CHAPTER 8:
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
Chapter Outline
1.
Conflict Defined
Definition
Communication-based conflict
2.
Consequences of Conflict
Constructive consequences
Destructive consequences
Competition vs. cooperation
3.
Conflict Locations
Complexities in identifying conflict
Communication units
Management units
4.
Conflict Location Matrix
5.
Conflict Management Strategies
Power
Compromise
Creative Alternative
6.
Management Tactics
Third-party intervention
Principles
7.
Personal Conflict Management Styles
Neglector
Accommodator
Driver
Compromiser
Expressive
During the 1960's and 1970's, social unrest and international conflict (especially
in Viet Nam) motivated social scientists to investigate the destructive effects of conflict.
A primary end-goal was to promote societal and international harmony. Consequently,
much of the literature from that period of time viewed conflict as negative and
distasteful. Many scholars and managers sought to avoid controversy and
disagreement.
Today, a more balanced view of conflict exists. Now, we acknowledge that
conflict has functional and dysfunctional components. So, the purpose of this chapter is
to highlight both sides from the perspective that conflict is inevitable and must be
continually managed in order to maximize positive outcomes and minimize negative
consequences.
Conflict Defined
Definitions of conflict have been developed from several perspectives.
Psychologists focus on internal conflict that predisposes an individual to behavior in
specific ways. Social psychologists have looked at different environmental settings that
8-1
provoke disparate, competing tendencies in individual behavior. Sociologists view
conflict as the result of competing interests between groups of people.
Definition. Although different perspectives of conflict exist, there is one
commonality: each point of view describes conflict as occurring when there are two or
more competing, often incompatible responses to a single event.
Conflict occurs when there are two or more
competing responses to a single event.
Competing responses may exist without
conflict. If participants do not perceive
discrepancies among options, conflict will not
occur. But, competing responses need not exist for conflict to occur; the mere
perception of competing responses among parties is sufficient for conflict to occur.
Communication-based conflict. Communication conflicts are an outgrowth of
the use of symbols. As indicated in Chapter 2, communication behaviors are a
multidimensional act with process (source vs. receiver), content (work vs. person), and
functional (information exchange, problem/solution identification, behavior regulation,
conflict management) characteristics. These can induce conditions for conflict.
Process conflict. When there is disagreement about who should be enacting
source and receiver roles, a communication process role conflict exists. That is why
organizations often designate an individual as a spokesperson for certain events, e.g.,
crisis management, product announcements, etc.
Content conflict. When there is disagreement about work- or person-related
messages and issues, a communication
Communication conflict occurs when:
content role conflict exists. That is why
1.
organizations have found it necessary to
2.
create separate functions for each. In
3.
4.
5.
6.
Chapter 2 we described Katz and Kahn’s
theoretical distinction between
There is disagreement about source and
receiver role enactment.
There is disagreement about work- or personrelated messages and issues.
Different information exists.
Different problems & solutions are identified.
Different regulation strategies are preferred.
Different conflict strategies are preferred.
mainte nance and production or technical
subsystems. This distinction is analogous to of human resources or personnel
8-2
processes being housed separately from production processes. The content is different
and separate functions are needed to manage each and to maintain a constructive
balance between the two.
Information conflict. Information concerning the same issue can vary widely;
what one knows to be true, another may believe is false. This can lead to conflict.
There is a peculiar paradox in information flow. Subordinates view high-status
individuals as having access to and control over information. On the other hand,
managers often express uncertainty about massive amounts of information they must
sort, chunk, or organize to determine what is really going on. So, what may be viewed
as certainty from one perspective, may actually be a high level of confusion from
another. This paradox is often combined with another consequence of information flow
– subordinates do not like to give supervisors negative information. So, a supervisor
will likely hear the positives and not discover the negatives. This situation produces a
distortion of reality.
Problem/solution identification conflict. Organizations remove barriers and
achieve goals by using problem solving processes. As problem complexities increase,
greater amounts of information are required. The search for greater amounts of
information increases the likelihood of competing perceptions about the problem and
potential solutions. These, in turn, promote conflict over the problems and solutions
identified.
Behavior regulation conflict. Organizations may attempt to manage behavior
through friendship (identification), appeals to values and logic (internalization), or by
specifying consequences of actions (compliance). Communication patterns and content
easily reveal the strategies being used. Consider the following example:
An executive calls in a high-level supervisor and asks how the supervisor
ensures that workers will get the job done. Not happy with the reply, the
executive – perhaps possessing a preference for maintaining relationships – tells
the supervisor that he doesn’t care for the supervisor’s tactics. The supervisor
8-3
replies, “When I came here, if people didn’t pull their weight, we fined or fired
them!!”
Obviously, a conflict exists between the executive and the supervisor. This type of
conflict is common and has cultural, value -laden bases.
Conflict strategy conflict. When conflicts become prominent, conflict
management strategies are inevitably discussed. When there is divergence in preferred
strategies, a meta-conflict (i.e., conflict over conflict strategy selection) exists. These
can be serious if ineffectively dealt with. At the very least, they contribute to a delay in
managing the issue that gave rise to the meta-conflict. Organizational culture contains
beliefs about the best way to manage conflict. As a result, organizations have an
affinity for strategies that have been previously successful. Excessive reliance on one
strategy, especially when other approaches are totally excluded from consideration,
creates a greater likelihood for meta -conflict. And, logically, this condition may limit
consideration of viable alternatives.
Consequences of Conflict
Conflict is not inherently good or evil. It is usually effectively or ineffectively
managed. The shift in perspective described above implies that efforts to eliminate
conflict may actually yield a loss in potentially positive outcomes. Modern researchers
have downplayed the likelihood of conflict elimination, opting instead for conflict
management. Thus, the study of conflict is no longer viewed as the study of conflict
resolution, but rather the study of conflict control.
Constructive consequences of conflict . Research suggests that effective
conflict management can be beneficial. Indeed,
Constructive Consequences
suppression or elimination may have negative
repercussions. Positive, constructive outcomes
include motivation, improved problem solving,
goal attainment, cohesion, reality adjustment,
and benefits for others.
8-4
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Increased motivation
Enhanced motivation
Enhanced likelihood of goal attainment
Stimulation of cohesion
Reality adjustment
Benefits for others
1. Increased motivation. A complete absence of conflict is related to inactivity and
lack of involvement – perhaps, boredom. Theories of motivation shifted in the
middle 20th Century from view that organisms behave to reduce tension to the
perspective that organisms seek to maintain optimal levels of stimulation
(Allport, 1953; Driver & Streufurt, 1964). In other words, a useful level of
stimulation and tension must be maintained or motivation will diminish.
2. Enhanced problem solving. When people have different points of view and
confront one another with their positions, there is greater likelihood for producing
superior solutions (Thomas, 1976). In other words, diversity leads to
consideration of more alternatives. That premise, along with the concept of
academic freedom, has allowed universities to be “battlegrounds of ideas,”
reaping many advantages from unconstrained discussion without fear of
retaliation.
3. Enhanced likelihood of goal attainment. When conflict is avoided or ignored,
there is an increased likelihood that the current “state of affairs” will persist. For
example, bureaucracy tends to use rules and policies to maintain operations
across circumstances; “don’t rock the boat” literally becomes the order of the
day. The net result is an impedance of progress and change. We
organizational members approach conflict rationally, they are in greater control
of the situation and there is increased likelihood for goal attainment (Thomas,
1976).
4. Facilitates reality adjustment. Sometimes individuals develop distorted views of
their importance and level of contribution. Consequently, when actions come
into conflict, settling a dispute often causes individuals to reassess their value
more in line with reality (Thomas, 1976).
5. Benefits for others. As indicated above, conflict can enhance problem solving
activity and goal attainment. As conflicts are manage, individuals and
organizations have the potential to reap creative, alternative solutions not
8-5
previously considered. One party’s gain may also be a gain for another;
improving one’s position may do the same for another (Thomas, 1976).
Destructive effects of conflict . Mismanaged conflict can be detrimental.
Several negative effects have been identified: coalitions, isolation, lowered
satisfaction, lowered productivity, gatekeeping, less participation in problem solving,
reliance on compliance behavior regulation, and reliance on power conflict
management.
1. Coalition formation. Poorly
managed conflict commonly leads
to perceptions of threat (Zaltman
& Duncan, 1978). When
threatened, individuals seek
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Destructive Effects
Coalitions
Isolation
Lowered satisfaction
Lowered productivity
Gatekeeping
Less participation in problem solving
Reliance on compliance for behavior regulation
Reliance on power for conflict management
others with similar points of view;
coalitions are formed and battle lines are drawn. Outsiders aren’t communicated
with and appear less attractive. Outsiders are viewed with suspicion and appear
less credible. Competitors stereotype each other. Information exchange is
distorted with the potential for misinformation and deceptive practices. When
coalitions form, conflict sources are difficult to determine.
2. Isolation. Obviously, coalition formation will cause individuals to be isolated from
those not in the group. Sometimes isolation is self-imposed, a kind of pouting
often associated with a feeling of being “ripped off.” Or, it may be imposed on
an individual or group when behavior that deviates from group norms. When
people are isolated (regardless of their location in the hierarch), they DO NOT
ENJOY THEIR WORK. They become suspicious and exhibit higher levels of
absenteeism.
3. Lowered Satisfaction. The primary contributors to satisfaction are relations with
supervision, subordinates, and co-workers. Since these are the main
8-6
relationships one experiences at work, mismanaged conflict can impair these
relations and have an immediate, adverse impact satisfaction levels.
4. Lowered productivity. Many tasks require cooperation and coordination. But,
when conflict occurs cooperative efforts are reduced. Consequently, productivity
levels become suppressed.
5. Gatekeeping. Parties in conflict gatekeep or restrict information flow. And,
information shared is often distorted. Finally, employees will become defensive.
For example, managers who rely on power strategies often find that
subordinates pass positive information upward and suppress information that
could be negative. It then becomes difficult to get an accurate account of
operations.
6. Less participation in problem solving. Effective problem solving involves some
risk taking and open information exchange. Poorly managed conflict, with
consequent coalition formation, isolation, and gatekeeping, stimulates conditions
counter to supportive problem-solving environments and creates conditions
where employees feel that risk taking is too dangerous. The attitude of “go
along to get along,” represents a failure to manage conflict constructively.
7. Reliance on compliance for behavior regulation. Mismanaged conflict may force
managers to rely on power, status, and authority to manage behaviors. A great
deal of money and energy is invested to ensure that people do as they are told.
Supervisory costs will escalate. In these circumstances, open communication or
role exchange is restricted -- supervisors are primarily communication sources
and subordinates are primarily communication receivers. Most downward
information is typically about consequences of non-compliance. The overall
amount of formal information given subordinates tends to be reduced. Unofficial
information, often received from allies through informal networks, is frequently
distorted.
8-7
8. Reliance on power for conflict management. An organization with mismanaged
conflict is like a soldier at war. There is tendency to handle the conflict through
application of power (what we later describe at a win-lose strategy). Managers
assert their positions of power and feel the only alternatives are winning and
losing. If forced t compromise, often they are afraid that all will fall apart unless
the compromise is achieved quickly. Unfortunately, this leads to limited
alternatives and reduces the potential for organizational effectiveness.
Competition vs. cooperation. This chapter began with a conflict definition and
discussion of consequences. This was provided to facilitate a more balanced view and
to provide illustrations of common antecedents and consequences that occur in
organizational relationships. A bottom line perspective suggests “conflict is inevitable.”
Therefore, relations require continual management. Our experience and review of the
literature has caused us to draw this simple observation reflects a philosophy for
conflict management: “Effective conflict managers will strive to maximize interpersonal
cooperation and optimize intergroup competition.” What does this mean? Simply this –
when individuals are placed in competition with one another there is an adverse impact
on their relationships that most often results in negative consequences of conflict. For
example, retail sales people who are paid by sales volume often restrict information
flow and avoid participating in activities that could cause them to lose a customer to
another sales person. In this circumstance there is a winner and a loser. In the long
run, the organization is also a loser. Consequently, group incentive plans have
provided an alternative that capitalizes on constructive effects and reduces negative
consequences since it is in everyone’s best interest to be cooperative.
Optimizing intergroup competition means finding some method to encourage
collective activity for the work group. It may be dangerous to place groups in
competition with respect to production quotas. However, there are some very viable,
non-threatening competitive activities that have been used by companies. For
example, many companies sponsor organized athletic teams. One of the authors
helped a retail store develop healthy, competitive activities by starting a corporate
bowling league. The company had over 300 employees who didn’t know anyone
8-8
except persons in their department. There had been many cases departments luring
customers from each other and a high level of tension. The bowling teams were
department-based and the schedule was such that every department bowled against
every other department at least twice during the season. Over the four-month period,
the non-work based competition fostered a spirit of healthy, constructive competition.
Casual acquaintances became friends. Discussions of the sales floor were often about
previous and upcoming bowling competition. In addition, there was a lot of healthy
chiding and teasing across departmental boundaries. The net result was a decrease in
“customer theft,” supportive relationships, and a general experience of good will.
Conflict Locations
Complexities in identifying conflict. The interaction of people, work processes, culture,
and personal needs create elaborate networks of pressure and make conflict
identification a somewhat complex activity. Just as problem/solution identification
works best when problems and solutions are clearly and comprehensively defined,
conflict management requires careful and thorough identification. In a very real sense,
problem/solution identification and conflict management processes must operate
“hand-in-hand.” Not all conflicts are communication conflicts; all are not management
conflicts. For e xample, identification requires value-system definition. Often,
communication is a symptom of an underlying value difference. Thus, in a larger
sense, identification proceeds with a concern for separating symptoms from causes
(much like the issues raised in chapter 7). Individuals “carry” their values with them
when they enter an organization. Sometime, these values are acquired from previous
experiences, training, family, etc. Scholars and practicing managers indicate the
positive changes can occur when new people join an organization and inject new ideas,
beliefs, and values. However, change rarely occurs without some type of conflict.
Effective management requires locating the conflict or identifying the unit of analysis or
system in which the conflict exists.
8-9
Communication units. Communication theory and practice provides one
perspective for defining a conflict’s location, unit of analysis, or system. There are six
primary communication units:
1. Intrapersonal. Intrapersonal conflict is psychological conflict. The unit of
analysis is the individual. Management focuses on dealing with an individual’s
internal issues (i.e., subsystems).
2. Interpersonal. Interpersonal conflict may be psychological and social. The unit
of analysis includes the individual and the ways that individual initiates and
manages relations with others.
3. Intragroup. Intragroup conflict includes intrapersonal and interpersonal
subsystems within a specific work group.
4. Intergroup. Intergroup conflict exists when subsystems contain two or more
work groups within an organization. Typically intergroup refers to relatively few
groups in conflict.
5. Intraorganizational. Intergroup and intraorganizational can be equivalent terms.
Generally, however, intraorganizational is the unit of analysis when conflict
exists throughout the organization, i.e., across all groups, whereas, intergroup
refers to two or a few groups in conflict.
6. Interorganizational. In interorganizational conflict, subsystems are entire
organizations and the unit of analysis might be an industry, interface with
government, shareholder relations, community relations, etc.
Management units. Katz and Kahn’s subsystems (see chapter 2) provide
definitions of conflict locations or units of analysis from a management perspective.
The five subsystems – managerial, supportive, maintenance, production or technical,
and adaptive – provide direction for identifying conflict causes and effects across
divergent separate, yet interdependent, processes. Similarly, each subsystem could be
8-10
the primary unit of analysis if the source of conflict resides within that unit (e.g., from a
communication perspective, this would most likely be an intrapersonal, interpersonal,
and intragroup system).
Conflict Location Matrix
Conflict mus t be located before actual management can begin. Once isolated,
attempts must be made to keep it from spreading to other parts of the organization
when consequences are negative. Even if effects are constructive, management is
required. Conflict location begins with a methodical examination of all potential settings
by responding to a series of questions:
1. Is there discrepancy within an individual employee, i.e., intrapersonal?
2. Is there conflict between the employee and others, i.e., interpersonal?
3. Is there conflict within the work group, i.e., intragroup?
4. Is there conflict between work groups, i.e., intergroup?
5. Is there conflict throughout the organization, i.e., intraorganizational?
6. Is there conflict between this organization and an internal individual, group,
organization, i.e., interorganizational?
Each question must be addressed in order to locate and constructively manage the
situation. Internal conflicts often require different strategies than external conflicts. It is
usually advantageous to manage internal and external conflicts separately, even
though they may be part of the same problem. In this way, conflicts can be localized.
The Conflict Location Matrix was developed (Cummings, Long, & Lewis, 1981 &
1986) to visualize the integration of communication and management issues that must
be considered when managing conflict (see figure 8-1). The matrix is useful as a
checklist and guide for localizing conflict.
8-11
If, NO, proceed
downward
Evidence of conflict
intrapersonal
If it is a process or content problem, go to
chapters 1-4 for strategy options.
interpersonal
intragroup
If it is related to information exchange, go to
chapter 5 for strategy options.
If, YES at
any unit
If it is related to problem/solution identification,
go to chapter 6 for strategy options.
intergroup
If it is related to behavior regulation, go to
chapter 7 for strategy options.
intraorganizational
If it is related to conflict management, go to
chapter 8 for strategy options.
Interorganizational
Figure 8-1: Conflict Location Matrix
Precision in identification facilitates localizing. This means that boundaries or
units of analysis are defined as precisely as possible and then managed in that context.
Use of the matrix also is predicated upon an old, “arm chair” philosophy that extols – “if
it isn’t broken, don’t fix it!” A healthy amount of theory supports this philosophy.
Regardless of the manner in which conflicts surface, management begins with
interpersonal assessment. If the source is identified as solely within the intrapersonal
location, then the conflict manager asks if the source of conflict is related to process,
content, or function (both communication function and organization function). If it is
beyond the intrapersonal setting, the same procedures follow for each subsequent
level. In this way, thorough conflict definition and management a lternatives are
considered.
8-12
Conflict Management Strategies
After conflict is located, localized, and defined, strategic option selection is next.
There are three general communication strategies used to manage conflict: Power,
compromise, and creative alternatives. These strategies are similar to win-win, loselose, and win-win concepts used in negotiation strategy. For the most part, additional
strategies are derivatives of these basis approaches. Although some may prefer a
particular approach, research and practice suggests there is no single, best strategy for
all circumstances.
Power. Power is a win-lose move used when the ability to control rewards and
punishments is perceived. This strategy occurs when one person “wins” at the
expense of the “other.” Power is a poor basis for winning popularity contests.
However, this approach is efficient and occasionally effective if the manager will retain
power for some time. This strategy, which is frequently viewed as coercive, is most
effective for short-term use within volatile, uncertain environments. In addition, when
work is programmed (only one right way to perform a process), power will most often
be an appropriate approach. It is clear, though, than power cannot be used to change
attitudes, feelings, or socio-emotionally based differences. It is human nature to resent
those who predominantly use power strategies. So, sometimes there is merit in losing
“gracefully” in a power play; there is also merit to winning gracefully. The more power
is used, the less effective it becomes. Early wins may lead to later losses. While
power may be effective at times, it should be used sparingly. Finally, an ominous
warning for winners: losers don’t always stay losers; retaliation is possible (Schelling,
1960). When the direction of dependency changes, the winners may find themselves
losers when it really hurts.
Compromise. “Lose-lose” is descriptive of compromise strategies. In a
compromise environment, parties bargain to gain as many of their objectives as
possible. This often requires making concessions or giving up some things that are
desirable. Thus, during compromise everyone loses something as a middle-ground
solution is sought. Compromise is probably the most common type of strategy used in
8-13
American corporations. They are certainly studied and discussed more than any other
method. This approach emerges when parties are mutually dependent – this allows
leverage to all participants. Consequently, compromise requires more time that power
strategies. Furthermore, compromise may be the only alternative when the content of
conflict in personal – socio-emotional or person-related conflict cannot be managed
through a power play. Organizations that constantly use compromise may
inadvertently be encouraging individuals to misrepresent organizational realities. For
example, budget through compromise often creates overstatement of need because of
expected percentage reductions. This “padding” may be generalized beyond budget
issues and into other areas. This can result in conflict management based on untrue or
invalid information.
Creative Alternative. Creative alternative strategies have the goals of
benefiting all parties involved, a win-win philosophy. This approaches requires
consensus or collaboration (Thomas, 1976). The aim is to reach an agreement in
which all parties achieve their objectives. This is the most time consuming strategy.
These approaches require that people spend less time attempting to get others to
agree with the “rightness” of their own way of doing things, and more time stimulating
others to cooperatively search for a solution. This is done by using the
problem/solution identification function of communication. In other words, parties
redefine the nature of the problem, usually discovering solutions that satisfy everyone’s
needs. When this is done, it is very common to find that conflicting short-term goals
created conflict. And, when a longer time orientation is considered, conflict often
disappears or is minimal. Thus, there is more open solution seeking, less protection of
predetermined positions, and less negotiation through advocacy. It is overly idealistic
to say this approach should always be used. This approach may not be appropriate
when there are time constraints, when profound adversarial relations exist, or when the
nature of the problem is not conducive to consensus or collaboration. In such cases,
compromise may be a better option.
8-14
Conflict Management Tactics
Conflict is most often managed by the participants. In some cases, an impartial
third-party may intervene
Third-party intervention. When a third-party intervenes, they should enter as a
mediator or arbitrator. Mediators do not impose a settlement; arbitrators are
responsible for reaching a settlement, dictated by the arbitration process and formally
sanctioned authority (Thomas, 1976). At times, arbitration is necessary to stop
deadlocks, such as those found in union-management negotiations. Although
arbitration reach a solution, that does not necessarily reduce hostility. Three alternative
approaches to third-party intervention are:
1. Collaboration. This is a preferred creative alternative approach. It implies that
parties should negotiate rationally.
2. De-escalation. When a conflict contains significant emotionalism, participants
view each other with mistrust. So, the third-party’s aim is to reduce the level of
conflict intensity while opening channels of communication and pointing out
disadvantages of continued hostility. Specific techniques may include roleplaying, sensitivity training, risk taking, and active listening.
3. Facilitation. When conflict exists, is detrimental, and is being avoided by
participants, the third-party’s goal may be to facilitate a confrontation. Often,
parties in conflict avoid facing one another in order to maintain the appearance
of harmony. In this case, the third party must specify potential disastrous
consequences, i.e., increase the stake (Thompson, 1976) of further conflict
avoidance.
Principles. It is impossible to eliminate conflict, and, probably undesirable to do so.
Yet, conflict must be managed to maintain constructive effects. Effective management
can be hastened by following these seven principles:
8-15
1. Focus and contain conflict where it is most easily managed. Locate and localize
before spending a lot of time examining external conditions. The
external/internal distinction allows different approaches for different settings.
Furthermore, managers should minimize internal conflict while optimizing
external conflict. Why? Because externalized conflicts motivate internal
cooperation; internal conflict reduces cooperation.
2. Control the level of threat. Threat is extreme when the “trust” climate is low.
When threat is perceived at severe, fear increases and avoidance is common.
This leads to isolation and increased conflict intensity. Supportive environments
reduce threat levels; defensive climates increase threat levels.
3. Clarify rules, norms, and policies for communication beyond formal channels.
Communication norms are generally not considered beyond the formal line
chart. Consequently, employees are often in a quandary when conflict exists
with a supervisor. Few policies can be all inclusive, and exceptions to the norm
are often the “norm!” Alternative approaches, beyond the hierarchy of authority
should be considered. If not, there will be a tendency to use power strategies
most often.
4. Identify conflict early. Generalized conflicts often begin in a more easily
managed, localized context. Ignoring localized conflict because it appears
unimportant is a costly mistake. Conflict may intensify and become disruptive.
5. Balance dependencies. Organizational structure is usually based on mutual
dependence, both horizontally and vertically. Conflicts are difficult to manage
when parties perceive little mutual dependence. This often occurs when
supervisors and subordinates feel the other is not needed to accomplish goals.
In this case, there is little motivation to settle conflicts constructively.
6. Evaluate motivational preferences. Motivational theorists indicate that
individuals develop styles of motivation. Some people are intrinsically motivated
(i.e., personal needs or from within) while others are extrinsically motivated (i.e.,
8-16
by externally applied pressure); and, some are motivated by a combination of
both. Thus, one’s locus of motivation will have an impact on the effectiveness of
particular strategies.
7. Use the appropriate strategy. This may be obvious, yet the “best” alternative
may not be readily apparent. Successful management requires knowing which
strategy to use and when to use it. These considerations require consideration
of liabilities and assets associated with power, compliance, and creative
alternatives. Simultaneously, the conflict manager must be aware of their
personal management bias or preferred style. One’s style predisposes behavior
in a certain direction and sometimes that approach is inappropriate. Strategy
should be based on location, subsystem, process, content, and function.
Personal Conflict Management Styles
Over time individual behaviors become fixed and somewhat resistant to change.
People tend to use those behaviors that “work” when managing their social affairs.
Likewise, they adopt preferred ways of managing conflict. In fact, personal preference
for communication behavior influences whether conflict is escalated, maintained,
reduced, or avoided (Frost and Wilmot, 1978). At the simplest level, personal conflict
management style can be characterized by the participants’ desires to satisfy their own
interests and the interests of the party with whom they are in conflict (Thomas, 1976).
(Figure 8-2 is an adaptation of Thomas’ [1976] conceptualization of style using
descriptions from the a uthors and Buckholz, Lashbrook, and Wenburg [1976]).
Neglector. The neglector is low is assertiveness and responsiveness. They
tend to be critical, indecisive, stuffy, picky, moralistic, serious, exacting, and orderly.
These characteristics may lead to excessive delays in managing conflict. As a result,
this behavior reflects avoidance and neglect (Sillars, 1982; Thomas, 1976).
Accommodator. Accommodators are low in assertiveness, yet very
responsive. They are accommodative, seeking to satisfy another’s concerns while
avoiding their own needs (Thomas, 1976). Their orientation is to avoid conflict; that is,
8-17
they use a strategy of non-confrontation at all costs. Their communication is
characterized by denial, being indirect, ambiguous conversation in order to shift topics
away from disagreement. They are often amiable, conforming, unsure, ingratiating,
dependable, awkward, supportive, respectful, willing, and agreeable.
HIGH
Driver
Win-lose, Power
strategist,
dominator
Compromiser
Lose-lose strategist
Assertive Toward Own
Goals
LOW
Expressive
Win-win Creative
alternative,
strategist
Neglector
Avoidance,
slow paced,
analytic
Accommodator,
You-win,
appeasement
Figure 8-2
LOW
Responsiveness to Others
HIGH
Driver. The driver is low in responsiveness, but highly assertive toward
achieving his or her own goals. They seek to win at another’s expense. High-level
competition is a dominant activity. The driver is pushy, severe, tough, dominating,
harsh, strong willed, independent, practical, decisive, and efficient.
Compromiser. The compromiser takes a moderate position on responsiveness
and assertiveness. Compromisers reflect a blend of all other positions. Although they
feel are parties positions are important, they often view extended conflict as
dysfunctional and wish to reach reconciliation as expeditiously as possible.
Consequently, they frequently use lose-lose strategies so the organization can get on
with its activities.
8-18
Expressive. Expressives are high in assertiveness and responsiveness, skilled
at making intuitive judgments, excitable, undisciplined, dramatic, and friendly (Sillars,
1982). They opt for win-win strategies, seeking mutual satisfaction for all. They seek
agreement, endeavor to maximize trust, share information, and seek common ground
while attempting to maintain a positive, communicative climate. Thomas (1976)
described this behavior as beyond sharing or compromise, representing a desire to
fully satisfy or integrate the concerns of all parties and not taking advantage of another.
8-19