience is a powerful teacher if we spend time reflecting on what it has taught us. Exercise 26 asks team members to answer a series of questions to identify their perceptions regarding conflict strategies. Remind your team members that the approaches to conflict they've learned through experience are not necessarily right or wrong and that no one method will address every situation. Care should be taken to avoid overusing any one approach. Conflict resolution is more of an art than a science.

EXERCISE 25

Awareness and Analysis of the Problematic Conflicts on Your Team

Directions: Use brainstorming to identify the sources of conflict on your team. List the issue or issues involved, the players involved, the likely reasons why the conflict exists, and the potential consequences for the team if the conflict is not resolved soon. Make additional copies of this exercise for use on other conflicts that exist.

CONFLICT #1

What is an issue producing the conflict?
Who is involved in the issue?
Why does this conflict exist? What (not who ) is causing it?
What is likely to happen if this conflict is not resolved soon?

CONFLICT #2

What is an issue producing the conflict?
Who is involved in the issue?
Why does this conflict exist? What (not who ) is causing it?
What is likely to happen if this conflict is not resolved soon?

CONFLICT #3

What is an issue producing the conflict?
Who is involved in the issue?
Why does this conflict exist? What (not who ) is causing it?
What is likely to happen if this conflict is not resolved soon?

EXERCISE 26

Identifying and Clarifying Perceptions of Conflict Strategies

Directions: Have each team member answer the following questions.

Have you ever seen a conflict situation handled in a constructive manner? What happened in that situation?
What was the most destructive conflict situation you have seen in your work career?
What are the advantages of having some conflict in organizations? What are the disadvantages?
What are common causes of conflict between people in organizations?
What are common causes of conflict between groups in organizations?
How do you let go of the past in order to deal with current conflicts?
What are the many ways of dealing with conflict? What are the options when conflict arises?
What do you usually do when you are faced with a situation that is ripe for conflict? How would you describe your conflict resolution style?
Who in your organization is particularly skilled at dealing with conflict?
What is your greatest strength in dealing with conflict?
What would you have to or want to work on to become more skilled at dealing with conflict?

Avoiding

If the issue is minor and the need for harmonious relations is high, try using the avoiding approach (e.g., ignoring, withdrawing , separating, repressing). It might help if you just occasionally ignore comments made by the offending party and encourage others to do likewise. Behavior that is not reinforced in any way tends to diminish. Would the parties be willing to forgive and forget? Is it possible to adjust the team's procedures so that the parties in conflict rarely have to interact with each other? These are all methods of using the avoiding approach. Be careful, this strategy could actually make things worse . Some small issues should be nipped in the bud instead of ignored. However, if the issue is not very important and the parties don't need to really work things out, this may be a successful strategy.

Accommodating

If the issue is important to one party and not the other, but the need for harmonious relations is high, the accommodating approach (e.g., yielding, defusing, delaying) should be considered . In this approach you either accommodate the person or accommodate the situation. You can say something like, "This is obviously much more important to you than it is to me. Why don't we just do it your way this time?" Or you can find a way to defuse the explosive situation by cracking a joke at the right time or saying something like, "Come on now. We have been teammates for some time now. Let's not let this issue create hard feelings between us."

Have you ever found yourself in a conflict situation where you feel that if it goes on any longer, you might say something you will regret later or the other party may be about to say something that you really don't want to hear? Accommodate the situation by asking for a time out. Don't try to settle it now. Just ask that you and the parties involved get back together at a specified time when cooler heads can prevail. If you try this, make sure you get the parties back together. If you let it slide, you may lose some credibility. In fact, keep in mind that when-ever you use the accommodating approach, it can backfire on you. People might see you as being unable to stand up for your point of view, or fearful of conflict and thus unwilling to let people really express their feelings. It can come across as condescending. Thus, consider using the accommodating approach, but don't overuse it. As is the case for all these approaches, the key is matching the approach to the people and situation involved.

Competing

If both parties feel very strongly about an issue and the relationship is not as important as doing the task correctly, the competing approach (e.g., convincing, debating, voting, exerting power, etc.) should be considered. This is an approach to use with people who are not easily threatened by conflict. The key to using it well is to make sure there is an open and fair debate on the issues. The facts must be determined and emphasized . You need to be clear about when you are expressing opinions and when you are making factual statements. By the way, if the difference between the conflicting parties is more a manner of values and opinions than it is facts, do not use the competing approach. Adults don't change their values through logical debate.

The competing approach begins with the parties' efforts to convince each other who is right and who is wrong. If this fails, then the arguments are presented in a forum that includes people who have the power to make the decision. For example, the parties present their views in a respectful manner before the other team members, who vote on which path of action to take. Or the perspectives could simply be presented to the appropriate manager or leader, and that person decides what is to be done. The good news is that the issue gets decided and, if the discussion is handled respectfully, both parties can feel they were treated fairly . However, this approach sets up winners and losers, and losers tend to try to get even. As was discussed earlier in this chapter, when competition is at the heart of a conflict, often the person who does not get his way responds in a passive- aggressive manner. If you use the competing approach, make sure you reach out to that person and help him save face in a manner that keeps him involved.

Overuse of the competing approach tends to encourage the use of political behaviors. While politics naturally occurs in every organization, you don't want to encourage it ” especially if it leads to divisiveness. People try to line up their votes and find out who is on their side. The competing approach has a place in any democratic institution, but your job as leader is to try to ensure that it is handled in a fair and civil manner.

Compromising

If the issue is somewhat important to both parties and developing good relations is also somewhat important, the compromising approach (e.g., splitting the difference, meeting halfway) should be considered. Ask the other party, "Is there a middle ground we can move to?" or, "What is the halfway point between your position and mine?" A compromise helps both parties feel that they have gained something. It also promotes a feeling that they can work together to come up with a satisfactory solution. It gets the issue settled and often produces some feelings of fairness.

However, a compromise might not be possible. The biblical story about King Solomon comes to mind. Two women present a baby to Solomon, each claiming that the baby is hers. The king suggests a compromise: cut the baby in half. Of course this is not a workable solution. If I need you to produce twelve units an hour and you say you can only produce six, what good does it do for us to compromise and agree to nine units an hour . If I need twelve, nine is not sufficient. If you can only produce six, why commit to nine? In fact, frequent use of the compromise approach tends to encourage the political strategy of "high-ball/lowball." We ask for more than we need and we offer less than we can deliver, knowing that in the end we will be compromising. This produces a settlement but tends to reduce trust because we are engaging in gamesmanship. The compromise approach is best used when the issue just needs to get settled between two parties that have made genuine offers and it is not crucial that they maximize the solution to the problem.

Collaborating

Finally, if the issue is very important and the development of good relations is also very important, the collaborating approach (e.g., "win-win" creative problem solving, principled interest-based negotiating) should be considered. This differs from compromising in that the solution reached is something neither party could have thought of on her own. Each party offers perceptions, and that creates new perspectives for both. It is neither "my way," "your way," nor "let's meet halfway." It is an attempt to produce a new way. The parties gain insights instead of merely being convinced. This creative, often exhilarating and exciting process creates the most innovative high-quality solutions to complex problems. When a win-win solution emerges, the parties feel that together they can do great things. Thus, the collaborating approach addresses both the task and relationship side of team problem solving. Members of the Harvard Negotiation Project examined the keys to producing win-win solutions. The principles they discovered were published in the book Getting to Yes by Roger Fisher and William Ury (1981), as outlined in Table 16.

TABLE 16: The Four Principles of "Win-Win" Bargaining
Focus on the issues, not on the people/personalities Identify what we need to discuss, not who is presenting it Be willing to bend for people but be hard on the issues Listen to their words, not to your interpretation Don't blame; help them save face Don't merely present a solution, involve them in planning Focus on interests, not on positions Look for a sense of direction, not a way to keep score Identify which interests are shared, which are opposing, and which are merely differing Focus on shared interests, goals, and objectives Satisfy mutual interests Invent options for mutual gain Suspend judgment; brainstorm options Find ways to capitalize on differences Look for "apples for oranges" trades Use standards to judge options Apply objective, not subjective , criteria to decide Find external standards for comparisons
Source: Adapted from Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1981).

If you are a leader attempting to help teams achieve win-win solutions, you first need to remind them to focus on the issues rather than who is presenting the issues. As stated earlier, the key is to turn the blame game into systematic problem solving. It is also important that people not state their solutions at the beginning of the discussion. The members must identify the issues and what they would like to accomplish through the resolution of those issues, not their bottom line. For example, the parties should not begin the discussion by demanding how many or how few units they can produce per hour. Instead the discussion could begin with a statement of interests like, "We want to be able to produce at the level we are capable of and at the level our customers demand."

All parties may share this desire to be realistic and keep customers satisfied. The interests of both parties are examined to determine which interests they share, which merely differ without being in conflict with each other, and which directly compete with each other. These competing interests cannot produce win-win solutions unless they can be framed in another way. As for common versus differing interests, the parties must be willing to brainstorm options and packages of options creatively and then identify those that satisfy mutual interests. Once those options are identified, plans must be made to determine the steps for taking action. Ideally, the value of those options should be evaluated by an external, objective source. I had one client where the union and management members of the team came up with a creative formula for rewarding teams of workers for producing quality units. Instead of relying on either party to determine whether production lived up to quality standards, they agreed that if any of their products were selected by the J. D. Power firm as being one of the top five in its class, the bonus formula would be activated.

As you attempt to help your teams reach more collaborative solutions to their conflicts, you will need to encourage the use of certain skills including diplomacy (see chapter 9), good communication (see chapter 5), and systematic problem solving (see chapter 6). State the principles of win-win negotiations at the beginning and develop a set of ground rules for the discussions consistent with the principles. When people insist on stating their bottom-line position, ask questions and listen for the interests that may underlie their position. Encourage the spirit of inquiry and discovery rather than advocacy . When a solution is reached, make sure the group still spends the time necessary to develop an implementation plan. Conclude the meeting with reflection on what was learned during the session.

For an exercise in finding a win-win solution, see "The Exotic Orchid Role Play Exercise" located in appendix A. In the scenario presented, if the parties engage in accommodating, competing, or compromising, lives will be lost. If they respectfully initiate the discussion, share their information clearly, and effectively listen to each other, they can find a solution that addresses the needs of both parties.