APPROACHES TO CONFLICT MANAGEMENT - 5 strategies for managing conflicts
MANAGING DISAGREEMENTS THROUGH CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
In this post, we expand on the Five Strategies for Managing CONFLICTS in ways that preserve and build relationships.
PREVIOUS READ: SIX GOLDEN RULES OF THE INTEREST-BASED RELATIONAL APPROACH IN CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
Disagreements are an inevitable part of professional, academic, and social relationships. However, the way we manage these disagreements determines whether they become destructive confrontations or constructive engagements. This post examines five core strategies for managing stressful situations, focusing on how each can strengthen rather than damage relationships.
1. Problem-Solving (Confrontation Approach)
This strategy involves a collaborative process where all parties come together to explore the root causes of the conflict, identify shared interests, generate options, and jointly arrive at the best possible solution.
When to Use:
- When issues are complex, emotions are high, and relationships are important.
- When there’s mutual commitment to long-term solutions.
- In academic departments facing a divisive curriculum decision.
- In diplomatic relations where two countries must resolve trade tensions without resorting to economic war.
- In workplace restructuring where leaders and staff need to reassign roles without breeding resentment.
- When both parties have a valid but different approach to resolve the problem or complete the task hand, or when there is not a best practice to be followed.
- A fallback when other negotiating approaches don't work. Reaching your goal is not worth the effort or disruption of a full-scale negotiation.
- Interim settlements during a longer problem solving, judicial, or political process.
- A quick decision is more important than an optimal or principled one. The parties have similar ideas about what constitutes fair procedure and outcome.
- Lawyers, politicians, middle management any one for whom making workable and quick
- Stalemate: your goals are mutually opposite (where your loss is my gain) and the parties have similar amount of leverage.
Drawbacks:
-
Time-consuming.
-
May require external mediation.
-
If one party is insincere or manipulative, it can derail trust.
Example: A UNICEF country team facing interdepartmental tension over resource allocation uses the problem-solving approach by hosting a two-day retreat for dialogue, facilitated by a neutral mediator, to craft a new shared operational plan.
2. Compromise (Give-and-Take Approach)
This involves mutual concession, where each party gives up something to reach a middle ground.
When to Use:
-
When time is short.
-
When parties hold equal power but diverging views.
-
In union negotiations for salary adjustments.
-
In shared authorship disagreements over publication credit in academia.
-
In local government partnerships where competing community projects need shared funding.
Drawbacks:
-
May result in sub-optimal outcomes.
-
Can breed dissatisfaction if concessions feel unequal.
-
Can set unhealthy precedents of “split-the-difference” without real resolution.
Example: Two team leads at a university agree to alternate semesters for preferred classroom schedules after a compromise mediated by the dean.
3. Smoothing (Serve/Accommodate Approach)
Smoothing focuses on shared interests and downplays differences. It seeks to preserve relationships and minimize tension, especially when the issue at hand is less important than the bond between parties.
When to Use:
-
When the issue is minor and harmony is more valuable.
-
In customer service to preserve goodwill.
-
In diplomatic missions where maintaining bilateral respect is key despite disagreements.
-
In a committee where one member chooses to support a colleague’s initiative to maintain future collaboration.
Drawbacks:
-
Can foster resentment if repeated.
-
Own needs and interests may be ignored.
-
Can result in poor precedents of over-submissiveness.
Example: A communications specialist defers their preference on visual design to the graphic team’s choice to preserve team morale on a time-sensitive project campaign.
4. Forcing (Win-Lose Approach)
Forcing requires one party to impose a decision, typically through authority, hierarchy, or urgency. It often settles the conflict quickly but may not address underlying issues.
When to Use:
-
During emergencies where quick decisions are vital.
-
When legal or ethical obligations are being violated.
-
When one party is exploiting the other and power balance must be restored.
Drawbacks:
-
Can harm relationships.
-
May reduce trust and morale.
-
Not sustainable for long-term cooperation.
Example: A project director enforces strict safety protocols despite team objections due to international compliance requirements in a high-risk zone.
5. Withdrawal (Avoidance Approach)
Withdrawal involves stepping away from the conflict, either temporarily to allow cooling off or permanently when the issue is insignificant.
When to Use:
-
When the issue is trivial or not your responsibility.
-
When emotions need to settle before productive dialogue can happen.
-
In inter-agency relations where waiting for political climate to improve before engagement is strategic.
Drawbacks:
-
Can be seen as neglect or cowardice.
-
Issues may escalate or reappear later.
-
Lost opportunity for resolution and relationship building.
Example: A junior staff member decides to delay feedback to a colleague who’s upset, giving them space and planning to raise the issue at a later calmer moment.
Summary
The five strategies for managing stressful situations include:
-
Problem-Solving: Jointly identify solutions after exploring underlying issues.
-
Compromise: Mutual concession for acceptable but not perfect outcomes.
-
Smoothing: Downplay differences to preserve harmony.
-
Forcing: Imposing a decision to resolve urgent or high-risk issues.
-
Withdrawal: Avoiding conflict, either strategically or passively.
MORTON DEUTSCH’S THEORY OF COOPERATION AND COMPETITION
Morton Deutsch’s theory explains how conflict styles, specifically cooperative and competitive orientations, shape interaction outcomes in conflict situations.
Characteristics of Cooperative Approaches:
Effective communication where ideas are verbalized, group members pay attention to one another and accept their ideas and are influenced by them. These groups have less problems communicating with and understanding others.2. Friendliness, helpfulness, and less obstructiveness is expressed in conversations. Members tend to be generally more satisfied with the group and its solutions as well as being impressed by the contributions of other group members.3. Coordination of effort, division of labour, orientation to task achievement, orderliness in discussion, and high productivity tend to exist in cooperative groups.4. Feeling of agreement with the ideas of others and a sense of basic similarity in beliefs and values, as well as confidence in one's own ideas and in the value that other members attach to those ideas, are obtained in cooperative groups.5. Willingness to enhance the other's power to achieve the other's goals increases. As other's capabilities are strengthened in a cooperative relationship, you are strengthened and vice versa.6. Defining conflicting interests as a mutual problem to be solved by collaborative effort facilitates recognizing the legitimacy of each other's interests and the necessity to search for a solution responsive to the needs of all." This tends to limit the scope of conflicting interests and keep attempts to influence each other to decent forms of persuasion.
In summary, the characteristics of Cooperative Approaches include:
-
Effective Communication: Honest dialogue, open feedback, and trust.
-
Mutual Respect and Friendliness: Members feel supported and valued.
-
Coordination of Efforts: Shared responsibilities and structured productivity.
-
Positive Group Identity: Shared values and confidence in contributions.
-
Mutual Empowerment: Strengthening one another’s abilities.
-
Shared Problem-Solving: Conflicts are reframed as joint challenges.
Characteristics of Competitive Approaches:
A competitive process will most likely have the opposite effects on the parties:1. Communication is obstructed as the conflicting parties try to gain advantage by misleading each other through false promises and misinformation. Communication is ultimately reduced as the parties realize they cannot trust one another's communications as honest and informative.2. Obstructiveness and lack of helpfulness lead to mutual negative attitudes and suspicion of one another's intentions. One's perceptions of the other tend to focus on the person's negative qualities and ignore the positives.3. The parties are unable to effectively divide their work and end up duplicating efforts. When they do divide it, they continuously feel the need to check each other's work.4. Ongoing disagreement and critical rejection of ideas reduces ` participants' self-confidence as well as confidence in the other parties.5. The conflicting parties seek to increase their own power and therefore see any increase in the other side's power as a threat.6. The competitive process fosters the notion that the solution of the conflict can only be imposed by one side on the other. This orientation also encourages the use of coercive tactics such as psychological or physical threats and/or violence. This process tends to expand the rangeof contested issues and turns the conflict into a power struggle, with each side seeking to win outright. This sort of escalation raises the motivational significance of the conflict for the participants and makes them more likely to accept a mutual disaster rather than a partial defeat orcompromise.
-
Distorted Communication: Misleading tactics, secrecy, and distrust.
-
Hostility and Suspicion: Focus on faults, neglecting positives.
-
Poor Coordination: Redundancy and suspicion over shared duties.
-
Self-Doubt and Disapproval: Reduced confidence in oneself and others.
-
Power Hoarding: Any gain by the other is seen as personal loss.
-
Coercive Conflict Framing: Win-lose framing increases aggression.
When individuals or parties enter into a negotiation process to resolve conflict, they will bring a certain orientation to the table in their effort to settle the conflict. The two most basic orientations people adhere to when entering into negotiations are cooperative or competitive. A cooperative approach aligns with the process of interest-based or integrative bargaining, which leads parties to seek win-win solutions. Disputants that work cooperatively to negotiate a solution are more likely to develop a relationship of trust and come up with mutually beneficial options for settlement. The mutual gains approach is considered a constructive resolution process.
Options for a negotiated settlement are limited in some cases by a fixed pie (a set amount of rewards) that must be divided one way or the other. Such situations leave no alternative for mutual gains and therefore parties must utilize competitive negotiation tactics to pursue their goal(s). Competitive approaches align with the process of distributive bargaining, which result in win-lose outcomes. A competitive approach to conflict tends to increase animosity and distrust between parties and is generally considered destructive.
Researchers have identified five major conflict management styles based on a continuum from Assertive (competitive) to cooperative:
- · A competing style: high on assertiveness and low on cooperativeness.
- · An accommodating style: low on assertiveness and high on cooperativeness.
- · An avoiding style: low on both assertiveness and cooperativeness.
- · A collaborating style: high on both assertiveness and cooperativeness.
- · A compromising style: moderate on both assertiveness and cooperativeness.
Now that you have learned this, here is a fun assessment to help you recall your mastery:
- List and discuss Morton Deutsch’s theory of cooperation and competition
Conclusion:
The approach or conflict style a negotiator chooses to take when entering negotiations may be based on rational criteria, such as selecting the style that will most likely lead to the desired goals. However, the personalities of the people involved may also play a significant role in which conflict styles are brought to the negotiating table. Thus, it is also possible that some people consistently use a certain style "because they have a personality predisposition to do so."
Despite the very negative picture painted by Deutsch, other theorists emphasize that competition, in some circumstances, can be constructive.
Cooperative styles promote trust, mutual respect, and productive problem-solving.
Competitive styles breed suspicion, obstruct communication, and escalate disputes.
Long-term conflict resolution success often depends on a cooperative orientation, especially in settings requiring sustained collaboration.
Competition in sports, for example, encourages each side to strive for excellence. Although most sporting events are structured in a win-lose sort of way, good sportsmanship norms ensure that the games are played fairly, and in many instances, the loser gets to come back and play again on equal ground.
The conflict style you adopt during disagreements plays a pivotal role in shaping outcomes. Whether in the workplace, diplomatic spaces, or among colleagues, understanding and applying these strategies can transform potentially destructive conflicts into opportunities for learning, growth, and strengthened relationships.
CONGRATULATIONS YOU HAVE COME THIS FAR!
By now you should be able to discuss and apply the following:
- Discuss the Thomas and Kilmann’s 5 styles of conflict Management -- CLICK HERE
- · Explain when to use each of the Thomas and Kilmann’s 5 styles of conflict management - - CLICK HERE
- · Describe the rules and processes in the interest based relationship approach - - CLICK HERE
- · Explain the Morton Deutsch’s theory of cooperation and competition - - IN THIS POST
Comments
Post a Comment