When stress is high, having a grasp on a conflict-management framework is a key way to stay on task. This framework should include strategies you use individually as well as familiarity with a variety of available methods or processes.
What do you typically do when you are faced with conflict? Do you tend to avoid conflicts or face each one head-on, never taking no for an answer? Or is your usual response to conflict somewhere between these two extremes? Do you handle (or mishandle) all your conflicts the same way, or are you one person with your spouse and another at work?
Frequently, workplace, family, and community conflicts cannot be permanently resolved. Instead, the best strategy is to manage them. In the preface, I explained that "manage" in "conflict management" doesn't mean control; it means "to care for," like you manage your investments, or "to handle," as in, "her husband managed while she was out of town." We each have our own style for dealing with conflict. However, researchers have identified five basic styles or strategies that are commonly used in response to conflict. These are also considered the five basic negotiation strategies and are used to negotiate everything from where to go for lunch to complex salary negotiations. At the end of this chapter, you will understand the following:
- The five conflict-management styles: avoid, accommodate, combat, compromise, and collaborate
- Seven conflict-management methods: insight, negotiation, facilitation, mediation, arbitration, litigation, and unilateral decision-making power
Effective conflict managers use different conflict-management (and negotiation) strategies or styles depending on their goals and their relationship to the person on the other side. When we are able to choose the most appropriate style or strategy, we are able to turn conflicts into positive growth, engage in brainstorming, improve relationships, lessen tension, and eliminate long-standing problems. However, each of us has natural style preferences, just like we each prefer to use our right hand or left hand. Knowing your conflict-management preference will allow you to move beyond it and choose the most effective style for any given situation.
The five styles or strategies that are commonly used in response to conflict as well as to negotiate are as follows:
- Avoid: The ostrich that bolts, withdraws, and retreats. "Whatever! I'll just leave my marbles and go home when no one is looking."
- Accommodate: The doormat that concedes, allows, and appeases. "You can play with my marbles. Here, they're yours."
- Combat: The ass-kicker who controls, competes, and forces. "I will get your marbles even if I have to lie, cheat, and steal to make it happen."
- Compromise: The equalizer who seeks middle ground, a fair exchange, and to share and share alike. "Let's share our marbles. Can we cut them all in half?"
- Collaborate: The problem solver who questions, analyzes, and joins forces. "Let's talk about some ways to get this marble thing working for both of us. Can you tell me your vision for the marbles?"
It is critical that you are familiar and comfortable with each style so that you can select the strategy that best meets your desired outcome.
We can look at each of these styles with two priorities in mind: achieving goals and building relationships. Achieving goals is about getting what you want or satisfying your personal agenda. Relationship building is about preserving or improving the relationship with the person on the other side. Each style has strengths and weaknesses and can be effective at certain times, in certain situations, and with certain people:
In the face of conflict, the ostrich avoids, bolts, withdraws, and retreats. People who are comfortable with avoidance often see conflict as futile. They withdraw without satisfying their own goals or improving the relationship with the person on the other side. Ultimately, avoiders leave solutions to chance, and they usually prefer to pay the price rather than face the conflict.
Avoiding is a good strategy to use when:
- There is nothing significant to be gained from the conflict
- The relationship with the person on the other side is insignificant
- The person on the other side has a totally different agenda that does not compete with yours
- Your priority is to get away
- You believe that your opponent might be dangerous
- You are terminating this relationship or otherwise becoming independent of one another
- You will benefit from a cooling-off period
- You need a temporary solution in order to buy time, gather information, or prepare your plan B
- The issue or issues involved are minor
- Your preferred outcome is impossible or unrealistic
- There has already been a determination that the other party is right or that they are going to triumph no matter what you do
When this strategy is misused, important goals and relationships are put at risk. In your personal life and in the current business environment where success is often based on on-going relationships, avoiding is usually a bad choice. Ultimately, if you're a chronic avoider, leaving solutions to chance, your frustrated friends, business associates, and family members will label you a poor communicator. It's easy to fall into the avoiding trap if you have been programmed since childhood not to rock the boat. If that's you, make a conscious effort to regularly avoid avoiding.
In the face of conflict, the doormat concedes, allows, appeases, smoothes, suppresses, and calms others. Occasionally, we should all be willing to accommodate. You can buy a lot of loyalty with your personal and professional connections by accommodating simple requests. On the other hand, if you consistently accommodate when you don't want to or when it doesn't serve you, you will ultimately wind up feeling victimized and abused. While you might be able to play the martyr for a little while, others will soon see that you are the only one responsible for your abuse.
Accommodating is a good strategy to use when:
- Your goal is to maintain a relationship or please the other side
- Maintaining a relationship is more important than the issues in question
- You are sure that you cannot maintain the relationship while achieving your personal goal
- You want to cover up, minimize differences, or pretend that everything is OK
- You want to pacify the other party or create the illusion of a calm and harmonious atmosphere
- You need a temporary solution in order to buy time, gather information, or prepare your plan B
- The issue or issues involved are minor
- A disruption in the relationship would be damaging
- There has already been a determination that the other party is right or that they are going to triumph no matter what you do
- The other side might be dangerous
When this strategy is misused, it involves constant pacifying, covering up, pretending everything is OK, minimizing differences, and abandoning one's own needs and desires in order to meet another's requests or demands. If you are a chronic accommodator, you have probably found that the self-destructive pattern of excessive giving leaves you feeling resentful and disappointed.
In the face of conflict, the ass-kicker controls, competes, and forces. People who are comfortable with competition fight their battles, seeking to win. They believe that a clear winner and a clear loser will always emerge so they keep the focus on achieving their personal goals and show less concern for relationships. Typically, this strong desire to achieve is coupled with the use of force, hidden activities, or power.
Combating is a good strategy to use when:
- Winning is the goal, and winning is more important than the relationship with the person on the other side
- The issue or issues at hand are extremely important
- Giving in would result in tremendous loss
- Your opponent is unwilling to accept anything short of a total win
- Action is urgently required
- Only one side can achieve their desired outcome
Combating may help you achieve your goal, but this strategy should be used with caution in the workplace and at home. The perception that you are a steamroller can make you seem unsafe or controlling. Use this strategy sparingly with those you love or when you care about bolstering the connection.
In the face of conflict, the equalizer finds middle ground, trade-offs, and exchanges. People who look towards compromise often believe that everyone must give a little to get what they want or to resolve a conflict. Equalizers attempt to meet as many of their own goals as possible without seriously harming the relationship. Compromise involves each side giving up something in order to gain a part of what is most wanted. As an extra bonus, seeking an even split between positions often results in a quick resolution.
Compromising is a good strategy to use when:
- You want to find a quick balance between meeting goals and building or maintaining a relationship
- Time and resources are limited
- You are under pressure to reach an agreement
- The relationship is more important than the outcome
Compromise can be carried too far. Settling on a quick compromise may mean that a better solution remains hidden. Before you jump into a compromise, ask the other side, "How can I make it right?" You may be surprised to learn that the other side wants less than you expect, making a real win-win situation easier to come by.
In the face of conflict, the problem solver questions, analyzes, and collaborates. Unlike the other four approaches, collaborating problem solvers work towards achieving personal goals as well as improving relationships. People who use this strategy focus on confronting the problem, not the other party. So, they seek ways to integrate their interests with the interests of the person on the other side. Collaborators are often seen in a positive light, and the people in their inner circles generally enjoy living, working, and doing business with them. However, while this may sound like the ideal strategy, it's not appropriate for every situation. Collaboration can be time consuming and often requires a commitment to the process that is not realistic unless a high level of connection already exists.
Collaborating is a good strategy to use when:
- The issues and relationships involved are very important
- It is critical to meet goals and improve/maintain the relationship
- You can dedicate the necessary time and resources to the process
- The people around the table are committed to one another
- A significant level of trust between the parties exists or can be built
- You are all prepared to confront the problem, not each other
- Your goal is to create a solution that satisfies everyone involved
- You want to promote a positive cycle of interaction and avoid the negative cycle of bad feelings generated by a get-even seesaw
- Merging different perspectives will prove beneficial
- Everyone involved is able to remain undogmatic and flexible
- Those who will carry out the solution are committed to it
- The objective is to learn, test assumptions, and understand another's views
- You want or need a thorough exploration of the issues
When you're considering problem-solving collaboration as a strategy, ask yourself these questions:
- Are the time and resources that are necessary to engage in this process available?
- Will setting a positive tone and having a flexible dialogue help me end or avoid a cycle of bad feelings?
- Is my objective to learn, test assumptions, or understand someone else's views?
- Are the issues and relationships involved very important to me?
- Can I secure a firm commitment to work together from the people on the other side?
If you can answer yes to these questions, problem-solving collaboration will usually be your best option for success.
Make a note
Only compromising and collaborating provide both a benefit to the relationship and a focus on attaining an individual goal. However, when we are emotionally triggered, it is often difficult to compromise or collaborate. Instead, we snap into the fight-or-flight mode, and we combat, avoid, or accommodate. Next time, before you allow your reaction to drive your action, count to 10. Then, consider your response and allow yourself to consciously choose from among all five styles—picking the one with the greatest potential for effective conflict management.