Personal Conflict Management Style - the Collaborator - Essay Example

Personal Conflict Management Style: The Collaborator Name of student Institution Communication has always been an integral part in our daily lives. Through it, people from various cultural inclinations have been able to tolerate each other by ensuring peaceful coexistence within the immediate society. Sometimes, this communication fails to work, resulting in conflicting ideas that greatly affect the existing relationships with our immediate associates. Surprisingly, these conflicts occur within the very circles relevant in life, from the family setting, social set up to the work environment .These conflicts must be managed in one way or another to maintain the status quo in terms of interpersonal relations. This paper will therefore elaborate on, “the collaborator”, personal conflict management style starting with an overview of the style from information obtained from participating in the persona conflict management exercise, an analysis and interpretation of the style with basing on empirical research and other relevant resources, personal strengths and weaknesses and what to improve on or reinforce before finally concluding. Overview Through participation in the conflict management survey, different ideas came about that had either not been learned or not taken seriously with respect to my personal conflict management style. In their attempt to solve personal conflicts, the collaborator, will exhibit certain views and personalities that best suits their perception and understanding of the problem. Whenever faced with a situation that provokes serious emotions, the collaborator will always strive to understand the other party, how they feel and their thoughts about the same problem before coming up with the necessary intervention methods. Secondly, they hold such a belief that in a conflict of interest situation, no one is perfect, no one knows it all and that everyone has a valuable contribution in solving the issue. They tend to value the input of every party involved in getting a viable solution. Conflict communication scale is a process that forms a pillar in conflict resolution. The different sub-scales helps one to identify areas of strength and weakness and this will help one in understanding areas that need improvement. The sub-scales are: confrontation, public/private behavior, emotional expression, conflict approach/avoidance and self disclosure. Scores below 60 signifies low performance in that area, 60 is medium and above 60 is high. All the subscales are important since they target a certain attribute in conflict management and resolution. In my case I had high scores in all the subscales apart from emotional expression and private public behavior. These are areas that I would need to work on to become a better mediator. The common belief about the collaborators regarding their expectation from a conflict is that the solving of the conflict will clear the air on impending issues to result in a more committed and outcome oriented relationship. The result will be beneficial to conflicting parties and normalcy will be regained on a higher gear than before. The managers in this category exhibiting higher authority such as organizations managers will in most cases if not all, seek for subordinates views on the problem and suggest a common platform from which they will all operate and a probable solution that best suits both parties. Upon a unanimous vote on the proposal, the solution is adopted immediately. Concerning people they care about making unreasonable decisions in a conflict, the collaborator will take their time to intervene in proposing a mutually reasonable solution through trying to explain sense into the person’s school of thought like managers valuing their workforce input would do. Whenever they are provoked to the extent of getting angry with others, they will express their anger but will be keen enough to invite the other party for response and try to solve it without much friction arising. In intergroup conflicting situation, the collaborator will tend to analyze the situation from a neutral perspective. They will look at both sides of the coin, the points causing the disagreement and the points on agreement in addition to the other group members feeling. Through such valuation and analysis, their efforts will be directed towards finding a common point of reference for both groups that will explore alternatives that best accommodate and represent everyone’s views. Sometimes it is common to be caught up in a situation where a single individual is not agreeing on the common vote solution proposed, they will tend to find out why the individual is not in agreement or rather, has a conflicting opinion. The way forward for them is to invite the others to reevaluate their stand with reference to the single individual’s. From the outcome, a reasonable solution can then be agreed upon to accommodate the single view. The same individuals on noticing emerging conflict in a group, will always be keen not to divert the conflict, rather, they will let it ensue to bring out the real cause then approach the group and share the emerging impression of the arising conflict and its nature. They will then invite the disagreeing parties to discuss the issue and possibly solve it before getting out of control. In dealing with conflict between their group and another, the collaborator manager will always approach the situation from a point of reasoning that recognizes conflict as a healthy part of relationships and there is need to address the shared concern immediately. In the event that the collaborator doesn’t have time for negotiating personally in an intergroup conflicting situation, they may opt to choose a representative to attend to the issue on behalf of the group they represent. The choice of the person by the collaborator as learned in this survey is most likely and in most cases determined by who seems to be in better position to represent the group’s interest. The main points of reference before choosing will be influenced by their informed judgment of the other group’s demands before emphasizing the conflict resolution approaches that they prefer to be used by the respective selected representative in the process. Lastly, they tend to hold the view that a certain groups failure to indulge in a reasonable dialogue on conflict resolution and subsequent failure to reach a concise solution, is mostly as a result of their tendencies to sit around the negotiating table with a preconceived mindset of a win-lose decision as opposed to a win-win mentality as exercised by collaborators. All the groups mind hold in common, is that they must win and the other party is supposed to lose at whatever cost. They always want to blame the conflict on the other group even in situations where it can be obviously seen that they are the bad guys. In essence collaboration in conflict resolution is paramount in upholding the value of communication and dialogue for reviving and strengthening interpersonal and group relations. Analysis and interpretation of the collaborating style The analysis and interpretation of the collaborator management style of conflict resolution can be drawn back from the theoretical perspective. Among the theories explaining conflict include the works of Karl Marx conflict theory which explains that in every society with classes, there exist two major social categories: a ruling group, which derives its power and autonomy from the second group; the subject group. The power is used to control the forces of production. As a result of the ruling class exploiting the lower class, conflict arises and conflicting interests are born. It is from such theoretical viewpoints and the need to resolve conflict that empirical research has been underway to explain the various models used in resolving the pervasive menace. This section will dwell on such research to elaborate on the collaborator model of resolving conflict. According to a research on conflict resolution styles among Australian Christians and Muslims by Wilson & Power (2004), Affiliation affect an individual's conflict resolution style (collaborator, compromiser, accommodator, controller, or avoider), and that minority status and particular historical time and situation may also affect it. In their study Wilson and Power are keen to note that the use of the collaborator model involves maintenance of the existing interpersonal relationship between the collaborator and the other conflicting party in ensuring that both groups’ needs are fully met. Collaborators are not concerned only with their own self-interest but with the other party’s needs as well (Wilson &Power 2004). They explain further that this model usually results in a win/win situation where the disagreeing parties’ relationship is maintained after the main goal of resolving the conflict is attained. Pruitt & Carnevale (1993) believe that this mode of handling conflict is most likely to occur when there is an expectation of a long-term dependency on the other party. In the work situation and from a personal perspective I believe the issue of religion can be contentious when attempting to resolve a conflict. Christianity as a religion advocates for equality among all beings. It also ascribes to common belief that every human being has a role to play in life hence no preferences shall be given in terms of who does what and when. An attempt to solve a problem at professional level involving a staunch Christian(s) faithful(s) can prove to being effective and efficient since the belief on equality is more of a driving force in itself towards resolving the conflict. These individuals are more likely to allow you time to express your viewpoint of the issue in return for the same on their side. They will most likely listen to you and cooperate only if you approach it from the perspective of equality before their Deity. Hence the chances of rebuilding the relationship are on the highest end since their beliefs are in line with the model. From a cultural perspective, Elsayed & Buda (1996), researched on the impact of culture on conflict handling in the Middle East and the United States. The Middle East population composition forming part of the participants were male and strict followers of the precepts of the Islamic religion, The United States composition, included Christian believers predominantly with mixture in gender. From the study results, the Middle East business executives employed the collaborating and avoiding style in interpersonal conflict management. On the other side the USA business executives counterparts exhibited use of the, controlling, compromising or accommodating management models. Deducing from the above study it is obvious that the Middle East business executives derive personally known and enjoyed benefit from using the collaborator mode conflict resolution. They clearly portray value for their viewpoints and those of business partners. They value their relationship with others keeping in mind the benefits already derived from it and possible benefits that are bound to accrue from it as evident from (Pruitt & Carnevale 1993). The USA colleagues in business prefer the accommodating, controlling and the compromising models also due to the benefits they derive from it. Basing on this study certain aspects of professional relationships whether interpersonal or intergroup come into light. From my view and understanding, different people from cultural inclinations hold their own beliefs that end up influencing their choice of model in conflict resolution. Having known this, I accept that this can affect my future profession or interpersonal relationships in a way or another. Much effort will therefore be directed in understanding the other party’s approach compared to your own. After establishing the relationship, one should then work toward establishing a consensus, a common meeting point between the two models from where negotiations can begin. Cai & Fink (2002) carried out a study on cross-cultural differences in conflict resolution styles. The study involved 188 subjects comprising of university graduate students residing from the United States drawn from 31 different countries of the world. The study’s classification of used the 1980 Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions where subjects from Japan, Middle East and China fell under the Collectivists category. Subjects from Australia and the United States on the other hand were classified as individualists. The study hypothesis concluded that more individualists disliked the avoiding model than the collectivists. Contrary to the hypothesis, the study established that collectivists favored the compromising and Collaborating approaches more than the individualists with no significant variation in preference for the accommodating and controlling styles. From the study findings it is evident that most student populations are competing for and find that the collaborating model is effective in resolving their interpersonal disputes. These findings serve to affirm my belief and trust in my collaborating style as effective since many identify with it. On the broader perspective, it is argued that the kind of conflict management approach has a great impact on our lives including our coping levels of stress. Conflict management styles can have a pervasive effect on work life in organizations, by impacting the degree to which an employee experiences ongoing conflict…conflict levels, in turn, affect the amount of stress felt by individual employees (Friedman, Tidd, Currall, & Tsai, 2000). According to the research, the hypothesis was in agreement with the results. As predicted, higher levels of collaborating were associated with lower levels of experienced task conflict, while higher levels of dominating and avoiding were associated with higher levels of experienced task conflict (Friedman et., al 2000). Through such findings it is of ones own benefit to know and understand the impact of their model on their stress levels. Such knowledge will help in choice of model to avert excess stress. The research also establishes that the collaborating model is associated with lower task conflicts. In essence, the researchers are trying to recommend the model in a way or another basing on empirical research findings. This research also explores the choice of model on relationship conflicts. The researchers are keen to note that re occurrence of relationship conflicts rates are mostly influenced by high task conflicts. Hence, the collaborating style will most likely be associated with lower rates of relationship conflicts at the workplace and even the family setting. The research findings in terms of conflict resolution model on an individuals stress level, task or assigned work and the relationships they are in, are useful to me in one way or another. This knowledge is instrumental in providing a reference point in ones conflict resolving life. One can easily know whether the model they are using is it or it is more inclined towards other models by simply evaluating the rates of task conflicts and relationship conflicts occurring in the immediate environment. For instance, in my case, whenever the relationship conflicts and task conflicts are many and the related stress levels are high, then it is a clear indication that the approach I employ in managing conflicts is not the collaborating model. Consequently one can do a thorough re-evaluation and adjust accordingly to their specific style. I am therefore convinced to be in the right approach basing on research. Past research has shown that the avoider and controller styles are less attractive character traits to claim (Polkinghorn & Byrne, 2001). This leads to the next section of evaluation of an individual’s strength and weaknesses in the model and where to improve or reinforce. Analysis of personal strength and weakness The strength and weakness analysis will be based on the collaborating approach of conflict management a category that accommodates my style. Considering my strengths in the model it clearly comes out that I have the capacity to be patient and give others their time to express their concerns without undue domineering. I also believe that dialogue is the only way out in a conflict Blake & Mouton's (1984). “Communication permits us to get at causes but the cause is not in communication” (p 286). Another stronghold on my side is that I am slow to anger and this is bound to be a credit for me in handling issues without intense emotions that can result in more serious outcomes such as fights. In addition am always willing to hear the other party position and proposed solution without a rigid mental preset. Due to my considerate nature I tend to empathize in other peoples situations, this is a powerful tool in decision making knowing the implications of your actions and thought on the other party. My flexible nature in conflict management can also contribute significantly by adapting myself to the other party’s model and viewpoint in trying to understand the situation in reference to the involved member’s cultural inclinations and commonly held truisms. I also believe that a problem can not be solved by simply denying its existence and therefore I am most likely to avoid suppressing emerging conflicts in the name of solving them. Despite the above strengths weaknesses can not be ignored. Upon a keen evaluation I found three main weaknesses. I am more likely to ignore a single individual with a conflicting opinion in a group situation and move with the majority vote. In moments of great provocation of emotions, I am more likely to express my emotions without necessarily coercing the other individual to express theirs. The other weakness relates to my knowledge and judgment. I am more likely to get frustrated and deny others time particularly when I know something is right or wrong basing on real evidence on the conflict when the other party insists on denying when it appears obvious to the rest. Conclusion In concluding this essay, it is vital to note that research on the different approaches of conflict management play an integral part in ensuring that we understand and employ the most effective models for minimizing conflicts. More research should therefore be continued in this field. In conflict resolution, it is important to understand the other party’s position and viewpoints since they might be holding the answer to the conflict. No measures of suppressing emerging conflicts should be applied in managing conflicts since its suppression might only bring it out later at stage more difficult to handle. In a nut shell, due to the imperfect nature of man, a perfect coexistence cannot be realized; rather, mistakes and conflicts shall remain a part of our daily lives. The most important thing to do is to tolerate each other’s opinions and ideas in a collaborative way whether in our professions, families or social circles. We therefore ought to give each other a chance to exercise their choice of approach without feeling intimidated or sidelined since we are all poses different stress thresholds, anxiety and tolerance magnitudes. References Cai, D., & Fink, E. (2002). Conflict Style Differences'between Individualists And Collectivists. Journal of Communication Monographs,volm 69, 67-87. Elsayed, S., & Buda, R. (1996). Organizational Conflict: A Comparative Analysis Of Conflict Styles Across Cultures. lnternational journal of Conflict Management, 7, 71-79. Friedman, R., Tidd, S., Currall, S.,& Tsai, J. (2000). What Goes Around Comes Around: The Impact Of Personal Conflict Style On Work Conflict And Stress The International Journal of Conflict Management 2000, Vol.11, (No.1), pp. 32-55. Polkinghorn, B., & Byrne, S. (2001).Between War And Peace: An Examination Of Conflict Management Styles In Four Conflict Zones. International Journal Of Conflict Management, 12, 2346. Pruitt, G., & Carnevale, P. (1993). Negotiation In Social Conflict. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Robert., B. & Mouton., J. (1984).Solving Costly Organizational Conflicts. San Francisco: Jossey- Boss Publishers. Wilson, R., & Power, M. (2004). Conflict Resolution Styles Among Australian Christians And Muslims. Australian Journal of Communication - Vol 31 (2) 2004. Read More