Diverse Means of Handling Conflicts - Essay Example

Introduction People have diverse means of handling conflicts and these diverse styles influence the results of the conflict. Experts define a conflict style as a response pattern or behavior that negotiators employ when approaching a challenge. Some of the widely known approaches of handling conflicts are those advanced by Kilmann-Thomas. Kilmann-Thomas outlined five approaches of dispute management on the basis two facets: aggressiveness and cooperativeness. According to the Kilmann assertiveness is an individual motivation to attain her goals, results and objectives, while cooperativeness evaluates the inclination to assist or allow the other persons to attain their results or goals, as well. Similarly, any of the Kilmann’s models may be suitable depending on the characteristic of the condition and the negotiators personalities. Discussion 1. Identify and describe the 5 conflict handling modes as set forth in the Thomas-Kilman Conflict Mode Instrument Kilmann’s approaches of dispute resolution entails the following. Avoidance The avoiding management of conflict approach is low on cooperativeness and aggressiveness. This means that the manager is not highly cooperative in assisting the other parties to attain their objectives; neither is he assertively pursuing his suitable results in the case. Avoidance model of conflict management is often counterproductive, always resulting to depression and further problems. The people who persistently avoid conflicts trigger feelings of aggressiveness, anger and vengeance within themselves, triggering increased anxiety. In this approach, initial challenge, conflict, or condition is not directly attended or resolved. In addition, avoiding attitude may be suitable when the matter is perceived as being trivial. It is also a suitable approach to employ when there is a higher chance of winning the case or when distraction would be highly expensive. Competition Competing conflict management model is also described as the win-lose strategy and is characterized by increased assertiveness and reduced cooperativeness. The manager aims to achieve her own appropriate benefits at the advantage of his opponents. This model may be suitable when immediate decisive actions are required, such as in cases of emergencies. The approach can also be appropriate to confront unusual actions like urgent cost reduction. Accommodation style This approach reflects an increased degree of unity, and it has been considered obliging. Negotiator using this approach subjugate his goals anticipated results and objectives to enable other parties to attain their objectives and results. This approach is most suitable when parties understand that they did a mistake or when the matter is highly crucial to one party than another. This conflict management approach is vital for safeguarding future relationships amidst the parties. Compromising Compromising conflict management approach is characterized by relative degree of both cooperativeness and aggressiveness. Compromise, also known as bargaining, produces moderate output. This behavior may be employed when the objectives of the two sides are of similar significance, when the two parties have equal authority, or when it is vital to look for a semi permanent, timely remedy. The approach should not be utilized in case of a complicated challenge demanding a conflict solving style. Collaboration Collaborative conflict management style is intensive on both aggressiveness and cooperativeness. It is also considered the win-win mechanism. Both parties innovatively strive towards attaining the anticipated results and goals of all the individuals involved. The approach is suitable when the matter is complex, and an innovative or novel comprehension of ideas is required. The limitation of this style is that the collaborating process mandates genuine efforts by all the individuals involved, and it might need extra time to reach an agreement. The above five Kilmann’s models of conflict management can be realized and observed in different conflict circumstances. Even though there are limitations and strengths of each approach, the conflict management approach that meets the requirements of the parties whereas also fixing the needs of the condition will be highly effective in managing the conflict. 2. What three (and only three) points of advice would you give your best friend facing a negotiation? The process of effective negotiation can be employed efficiently on nearly any form of conflict. The various principles that can be employed in getting to Yes approach of negotiation include separating the individuals from the conflict, emphasize on interests instead of positions and create various options before coming to a consensus. These tenets should be considered at every step of the arbitration process. Additionally, the process starts with problem analysis of the interests and opinions of negotiators, and of the prevailing views. This is followed by planning for the means of responding to the conflict and other parties, and discussion of the conflict in an attempt to resolve it. Some primary aspects of getting to Yes negotiation model include:- Focusing on interests rather than positions This stresses the significance of realizing interests (one’s and party’s interest), instead of being trapped in challenging positions. Experts agree that all interests are not conflicting, therefore it is vital to be straightforward, and specific concerning one’s interests as one remain open about potential positions, (Kremenyuk and Faure 44). Individuals tend to get involved in various matters and their positions sides. They also tend to react to these matters and positions as individual attacks. Therefore, isolating people from these concerns enable the parties to handle the matters without compromising the relationship. Additionally, it assists them to have a genuine perspective of the substantive challenge. There are various fundamental forms of people challenges. First is diversity on parties’ perceptions. Given that most problems are caused by diverse facts interpretation, it is fundamental for both parties to comprehend each other’s opinion. The two sides should attempt to fix themselves in each other standpoint. They should not presuppose that their detrimental suspicions will turn out to be the other party’s action, nor should they blame each other for the conflict. Both parties should attempt to make suggestions that are fascinating to the opposing side. Mediation can be a depressing process. Negotiators respond with anger or contempt when they think their interests are at risk. The best way of dealing with one’s emotion is to realize them, and attempt to comprehend their source. People must realize that some emotions are present although not reasonable. People should permit parties to articulate their sentiments. Communication is another challenge in arbitration. Even when people are communicating to each other, some misunderstanding may result. Therefore, to solve these challenges, negotiators may use functional or actual listening. Similarly, listeners should attentively listen to speakers, summarizing their points to show their comprehension. It is crucial to note that understanding the case of others does not imply agreeing with it. In other words, the appropriate way to address people’s limitations is to avoid them from reappearing. The challenges are less likely to reoccur if people are in a better relationship, and mind of other parties in the negotiation exercise.   Considering options for mutual benefit Experts agree that there are various negotiation aspects that are not conflicting in win-win cases. Therefore, it is pivotal to identify such factors and make them aspects of the bargain. The fact is that, though this may be complicated, revealing option for reciprocal benefit may also offer information that risks the negotiation positions about conflicting aspects. Employing objective criteria whenever possible Some of the negotiations occur in a place where there are various principles of objective information accessible. It is suitable to employ this as an aspect of a negotiation, even though; it may not always be open on which purposive information to utilize. 3. Please compare and contrast distributive or competitive with integrative or interest-based bargaining There are two key negotiation approaches on the basis of the stance taken by the negotiators – distributive and integrative approaches. So as, to select the most appropriate strategy for a certain situation, it is crucial to understand the differences and similarities between the two negotiation strategies. Distributive negotiation approach This approach is also known as competitive or fixed pie approach. The approach entails allocating scarce resource facilities amidst negotiating parties. With scarce resources, negotiators view all other people as adversary. This is highly shown in the controversy over shares allocation. Every party attempts to take advantage of the available opportunities to grab a share of the resources. With all this, it is crucial for negotiators to have a better view of the competitive state of other negotiating parties. In other words, this negotiation approach needs acting protective and reserved. Integrative negotiation approach This mode is contrast with distributive approach as it entails a combined strategy that will attest advantageous to all the negotiators. The negotiating parties do not depend on the amount they will obtain; instead, all efforts are geared towards enhancing the entire payoff via mutual unity. Also, because this negotiation approach is anchored on similar interests and collaborative efforts of negotiators, each party considers the other negotiator as colleagues and collaborators. Differences Distributive negotiation approach produces a win-lose condition when some negotiators stand at a benefit while others lose the case. Distributive negotiator approach is naturally competitive and demands that every negotiator consider other negotiators as competitors, whereas integrative bargaining approach is naturally collaborative and negotiating parties bargain on friendly grounds, acting as partners. Integrative negotiation approach acts as a conflict resolution strategy whereas competitive negotiation approach increases the problem further. Similarly, in competitive approach all negotiating parties concentrate on fulfilling his personal attitude, irrespective of other negotiators fate, (Kremenyuk and Faure 49). On the contrast, interest-based strategy emphasizes on the mutual attitudes of the negotiating parties and, therefore, comes up with productive remedies that will be useful to all. 4. Negotiations are not win-lose or win-win strategies Bargains are neither win-lose nor win-win strategies. As a matter of fact, in various cases, the determination is affected by the negotiators perceptions and expectations. Therefore, the skilled parties design their tactics depending on the form of negotiation, seeking to create and claim value by creating innovative ideas that settle the differences. This statement is valid because when negotiators bargain, they always expect to win or lose the case. Although, they have interlinked objectives that they cannot attain on their own, they do not expect or require a common thing. This symbiosis may be a win-lose relationship or win-win relationship, and the right arbitration will differ accordingly. The parties in the dispute try their best to apply the best negotiation skills, tactics and practices to ensure that the case outcomes favor them. Experts agree that some even use violence and hostility to threaten the position of their opponents and influence them to conform to their wishes. The disputing parties with try to coerce other party to conform to their interests, adjust the opposing stand and enhance towards compromise, or create a remedy that fulfill the goals of parties involved. The terms of their connection will have a key effect on their association, they way bargaining are done and the results of such negotiations. A mutual adaptation is a primary cause of transformations that happen during a bargain. Negotiators believe they can affect the results of others and that others people’s opinions can influence theirs. The skillful negotiator tries to comprehend how parties will modify and remodify their roles during arbitrations, depending on what other negotiating partner does and is likely to do. Negotiators must exchange details and struggle to influence others. As bargain grows, each part proposes adjustments to the position of the other negotiator and modifies its own. The win-lose and win-win process and making of agreement are fundamental if consensus it to be made. If one side makes various proposals that are discarded, and the other side does not make substitute proposal, the initial party may call of the bargain. Negotiators will not like to give in too often, if they realize that their opponents are ready to compromise. Therefore, depending on the nature and course of the negotiation process, negotiators always try their best to win the case and achieve more benefits from the case. Conclusion In a negotiation, disputants’ aims at reaching a consensus, settling their disputes and gaining advantage in the results of their debate. Therefore, negotiators should work towards a remedy that considers other negotiators needs and optimize the results for both. Also, as they attempt to agree, negotiators focus on attitudes, concerns and positions, and employ accommodative and competitive procedures to reach an agreement. Works cited Kremenyuk, Victor A, and Guy-Olivier Faure. International Negotiation: Analysis, Approaches, Issues. San Francisco, Calif., [etc.: Jossey-Bass [etc., 1991. Print. Read More