Personal Style, Comfort and Conflict - Coursework Example

Management Skills Student Name: Student Number: Course Code: Word Count: 1553 Words Date of Submission: People and Conflicts Research shows that useful information is only obtained by effective listening, which is an essential management skill. By providing a basis of high levels of both intrapersonal and interpersonal communication Chen and Starosta (2000) discusses enhanced efforts of the manager against the problem of conflict management in modern organizations. Effective listening enhances trust between staff and the manager and it also reduces conflicts. More so, it enhances better knowledge and understanding of the ways of motivating others (Robbins, 2000; Stein, 2010). Notwithstanding this, a great fraction of people sincerely believes that they always listen effectively.  Consequently, very few people think they need to develop their listening skills.  This would be the reason why Joe responds to Raj in the way he does. Most conflicts result of the oblivion that people have in regards to the fact that effective listening is an attitude attribute that is learnt and vital for comprehensive communication yet very few have it (Whetten & Cameron, 2002). The practice of effective listening is quite easy to learn and so organization members should opt to pick the habit of listening. Studies of conflicts have taken different perspectives though commonly they include intrapersonal, interpersonal (March, 2011), and societal conflicts. According to Wilmot and Hocker (2011), Conflict is the felt tussle between two or more interdependent entities over perceived irreconcilable differences in beliefs, values, and goals, or over differences in desires for esteem, control, and connectedness. Conflict is almost expected in groups and organizations, and it presents both a challenge and a true opportunity for every manager who can look at it creatively and make the best out of it. However, it becomes really challenging and sometimes a serious problem when particular persons in the organizations are more than often caught in almost all of the conflicts that arise between the organization’s stakeholders (Tesarovicov, 2008). Thinking of conflict is the simplest terms, it is basically perceived as a struggle that involves two opposing forces pulling in different directions. In addition, the general view is that conflicts are disruptive, stress-causing and should be avoided. A good manager would have a uniquely different look at the subject and identify opportunities for growth out the conflicts, in the process of seeking solutions and reconciling conflicting parties by way of inculcating proper communication skills (Putnam, 2010; Boston Consulting Group, 2007). People who are easily caught in conflicts are most probably the high conflict people, who are considered to be more prone to conflicts than others. Therefore, understanding of high conflict people will be complementary to this discussion. Evidently, some people, the high conflict people, are more prone to conflicts that others. Such people have a pattern of high-conflict behaviors that actually accelerates the tension and the conflict rather than resolving or at least reducing it. This behavioral pattern, more often than not, comes about time and again in several different situations (Eddy, 2012). These different situations are the different occurrences of conflicts they are involved in. Such people have issues, not with the aspect causing the conflict, but with other external aspects that they bring into the argument and are irrelevant to solution finding in most cases. The high-conflict behavior of such people is characterized by all-or-nothing thinking, unmanaged emotions, always blaming others and extreme behaviors. Other factors like religion are also contributory to the conflict nature of other people being more into conflicts than others (Fox, 2004). This bit of the discussion is based on nothing else other than evident researches that have been conducted and reported on the question of some people being more prone to or into conflicts than others because of their religions. Precisely, most recent researches and discussion on the topic focus on Islam. Some of the most well-known advocate of the argument that Islam is more conflict-prone than other religions (Huntington, 1993) argue that this results out of the actuality that Islam and the West have had historical fear of each other and rejected each others’ cultures (Lewis, 2004). Nevertheless, back to the essence of conflict in an organization, irrespective of the causal factor of a conflict communication has always come in handy as a vital tool for resolutions and problem solving. It plays a fundamental role in handling conflicts and even giving probable solutions for future conflicts (Welch & Piekkari, 2006). Good use of communication adopts the approach of conflict being an interactive process that requires effective human interaction. Managers can successfully resolve conflicts to bring positive results by effective communication. Personal Style, Comfort and Conflict To have a better understanding of conflict, one needs to examine the consequences of various personal behavior at moments in time. These personalities are normally categorized according to conflict styles, which are actually personality-oriented conflicts. For that reason, it can be comfortably said that a person’s personality has great influence in their response to conflict (Friedman, Curall & Tsai, 2000). Basically, every style is just a way of meeting personal needs in a dispute even though this mentality may impact other people in different negative ways. Interestingly, these styles are about handling the conflicts in question and the styles adopted have various impacts in relation to problem resolution. The most common styles are covered in the Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument is a model which organizes five conflict management styles based on assertiveness and cooperativeness dimensions. Accommodating is a style characterized by high relationship value yet not much value is accorded to achieving personal issues or goal. It is also known as smoothing because is almost directly the opposite of competing. People who use this style succumb to other people’s need and compromise on their own personal goals, in the process of which they try to be diplomatic. They have the tendency of allowing the needs of the group or the organizations to overwhelm their own as they consider preserving the relationship as more important (Simons & Peterson, 2000). Competing is a second style and in this case, personal goals and issues are accorded the greatest and prioritized over the relationship. It is an endeavor that aims at gaining power over others and pressures a forceful change at the other person’s expense. This is evidence that people using this style consistently are, by personality, aggressive, domineering, confrontational, intimidating and generally the opposite of democratic (Ben, & Pruitt, 2000). This style adopts an approach that opposes accommodation. Conflict management style by way of competing results in more complex and time consuming trade-offs. It is mostly seen in tries to bring together a diversity of perspectives to get the best solution. However, this style ends up elevating the level of threats that conflicting parties give to each other, tactfulness sets in and even if a resolution is reached, the tension still remains. This posits a greater danger when another conflict occurs in the future between the respective parties. Avoiding or avoidance is another personal conflict style involving a deliberate ignorance to or withdrawal from a conflict rather than facing it. Low values are accorded to both achieving personal goals and the relationship itself. The outcome of this is that both parties loose in the conflict. Probably, personal peace or other factors personal issues become more important and hence prioritized. The perception is that the problem will naturally resolve itself without their involvement, or the responsibility of that taken by the other party. Avoidance is appropriate when there is a need for more time to think about how to respond, time constraints demand a delay or if direct confrontation will jeopardize the working relationship. Nonetheless, avoidance can be destructive if the other person misconceives there is no care on the party’s side enough to engage in a resolution process. Resultantly, needs and concerns go unexpressed and of confusion becomes evident amongst the conflicting entities so they wonder about the situation. Compromising is an approach in which people opt for simply gains and giving a series of tradeoffs. The style is main satisfactory to persons who have a mutual concurrence on compromise as the best option. Either side remains outlined by their individual and personal beliefs in their needs. Characteristically, this style makes the parties less caring and with little knowledge about the other side (Menechella, 2001), with the only common thing being the conflict and way of resolving it. This style is closely related to collaboration in which there is pooling of individual needs and goals toward a common goal. In this, both sides win with equal prioritization values accorded to the relationship and achievement of personal goals. Understanding each style and its consequences enables normalization of the results of personal behavior in various situations.  Following this is that conflicts are not perceived as destructive and stressful situation as much as they are (Rahim, 2000). But an element of positivity is allowed in observation of the situation and opportunities in resolving the conflict bring comfort to the process. A technique that reveals the nature of conflicting actions allows a manager to surface facts about the guiding policy that could be violated if a particular approach is used. It is the technique of measurement which provides a clear representation of the conflicts and the costs of choosing a given approach. According to Andersen (2006), this takes care of foreseeing and understanding the side-effects that may develop out of the management plans, against the management objectives. References Andersen, A. 2006. Theory of Constraints: Management System Fundamentals. Montvale: Institute of Management Accountants. Ben, O. & Pruitt, D. 2000. Resistance to yielding and the expectation of cooperative future interaction in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34. Boston Consulting Group. 2007. 2020 Vision, the manager of the 21st century. Sydney: Innovation and Business Skills Australia. Chen, G. M. and Starosta, W. J. 2000. The development and validation of the intercultural communication sensitivity scale. Human Communication, 3(1). Eddy, B. 2012. Who Are High Conflict People? [online] Available at: http://www.highconflictinstitute.com/about-hci/who-are-high-conflict-people [Accessed 27 September 2013]. Fox, J. 2004. Are Some Religions More Conflict-Prone Than Others? Jewish Political Studies Review 16(1). Friedman, R. A. Curall, S. C. & Tsai, J. C. 2000. What goes around comes around: The impact of personal conflict style. The International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1), 32-55. Huntington, S. P. 1993. The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72 (3), 22-49. Lewis, R. D. 2004. When cultures collide: managing successfully across cultures. London: Nicholas Brealey. March, A. A. 2011. Communication and Interpersonal Relationships: The Attention Factor, 212(1). Menechella, D. 2001. What’s wrong with you, why don’t you understand me? [online] Available at: http://www.dellamenechella.com/what%27s%20wrong.html [Accessed 27 September 2013]. Putnam, L. L. 2010. Communication as changing the negotiation game. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38(4), 325–335. Rahim, M. A. Ed., 2000. Managing conflict in organizations. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Robbins, S. P. ed., 2000. Managing today! Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Simons, T. L. & Peterson, R. S. 2000. Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85. Stein, G. 2010. Managing People and Organizations: Peter Drucker's Legacy. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing. Tesarovicov, I. 2008. Modern approaches to leading an organization with focus on human capital. Journal of Information, Control and Management Systems, 6(2). Welch, C., & Piekkari, R. 2006. Crossing language boundaries: qualitative interviewing in international business. Management International, 46(40). Whetten, D. A. & Cameron, K. S. ed., 2002. Developing management skills. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Wilmot, W. W. & Hocker, J. ed., 2011. Interpersonal conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill. Read More