Ways to a win-win situation in conflict resolution
HEALTHY conflict and competition in the workplace is a good thing; the legerdemain lies in our ability to manage conflict and use it to promote problem solving and organizational development. A majority of us, however, do not consciously manage most conflict situations. We tend to get caught up emotionally, and act on the spur of the moment without forethought or premeditation on the consequences of our actions. The core of conflict management involves slowing down, and using your head to think through what you should do, rather than reacting in a knee-jerk fashion.
Conflict management is a rational process, and there are quite a few generic approaches to resolve/ manage conflict. One has to use judgment and reason to zero in on the right choice, depending on each specific situation. Here are some strategies commonly used by people to deal with conflict.
The Denial/ Avoidance Strategy: Denial and avoidance are slightly different things. Denial is a state of mind where you refuse to acknowledge that there exists a conflict-provoking situation. This can be a dangerous situation because, unless you acknowledge its existence, there is absolutely nothing you can do about conflict.
Avoidance is when you consciously decide to do nothing about the situation. There are a number of conflict-situations that may resolve themselves on their own, without any outside intervention. In such cases, it is best to let sleeping dogs lie.
The above strategy may be ideal for situations where the source of conflict is unimportant, or likely to get resolved on its own; and in situations where intervention can cause additional problems down the road. It could also be the perfect strategy in cases where the cost (in terms of time, effort and frustration) of using a more direct approach to resolve the conflict outweighs the benefits of doing so.
It is however a bad idea in situations where the source of conflict is important to the parties concerned or if the person is trying to `escape' from a potentially damaging situation, by refusing to acknowledge it.
Accommodation:
It sounds spineless, but giving in to the other person's demands is perhaps the easiest way to resolve a conflict, provided it fits the situation and your interests, of course! Accommodation avoids confrontation, which is a particularly good idea when the person you are up against wields greater power than you, and it is not in your interests to antagonise him/ her. It is also ideal when the conflict issue is unimportant to you and your greater concern is having a smooth long-term relationship with the other party.
It is however a bad idea to give in when the conflict issue is very important to you, and you greatly resent having to accommodate/ giving in to the other person. Being accommodative every time can also cause people to think they can ride roughshod over your feelings on all matters. Sometimes it becomes important to take a stand and establish your authority, especially in relationships where you find that you are the one always giving in, or when you feel your authority is being undermined.
Compromise: Compromise involves finding the middle path, a mutually acceptable solution in a situation where it is impossible to completely satisfy all the parties concerned. Compromise is a good idea in situations where there is bargaining room, and both parties are willing to give and take a little. It could also serve as a temporary solution, while more satisfactory solutions are being explored. It may be a bad idea in situations where it does not satisfy any of the parties concerned, and causes resentment all round.
Imposition: This is a strategy that results in a win-lose situation where one person wins, and the other loses. This is a high-risk strategy and while it could result in short-term gains, it could fatally fracture the relationship between the parties concerned. In some cases, like in situations where the stakes are high or quick decisions are needed, and where failure to do so could spell disaster, imposition of authority would be the quickest way to address a conflict. If you are in a position that calls for toughness and authority, or are absolutely sure that you are correct and have the power to make a unilateral decision, you could go ahead and impose your authority. It would, however, be unwise in situations where the stakes are low and unimportant, and in situations where you cannot afford to offend the other party.
Collaboration: This is a strategy that aims at a win-win situation for all parties concerned. While it is the ideal strategy to deal with conflict, it may not always be the most practical. This approach is time consuming as it involves a great deal of discussion, analysis and in depth communication by the parties concerned. It may not be viable in situations calling for quick decisions and immediate action. It may also not be justified in situations where the conflict is of minimal importance and the time and effort needed to collaborate an all round amicable solution may not be justified by the benefits of doing so.
Win-Win strategy is ideal in situations where lasting solutions are needed; and where long-term goals or relationships cannot be sacrificed at any cost. Provided the parties concerned are willing to spend the time, effort and energy to arrive at an amicable, lasting solution where everyone achieves their goals, without hurting or causing resentment to anybody else, collaborative effort is perhaps the best way to deal with conflict.
BINDU SRIDHAR
faqs@cnkonline.com
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Opportunities
