Styles of CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

Ekansh Garg

Roll No- 20 Semester – II

MBA-HRD Department of Commerce

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank Dr. A.K. Singh for his invaluable guidance in completing this project. It has been a great learning experience to put theoretical concepts into practice, and is something that will definitely help me in the future.

Ekansh GargMBA-HRD2014-2016

Contents

1. Introduction2. What is Conflict?3. Causes of Conflict4. Stages of Conflict5. Conflict management Styles6. a. Questionnaire b. Selection Key7. Objective of the study8. Data Collection9. Data Analysis 10. Research methodology11. Limitations

INTRODUCTION

Conflict management involves implementing strategies to limit the negative aspects of conflict and to increase the positive aspects of conflict at a level equal to or higher than where the conflict is taking place. Furthermore, the aim of conflict management is to enhance learning and group outcomes (effectiveness or performance in organizational setting). It is not concerned with eliminating all conflict or avoiding conflict. Conflict can be valuable to groups and organizations. It has been shown to increase group outcomes when managed properly.

What Is Conflict?• It is a process in which one party perceives that its interests are being

opposed or negatively affected by another party.• The interactive process manifested in incompatibility, disagreement, or

dissonance within or between social entities

Causes of Conflict

There are various causes of conflict. Amongst these are:

• scarcity of resources (finance, equipment, facilities, etc) • different attitudes, values or perceptions • disagreements about needs, goals, priorities and interests • poor communication • poor or inadequate organisational structure • lack of teamwork • lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities

Stages of Conflict

There are five stages in a conflict. These are latent conflict, perceived conflict, felt conflict, manifest conflict, and conflict aftermath.

(i) Latent Conflict: The first stage of conflict is latent conflict in which the factors that could become a cause of potential conflict exist. These are the dry for autonomy, divergence of goals, role conflict and the competition for scarce resources.

(ii) Perceived conflict: Sometimes a conflict arises even if no latent conflict is present. In this stage one party perceived the others to be likely to thwart or frustrate his or her goals. The case, in which conflict is perceived when no latent conflict arises, is used to result from the parties misunderstanding each other’s true position. Such conflict can be resolved by improving communication between the groups.

(iii) Felt Conflict: Felt conflict is the stage when the conflict is not only perceived but actually felt and cognized. For example, A may be aware that he is in serious argument with B over some policy. But this may not make. A tense or anxious and it may have no effect, whatsoever, on A’s affection towards B. The personalization of conflict is the mechanism which causes many people to be concerned with dysfunctions of conflict. In other words, it makes them feel the conflict.

There are two reasons for the personalization of the conflict:(i) The inconsistent demands on efficient organization and individual growth which is caused within the individual. Anxieties may also result from crisis or from extra-organizational pressures. Individuals need to vent these anxieties in order to maintain equilibrium.

(ii) Conflict becomes personalized when the whole personality of the individual is involved in the relationship. Hostile feelings are most

common in the intimate relations that characterize various institutions and residential colleges.

(iv) Manifest Conflict: Manifest conflict is the stage when the two parties engage in behaviour which evokes response from each other. The most obvious of these responses are open aggression, apathy, sabotage, withdrawal and perfect obedience to rules. Except for prison riots, political revolutions and extreme labour unrest, violence as a form of manifest conflict is rare. The motives towards violence may remain they tend to be expressed in less violent forms.

(v) Conflict Aftermath: The aftermath of a conflict may have positive or negative repercussion for the organization depending upon the how conflict is resolved. If the conflict is genuinely resolved to the satisfaction of all participants, the basis for more cooperative relationship may be laid or the participants in their drive for a more ordered relationship may focus on latent conflicts not previously perceived and dealt with. On the other hand, if the conflict is merely suppressed but not resolved, the latent conditions of conflict may be aggravated and explode in a more serious from until they are rectified. This conflict episode is called conflict aftermath.

Styles of Conflict Management

There are the five conflict management styles according to Thomas, K.W., and R.H. Kilmann:

1. Accommodating – This is when you cooperate to a high-degree, and it may be at our own expense, and actually work against our own goals, objectives, and desired outcomes.  This approach is effective when the other party is the expert or has a better solution.  It can also be effective for preserving future relations with the other party.

2. Competing – This is the “win-lose” approach.  You act in a very assertive way to achieve our goals, without seeking to cooperate with the other party, and it may be at the expense of the other party.    This approach may be appropriate for emergencies when time is of the essence, or when we need quick, decisive action, and people are aware of and support the approach.

3. Collaborating – This is where we partner or pair up with the other party to achieve both of our goals.  This is how we break free of the “win-lose” paradigm and seek the “win-win.”  This can be effective for complex scenarios where we need to find a novel solution.  This can also mean re-framing the challenge to create a bigger space and room for everybody’s ideas.  The downside is that it requires a high-degree of trust and reaching a consensus can require a lot of time and effort to get everybody on board and to synthesize all the ideas.

4. Compromising – This is the “lose-lose” scenario where neither party really achieves what they want.  This requires a moderate level of assertiveness and cooperation.  It may be appropriate for scenarios where

we need a temporary solution, or where both sides have equally important goals.   The trap is to fall into compromising as an easy way out, when collaborating would produce a better solution.

5. Avoiding -  This is when we simply avoid the issue.  We aren’t helping the other party reach their goals, and we aren’t assertively pursuing our own.  This works when the issue is trivial or when we have no chance of winning.   It can also be effective when the issue would be very costly.  It’s also very effective when the atmosphere is emotionally charged and we need to create some space. Sometimes issues will resolve themselves, but “hope is not a strategy”, and, in general, avoiding is not a good long term strategy.

Thomas-Killman Conflict Mode Instrument

\

High

ASSERTIVE

Low

Low Cooperative High

Questionnaire

Choose, from the following 30 pairs of statements, the one in each case which best fits your preferred style of handling differences between you and others:

1. (1) I am usually firm in pursuing my goals. (2) I attempt to get all concerns and issues immediately out in the open.

2. (1) I put my cards on the table and invite the other person to do likewise. (2) When conflicts arise I try to win my case.

3. (1) once I adopt a position I defend it strongly. (2) I prefer not to argue but to look for the best solution possible.

4. (1) I sometimes sacrifice my own wishes for the wishes of the other person. (2) I feel that differences are not always worth worrying about.

5. (1) I accept the views of the other, rather than rock the boat. (2) I avoid people with strong views.

6. (1) I like to co-operate with others and follow their ideas. (2) I feel that most things are not worth arguing about. I stick to my own ideas.

7. (1) I try to find some compromise situation. (2) I am usually firm in pursuing my goals.

8. (1) When conflicts arise I try to win my case. (2) I propose a middle ground.

9. (1) I like to meet the other person half-way. (2) Once I adopt a position I defend it strongly.

10.(1) I feel that differences are not always worth worrying about.(2) I try to find a compromise solution.

11.(1) I propose a middle ground.(2) I avoid people with strong views.

12.(1) I feel that most things are not worth arguing about. I stick to my own views.

(2) I like to meet the other person half-way.

13.(1) I am usually firm in pursuing my own goals.(2) I sometimes sacrifice my own wishes for the wishes of the other person.

14.(1) I accept the views of the other, rather than rock the boat.(2)When conflicts arise I try to win my case.

15.(1) Once I adopt a position I defend it strongly.(2) I like to co-operate with others and follow their ideas.

16.(1) I try to find a compromise solution.(2) I sometimes sacrifice my own wishes for the wishes of the other person.

17.(1) I would accept the views of the others, rather than rock the boat.(2) I propose a middle ground.

18.(1) I like to meet the other person half-way.(2) I like to co-operate with others and follow their ideas.

19.(1) I feel that differences are not always worth worrying about.(2) I am usually firm in pursuing my goals.

20.(1) When conflicts arise I try to win my case.(2) I avoid people with strong views.

21.(1) I feel that most things are not worth arguing about. I stick to my own views. (2)Once I adopt a position I defend it strongly.

22.(1) I attempt to get all concerns and issues immediately out in the open.(2) I feel that differences are not always worth worrying about.

23.(1) I avoid people with strong views.(2) I put my cards on the table and invite the other people to do likewise.

24.(1) I prefer not to argue but to look for the best solution possible.

(2) I feel that most things are not worth arguing about. I stick to my own views.

25.(1) I attempt to get all concerns and issues immediately out in the open.(2) I try to find a compromise solution.

26.(1) I put my cards on the table and invite the other person to do so.(2) I propose a middle ground.

27.(1) I prefer not to argue but I look for the best solution possible.(2) I like to meet the other person half-way.

28.(1) I sometimes sacrifice my own wishes for the wishes of the other person.(2) I attempt to get all concerns and issues immediately out in the open.

29.(1) I put my cards on the table and invite the other person to do likewise.(2) I would accept the views of others, rather than rock the boat.

30.(1) I like to co-operate with others and follow their ideas.(2) I prefer not to argue but to look for the best possible solution.

Selection Key

Statement Pair Conflict Resolution Made

A B C D E

1 1 2

2 2 1

3 1 2

4 2 1

5 2 1

6 2 1

7 1 2

8 2 1

9 1 2

10 1 2

11 2 1

12 1 2

13 2 1

14 1 2

15 2 1

16 2 1

17 1 2

18 2 1

19 1 2

20 2 1

21 1 2

22 2 1

23 1 2

24 2 1

25 2 1

26 2 1

27 2 1

28 1 2

29 2 1

30 1 2

TOTALS

A B C D E

Objectives of Study

• To determine the style of conflict management from among the Five i.e. Accommodating, Compromising, Collaborating, Avoidance and Competitive.

• To analyze the responses between males and females. • To analyze the responses of students and working professionals

Data Collection

The data was collected by primary sources through an online survey, link of which was mailed to the respondents.

Sample consisted of students and working professionals between 19 to 32 years of age

Sample Size – 100

Data Analysis

The data collected was analyzed further to obtain the conflict management style of the male, females, students and working professionals

Accommodating Competing Collaborating Compromising Avoiding

Males 12 10 8 7 7

Females 13 11 10 10 12

Hypothesis Testing 1

• Statistical Tool: Chi Square Test

• Null Hypothesis: Ho : There is no significant difference between the conflict management style of males and females.

• Alternate Hypothesis : H1: There is significant difference between the conflict management style of males and females.

• Level of Significance: 0.05

Accommodating Competing Collaborating Compromising Avoiding

Males 12 10 8 7 7

Females 13 11 10 10 12

Chi Square contingency table for observed frequencies (fo)

Chi Square Table for Expected Frequencies (fe) Accommodating Competing Collaborating Compromising Avoiding

Males 11 9.24 7.92 7.46 8.36

Females 14 11.8 10.1 9.52 10.6

Calculations:For:LOS: 0.05• Degrees of Freedom : 4 • X2 critical= .725• Calculating value of X2calculated= ∑ (fo - fe)2/ fe = 0.742 Conclusion: Since X2calculated > X2critical , we can reject the null hypothesis that the

responses of males and females do vary significantly

Hypothesis Testing 2

• Statistical Tool : Chi Square Test

• Null Hypothesis: Ho : There is no significant difference between the conflict management style of professionals and students.

• Alternate Hypothesis : H1 : There is significant difference between the conflict management style of professionals and students.

• Level of Significance : 0.05

Chi Square contingency table for observed frequencies (fo)Accommodating Competing Collaborating Compromisin

gAvoiding

Professionals 12 11 9 11 13

Students 9 11 8 7 9

Chi Square Table for Expected Frequencies (fe)

Accommodating Competing Collaborating Compromising

Avoiding

Professionals 11.8 12.3 9.52 10.1 12.3

Students 9.24 9.68 7.48 7.92 9.68

Calculations:For: LOS: 0.05

• Degrees of Freedom : 4• X2 critical= .673

• Calculating value of X2calculated= ∑ (fo - fe)2/ fe = 0.666

Conclusion:Since X2calculated< X2 critical , we can accept the null hypothesis that the responses Professionals and students does not vary significantly

Limitations

• Small sample size may cause errors a it may not be the actual representation of the universe.

• Unequal number of samples in each group can give skewed results.• The results might suffer form individual biases and prejudices.