Organizational Behavior: Conflict Styles - Literature review Example

Organizational Behavior: Conflict Styles Student’s Name Course Professor Date Conflict style and work outcomes Introduction Davutoğlu (2013) defines conflict as ‘clash of interests, directions and actions, views and values’ as people see things differently, have different thinking styles and want different things making them predisposed to disagree. Conflict situations are important part of any organization and each member of an organization tend to use some strategies or style more often than others (Keashly, Nowell, Einarsen, Hoel, Zapf & Cooper, 2011). In turn there are different strategies that are applicable and appropriate in various conflict situations. This essay attempts to critically reflect on my conflict style and how they related to work outcomes. It begins with a description of my main conflict handling styles, analyzes the styles in relation to conflict management theory and reflects on that conflict style in with examples from real life experiences. Description: Personal Conflict Styles After completing the conflict styles self assessment, it emerges that my primary conflict-handling style avoidance backed up by compromising with a total score of 32 and 28 respectively. The two emerges as the favorite ways and coping mechanisms that help me deal with conflict and difficulties. Avoidance shows the tendency to allow others to handle conflict without being involved especially if the disagreement does not concern or intensely affect me. I may simply choose to avoid participating in such conflict situations at all or change the subject to avoid heading to a conflict. In addition, avoidance may arise due to the anger involved in the situation where by the other person(s) may be very angry and avoiding disagreement temporarily gives time for both of us to calm down. Compromise as a backup conflict-handling style occurs due to my tendency and need to resolve conflicts more quickly. Compromising can be a good solution as no one between the parties’ losses all. However, each gives up a little bit to have an ultimate solution that is acceptable to all. It is hard to get my way entirely with compromise and it is always the most applicable style when the answer to the problem may not be of utmost importance to me. Analysis: personal attributes on conflict style According to Wit, Greer & Jehn (2012), two major theories including the traditional and modern theories understand conflict differently. Traditional theory views people as trouble makers making them predisposed to conflict situations. On the other hand, modern theory sees conflict as a natural, inevitable outcome in human interaction. Trudel & Reio (2011) argues that there are five conflict-handling strategies including forcing, accommodation, avoidance, compromise and collaboration and can be applied in various conflict situations. Various researches on conflict management styles have concluded that each person tend to use one or two of the five strategies (Wit, Greer & Jehn, 2012 & Tekleab, Quigley & Tesluk, 2009). For instance, I predominantly use avoidance and compromise in interpersonal conflict situations while another person may use collaboration and accommodating. However, Trudel & Reio (2011) argues that, although there are different ways of handling conflicts, there are more advantages in collaboration strategy when handling interpersonal conflict situations. Collaboration is specifically important as it promotes creative problem solving between parties. In addition, it mainly fosters rapport and mutual respect. In my case, collaboration was third and followed behind compromising with one point at a total score of 27. However, Behfar, Peterson, Mannix & Trochim (2008) argues that despite it being an effective conflict-handling strategy, collaboration takes time and might hardly be effective as most conflict situations are too trivial or very urgent. In turn, it is not feasible to justify the time required for collaboration in such situations and mostly when they occur repeatedly. Its shortcoming is however the strength of my style since in an organization, conflicts arises every day and most are not complicated and either varies due to differences in preferred approaches in implementation. Those conflicts that may not directly involve all the members in the organization and it often appropriate to avoid them. In such situations, the best approach is to allow those involved to solve their differences unless they involve the others or show extreme differences those feelings that may affect the culture and performance. The worst thing with avoidance is that it can be seen by others as bad response or be misunderstood as dominating. It can also be less useful as it does not attempt to solve anything or attempt to address the issue and can lead to escalation of the issue (Cosgrove, 2004). Compromise is effective as an urgent strategy applicable in repeated conflict situations. It shows a common inclination and acceptance that we are all different in our choices, values and predispositions and each party has a role to play in deciding what is fit for them and take into account the others when there is a relationship between parties. Conflicts that just require straightforward answers are easily reached through compromise. Additionally, compromise ensures that each party is satisfied to implement a decision reached without feeling that they were forced to adopt options preferred by the others (Montoya-Weiss, Massey & Song, 2001). Montoya-Weiss, Massey & Song (2001) observes that, the key variables related to conflict management situations determines that strategies that are likely to be effective in each situation. First, time pressure is a critical variable in that, if there is no time pressure, collaboration would them be the most preferable approach to use. However, time pressures must also consider other important factors such as the importance of an issue, relative power and relationship. Secondly, issue importance is relevant when dealing with issues of moderate importance as it can lead to quick solutions. In connection to compromise, personality such as being an extrovert may increase the possibility of using compromise so as to give quick feedback instead of having to reflect on the issue before offering a feedback like introverts do (Cuperman & Ickes, 2009). However, Bar-Tal & Halperin (2011) argues that compromise rarely satisfy either party and rarely fosters innovation as in collaboration. In turn, when dealing with important issues, collaboration remains a better approach. Accommodating is preferred when dealing with fairly unimportant issue as it is quick and does not strain the relationship between the parties (Rahim, 2015). Avoidance is normally the best approach reserved for situations where there will be advantages in waiting to resolve a conflict. Conflict arises in stages and avoidance may be necessary at its inception allowing it to evolve to understand it better instead of taking risks trying to resolve the conflicts. Cosgrove (2004) argues that addressers may either be first steppers or confronters according to their desire to resolve the conflict. As in my case, the preference for avoidance depends upon my desire to resolve a conflict or predisposition to conceal the feelings. In most case, it relates with the importance of relationship. When there is a no need to maintain a close and mutually supportive relationship, avoidance is appropriate as it allows one to deal with important concerns. However, interpersonal conflicts can worsen and persist if no attempts are taken to resolve them which make avoidance a poor strategy measure for important relationships. Van Evera (2013) argues that relative power is another important variable to consider in selecting the conflict handling strategies. For instance, in horizontal relationships, collaboration and accommodating and compromise works well as people can discuss without fear as no one has authority over the other. They can figure out ways to come up with precise solution that will satisfy everyone. The people at the same levels openly air their concerns and demand to be taken seriously and can discuss all aspects of conflict without intimidation. It helps them to understand one another, the values and is mostly reflected in the norming and storming stages of group performance (Bennett & Gadlin, 2012). Everyone contribute according to their feeling and side of the argument. Avoidance may be interpreted as dominance by subordinates in a vertical relationship especially when the conflict involves the subordinates and the senior(s). By ignoring the situation, subordinates may interpret it as a way to force or insist on getting ones way. If a senior uses avoidance too often, people may avoid disagreements and that can push away people which may lead to loss of valuable talents in an organization or poor relationship with others. However, when the conflict is between the members at the same level in the organization, avoidance by seniors may allow the parties to solve their differences in the best way without coercion. Rahim (2015) argues that managers that are skilled in conflict management understand interpersonal conflict situations and use appropriate strategy for each. The two aspects are necessary to manage conflict well. Conflict-handling strategy may directly or indirectly impact on the three fundamental aspects including the power to make people work, job performance and expectations and self-esteem of the individuals. In turn, the choice of conflict-handling strategy can determine reoccurrence of future conflicts, group cohesion and performance, the power and abilities of conflicting parties and productivity. Reflection I have noted some situations where I often tend to use avoidance as a strategy in conflict-handling. Sometimes I see arguments as traps and I avoid them like poison since the people who initiate them might cause me to express myself with hard feelings. For instance, if someone raises a question on my spiritual beliefs or other controversial topics like sexual orientation, I try to avoid them as it can be hard to argue conclusively on such matters. In other cases, I prefer avoidance if I know how the other party in conflict behaves and the pattern of fighting behavior. For instance, some people feel intimidated to accept another person’s position and they will never accept any suggestion. Sometimes I prefer avoidance when I have some level of attachment with the two parties involved in a conflict. Sometimes a person will drag me to answer and nod on their arguments but supporting them would aggrieve the other party. In such situation I use the “speech is silver, silence is golden” rule. Getting in as an addresser has some risks as I may express my feelings which can make cause me to end up being a party in the conflict if one party is not satisfied or the conflict escalates. Having shallow ideas about the reason for conflict and how to approach it may cause me to take time to address it. I am also able to conceal my feelings even when I work and relate with people who appears to be in conflict with me. In others times, it is easily to know if the conflict has a way of resolving itself over time. In such situations, I try to proof that the stereotypes the other person may have towards me through motivation, informing and encouragement and ultimately the person changes. Finally, I use avoidance in situations and with persons I care for. It is always good to ignore some problems that may create a long-term problem due to unnecessary confrontation. A person may not be mature enough or might be hurting and when trying to address the problem, they may react bitterly and act in a manner that further aggravates the conflict and affect the future relationship negatively. My tendency to use comprise arises due to that fact that, I feel empathetic if other people do not feel satisfied and lose face when knowing that I forced someone in a relationship or action they never willed. I feel happy when I also consider other people’s desires as I also feel when mine are considered. For instance, I always listen to a group member who complains that their personal commitments might not work if assigned some responsibilities in groups work. I rarely like to break relationships and instead I strengthen them through mutual cooperation. However, I sometimes find it challenging when it undermines my values, integrity or personal belief. Conclusion The discussion has proved that the key to managing conflict depends on the choice and strategy that fit best in each situation. It is also manifest that each person is predisposed in applying one or more strategy more often. However, it is good to consider the strength and the shortcomings of each conflict-handling style. For instance while my avoidance can be beneficial in allowing a cooling period, in issues of low priority and where there are patters of fighting, it may lead to conflict escalation and failure to address the issues leading to a cycle of conflicts. Compromise shows respect to others as autonomous and beings with feeling but can also be negative when it affects someone values. References Bar-Tal, D., & Halperin, E. (2011). Socio-psychological barriers to conflict resolution. Intergroup conflicts and their resolution: Social psychological perspective, 217-240. Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. (2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: a close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of applied psychology, 93(1), 170. Bennett, L. M., & Gadlin, H. (2012). Collaboration and team science: from theory to practice. Journal of investigative medicine: the official publication of the American Federation for Clinical Research, 60(5), 768. Cosgrove, C. H.(2004). Church Conflict: The Hidden Systems Behind the Fights. Abingdon Press. Cuperman, R., & Ickes, W. (2009). Big Five predictors of behavior and perceptions in initial dyadic interactions: Personality similarity helps extraverts and introverts, but hurts “disagreeables”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(4), 667. Davutoğlu, A. (2013). The Clash of Interests: An Explanation of the World [Dis] order. Intellectual Discourse, 2(2). Keashly, L., Nowell, B. L., Einarsen, S., Hoel, H., Zapf, D., & Cooper, C. (2011). Conflict, conflict resolution, and bullying. Bullying and harassment in the workplace: Developments in theory, research, and practice, 423-445. Montoya-Weiss, M. M., Massey, A. P., & Song, M. (2001). Getting it together: Temporal coordination and conflict management in global virtual teams.Academy of management Journal, 44(6), 1251-1262. Rahim, M. A. (2015). Managing conflict in organizations. Transaction Publishers. Tekleab, A. G., Quigley, N. R., & Tesluk, P. E. (2009). A longitudinal study of team conflict, conflict management, cohesion, and team effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 34(2), 170-205. Trudel, J., & Reio, T. G. (2011). Managing workplace incivility: The role of conflict management styles—antecedent or antidote?. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22(4), 395-423. Van Evera, S. (2013). Causes of war: Power and the roots of conflict. Cornell University Press. Wit, F. R., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360. Read More