We’ve all been there. Someone says something that just gets under your skin; the team you’re leading just isn’t getting along, or you have some serious issues about the direction your company is going.
It’s a fact: If you are a living, breathing human being, you’re going to face conflict, especially at work. Disagreements are just part of life. In fact, it’s so common that in a recent study by the CCP Global Human Capital Report, 85% of employees experience some kind of conflict at work1.
The issues may be like the examples above or for a multitude of other reasons. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Conflict can be healthy and resolve a lot of issues or it can be disastrous—causing even worse problems. It’s how you handle them that’s going to make all the difference in the outcome.
The Choices for Responding to Conflict
When it comes to conflict, it may feel like you don’t have a choice. And sometimes that’s true. There is the boss who believes, “It’s my way or the highway,” for example. Or the passive-aggressive coworker who denies they’re upset when you ask them about an issue.
But you do have a choice of how you respond, and that’s where the difference in the outcome comes into play. That’s what this blog post is about.
How people handle conflict is as diverse and complex as the people involved. Either deliberately or passively, people have preferred ways of dealing with disagreements. Behind these styles are certain attitudes that shape behavior. Our responses reflect who we are, our experiences and our perceived values.
For example, a person who assumes conflict is basically evil will tend to avoid it. Others who see conflict as a part of life will take a more active role when they experience disputes. While different, no approach is inherently good or bad. They are just different.
The diagram above illustrates how various approaches to conflict—avoidance, accommodation, competition, compromise and collaboration—depend on whether the individual places a higher value on maintaining good relationships, or on achieving his or her personal goals.
The 5 Most Common Responses to Conflict
Listed above are the five most common approaches to conflict used by most people. We go more in-depth about each below.
1. Avoidance
This approach to conflict reflects the belief that it is impossible to both accomplish your personal goals and maintain relationships while in a dispute. The basic strategy of avoidance is to withdraw, suppress and deny the existence of the conflict.
A person using this style is unassertive, neither pursuing his or her own interests in thesituation nor supporting others in achieving theirs. This person will not cooperate indefining the conflict or seeking a solution to it.
The Outcome: Avoided conflict will typically resurface at some point, most likely with more intensity and a greater potential for destruction than when first identified. Interestingly, avoidance is linked to higher occupational stress levels. Further, it can result in hostile interactions and foster low morale.
As with all approaches to conflict, avoidance can be appropriate in some instances and inappropriate in others.
An Example: When logging on to the computer and finding an e-mail from someone with whom you do not want to communicate, avoidance may be appropriate. Some problems simply go away or resolve themselves. If, however, the e-mail is from a superior or a spouse, avoidance could have serious consequences. Like with all approaches, the approach of avoidance is not inherently good or bad. Wisdom is reflected in choosing it at the appropriate time.
2. Accommodation
Accommodation as a response to conflict is characterized by a high concern for preserving the relationship, even if it means conceding one’s own goals.
An assumption underlying this approach is that a relationship is preserved without conflict. The accommodator may feel guilty if he or she causes conflict. In many cases, life experiences may have taught accommodators that it is not safe to have conflict.
Other reasons for choosing this approach might include a high need for acceptance by others and the belief that accommodation will allow those needs to be met.
The Outcome: The person who uses accommodation accepts the burden of responsibility for maintaining the relationship. The choice to be accommodating can be advantageous—especially if a person is capable of choosing a more direct, competitive style when it is merited. Without the capability of choosing another style, however, the message is sent that what the accommodator wants or needs is not important, thereby making that person subject to exploitation.
Accommodation can also be appropriate or inappropriate.
An Example: When walking through a dark alley, you feel the cold steel of a gunpressed up against your back and the raspy voice of a hoodlum demanding your wallet and car keys. This is a pretty good time for accommodation. You want the best relationship with the assailant, even if it means giving in to all of his demands!
On the other hand, there are times when accommodation is inappropriate. A teenager may demand the use of the car, an extremely late curfew and use of a parent’s credit card for a night out on the town. While a parent hopes for a valuable relationship with the teenager, accommodation of every demand will neither result in a responsible young person nor, ultimately, genuine respect between the parent and child.
Accommodation can be both effective and ineffective as an approach to managing conflict.
3. Competition
This win-or-lose style of conflict management is characterized by a super high concern for the achievement of personal goals, even at the risk of damaging or destroying relationships.
The person who uses this style may not desire harm to come to others but is willing to sacrifice almost anything to achieve personal objectives. People who employ the competing style do not always go head to head with the opposition. Sometimes they work subversively. At other times, they use the power of words to humiliate and weaken their opponents until they finally bring them under control.
An Example: There are times when competing is the best style to use in a conflict. When quick, important decisions must be made because of an emergency, competition is appropriate. The same assailant who was accommodated in his demand for your wallet in the alley may be the recipient of great competition if he enters your home and attempts to harm your child.
The Outcome: When a conflict concerns the protection of those we love, rights that are fundamental to our existence or beliefs that we hold dear, competition may be appropriate.
On the other hand, competition is often inappropriately used. Violence is a growing concern in hospitals across the country. When someone seeks to harm another, whether physically, socially or politically, to advance themselves within an organization, destructive outcomes often result. As with avoidance and accommodation, the challenge is not to decide whether competition is good or bad, but rather to wisely choose when to use it.
4. Compromise
This is a style of conflict management that proposes a middle ground to others. It reflects some willingness to compete for a particular resolution, but also some accommodation of the relationship between the parties.
Inherent in the compromising style is the idea of providing the other side with concessions while at the same time expecting concessions from them.
This approach is based on the premise that no one can be fully satisfied, so all those involved must sacrifice some of their personal desires to serve the common good of both parties. The sense of compromise can have a negative connotation.
The Outcome: Compromising integrity for personal gain or compromising long-held beliefs for short-term advantages may be perceived as inappropriate to some in conflict. Many times, the idea of moving from an enthusiastically taken position to a point where agreement can be reached feels unacceptable.
Compromise can lead to half-hearted commitments and recurring conflict under the guise of new issues. It rarely sets the stage for high satisfaction, and many times it leaves behind feelings of frustration and disenchantment.
An Example: Compromise does have some appropriate applications, though. It allows parties to achieve some of their goals without jeopardizing relationships. Labor and management negotiations assume that there will be compromise from the extreme positions initially taken by the opposing parties. Legislators elevate compromise to an art-form as they give and take in order to pass legislation.
In both of these examples, compromise is perceived as an effective way to handle differences by providing some of what each party needs, while maintaining sufficient relationships so the groups can continue to work together.
Compromise, like avoidance, accommodation and competition, can be appropriately or inappropriately utilized.
5. Collaboration
As a conflict management style, collaboration combines a high concern for both people and objectives. It’s a win-win for everyone involved.
Collaboration asks the question: “Is there a way to move beyond the adversarial positions evident in conflict, understand the true needs of the parties and then use a creative process to find a mutually-satisfying solution?”
This approach works best when all parties are committed to the resolution of conflict. However, collaboration is not always possible or even desired. Some parties simply do not care about or expect to have a future relationship as illustrated by those on two sides of a personal injury dispute. An injured passenger involved in an automobile accident wants the appropriate payment from the insurance company after which neither anticipates dealing with each other again. There is little reason to expect collaboration.
But, alternatively, collaboration holds great potential for those in conflict.
The Outcome: The effects of the collaborative style are positive when it is consistently applied. Increased trust, stronger relationships, enthusiastic implementation of goals and a higher resolution of conflicts are often achieved. Individuals who are able to concentrate on the issues without getting caught in negative emotions will find this style produces more satisfactory outcomes.
The challenge with this approach is that it takes a great deal of time because it necessitates exploring the needs of all parties and crafting solutions that meet those needs. It also requires communication skills and a genuine commitment to resolving conflict.
An Example: Two partners at a tech company disagree over when a new product will be launched. Instead of fighting and each demanding their own timeline, the pair sit down and discuss a solution. After several hours of negotiation, they come up with a new plan that works for both of them.
None of the approaches to conflict are inherently good or bad. The critical point to recognize is that people may choose from a variety of approaches to deal with conflict, and the choice will have an impact on both the way the issue is resolved and the people involved.
Where To Go From Here
The Lowry Group, LLC (TLG)is the outgrowth of almost three decades of experience helping organizations achieve their next level of success throughout the United States and around the world, including conflict resolution. TLG’s work began as an external consulting, systems design, and training resource composed of faculty from theStraus Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University School of Law. But TLG has moved beyond its academic roots to respond to repeated requests from corporate and government organizations for “real world” assistance.The TLG teamhas been chosen by scores of major organizations that must become more effective in negotiating sales, business transactions, client relationships and disputes.
Conflict is an inherent part of life. Left unchecked, however, it can bring even the biggest and well-intentioned organizations to heel. What makes companies and individuals truly successful is the ability to ably manage conflict. We created ConflictStop as the only resource you need to identify, resolve, and manage conflict. From CEOs to small business owners, and to anyone managing a team – developing the skills to navigate conflict is not just important, it’s imperative.
