Jump to content

Conflict management style

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CommanderInDubio (talk | contribs) at 10:10, 21 June 2020 (v2.02 - ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ - WP:WCW project (Heading hierarchy)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Conflict is usually found in an individualistic culture, in which competition and individual achievement is stressed over interdependence.[1] Conflict can be defined as an interference between individuals or groups of people who have differing aims, values, expectations, purposes, etc.[2] Managing conflict is pivotal in laying the way for the amount of tension caused in the conflict, if a conflict is poorly managed it can cause more issues than the original conflict. Conflict is defined as a situation in which the concerns of two people appear to be incompatible[3] There are five modes offered as solutions to managing a conflict that are assessed on a scale of assertiveness and cooperativeness.[4] Assertiveness is the extent an individual attempts to satisfy their own concerns, while cooperativeness is the extent of trying to satisfy the other parties.[3] Studies have been conducted on the modes of conflict management and their effect on relationships.

A model called the "Thomas-Kilmann model" was designed by two psychologists, Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann. It demonstrates how individuals choose the conflict styles when they handle conflict. Thomas-Kilmann model suggests five principles that guide individuals via the conflict process. These are competing, accommodating, avoiding, compromising, and collaborating.[5][6]

  • Competing means stand up for your own rights and defend what you believe is correct.
  • Accommodating means that you yield to other's points of view.
  • By Collaborating both sides are willing to cooperate and listen to others.
  • By Compromising both parties seek a better solution in the middle ground as one gives to another while one takes.
  • Avoiding. An unassertive, uncooperative approach whereby a solution is delayed or avoided altogether. Both sides might wait until they would find a better solution or evade the situation.

Background

Communication is crucial to maintaining a healthy relationship and the way you resolve conflict is important to maintaining an important and healthy relationship.[7] Thomas and Kilmann studied the five MODES of conflict management, which are adaptable ways to handling conflict. Several different forms of these modes, developed from 1960-1975, can be used to handle a particular conflict.[8]

Modes of Conflict Management

According to Thomas and Kilmann there are five ways or styles that are used to satisfy concerns in a conflict.[9] These styles can be assessed on axes of cooperativeness to assertiveness.[9]

Collaborating

According to Thomas and Kilmann collaborating is mutually problem solving to solve the needs of both parties. This falls on the scale of being both assertive and cooperative.[9] This style can be beneficial to close relationships because individuals dig deeper to find the root of the conflict and find an alternative solution. You learn the other parties insights to try and find a more creative solution to the conflict.[3] This model is best used when you need an integrative solution because both parties needs are too important to not be addressed, you want to join together insights or work through hard feelings in the relationship.[3]

Compromising

Compromising is exchanging concessions, both parties will give up a want or need in order to satisfy the conflict. This is intermediate in assertiveness and cooperation.[9] Compromising is similar to collaborating, in that you find a mutually beneficial solution to the problem. The difference is compromising does address the issue, but it doesn't seek the root of the issue as is done in collaborating.[3] Compromising is used when issues are important, but not worth using an assertive approach, you want a temporary fix or when collaboration or competing fail.[3]

Competing

Different than the first two styles this style is one in which the individual tries to win their own position. It is assertive and uncooperative.[9] This style could hurt a close relationship due to the competitive nature, leaving the losing party unsatisfied. Competitiveness can take things further than just the conflict and potentially permanently hurt feelings. In this style the individual will be standing up for their rights, defending their position or simply trying to win.[3] This style is typical used when a quick decision needs to be made, issues where you need to protect yourself or when you know your side of the issue is correct.[3]

Accommodating

Rather than trying to win your own position, in the accommodating style an individual satisfies the other parties goals while being unassertive and cooperative.[9] When accommodating an individual makes a sacrifice of their own needs in order to make the other party involved content. This can be good in a relational sense, but this can also lead to the party making sacrifices to become burnt out of using this style.[3] This is typically used when you know you are wrong, you need to build up credit for a later situation that may be more important to you or you would rather keep the peace.[3]

Avoiding

The avoiding style simply avoids conflict by postponing or steering clear of any potential conflict. This style is unassertive and uncooperative.[9] Avoiding is stepping out of the way, delaying or simply avoiding a situation. This style can be beneficial in moderation, but eventually the conflicts will build up and create an unhealthy relationship.[3] Popular uses of this style are when you find an issue unimportant, another problem is more pressing or you need to allow time for tension to be reduced.[3]

Studies on Conflict Management

Cross-Cultural Studies

In a study written by the Management International Review different subcultures in Turkey were studied on the styles of conflict management they prefer to use. Although this study took place in Turkey, it opened up the door for cross cultural research on conflict management. This study focused on the handling of conflict by adversaries.[10] They define each of the five styles to be higher in one of the two dimensions.[10] These are explained as, competing is high in assertiveness, collaboration is high in both, avoiding low in both and compromise as a mid-point. Researchers studied the choice of style and what influenced it in the subculture using Schwartz's inventory of value.[10] What they found was that the traditional main culture used the avoiding style, the power seeking culture preferred competing and egalitarians chose to use accommodation.[10] This study shows that there is a correlation with sub-cultures and their chosen style of conflict management, not every culture selects one style to use.[11]

First Conflict as a Relationship Milestone

Relationship theorists study relationships in stage developments, the first time a close relationship encounters a conflict and how they come out of it, is a breakthrough in many close relationships. John Siegert and Glen Stamp write about the "FBF" or First Big Fight as an episode of conflict as discussing first time feelings that may include doubt or disappointment in the relationship and this event becomes memorable because of its intensity or timing.[12] The intensity may put the relationship at risk and the timing may occur after a couple officially enters a relationship or are clearing up what that relationship is to them.[12] This study was given to over 250 undergraduate communication students at a university who were split into three categories based upon if they had survived a FBF with their partner, individuals who had not yet had a FBF with their partner and individuals who had ended a relationship due to the FBF. Interviews of 50 participants were conducted and they were asked open-ended questions about their first FBF where conducted and personalized to each of the classifications.[12] The results were divided into sections of the relational circumstance, outcomes and effects of the fight on the relationship and the difference between those who stayed in the relationships and those who did not. Researchers found that the FBF is a significant turning point that impacts the future of the relationship either positively or negatively depending on the preliminary circumstances and feelings about the relationship.[12]

Avoiding Conflict in Marriage

Conflicts arise frequently in marriages, a study was conducted on the effect of relational power and an individuals decision to withhold their complaints in order to avoid a conflict. According to Solomon et al. the first step is deciding whether to voice a complaint or not and this decision is based on the amount of power your spouse holds over you.[13] This is determined through interpersonal power, or the degree of influence one exerts over the other in a relationship through the ability to sway the costs and rewards the partner undergoes.[13] Marital schemas are cognitive structures that contain organized knowledge about marriage relationships.[13] This research was conducted by having communication students present a questionnaire to a married individual studying six different types of power as independent variables. The dependent variables were the conflicts that were not brought to the spouses attention.[13] There were a few different results from the findings, the first being that partners felt more comfortable expressing concerns in a relationship where there was less power held over them. The second major result showed that when the spouse shows aggression more information that could cause conflicts is withheld from them.[13] Marital schemas can foresee what information will be withheld and shapes individuals decisions on what to express to their spouses.[13]

Application

The most widely used tool for this is a conflict style inventory, typically a short questionnaire filled out by a user, with interpretation of the scores given in writing or by an instructor. The point is not to categorize the user, but rather to give him or her a framework in which to assess responses and options. Conflict style inventories include the Thomas Kilmann [14] and Style Matters: The Kraybill Conflict Style Inventory[15]

Critiques of Conflict Management

Conflict management is beneficial in improving the quality of the work place and building stronger relationships with employees or leaders. Conflict management can backfire when the incorrect style is chosen to handle a problem. For example, using the avoiding style to ignore issues at hand can cause a buildup of issues and lead to a larger problem later on in a relationship. Using the compromising strategy can leave one party unsatisfied that they are making sacrifices and not getting any benefit, leading to more conflict when they decide they are not okay with this strategy anymore. Conflict management styles can be extremely beneficial in relationships when learned to use them in the right situations. Conflict management styles are critiqued to be based on personality style. There are many different factors that influence conflict management, but a major one is personality traits.[citation needed] The five factor model points out that five personality traits Extroversion, Agreeableness, Openness to experience, Emotional stability, and Conscientiousness has a direct correlation on the selection of which conflict management style is used.[citation needed]

References

  1. ^ Craig, Grace (2010). Understanding Human Development. Boston: Prentice Hall. p. 7.
  2. ^ Nakayama, Thomas (2008). Experiencing Intercultural Communication. New York: Mc Graw Hill. p. 211.
  3. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Thomas, K. W. (2008). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode. TKI Profile and Interpretive Report, 1-11.
  4. ^ Womack, Deanna F. (1988). "Assessing the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Survey". Management Communication Quarterly. 1 (3): 321–349. doi:10.1177/0893318988001003004.
  5. ^ Kadir, Ashraful (2011, March 11). Five Conflict Management Styles at A Glance. Sources of Insight. Retrieved from http://sourcesofinsight.com/conflict-management-styles-at-a-glance/.
  6. ^ "The Thomas-Kilmann Model - Conflict Resolution".
  7. ^ Conflict Resolution. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.loveisrespect.org/healthy-relationships/conflict-resolution/.
  8. ^ Womack, Deanna F. (1988). "Assessing the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Survey". Management Communication Quarterly. 1 (3): 321–349. doi:10.1177/0893318988001003004.
  9. ^ a b c d e f g Womack, Deanna F. (1988). "Assessing the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Survey". Management Communication Quarterly. 1 (3): 321–349. doi:10.1177/0893318988001003004.
  10. ^ a b c d Kozan, M. Kamil (2002). "Subcultures and Conflict Management Style". Mir: Management International Review. 42 (1): 89–105. JSTOR 40835909.
  11. ^ Limbare, Sameer (2012). "Leadership Styles & Conflict Management Styles of Executives". Indian Journal of Industrial Relations. 48 (1): 172–180. JSTOR 23509775.
  12. ^ a b c d Siegert, J. R. & Stamp, G. H. (1994). Our First Big Fight: As a Milestone in the Development of Close Relationships [PDF] . Communication Monographs, 61, 345-360.
  13. ^ a b c d e f Solomon, D. H., Knobloch, L. K., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2004). Relational Power, Marital Schema, and Decisions to Withhold Complaints: An Investigation of the Chilling Effect on Confrontation in Marriage [PDF] Communication Studies, 55(1), 146-167
  14. ^ Thomas Kilmann Archived 2006-02-08 at the Wayback Machine
  15. ^ Style Matters: The Kraybill Conflict Style Inventory
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conflict_management_style&oldid=963709429"