UNIVERSITY FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

MSc / MPhil
COMMUNITY HEALTH and DEVELOPMENT

STRATEGIC CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

Lecture notes

Prepared and presented by:

ANSBERT A. AMORO
ansbertamoro@uds.edu.gh
September, 2016
1

Table of contents

1.0

INTRODUCITON............................................................................................ 2

2.0

DEFINITION OF CONFLICT (Management).....................................................2

2.1 Signs of conflict............................................................................................ 2

2.2 Debate on conflict........................................................................................ 3
3.0 CAUSES OF CONFLICT (Sources)......................................................................3
3.1 Managing conflict, the managers role.........................................................4
4.0 MANAGING CONFLICT...................................................................................... 4
4.1 Factors to consider when selecting conflict management approach............6
4.3 Steps in Conflict Resolution........................................................................10
4.3.1 Assessment.......................................................................................... 10
4.3.2 Acknowledgement................................................................................ 10
4.3.3 Attitude................................................................................................ 11
4.3.4 Action................................................................................................... 11
4.3.5 Analysis................................................................................................ 11
4.4 Behaviour guidelines for collaborative problem solving.............................11
4.5 Methods to adopt in open conflict (Negotiation, Mediation, Arbitration)....14
5.0

COPING WITH CONFLICT.............................................................................15

6.0 REFERENCES.................................................................................................. 16

1.0 INTRODUCITON
Conflict is an unavoidable situation in life (home, workplace). As a manager or leader, you
need to understand the signs of conflict, be able to investigate the sources and causes.
Identifying the causes or sources of the conflict gives you a firm foundation to draw plans to
manage and possibly resolve the conflict. There are instances where you cannot resolve the
conflict as expected; therefore you learn how to cope with it.

2.0 DEFINITION OF CONFLICT (Management)

Conflict simply means disagreement. In other words, conflict can be taken to mean perceived
incompatibilities resulting typical from some form of interference or opposition. This can be
manifested by behaviour / attitude, actions or sometimes the way issues are communicated.
Conflict can emerge from oneself, individual or group. Self conflict can be seen as one person
infighting (conflict of needs, ideas, choices etc), individual disagreeing with another
individual or group disagreeing with individual or another group. If this conflict is not
addressed at the early stages it can escalate into heating debates, violence and harm.
Competent managers / leaders should be able to understand from the onset that there is a
conflict everywhere. Therefore be prepared to identify management strategies to minimise the
conflicts- at home, workplace or wherever you find yourself.
Conflict management therefore means the process of planning to avoid conflict where
possible and organising to resolve conflict where it does happen, as rapidly and smoothly as
possible.
2.1 Signs of conflict
There are cases where culture, language, interpretation of issues (perception) may bring
conflict which you may not even know that you caused it. Before you can attempt to identify
conflict, find solutions and learn how to cope with if solutions failed, you must know yourself
well. For instances, some leaders / managers due to their cultural, language, or training
background, they see things differently from the work team. Aside, that individual
temperament levels vary considerably and this can also bring conflict. Eg. The analyticautonomizing type always relies on methods, careful consideration before attempting to deal
with issues, is different from the assertive-directing personality type who seeks to direct
others with clear sense of rewards. It is also important to understand that some people always
look for ways to revenge, withdraw or resign due to past conflict.
In the organisation, leaders and members should be alert to signs of conflict between
colleagues, so that they can be proactive in reducing or resolving the conflict by getting to the
root of the issue. Typical signs may include:
colleagues not speaking to each other or ignoring each other;
contradicting and bad-mouthing one another;
deliberately undermining or not co-operating with each other, to the downfall of the team;
3

high rate of absenteeism, frequent request for holidays (leave); and

resignations.

2.2 Debate on conflict

Generally, conflict is perceived as being negative. However, it has been debated several times
on the positive and negative effects of conflict. The healthy part of conflict is that it
challenges peoples ideas, makes organisation identify new ways of doing things and more so
challenges the human status to rise above the comfort zone. Quoting from Borisoff and Victor
(1998) we have come to recognise and to acknowledge the benefits dealing with conflict
affords. Because of our differences, we communicate, we are challenged, and we are driven
to find creative solutions to problems. However, any ignored conflict may rise to violence
and destructive behaviour, making the work unproductive. Therefore, organisations which do
not encourage the effective resolution of conflict will usually have lower staff morale,
strained relations, higher levels of fear and tension among staff and lower productivity.

3.0 CAUSES OF CONFLICT (Sources)

Causes or sources of organisational conflict can be many and varied. The most common
causes are the following:
Personality differences
personality clashes. Conflict emerges when people differ in their attitudes, values or
perceptions about issues; and

groups using threatening slogans or symbols to show that their group is right and the
others are wrong.

Information deficiencies
poor communication. Breakdown in communication due to differences in speaking,
writing and non-verbal communication styles. These differences frequently distort and
present different understanding and interpretation of messages received; and

Additionally, the cultural and training backgrounds can also cause people to interpret
meanings differently. Issues that might not present conflict may end up being conflict
because of the misinterpretation and misconception of the messages.

Role incompatibility
disagreement about needs, goals, priorities and interests. This arises when different
goals are pursued either by individuals or departments;

Lack of teamwork /poor performance - this can be another cause of conflict if some in the
team believe other colleagues are not pulling their weight or are not competent in the jobsthey
do;

lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities. This means jurisdiction ambiguities.

Conflict may also surface when job boundaries and task responsibilities are unclear.
Individuals may disagree about who has the responsibility for tasks and resources; and

poor or inadequate organisational structure.

Environmental stress
scarcity of resources (finance, equipment, facilities, etc)
3.1 Managingconflict, the managers role
If the above causes of conflict are well dealt with, conflict will be minimised. The manager or
leader plays a major role in minimizing conflicts since it is inevitable. The organisations
operating policies and procedures must be made available to all employees. Induction and
orientation into the organisation culture and working ethics as well as its vision and mission
statements should be revisited once a year. This keeps staff abreast of their obligation to the
organisation. Apart from that, any change in management should be well communicated to all
stakeholders (employees). Unions, associations within the organisation should be consulted
and involved in major changes in the organisations policies. This is where collective
bargaining power comes in. There should be enough copies of the employees handbook to
all employees. Employees should be made aware of the grievances and discipline procedures
in the organisation. A good leader or manager should be open-minded and be able to
communicate effectively and efficiently at all levels of the organisations structure. When all
these are in place and there arise a conflict, the procedures are already there for the manager
to follow and deal with it. The manager should be flexible in the approach to dealing with
conflict because no strict rules are applicable in every situation.
The manager should be fully aware of the employment / labour laws and the organisations
employment policies when dealing with employees whose acts are conflict with the
organisation.The common disciplinary procedures must be followed to deal fairly with
employees: these include: two verbal warnings, two written warnings and finally, dismissal.
In every stage, the employee must be involved and also allowed to invite a third party if s/he
wishes to do so. Dismissing an employee can be a legal issue and as a manager you must put
things right from the beginning before the worse happens.

4.0 MANAGING CONFLICT

Teamwork and co-operation are essential in an organisation which aims to be effective and
efficient, and not likely to be divided by conflicting factions. The best teamwork usually
comes from having a shared vision or goal, so that leaders and members are all committed to
the same objectives and understand their roles in achieving those objectives. Important
behaviours in achieving teamwork and minimising potential conflict include a commitment
by team members to:

share information by keeping people in the group up-to-date with current issues
express positive expectations about each other; and
empower each other - publicly crediting colleagues who have performed well and
encouraging each other to achieve results; and
team-building - by promoting good morale and protecting the group's reputation
with outsiders; and
resolve potential conflict - by bringing differences of opinion into the open and
facilitating resolution of conflicts.

Researchers, such as Thomas and Kilmann have contributed theories and methods to
managing organisational conflict.Thomas and Kilmann adopted the five conflict management
style based on two dimensions: assertiveness and cooperativeness. Assertiveness is the
motivation of an individual to achieve his / her own goals, objectives and outcomes, while
cooperativeness assesses the willingness to allow or help the other party to achieve its goals
or outcomes. Any of the five conflict management / resolutions styles might be appropriate
based on the circumstances of the situation and the personalities of the individuals involved.
Table 1 approaches to conflict management (theory)

Source: Conflict Management and Negotiation,

business reference

Source: Primary goals organisation

1. Avoiding. The avoiding style (low assertiveness and cooperativeness). This is often
the response of managers who are emotionally ill-prepared to cope with the stress
associated with the confrontations, or might reflect recognition that a relationship is
not strong enough to absorb the fallout of an intense conflict. The original problem,
conflict, or situation is never directly addressed or resolved. However, avoiding
behaviour might be appropriate when the issue is perceived by the manager to be
trivial. It might also be an appropriate approach to use when there is no chance of
winning or when disruption would be very costly.
2. Competing (Force). The competing style of resolving conflict is also known as the
win-lose approach. A manager using this style (high assertiveness and low
cooperativeness), seeks to reach his/her own preferred outcomes at the expense of
other individuals. This approach may be appropriate when quick, decisive action is
6

needed, such as during emergencies. It can also be used to confront unpopular actions,
such as urgent cost cutting.
3. Accommodating. This style reflects on a high degree of cooperativeness. It has also
been labelled as obliging. A manager using this style subjugates his/her own goals,
objectives, and desired outcomes to allow other individuals to achieve their goals and
outcomes. This behaviour is appropriate when people realize that they are in the
wrong or when an issue is more important to one side than the other. This conflict
resolution style is important for preserving future relations between the parties.
4. Compromising. This style is characterized by moderate levels of both assertiveness
and cooperativeness. Compromise can also be referred to as bargaining or trading. It
generally produces suboptimal results. This behaviour can be used when the goals of
both sides are of equal importance, when both sides have equal power, or when it is
necessary to find a temporary, timely solution. It should not be used when there is a
complex problem requiring a problem-solving approach.
5. Collaborating. This approach, high on both assertiveness and cooperativeness, is often
described as the win-win scenario. Both sides creatively work towards achieving the
goals and desired outcomes of all parties involved. The collaboration style is
appropriate when the concerns are complex and a creative or novel synthesis of ideas
is required. The downside of this approach is that the process of collaborating
mandates sincere effort by all parties involved and it may require a lot of time to reach
a consensus.
4.1 Factors to consider when selecting conflict management
approach
A comparison of alternative approaches inevitably leads to question like which one is the
best? or which one should I use in the situation? The factors that may influence
choice of a particular approach are: ethnic culture, gender and personality.
Research on conflict management styles (Approaches) reports that ethnic culture is
reflected in individual preferences for the five responses we have just discussed. For
instance, it has been shown that individuals from Asian cultures tend to prefer the nonconfrontation styles of accommodating and avoiding (Song & Stringfellow, 1998),
whereas, by comparison, Americans and South Africans preferred the forcing approach
(Xie et al, 1998). In general, compromise is the most commonly preferred approach
across cultures. The search into gender and conflict management is not so clear, therefore,
Keashly (1994) draws the following conclusions:

There is little evidence of gender differences in abilities and skills related to

conflict management
Evidence suggests that sex-role expectations appear to influence behaviour and
perceptions of behaviour in particular conflict situations.
Influences and norms other than sex-role expectations may affect and influence
conflict and behaviour
The experience and meaning of conflict may differ for women and men.

There is a persistence of beliefs in gender-linked behaviour even when these

behaviours are not found in research.

One line research on this topic has linked conflict management style with three distinct
personality profiles (Porter, 1973). The altruistic-nurturing personality seeks gratification
through promoting harmony with others and enhancing their welfare with little concern for
being rewarded in return. This personality type is characterised by trust, optimism, idealism,
and loyalty. When altruistic-nurturing individuals encounter conflict, they tend to press for
harmony by accommodating the demands of the other party.
The assertive-directing personality seeks gratification through self-assertion and directing the
activities of others with a clear sense of having earned rewards. Individuals with this
personality characteristic tend to be self-confident, enterprising, and persuasive. It is not
surprising that the assertive-directing personality tend to challenge the opposition by using
the forcing approach to conflict management.
The analytic-autonomizing personality seeks gratification through the achievement of selfsufficiency, self reliance and logical orderliness. This personality type is cautious, practical,
methodical, and principled. Individuals with this type of personally tend to be very cautious
when encountering conflict. Initially, they attempt to resolve the problem rationally.
However, if the conflict intensifies they will generally withdraw and break contact.
Apart from the above selection criteria, matching the conflict management approach with the
situation is also considered.
Table 2: Matching the Conflict Management Approach with the Situation
Situational
Consideration

Conflict Management Approach

Forcing

Accommodating

Compromising

Collaborating

Avoiding

Issue importance

High

Low

Med

High

Low

Relationship
importance

Low

High

Med

High

Low

Relative Power

High

Low

Equal

Low-High

Equal

Time Constraint

Med-High

Med-High

Low

Low

MedHigh

The following questions are asked:

How important is the disputed issue? (high: Extremely important; low: not very
important)
How important is the relationship? (high; Critical, ongoing, one-of-a-kind,
partnership; Low: one-time transaction, for which there are ready available
alternatives)
8

What is the relative level of power, or authority between the disputants? (High: Boss
to subordinates; Equal: Peers; Low: Subordinate to boss)
To what extent is time a significant constraint in resolving the dispute? (High: Must
resolve the dispute quickly; Low: Time is not a salient factor)

From Table 1, only the strategy employing collaboration as a mode of conflict management
breaks free of the win-lose paradigm. It has become almost habitual to fall back on the winwin alternative, but this was not the authors' original intention. They did not reject win-lose
configurations out of hand. Instead, strategic considerations for managing conflict according
to varied circumstances were identified. For instance, in a conflict centred on bids by two
alternative suppliers, the best choice might well be a competing strategy with a winner and
loser. After all, the objective in such a situation is to win the contract for one's own company.
In most cases, winning the contract can be accomplished only at the expense of the
competing supplier, who by definition becomes the loser.
In contrast, a competing approach almost never works well in the interpersonal conflict of
people working in the same office (or even the same organization). Unlike the case of
competing suppliers, coworkersboth the winner and the losermust go on working
together. Indeed, in many conflicts revolving around office politics, an accommodating
strategy may actually enable individuals to strengthen their future negotiating position
through allowing themselves to lose in conflicts over issues they do not feel particularly
strongly about. In such situations, accommodating can be seen as a form of winning through
losing. For instance, a manager may choose to concede an issue to an employee who is
experiencing considerable stress as a means to motivate him or her. Similarly, an individual
might choose an accommodating strategy to add balance to negotiations in which one's
counterpart has already had to give up several other points. Indeed, a winner in a win-lose
scenario who fails to put forth some effort to accommodate the other party may even provoke
a backlash in the form of lack of commitment or open resistance.
Even the traditional approach of conflict avoidance has its place as an occasionally
acceptable strategy. While conflict avoidance has justly been the subject of considerable
condemnation, it can be rather useful in allowing both parties to cool off or in buying time
until all the facts of a matter have been gathered. A manager might choose to avoid an
employee in the case of an emotional outburst, for example, until the employee has had
sufficient time to calm down.
Finally, compromise is often a useful strategy when dealing with relatively small concerns.
This differs from an accommodating strategy, in which the conceding party finds an issue
unimportant that the opposing party considers comparatively important. A manager might
enlist a compromise approach most effectively when both parties consider the issue to be of
moderate or little importance. In such cases, compromising saves both parties the time
required to employ problem-solving techniques to address the fundamental core of the
conflict.
While all of these modes have their place among the strategies available to the manager, the
collaborating approach to conflict management represents the most beneficial mode for most
types of conflict management. In the collaborating mode, conflict itself acts as a managerial
tool. The manager utilizes the conflict to guide the conflicting parties to address what
essentially are obstacles faced by the organization. Through collaborative behaviour, the
conflicting parties pool their creative energies to find innovative answers to old problems.
9

It is in this key respect that the collaborative mode of conflict management differs from the
other four conflict-handling modes. Accommodating, avoiding, competing, and
compromisingas permutations of the win-lose scenarioare simply forms of conflict
interventions. Collaboration as a conflict-handling mode, on the other hand, represents an
attempt to channel conflict in a positive direction, thus enabling the manager to use conflict
as a tool to resolve otherwise incompatible objectives within the organization.
However, any of the five conflict resolution styles may be appropriate and effective
depending on the specific situation, the parties' personality styles, the desired outcomes, and
the time available. The key to becoming more prepared is to understand the objectives and
the likely outcomes. See table 3.

10

Table 3: Comparison of Five Conflict Management Approaches

Approach

Objective

Point of View

Supporting Rationale

Likely Outcome

1. Forcing

Get your way

I know whats right.

Dont question my
judgement or authority

It is better to risk causing a

few hard feelings than to
abandon an issue you are
committed to.

You feel vindicated but other party

feels defeated and possibly
humiliated.

2. Avoiding

Avoid having to
deal with conflict

Im neutral on that
issue. Let me think
about it. Thats
someone elses
problem.

Disagreements are inherently

bad because they create
tension.

Interpersonal problems dont get

resolved causing long-term
frustration manifested in a variety
of ways.

3. Compromising

Reach an
agreement
quickly

Lets search for a

solution we can both
live with so we can get
on with our work.

Prolonged conflicts distract

people from their work and
engender bitter feelings.

Participants become conditioned to

seek expedient, rather than
effective, solutions.

4. Accommodating

Dont upset the

other person

How can I help you feel

good about this
encounter? My
position isnt so
important that it is
worth risking bad
feelings between us.

Maintaining harmonious
relationship should be our top
priority

The other person is likely to take

advantage of you.

11

5. Collaborating

Solve the problem This is my position.

together
What is yours? Im
committed to finding
the best possible
solution. What do the
facts suggest?

Source: Developing Management Skills (Whetten And Cameron, 2007)

12

The positions of both parties

are equally important (though
not necessarily equally valid).
Equal emphasis should be
placed on the quality of the
outcome and the fairness of
the decision-making process.

The problem is most likely to be

resolved. Also, both parties are
committed to the solution and
satisfied that they have been treated
fairly.

From previous discussion, collaborating approach to conflict management seems the best. In
a sense, effective managers treat this approach as their default option unless there is a
compelling reason to try something else, they will use this strategy. It is important to
underscore the point that the collaborative approach is the appropriate default option for
both issue-focused and people-focused conflicts. It seems quite natural to think of
collaborating with someone with a different point of view regarding a troublesome issue.
However, when someone is challenging your competence motivation, complaining about
your lack of sensitivity, or accusing you of being unfair, it seems like an unnatural act to
collaborate with the enemy. Instead, the natural tendency is to either run away (avoid or
accommodate) or to fight fire with fire (force).
The second reason for emphasizing the collaborative approach is that it is the hardest
approach to implement effectively, under any circumstances. In a study by Kipnis and
Schmidt (1983), most managers expressed general support for the collaborative approach, but
when it appeared that things were not going their way, they reverted back to a directive
approach. By comparison, it is a fairly simple matter for managers to either give in or impose
their will, but resolving differences in a truly collaborative manner is a complicated and
taxing process. As a result, when situational conditions indicate that the collaborative
approach is most appropriate, unskilled managers will often opt for less challenging
approaches.
4.3Steps in Conflict Resolution
Borisoff and Victor (1988) in their book Conflict Management: A communication Skills
Approach, identify five steps in the conflict management process that they call the "five A's"
of conflict management: assessment, acknowledgement, attitude, action, and analysis. They
assert that these five steps allow for a sustained, ongoing process of problem-solving-oriented
conflict management.
4.3.1 Assessment
In the assessment step, the parties involved collect appropriate information regarding the
problem. The parties involved also choose which of the conflict-handling modes is most
appropriate for the situation. The parties collectively decide what is and what is not central to
the problem. The parties involved also indicate areas in which they may be willing to
compromise, and what each party actually wants.
4.3.2 Acknowledgement
The acknowledgement step is one in which each party attempts to hear out the other.
Acknowledgement allows both parties to build the empathy needed for the motivation of a
synergistic solution to the problem. The acknowledgement acts as feedback to the other party
and it demonstrates that one understands (without necessarily agreeing with) the other party's
position. Acknowledgement goes beyond merely responding to what is said, however; it
involves actively encouraging the other party to openly communicate its concerns. This is
aided by the use of active listening techniques and overt, nonverbal encouragement.

13

4.3.3 Attitude
The attitude step tries to remove the foundation for pseudo-conflict. Stereotypical
assumptions about different, culturally-based behaviours are uncovered. For example, a
member of a high-context culture may misinterpret what a member of a low-context culture
says as being needlessly blunt or even rude. Conversely, a member of a low-context culture
may misinterpret what a person from a high-context culture says as being needlessly indirect
or even outright deceptive. Such communication variations (as the works of Edward Hall
have explained) have little to do with the actual intent or content of the messages, but
represent instead culturally learned approaches to using implicit versus explicit
communication styles. Similarly, in the attitude step, one acknowledges differences in the
way that men and women are generally conditioned to communicate. Experts such as
Borisoff and Merrill, for example, have delineated clearly differentiated communication
styles between men and women, which are compounded by sex-trait stereotyping regarding
issues of assertiveness, interruptive behaviour, and perceptions of politeness. Finally, in the
attitude step, one analyzes potentially problematic variations in styles of writing, speaking,
and nonverbal mannerisms. Such differences may blur meanings. It is the role of the effective
conflict participant to maintain an open mind toward all parties involved.
4.3.4 Action
The action step begins to actively implement the chosen conflict-handling mode. If the
selected mode is the problem-solving approach, the manager conveys the opportunity for a
conflict resolution based on trust and ongoing feedback on those points on which the parties
have already agreed. Simultaneously, each individual evaluates the behaviour of the other
parties (often, little more than subtle hints) to ascertain where potential trouble spots might
arise. Also, each individual must remain aware of his or her own communication style and
general behaviour. Finally, all parties must stay alert to new issues that are raised and look for
productive solutions.
4.3.5 Analysis
In this last step participants decide on what they will do, and then summarize and review
what they have agreed upon. Part of the analysis step is to ascertain whether every
participant's requirements have been addressed (and met, if possible). Finally, the analysis
step initiates the impetus for approaching conflict management as an ongoing process.
Analysis enables participants to monitor both the short-term and long-term results of the
conflict resolution.
Note that conflict management is an ongoing procedure. It entails continual communication
and supervision. Conflict-handling behaviour is not a static procedure; rather it is a process
that requires flexibility and constant evaluation to truly be productive and effective Borisoff
and Victor (1998).
4.4 Behaviour guidelines for collaborative problem solving
Effective conflict management involves both analytic and behavioural elements. The analytic
process involves diagnosing the true cause of a conflict, as well as understanding the key
situational considerations and personal preferences that need to be factored into selecting the
14

appropriate conflict management approach. The behaviour element of the process involves
implementing the chosen strategy effectively to attain a successful resolution of the dispute.
Skilful implementation is especially critical for the collaborative problem-solving process.
Behaviour guidelines for effectively implementing the collaborative (Problem solving)
approach to conflict management are summarised below. These are organised according to
three roles. Guidelines for the problem-identification and solution-generation phases of the
problem-solving process are specific for each role. Guidelines for the action plan and follow
up phases are the same for all three roles.
INITIATOR
Problem Identification
1. Maintain personal ownership of the problem
Succinctly describe your problem in terms of behaviours, consequences and
feelings (When you do X, Y happens, and I feel Z)
Stick to the facts (eg. Use a specific incident to illustrate the expectations or
standards violated)
Avoid drawing evaluative conclusions and attributing motives to the respondent
2. Persist until understood; encourage two-way discussion.
Restate your concerns or give additional examples.
Avoid introducing additional issues or letting frustration sour your emotional tone.
Invite the respondent to ask questions and express another perspective.
3. Manage the agenda carefully
Approach multiple problems incrementally proceeding from simple to complex,
easy to difficult, concrete to abstract.
Dont become fixated on a single issue. If you reach an impasse, expand the
discussion to increase the likelihood of an integrative outcome.
Solution Generation
4. Make a request
Focus on those things you share in common (principles, goals, constraints) as the
basis for recommending preferred alternatives.
RESPONDER
Problem Identification
1. Establish a climate for joint problem solving.
Show genuine concern and interest. Respond empathetically, even if you disagree
with the complaint.
Respond appropriately to the initiators emotions. If necessary, let the person,
blow off steam before addressing the complaint.
2. Seek additional information about the problem.

15

Ask questions that channel the initiators statements from general to specific and
from evaluative to descriptive.

3. Agree with some aspect of the complaint.

Signal your willingness to consider making changes by agreeing with facts,
perceptions, feelings, or principles.
Solution Generation
4. Ask for suggestions and recommendations
To avoid debating the merits of a single suggestion, brainstorm multiple
alternatives.
MEDIATOR
Problem Identification
1. Acknowledge that a conflict exists

Select the most appropriate setting (one-on-one conference versus group meeting)
for coaching and fact-finding

Propose a problem solving approach for resolving the dispute

2. Maintain a neutral posture.

Assume the role of facilitator, not judge.

Do not belittle the problem or berate the disputants for their inability to resolve their
differences

Be impartial toward disputants and issues (provided policy has not been violated).

If correction is necessary, do it in private.

3. Manage the discussion to ensure fairness.

Focus discussion on the conflicts impact on performance and the detrimental effect of
continued conflict.

Keep the discussion issue oriented, not personality oriented.

16

Do not allow one party to dominate the discussion. Ask directed questions to maintain
balance.

Solution Generation
4. Explore options by focusing on the interests behind stated positions.

Explore the whys behind disputants arguments or demands.

Help disputants see commonalities among their goals, values and principles.

Use commonalities to generate multiple alternatives.

Maintain a non-judgemental manner.

ALL ROLES
Action plan and follow-up
1. Ensure that all parties support the agreed-upon plan.

Make sure the plan is adequately detailed (who, what, how, when and where)

Verify understanding of, and commitment to, each specific action.

2. Establish mechanism for follow-up.

Create benchmarks for measuring progress and ensuring accountability

Encourage flexibility in adjusting the plan to meet emerging circumstances.

4.5 Methods to adopt in open conflict (Negotiation, Mediation,

Arbitration)

When the conflict reaches the stage of open conflict, then the organisation adopts the
following methods to dealing with it.

17

Negotiation
This is the process where mandated representatives of groups in a conflict situation meet
together in order to resolve their differences and to reach agreement. It is a deliberate process,
conducted by representatives of groups, designed to reconcile differences and to reach
agreements by consensus. The outcome is often dependent on the power relationship between
the groups. Negotiations often involve compromise - one group may win one of their
demands and give in on another. In workplaces Unions and management representative
usually sue negotiations to solve conflicts.
Mediation
When negotiations fail or get stuck, parties often call in an independent mediator. This person
or group will try to facilitate settlement of the conflict. The mediator plays an active part in
the process, advises both or all groups, acts as intermediary and suggests possible solutions.
In contrast to arbitration, mediators act only in an advisory capacity - they have no decisionmaking powers and cannot impose a settlement on the conflicting parties. Skilled mediators
are able to gain trust and confidence from the conflicting groups or individuals.
Arbitration
This is an independent person who is employed to act as an adjudicator (or judge) in a
dispute, to decide on the terms of a settlement. Both parties in a conflict have to agree about
who the arbitrator should be, and that the decision of the arbitrator will be binding on them
all. Arbitration differs from mediation and negotiation in that it does not promote the
continuation of collective bargaining: the arbitrator listens to and investigates the demands
and counter-demands and takes over the role of decision-maker. People or organisations can
agree on having either a single arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators whom they respect and
whose decision they will accept as final, in order to resolve the conflict.

5.1

COPING WITH CONFLICT

Conflict as explained earlier is unavoidable. It takes place anywhere home or workplace. It

can be within oneself, between individuals, groups, departments, organisations and countries.
Our focus is on the organisation. However, it should be remembered that most of the things
that happen in organisations have their genesis from the home background. In this section,
the necessary coping skills that will help leaders and managers live and work in conflict
prone organisation are discussed.
It all starts from the individual. Depending on your personality trait, issues should be dealt
with as they arise. The right time, right place and with the right people can be a good
intervention point to understanding, minimising and coping with conflict.
By focusing on our own style, we may indirectly influence the way others deal with us. In
other words, the way we think affects how we feel in a situation, which in turn determines
our behaviour in a particular situation. In this way when we control our thoughts, we are
more likely to affect apositive outcome when dealing with conflict. By focusing on

18

developing ourselves and modifying our behaviour, we can learn to become more powerful
when dealing with conflict in our lives.
The harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we
esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value. I love the man that
can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress and grow brave by reflection.
Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose
conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.Thomas Paine.

19

6.0 REFERENCES
Borisoff, D., and D.A. Victor (1988),Conflict Management: A Communication Skills
Approach.2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon
Keashly, L. (1994), Gender and Conflict; What does psychological research tell us? In A.
Taylor and J.B. Miller (Ed.), Conflict and Gender. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Kilmann, R.H., and K. W. Thomas. (1977). Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict
handling behaviour: The MODE instrument. Educational and Psychological measurement.
Kipnis, D., and S. Schmidt (1983), An influence perspective in bargaining within
organisations. In A. H. Bazerman, and R. J. Lewicki (Eds.), Bargaining inside organisation,
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Porter, E.H. (1973), Manual of Administration and Interpretation for Strength deployment
Inventory. La Jolla, CA: Personal Strengths Assessment Service.
Whetten D.A. and S. K. Cameron (2007), Developing Management Skills, 7th Ed, Pearson
Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 07458

20