THREE

APPROACHES TO CONFLICT

ONE EFFECTIVE WAY TO THINK about approaches to managing conflict is to define them by the degree of assertiveness and cooperativeness in a person’s behavior. All of the five approaches discussed in this chapter are viable, depending on the situational variables present in the conflict. Choosing which approach to take requires you to analyze the situation and match it with what you believe is the best approach.

ASSERTIVENESS AND COOPERATIVENESS

Assertiveness in the context of a conflict is the degree to which you try to meet your needs. Cooperativeness is the degree to which you try to help the other person meet his or her needs or group to meet its needs. The combination of assertiveness and cooperativeness suggests five interaction approaches (sometimes referred to as conflict-management styles). These approaches are:

To increase the likelihood of successful conflict resolutions, it’s best if you have all five interaction approaches. Most people, however, have learned to rely on one or two of them and miss the opportunity to react more situationally to conflict. Assessing the specific set of circumstances you are facing in a conflict, choosing the optimal approach, and then skillfully acting on that approach is a great advantage in resolving it.

SELECTING THE BEST INTERACTION APPROACH

When, or in what kinds of situations, should you use any of the five interaction approaches? Following are some broad guidelines that you can fit to your circumstances.

Choose a collaborative interaction approach:

Some possible outcomes of using the collaborative approach are described in the following table:

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE OUTCOMES FROM USING A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH

Choose a competitive approach:

Some possible outcomes of using a competitive approach are described in the following table:

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE OUTCOMES FROM USING A COMPETITIVE APPROACH

Use an accommodating approach:

Some possible outcomes of using an accommodating approach are described in the following table:

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE OUTCOMES FROM USING AN ACCOMMODATING APPROACH

Use an avoiding approach:

Some possible outcomes of using an avoiding approach are described in the following table:

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE OUTCOMES FROM USING AN AVOIDING APPROACH

Use a compromising approach:

Some possible outcomes of using a compromising approach are described in the following table:

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE OUTCOMES FROM USING A COMPROMISING APPROACH

ADDRESSING CONTEXT

The first step toward resolving a conflict is to grasp the context of a conflict—its root causes, influence factors, and competing interaction approaches. The root causes are especially important because, with the right strategy, you can use them as a resolution tool. To review, the most common root causes are (1) disagreement over facts, (2) disagreement over methods, (3) disagreement over goals, (4) incompatible values, and (5) choice of interaction approach.

The root causes are especially important because, with the right strategy, you can use them as a resolution tool.

USING ROOT CAUSES

You can seldom redefine a conflict’s root causes. However, you might be able to reframe a conflict’s root causes in context that is less contentious. By looking at the conflict in a different light, you may discover a more malleable root cause. Think about the differences that spark the conflict in terms of their root causes and the difficulty in addressing them (remembering that the scale of root causes rises from facts to values in degrees of difficulty). Focusing on a less difficult part of the conflict may be easier than addressing more contentious areas and it can lead to productive outcomes. But do not ignore the important and difficult issues embedded in the conflict even after you have progress on less volatile issues.

For example, if you and a colleague disagree on the goal you are after, that difference is more difficult to resolve than a disagreement about the method you will use to accomplish that goal. If you reframe the conflict, you may be able to locate the cause at a different level of the basic issues hierarchy (from goals to facts, for example) and make resolution easier to achieve.

USING INFLUENCE FACTORS

Analyzing the influence factors at play in a conflict opens the door to your using them to determine the specific strategy for resolution (or for improving your management of the conflict). With the support of your analysis, the influence factors become variables that you can leverage.

Let’s look at some examples that demonstrate how influence factors can now be turned into levers. (I skip the power factor because, in essence, manipulating the other factors increases your power in the context of the conflict.)

IMPORTANCE. You can use this factor by, for example, pointing out consequences of your colleague winning the battle and losing the war (gaining a short-term gain but sacrificing a long-term resolution). For example, you might reduce the other party’s stake in winning this conflict by preempting an outcome: “Pat, I know you think we should cancel my project, but if I can’t continue with this type of work, perhaps I should consider applying to the new-products group.”

DEGREE OF PERSONAL CONVICTION. You can use your belief that your viewpoint in this situation is correct to reduce the certainty that the other party puts in the opposing position: “Pat, I’ve spoken with a number of people who don’t agree with your forecast. Have you spoken with many of our financial people about this?”

INFORMATION. Use the data that you have gathered and reviewed relevant to the conflict to persuade the other party to adopt your position. “Pat, I’ve seen the last two reports on this. You might not have yet had the chance to see the one just produced yesterday. It clearly substantiates my position.”

TIME PRESSURE. TO circumvent conflicts that arise because of competing deadlines and other time-sensitive outcomes, create flexibility by clarifying that you’re in no hurry to resolve the situation: “Pat, I know you may have some pressure to make this decision, but I’m okay with the status quo. I don’t really have a need to address this now.”

TIMING. Manipulate the significance that this moment in time has in relation to the conflict, perhaps by making the present circumstances critical: “Pat, if you can’t agree with this by Friday, we won’t be able to make our presentation to the board.”

RELATIONSHIP. Make use of the mutual respect and regard between you and the person with whom you are in conflict, for example by emphasizing the other person’s goodwill: “Pat, you know how much I always count on your support.”

NEED. Emphasize the importance of harmonious relationships, especially in organizations without a rigid hierarchy, by reminding the person with whom you are in conflict of the reciprocity inherent in the situation: “Pat, give and take is the only way you and I will be able to meet both of our agendas.”

AUDIENCE. Use the fact that people outside of the conflict situation are invested in its outcome and how it’s resolved. For example, remind the person or group with whom you are in conflict of the mutual benefit of maintaining that relationship: “Pat, the boss will be unhappy if you hold this project up from proceeding.”

SETTING. Manage the effect that the physical environment exerts on the conflict and its resolution. You may want to bring the other person or group into a space that is neutral or that provides you some advantage: “Pat, why don’t we meet in my office to discuss this problem?”

PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE. Make use of the expectations you have of the other person by relying on earlier contacts with him or her or by reviewing similar conflicts from your past: “Pat, just last month we had a similar issue, and if you’ll remember, my perspective proved to be correct.”

You can also use organizational influence factors to press for resolution. Following are some examples.

STRUCTURE. Although you can’t manipulate the structure of an organization (unless you are at the most senior level, and even then it’s extremely difficult), you can leverage this factor. If the conflict is critical enough, you might be able to exert some influence toward altering the structure. For example, you could argue for revising a policy to be more favorable to your point of view. Or you could reformulate a department’s reporting structure so that someone who supports your objective is in a position of greater authority. Also, you can look to see if there is something about the existing structure that you can capitalize upon. For example, you might reduce a conflict by insisting that the other party follow an established procedure.

CULTURE. One person isn’t likely to have the time or the necessary authority to change an organization’s culture, and it is hardly less difficult to change the subculture found in teams and other working groups. Nevertheless, it may be possible for you to leverage culture during conflict. For example, if your organization supports a team culture, point out to the other party how well your idea supports teamwork.