Conflict Resolution Strategies

Given the wide range of generational, emotional, communication, and work style variations, conflict in the workplace is inevitable. According to Margaret Heffernan, for good ideas and true innovation, you need human interaction, conflict, argument, and debate. Therefore, conflict is not always a bad thing.

My boss and I used to fight all the time at our last job over what policies should be implemented, which ones should come first, how to increase revenue, productivity, and employee satisfaction, and pretty much anything else. Despite our many arguments, we were happy to work together for a very long period since we were complementary to one another. We will eventually find a medium ground when I provide my completely left-field ideas to all his sensible suggestions. Because of our disagreements, we were able to solve difficulties in novel ways. It also meant that we trusted and appreciated one another enough to express our opinions honestly.

So, rather than discouraging disagreement at work, promote it. But make sure they're resolved correctly. We will talk about several conflict resolution strategies in various situations in this blog. 

The Thomas Kilmann Model 

In the 1970s, K.W. Thomas, and R.H. Kilmann proposed a model with five different conflict resolution styles. These five styles were based on two behavioural standpoints –

Assertiveness – The strength of your commitment to your standpoint and the extent you are ready to go in support of that.

Cooperativeness – The strength of your connection with the other person and the extent you are willing to test its boundaries.

These define the five major conflict resolution models –

Competing – Extremely self-assured and uncooperative. Your perspective supersedes everyone else's.

Collaborating – Highly cooperative and assertive at the same time. To find a solution that pleases everyone, you present your points of view persuasively while also being willing to hear what others have to say and consider it.

Compromising – Being cooperative and assertive in part. You freely express your opinions while also being receptive to hearing what others have to say to reach a compromise that satisfies everyone.

Accommodating – Low on assertion but high on cooperation. You are hesitant to express your opinions. Instead, you encourage others to share their views.

Avoiding – Low on collaboration and insistence. This essentially represents a deadlock situation in which you have little interest in sharing your ideas with others or listening to theirs.

Each of these five conflict resolution techniques has a place in the workplace and can be applied when circumstances call for it. Let us examine some real-world instances of each style's use. We will use a project lifecycle as a framework for our examples. The project has various stakeholders including clients, the project manager, solution architects, the delivery team, and the quality assurance team. You are the project manager in each of these scenarios and you must choose one of these conflict resolution techniques.  

Accommodation

It is critical to ensure everyone on the team feels comfortable sharing ideas early in the project, while they are still getting to know one another. You most likely know in part what is the correct course of action, but you still want other people to speak up. Therefore, you decide on an accommodating approach to dispute resolution to encourage the expression of the unique opinions of each team member or stakeholder.

It is also possible that you genuinely do not know what is correct to do when the project first starts, in which case you want to make sure you hear all viewpoints, so you have the best chance of selecting the optimal course of action.

To put it concisely, you employ accommodation when:

·      You seek a mutually agreeable solution;

·      You are unsure of your own position; or

·      The relationships matter more than the final result.

At the same time, you should be aware that:

·      You could lose the respect of your team if you do not participate with actionable suggestions;

·      You run the risk of leading the team down a path they cannot reverse, potentially derailing the entire project; or

·      You could lose motivation by taking a path you were not originally willing to take.

Therefore, only employ this strategy if you are certain that the conflict's resolution will not have a persistent or long-term effect.

Avoidance

Once the team has built some rapport and the project is chugging along, there will be times when two or more team members argue over the right way to approach a specific problem. If you want to stay clear of the conflict and want them to work it out among themselves, so that you do not appear biased, you can use the avoidance technique. Knowing that there is an issue going on, you might not engage or even refuse to get involved.

This strategy may also be employed if you are unsure about the circumstances and need some time to clear things out in your own mind before taking action.

Use avoidance strategies in the following situations:

·      You need time to cool down before engaging in what could be an emotionally charged talk;

·      Others might resolve the matter amicably without your involvement; or

·      Getting involved might cause more problems than fix them.

Like accommodating, avoidance can also lead to similar problems:  

·      You incite animosity among team members due to your incapacity to settle disputes;

·      The project is delayed because the team is unable to come to a consensus; or

·      The situation worsens and the relationship completely breaks down.

If at all feasible, you should explain to your team why you are trying to avoid a crisis and establish boundaries for the amount of time or severity at which you would be willing to intervene.

Compromising

The client requests a change halfway through the project, which will create a brief delay. Because the modification is essential to their operation the customer is adamant that it be included and you are required to keep the same deadlines. One way to reach a compromise would be to accept the change at a greater cost to the customer and use the money to cover overtime so that the team can meet the deadlines. You have made a compromise because you recognise how important the situation is and you want to make sure your team gets fairly compensated for the additional work they will be doing.

The staff is not pleased about working overtime, even with extra compensation, when you inform them of this decision. You make a concession and give them both overtime and compensatory time off to be utilised later.

You compromise when,

·      You find yourself in a scenario where you and the other person are equally dedicated to opposing courses of action;

·      Time is of the essence and you cannot engage in a protracted dispute; or

·      You realise that consensus is impossible.

Compromise may also result in,

·      You and the other party harbouring resentment towards one another;

·      The final solution may be inadequate and fail to address the original problem; or

·      Both sides failed to comprehend the problem fully and arrived at a compromise based on incorrect assumptions.

Make sure there is no way around the compromise before making it. Do not doubt yourself once you have made the compromise, and do not bring it up every chance you get.

Collaboration

You present your idea of how a functionality should work in every planning session with the client or the team, but you also give the client and the team equal opportunity to share their thoughts. You make sure the other side has a chance to express their viewpoint and that your ideas and arguments are thoroughly heard. You talk and rework until you are satisfied that the approach you have chosen for the feature under discussion is the best one. To prevent the final solution from becoming biased, every planning meeting needs to be collaborative. 

Working together guarantees

·      You select the most creative, more efficient solution;

·      All parties give their support and commitment; or

·      The relationship and the solution are equally crucial.

You also need to be mindful of

·      The discussion becomes more contentious and offends one or both parties before reaching consensus;

·      You keep going back to the same spot without making any progress; or

·      You allow the talk to go on past a reasonable amount of time just in an attempt to reach consensus.  

Collaborating together is only possible if everyone is dedicated to achieving the best result. When employing cooperation as a dispute resolution strategy, make sure to balance the possible advantages against the time required to get to a consensus.

Competing

As the project nears its finish line, your solution architect has found that certain areas of the code use improper programming practices. According to what your quality assurance team has told you, every feature functions as it should. You firmly told the architect that you would not be reworking the code at this time and that you would be solely responsible for any issues that arise after go-live, but that you would not risk the go-live in order to resolve technical debt.

You use competing model when,

·      An unpopular action needs to be taken;

·      A speedy decision needs to be made; or

·      Your outcome matters more in the grand scheme of things.

This can lead to,

·      A strained relationship between the parties;

·      A decrease in the other party's commitment because they believe their viewpoint is not being heard; or

·      A potential escalation to higher authorities.

As competition is divisive in nature, it should only be used when time is of the essence. In the long term, using it too often or in insignificant situations will cause the relationship to break down. 

A good rule of thumb is to use these strategies in the following percentages through the project life cycle,

·      Accommodating – 25%

·      Avoiding – 5%

·      Compromising – 25%

·      Collaborating – 40%

·      Competing – 5%

It might be worth keeping track of important decision and their conflict resolution category so that you can keep an eye on them before resentment builds in the project.

If you need more help in identifying the right technique for conflict resolution, feel free to reach out to me.