CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
Dominant efforts towards
preventing the escalation and negative effects, especially violent ones, of
ongoing conflicts. Rarely are conflicts completely resolved. More often, they
are reduced, downgraded, or contained. Such developments can be followed by a
reorientation of the issue, reconstitution of the divisions among conflicting
parties, or even by a re-emergence of past issues or grievances. Conflict
management when actively conducted is, therefore, a constant process. A variety
of techniques have been identified and employed in conflict management efforts.
The following are the most prominent:
·
First, conflicting parties are brought
together to establish a mutual agreement.
·
Second, governments or third parties to the
strife may directly intervene to introduce or impose a decision.
·
Third, new initiatives, programmes, or
institutional structures (for example, elections) are implemented to address
the conflict in question.
·
Fourth, contending parties are compelled or
coerced to utilize previously established means of resolution or containment.
·
Fifth, government or another third party may
use coercion to eliminate or instill fear among one or all those engaged in a
given conflict, leading to settling.
Conflict management should not be
viewed as a simple, linear or structured process. Those assuming or charged
with such a task must usually overcome an intensely chaotic situation.
Conflicts are frequently managed directly by the society in which they occur.
When not possible or when conflicts become national in scope, government
normally assumes the task, provided it is not a party to the conflict. In cases
where a government is unable or unwilling to intervene, international
organizations increasingly assume the role of conflict manager.
Conflict is an inevitable aspect
of human interaction, an unavoidable concomitant of choices and decisions. . .
. The problem, then, is not to court the frustrations of seeking to remove
inevitability but rather of trying to keep conflicts in bounds
A conflict is a
situation when the interests, needs, goals or values of involved parties
interfere with one another. A conflict is a common phenomenon. Different
stakeholders may have different priorities; conflicts may involve team members,
departments, projects, organization and client, boss and subordinate,
organization needs vs. personal needs. Often, a conflict is a result of
perception. Is conflict a bad thing? Not necessarily. Often, a conflict
presents opportunities for improvement. Therefore, it is important to understand
(and apply) various conflict management techniques.
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
TECHNIQUES
FORCING (WIN-LOSE SITUATION)
Also known as
competing. An individual or a party firmly pursues his or her own concerns
despite the resistance of the other person/party. This may involve pushing one
viewpoint at the expense of another or maintaining firm resistance to another
person’s/party actions.
Examples of when forcing may be appropriate
·
In certain situations when all other, less
forceful methods, don’t work or are ineffective
·
When you need to stand up for your own
rights, resist aggression and pressure
·
When a quick resolution is required and using
force is justified (e.g. in a life-threatening situation, to stop an
aggression)
·
As a last resort to resolve a long-lasting conflict
Possible
advantages of Forcing:
·
May provide a quick
resolution to a conflict
Problems of
Forcing:
·
May negatively affect your
relationship with the opponent in the long run
·
May cause the opponent to
react in the same way, even if the opponent did not intend to be forceful
originally
·
Cannot take advantage of the
strong sides of the other side’s position
·
Taking this approach may
require a lot of energies
COLLABORATING (WIN-WIN)
Also known as
problem confronting or problem solving. Collaboration involves an attempt to
work with the other person to find a win-win solution to the problem in hand -
the one that most satisfies the concerns of both parties. The win-win approach
sees conflict resolution as an opportunity to come to a mutually beneficial result.
It includes identifying the underlying concerns of the opponents and finding an
alternative which meets each party's concerns.
Examples of when
collaborating may be appropriate:
·
When consensus and
commitment of other parties is important
·
When it is required to
address the interests of multiple stakeholders
·
When a high level of trust
is present
·
When a long-term
relationship is important
Possible
advantages of collaborating:
·
Leads to solving the actual
problem
·
Leads to a win-win outcome
·
Reinforces mutual trust and
respect
·
Builds a foundation for
effective collaboration in the future
·
Shared responsibility of the
outcome
·
You earn the reputation of a
good negotiator
·
For parties involved, the
outcome of the conflict resolution is less stressful
Problems of collaborating:
·
Requires a commitment from
all parties to look for a mutually acceptable solution
·
May require more effort and
more time than some other methods. A win-win solution may not be evident
·
For the same reason,
collaborating may not be practical when timing is crucial and a quick solution
or fast response is required
·
Once one or more parties
lose their trust in an opponent, the relationship falls back to other methods
of conflict resolution. Therefore, all involved parties must continue
collaborative efforts to maintain a collaborative relationship
COMPROMISING (LOSE-LOSE SITUATION)
Compromising
looks for an expedient and mutually acceptable solution which partially
satisfies both parties.
Examples of when
compromise may be appropriate:
·
When the goals are
moderately important
·
To reach temporary
settlement on complex issues
·
To reach expedient solutions
on important issues
·
As a first step when the
involved parties do not know each other well or haven’t yet developed a high
level of mutual trust
·
When collaboration or
forcing do not work
Possible
advantages of compromise:
·
Faster issue resolution.
Compromising may be more practical when time is a factor
·
Can provide a temporary
solution while still looking for a win-win solution
·
Lowers the levels of tension
and stress resulting from the conflict
Problems of compromise:
·
May result in a situation
when both parties are not satisfied with the outcome (a lose-lose situation)
·
Does not contribute to
building trust in the long run
·
May require close monitoring
and control to ensure the agreements are met
WITHDRAWING
Also known as
avoiding. This is when a person does not pursue her/his own concerns or those
of the opponent. He/she does not address the conflict, sidesteps, postpones or
simply withdraws.
Examples of when
withdrawing may be appropriate:
·
When the issue is small and
not worth the effort
·
When more important issues
are pressing, and you don't have time to deal with it
·
In situations where
postponing the response is beneficial to you, for example -
·
When it is not the right
time or place to confront the issue
·
When you need time to think
and collect information before you act (e.g. if you are unprepared or taken by
surprise)
·
When you would have to deal
with hostility
·
When you are unable to
handle the conflict (e.g. if you are too emotionally involved or others can
handle it better)
Possible
advantages of withdrawing:
·
When the opponent is forcing
/ attempts aggression, you may choose to withdraw and postpone your response
until you are in a more favorable circumstance for you to push back
·
Withdrawing is a low stress
approach when the conflict is short
·
Gives the ability/time to
focus on more important or more urgent issues instead
·
Gives you time to better
prepare and collect information before you act
Problems of withdrawing:
·
May lead to weakening or
losing your position; not acting may be interpreted as an agreement.
·
When multiple parties are
involved, withdrawing may negatively affect your relationship with a party that
expects your action
SMOOTHING
Also known as
accommodating. Smoothing is accommodating the concerns of other people first of
all, rather than one's own concerns.
Examples of when
smoothing may be appropriate:
·
When it is important to
provide a temporary relief from the conflict or buy time until you are in a
better position to respond/push back
·
When the issue is not as
important to you as it is to the other person
·
When you accept that you are
wrong
·
When you have no choice or
when continued competition would be harmful
Possible
advantages of smoothing:
·
In some cases smoothing will
help to protect more important interests while giving up on some less important
ones
·
Gives an opportunity to
reassess the situation from a different angle
Problems of
smoothing:
·
There is a risk to be
abused, i.e. the opponent may constantly try to take advantage of your tendency
toward smoothing/accommodating. Therefore it is important to keep the right
balance.
·
May negatively affect your
confidence in your ability to respond to an aggressive opponent
·
It makes it more difficult
to transition to a win-win solution in the future
·
Some of your supporters may
not like your smoothing response and be turned off
Thank You For Sharing information on Conflict
ReplyDeleteRespect and that i have a dandy provide: Renovation House Company remodeling old homes
ReplyDelete