Instructions Rubric: One Minute" for Session 3:

Please complete the "One Minute" in-class oral/ written exercise and answer the below question:

Who are you on the team? [pgs. 76-79 in the text] and summarize your view.

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT APPROACHES In the Assessment activity, you identified your preference among three conflicthandling strategies in a particular situation. These three strategies can be represented along two dimensions that show how individuals think and act in approaching situations in which there is conflict (Thomas, 1976). The first dimension represents cooperativeness, or the extent to which you are willing to work to meet the other party's needs and concerns. The second dimension represents assertiveness, or the extent to which you are willing to work to meet your own needs and concerns. Figure M1.4 shows how these two dimensions define five conflict management approaches. Nonconfrontational strategies are associated with avoiding and accommodating approaches, control strategies are associated with a competing approach, and solutionoriented strategies are associated with collaborating and compromising approaches.

AVOIDING Avoiding approaches are used when individuals recognize the existence of a conflict but do not wish to confront the issues of the conflict. In avoiding the issues, they work neither to satisfy their own goals nor to satisfy the other party's goals. Individuals may avoid by withdrawing and creating physical separation between the parties or by suppressing feelings and attempting not to discuss the issues of the conflict. This approach is often useful when some time is needed to allow two parties engaged in a conflict to cool off. In the long term, however, if the conflict is not dealt with, it is likely to surface again. Moreover, if employees avoid dealing with conflict situations because they fear that it is not safe to bring bad news to their boss, organizations risk not finding out important information about organizational problems (Bennis, Goleman, O'Toole, & Biederman, 2008).

ACCOMMODATING When individuals use accommodating approaches they do not act to achieve their own goals but rather work only to satisfy the other party's concerns. This approach has the advantage of preserving harmony and avoiding disruption. In the short term, this approach is useful when the issue is not seen as very important or when the other party is much stronger and will not give in. In the long term, however, individuals may not always be willing to sacrifice their personal needs in order to maintain the relationship. In addition, accommodating approaches generally limit creativity and stop the search for new ideas and solutions to the problem. Many unnecessary "trips to Abilene" have been taken by individuals believing that they were helping the situation by accommodating.

FIGURE M1.4 Dimensions of conflicthandling orientations. Source: Thomas, K. (1976). "Conflict and Conflict Management." In Marvin D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (p. 900 (New York: John Wiley & Sons. Used with permission.

COMPETING In direct contrast to accommodating approaches, competing approaches (sometimes referred to as "forcing") occur when individuals work only to achieve their own goals. In these cases, individuals often fall back on authority structures and formal rules to win the battle. Although competing approaches are appropriate when quick, decisive action is necessary or when one knows that certain decisions or actions must be taken for the good of the group, these approaches often result in dysfunctional outcomes. Competing behaviors set up a win-lose confrontation, in which one party is clearly defined as the winner and the other as the loser. In addition, as with accommodating approaches, the use of competing behaviors generally limits creativity and stops the search for new ideas and solutions to the problem.

COMPROMISING Compromising approaches are the first of the solutionoriented strategies. Individuals using these approaches are concerned both with their own interests and goals and with those of the other party. These approaches usually involve some sort of negotiation during which each party gives up something in order to gain something else. The underlying assumption of compromising strategies is that there is a fixed resource or sum that is to be split and that, through compromise, neither party will end up the loser. The disadvantage to this approach, however, is that neither party ends up the winner, and people often remember what they had to give up in order to get what they wanted.

COLLABORATING The second solutionoriented strategy is collaboration. Individuals using collaborating approaches are concerned with their own interests and goals as well as those of the other party. The difference is that there is no underlying assumption of a fixed resource that will force everyone to give up something in order to gain something else. Rather, the assumption is that by creatively engaging the problem, a solution can be generated that makes everyone a winner and everyone better off. Clearly these approaches have great advantages with respect to cohesion and morale; the great disadvantage is that they are time consuming and may not work when the conflict involves differences in values.

Each of the conflict management approaches has advantages and disadvantages that make it more or less appropriate for a given situation. Table M1.6 presents the five approaches and the appropriate situations for using each. Clearly your approach will also depend on your own comfort in using the various approaches. Research has shown, however, that approaches that allow for different perspectives and inputs to be integrated into the final decision are associated with such positive outcomes as decisionmaking productivity and organizational performance (Thomas, 2004; Thomas & Ely, 1996; Thomas, 1976).

ADVOCACY AND INQUIRY A similar framework for thinking about managing conflict is presented in Senge's (2006) discussion of the need for balancing advocacy and inquiry. Senge argues that while many managers are initially promoted because of their advocacy skillsthat is, their ability to influence othersthe emphasis on advocacy can actually become counterproductive as managers move up the organizational hierarchy and problems become more complex. At this point, "they need to tap insights from other people. They need to learn" (Senge, 2006, p. 183). Learning requires genuine inquiry, asking questions about the other person's understanding of the situation and why they are taking a particular position, and truly listening to that person's response.

In many ways, advocacy is similar to the assertiveness dimension and inquiry is similar to cooperativeness in the five conflict approaches above. However, unlike assertiveness, both advocacy and inquiry involve actions to develop a deeper understanding of the problem and what data and assumptions have led each party to take the position each is taking. When individuals learn to balance advocacy and inquiry, they can engage in "dialogue," which comes from the Greek "dialogos . . . [or] a freeflowing of meaning through a group, allowing the group to discover insights not attainable individually" (Senge, 2006, p. 10).

Senge suggests a few guidelines for balancing advocacy and inquiry that use two competencies we have already covered: thinking critically and communicating honestly and effectively. First, when advocating, it is important to clarify one's own reasoning and to encourage others to ask questions that explore how you arrived at a particular position. Second, when inquiring, ask others to explain their assumptions and how they arrived at their conclusions. Ask questions in a way that shows openness to the other person's response, rather than in a way that suggests that you already know the answer to your question. A lack of inquiry in conversation tends to create defensiveness toward others when they advocate for their positions. If you arrive at an impasse, ask more questions to seek for understanding. Based on what you hear, think about what additional information or logic you and the other person might need to change your minds.

TABLE M1.6 When to Use the Five Conflict Management Approaches

Source: Thomas, Kenneth W. (1977). "Toward multidimensional values in teaching: The example of conflict behaviors," Academy of Management Review, 2(3), 487. Used with permission.

Conflict Management Approach Appropriate Situations Competing 1. When quick, decisive action is vital. 2. On important issues where unpopular actions need implementing. 3. On issues vital to the organization's welfare, when you know you are right. 4. Against people who take advantage of noncompetitive behavior. Collaborating 1. To find an integrative solution when both sets of concerns are too important to be compromised. 2. When your objective is to learn. 3. To merge insights from people with different perspectives. 4. To gain commitment by incorporating concerns into a consensus. 5. To work through feelings that have interfered with a relationship. Compromising 1. When goals are important, but not worth the effort or potential disruption of more assertive approaches. 2. When opponents with equal power are committed to mutually exclusive goals. 3. To achieve temporary settlements to complex issues. 4. To arrive at expedient solutions under time pressures. 5. As a backup when collaboration or competition is unsuccessful. Avoiding 1. When an issue is trivial, or more important issues are pressing. 2. When you perceive no chance of satisfying your concerns. 3. When potential disruption outweighs the benefits of resolution. 4. To let people cool down and regain perspective. 5. When gathering information supersedes the need for an immediate decision. 6. When others can resolve the conflict more effectively. 7. When issues seem tangential or symptomatic of other issues. Accommodating 1. When you find you are wrongto allow a better position to be heard, to learn, and to show your reasonableness. 2. When issues are more important to others than to youto satisfy others and maintain cooperation. 3. To build social credits for later issues. 4. To minimize loss when you are outmatched and losing. 5. When harmony and stability are especially important. 6. To allow subordinates to develop by learning from mistakes. MANAGING CONFLICT CONSTRUCTIVELY As indicated previously, approaches that encourage individuals and groups to work together to engage the problem creatively and to develop integrative solutions have been found to be most effective, especially in the long run. These approaches, however, which fall under the solutionoriented strategies, may be especially difficult since, as Wheatley (2005) notes, conflict is generally associated with aggression, so individuals may be hesitant to back off their preferred solution. If individuals and organizational units can move away from associating conflict with aggression, however, they can begin to collaborate and/or engage in productive dialogue.