Conflict
"Conflict is unavoidable in any team" (Yeatts, 1998). Research suggests that in some organizations, supervisors and managers spend 60% of their time dealing with conflict. And, while perhaps it may not be this high in the emergency service environment, with the changing demographics of agency membership, and the fact that in the emergency service, people frequently do spend 24 hours straight with other team members, there is likely to be a certain amount of conflict.
While many assume that conflict is "bad" for the team and for the organization, this is not necessarily the case. Conflict, within reasonable limits, can actually be healthy and productive.
Interestingly enough, the Chinese symbol for conflict or crisis has two characters. They translate into the words "danger" and "opportunity" (Zucco-Gatlin, 2000).
So, what is the meaning of these two symbols and words? Well, unhealthy conflict and unresolved conflict can lead to organizational climate issues, lowered morale and lowered productivity ---- along with greater stress and potentially, a greater turnover in personnel. We also know, even from reading the newspapers, conflict can result in workplace violence and its consequences. These are among the "dangers" associated with conflict.
Conversely, conflict does provide opportunities: opportunities to make needed and/or healthy changes, a more positive environment, more open and honest communication and heightened morale, and productivity. Hence, it is important that the supervisors recognize potential conflicts and deal constructively with those that in fact develop.
The literature identifies any number of potential sources of conflict; perhaps the most common particularly in the work environment entail differences of opinion regarding facts or data, methods or policies, goals or purposes, and values and beliefs. Of course, there are also personality conflicts as well.
While the first two categories of conflict tend to be more readily resolved by consulting the official documents and records (such as leave records, time sheets, calendars, call back lists, etc.) and official policy and procedures (such as standard operating procedures or standard operating guidelines, personnel handbooks, etc.), the last three types of conflict may present greater challenges. Monitor the complainant's attitude to be certain he or she is "okay" with the official version; there is the need to verify the accuracy of the official documents and perhaps, continue diffusion of any left over emotion and/or tension.
Goals, purposes, beliefs, values, and philosophies tend to be somewhat more internalized than the "facts" or "policy issues" identified above; that is because there may be strong beliefs and/or feelings associated with them and/or the mental determination to create change. The best way to address these types of conflict is through common conflict resolution processes. The same is true regarding personality conflicts; they too tend to be more difficult to resolve. As a supervisor, you must address these conflicts.
Five Conflict Resolution Styles
While there are many variations in terminology for the five basic conflict resolution styles, those that follow are among the more common. Review the five conflict resolution styles below.
Before we begin let's make some basic assumptions: There is no one "best" style of conflict resolution for all situations; each style has its appropriate use depending upon the situation. In selecting the style, be aware of its advantages, disadvantages, and potential drawbacks. Elect to use the style that is most appropriate for the specific situation.
- Avoiding
"Avoidance" entails refusing to acknowledge up front the existence of the conflict. It may be reflective of an "If I ignore it, maybe it will go away" mentality. It may entail a deliberate postponement of intervention until one or more parties is willing to discuss the issue more rationally. However, when used consistently, avoidance is reflective of a management style that is not concerned with people nor with results.
- Accommodating
Accommodating is a style of conflict resolution in which the supervisor's/leader's interests are sacrificed to satisfy someone else's. When used regularly, it reflects a management style that is primarily concerned about people (human relations) at the potential expense of results.
Appropriate uses - Compromising
Compromising is an attempt to find some middle ground that partially satisfies both sides and adequately addresses the issue. Each side "gives" – and presumably each side gains and "gives" in nearly equal amounts.
If used regularly, compromising reflects a management style that has a moderate level of concern for both people and results.
Appropriate uses
Compromise is used most effectively when the issue is too volatile for collaboration or when opponents with equal power are immovable and are attached to mutually exclusive positions.
Compromise is also effective when a temporary resolution is required pending further research, discussion, collaboration or when a solution is needed "now," as collaboration typically requires more time.
It is also appropriate when other styles could further jeopardize goals (or safety, institutional, or legal requirements).
Advantages
Compromise is less time consuming than collaboration; it does result in each side "getting something" and both sides are represented in effecting the resolution.
Drawbacks
Unfortunately compromise does not necessarily promote "team effectiveness," as there are still the two sides; it can result in further division of those involved - a "we" vs. "they" dichotomy. There may be a perception by each side that the other received more than "half the loaf." Neither side's interests are fully met. And, the best resolution/decision may be lost in the bargaining.
Compromise is only a partial "win-win" solution; there is still the "lose-lose" present.
- Competing
Competing is a style of conflict management and resolution that entails pursuing your own concerns at the other's expense. Competing entails an authoritarian/autocratic approach to conflict management. When used regularly, competing reflects a style of management that focuses upon and has a high concern for results and a low concern for people.
Appropriate uses
There are appropriate uses. Perhaps the most obvious is when quick action or an immediate decision is required as in an emergency situation. It may be used when facing an unanticipated imminent deadline.
Sometimes it is used to protect individuals and the organization from those who would take advantage of others and/or of the situation, on issues vital to the organizational mission and compatible goals are not shared by others, and when neither collaboration nor compromise seems to be working and a decision is of the essence.
Sometimes it must be used on issues involving unpopular decisions that must be enforced and on vital issues when you are sure you are right and others appear not to agree nor to be inclined to participate meaningfully in collaboration.
Drawbacks
When used, the competing approach curtails exploration of new approaches or ideas. Your goals are achieved at the expense of others' feelings and ideas. It is a "win-lose" solution; you "win," they "lose." When used frequently the latter may result in a legacy of bitterness and/or resentment and in minimum commitment (and little motivation).
When used frequently, it often requires additional effort at a later point (i.e. competing is a temporary solution at best).
- Collaborating
Collaboration is a style of conflict management in which everyone actively attempts to devise a solution that fully addresses the primary needs of both (all) sides. It is the preferred style of conflict resolution involving emotional issues, goals, values, and philosophies or if personality issues are involved. Used regularly, collaboration reflects a management style that is high in concern for people and results. Collaboration results in a "win-win" solution.
Appropriate uses
Collaboration is the preferred style of conflict resolution when the issue is too important to compromise, when commitment is desirable necessary/critical, and when the issue is highly controversial and/or emotional. Additionally it is often the preferred style when others share organizational goals and to explore alternative courses of action to reach a permanent solution when time to reach a decision or resolution is not a critical factor.
It is the desirable process to use when there is no clearly defined policy or best decision and when the issue is complex.
Drawbacks
Collaboration takes time and effort and requires sincere and active participation of others. It requires a willingness to work toward a true resolution and the willingness to put the best resolution for all concerned or for the problem before one's personal interests and/or "political" popularity.
Appropriate uses of avoidance
Appropriate uses of avoidance include using it when the issue is trivial and/or inconsequential and the probabilities of its growing out of proportion are nonexistent or minimal. It is appropriate when the risks of involvement outweigh the gains. Sometimes it is deliberately used when more information is needed before intervention or when the "issue" is symptomatic of a larger problem (preferably already under discussion).
It might also be appropriate when others can resolve the conflict more effectively or when you honestly lack the power or influence to intervene successfully.
Drawbacks
Avoidance restricts potentially constructive input from all parties and it denies others your input. It prevents creative problem solving. Important issues may be settled and decisions made by default. Sometimes too much of your energy is put into avoidance rather than in confronting the conflict and dealing with the issue.
Typically, avoidance is at best a temporary solution to be used when seeking additional information or, as mentioned earlier, when the underlying issues are already being addressed. Avoidance tends to be a "lose-lose" solution.
When you have made a mistake and are wrong accommodation is the ethical approach. Accommodation might also be used when the issue matters more to the other person(s) and "giving in" is a viable solution. It is sometimes used to build up "credits" when the issue is of little consequence. Accommodation is also used when harmony is a top priority and goals are not jeopardized.
Sometimes it is used to let others learn from a mistake; use it for this reason judiciously. Never use accommodation if: the goals, mission, and /or values of the organization are jeopardized, safety is jeopardized, institutional or legal mandates are compromised, or ethical standards are compromised.
Drawbacks
In using accommodation, your side's interests may not be met. It can result in stressful relationships. Accommodation tends to be a "win-lose" resolution: they "win" and you "lose."
While there are primarily five approaches to or styles of resolving conflicts, and while there are appropriate uses for each, certainly the more productive ones in the long run inin terms of building and maintaining effective teams are collaboration and compromise.
Collaboration is typically the more productive of the two. Why? Because disputants reach a mutual decision regarding the resolution of the conflict, it produces a win-win resolution in which both support the resolution, and neither side nor neither party perceives itself as the "winner" or the "loser."
Sometimes values and philosophies, and some personality conflicts, can only be addressed by compromise. Each side or party gets something; each side or party gives something.
While compromise is better than pretending the conflict does not exist and ignoring it completely, there are some dangers --- and many of them rest with "perceptions." While the objective of compromise may be to "cut the loaf in half," the perception on the part of one or both may well be that "the other side or person got more." This can leave an undercurrent of mistrust and/or disgust. Emotions and beliefs that are not healthy in trying to build and maintain effective teams and can fester and resurface.
Returning to the "loaf of bread analogy," when you try to cut the loaf in half, you may lose some crumbs. And in reference to the conflict, the "crumbs" may actually have been the real source of conflict…While usually it is the supervisor who must intervene in the conflict, there are other approaches being tried.
Many organizations are implementing in-house alternative dispute resolution programs (including peer mediation) designed to resolve conflicts, be they between employees or between employees and managers. Alternative dispute resolution is any procedure used to resolve issues of controversy, including but not limited to conciliation, facilitation, mediation, fact finding, use of ombudsmen and peer mediation. The advantages of such an in-house program and particularly peer mediation are obvious. Most importantly, peer mediation (or many other in-house procedures) not only addresses the conflict at the lowest level possible but creates ownership for conflict prevention, conflict management, and conflict resolution. It emphasizes the relationship between the parties, respect for the individuals involved, and collaborative resolution. In-house resolution, especially peer processes, actually contributes to teambuilding and trust.
Resolution
Whether or not peer mediation or some other in house procedure is used, there are several things to keep in mind in dealing with conflict. First of all, we want an effective resolution. An effective resolution should efficiently meet the interests of all concerned parties and improve or at least not damage the relationship of the concerned parties to one another. Why worry about each party? Because they need to work together!
Secondly, we want to focus on the common interests of the parties. Quite often if we listen and make a few inquiries, we find that the parties involved really want the same thingÂ…perhaps just looking at it from different perspectives. And if what they do want is different, it provides the opportunity for us to look at the issue from another perspective. If you meet with the individual parties prior to bringing them together, find out what each side sees as a resolution. If the proposed resolution is not likely (i.e. personality conflicts) ask what other alternatives might be available. Often when talking to them individually, you'll find both want essentially the same outcome as suggested above. Then bring them together. Establish the ground rules. Each side should be allowed to summarize their feelings and points of view. Then ask each what a viable resolution might be. Brainstorm if necessary. As a third party, if you've learned from your individual conversations with the disputants what the commonalities in a resolution might be, suggest them if the parties seem unable to communicate their respective ideas to one another. As the third party, always seek commitment from each to accept and abide by the resolution. End the interaction on a positive note.
One note of caution: Before attempting to talk with them, be certain any strong emotion is at least partially if not totally defused. All too often in an attempt to "quickly" resolve the problem and move on, we fail to deal with the emotional attributes of the conflict and calmly going through the steps can become nearly impossible.
Conflict: danger and/or opportunity. As a supervisor don't ignore conflict. Deal with it promptly and professionally.
|
References
D. E. Yeatts &C. Hyten, High-performing, self-managed work teams. Thousand Oaks: Sage , 1998 , as reported in Muchinsky p. 292
Original source unknown. Incorporated into the student manual written by Karen Zucco-Gatlin for use in FSA 313, Fire Service Administrators' Institute, Western Oregon University, Monmouth, Oregon, 2000.
FESHE Course: Personnel Management for the Fire and Emergency Services, Version 1.0, Winter 2007©
Page last updated:
November 15, 2007