project manager and conflict

Editor's Notes

• #8: To compete, people take a power orientation and use whatever power seems appropriate to win even at the expense of the other party. This may include arguing, pulling rank or instigating sanctions. Competing may mean standing up and defending a position believed to be correct, or simply trying to win. Forcing is another way of viewing competition. People using a forcing style perceive that some people are right and others are wrong. This approach may be appropriate for emergencies when time is of the essence, or when you need quick, decisive action. People should be aware of and support the approach. This is not a good conflict management style for handling normal conflict situations due to the fact that it demands only one person to be completely right and the other completely wrong. This is rarely actually the case. Most of the time both parties need to be open to changing part of their behavior.
• #9: When someone uses avoidance, they are not helping the other party reach their goals, and they are not assertively pursuing their own. To do so, they may diplomatically sidestep or postpone discussion until a better time, withdraw from the threatening situation or divert attention. They perceive conflict as hopeless and therefore something to be avoided. Differences are overlooked and they accept disagreement. This works when the issue is trivial or when you have no chance of winning. It’s also very effective when the atmosphere is emotionally charged and you need to create some “space”. Sometimes issues will resolve themselves, but in general, avoiding is not a good long term strategy. “Hope is not a strategy.”
• #10: People who use accommodating often neglect their own concerns to satisfy the concerns of others. Accommodating is the opposite style of competing. People who accommodate may be selflessly generous or charitable, and they may also obey another person when they would prefer not to, or yield to another’s point of view. They may work against their own goals or objectives to reach a desired outcome. They may have to give in to reach the desired outcome. Accommodating may preserve future relationships with the conflicting person or party.
• #11: People who collaborate work together make plan to improve a situation or achieve goals of both parties. They attempt to work with others to find solutions that fully satisfy the concerns of both parties. This can be effective for complex scenarios where a novel solution is needed. This can also mean re-framing a challenge to create a more room for everybody’s ideas. The downside is that it requires a high-degree of trust, and reaching a consensus can require a lot of time and effort. It takes work to get everybody on board and to synthesize a variety of potentially conflicting ideas. People using this style often recognize there are tensions in relationships and contrasting viewpoints, but want to work through conflicts.
• #12: The concept of this being a “lose-lose” situation could be confusing. Basically it means that no one is going to get exactly what they want, but everyone benefits in some way. The trap is to fall into compromising as an easy way out, when collaborating would produce a better solution even though it requires more work. Compromisers give up less than accommodators, but more than competitors. They explore issues more than avoiders, but less than collaborators. Their solutions often involve “splitting the difference” or exchanging concessions. Conflict is mutual difference best resolved by cooperation and compromise. It may be appropriate for scenarios where you need a temporary solution, or where both sides have equally important goals.
• #16: The concept of this being a “lose-lose” situation could be confusing. Basically it means that no one is going to get exactly what they want, but everyone benefits in some way. The trap is to fall into compromising as an easy way out, when collaborating would produce a better solution even though it requires more work. Compromisers give up less than accommodators, but more than competitors. They explore issues more than avoiders, but less than collaborators. Their solutions often involve “splitting the difference” or exchanging concessions. Conflict is mutual difference best resolved by cooperation and compromise. It may be appropriate for scenarios where you need a temporary solution, or where both sides have equally important goals.
• #17: The concept of this being a “lose-lose” situation could be confusing. Basically it means that no one is going to get exactly what they want, but everyone benefits in some way. The trap is to fall into compromising as an easy way out, when collaborating would produce a better solution even though it requires more work. Compromisers give up less than accommodators, but more than competitors. They explore issues more than avoiders, but less than collaborators. Their solutions often involve “splitting the difference” or exchanging concessions. Conflict is mutual difference best resolved by cooperation and compromise. It may be appropriate for scenarios where you need a temporary solution, or where both sides have equally important goals.
• #18: The concept of this being a “lose-lose” situation could be confusing. Basically it means that no one is going to get exactly what they want, but everyone benefits in some way. The trap is to fall into compromising as an easy way out, when collaborating would produce a better solution even though it requires more work. Compromisers give up less than accommodators, but more than competitors. They explore issues more than avoiders, but less than collaborators. Their solutions often involve “splitting the difference” or exchanging concessions. Conflict is mutual difference best resolved by cooperation and compromise. It may be appropriate for scenarios where you need a temporary solution, or where both sides have equally important goals.
• #19: The concept of this being a “lose-lose” situation could be confusing. Basically it means that no one is going to get exactly what they want, but everyone benefits in some way. The trap is to fall into compromising as an easy way out, when collaborating would produce a better solution even though it requires more work. Compromisers give up less than accommodators, but more than competitors. They explore issues more than avoiders, but less than collaborators. Their solutions often involve “splitting the difference” or exchanging concessions. Conflict is mutual difference best resolved by cooperation and compromise. It may be appropriate for scenarios where you need a temporary solution, or where both sides have equally important goals.
• #20: Usually, after getting the results of any test or assessment, the first question people ask is: "What are the right answers?" In the case of conflict-handling behavior, there are no universal right answers. All five modes are useful in some situations: each represents a set of useful social skills. The effectiveness of a given conflict-handling mode depends upon the requirements of the specific conflict situation and the skill with which the mode is used. Each of us is capable of using all five conflict-handling modes: few could be characterized as having a single, rigid style of dealing with conflict. However, most people use some modes better than others and therefore, tends to rely upon those modes more heavily than others.