Conflict Management

There are several conflict management frameworks available. In this unit, we discuss three frameworks of conflict management:

• Thomas’ framework

•Pareek’s framework

•Contingency framework

• Thomas’s framework

In this framework, the primary conflict management tactics are identified in two dimensions – cooperativeness (the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy other party’s concerns) and assertiveness (the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns). There are five conflict management tactics: competing (assertive and uncooperative), collaborating (assertive and cooperative), avoiding(unassertive and cooperative), accommodating (unassertive and cooperative) and compromising (midrange on both assertiveness and cooperativeness). Fig. shows these dimensions of conflict management.
 

Dimensions of Conflict-handling Intentions − Thomas’ Framework

We now explain these in brief.

• Competing: In this, a person desires to satisfy one’s own interests,regardless of the impact on the other party in the conflict.

• Collaborating: A situation in which each party to a conflict desires to satisfy fully the concerns of all parties.

• Avoiding: It is the desire of a person to withdraw from a conflicting situation or suppress it.

• Accommodating: In order to maintain the relationship, one party may be willing to be self-sacrificing.

• Compromising: In this situation, each party to a conflicting situation is willing to give and take something.

• Pareek’s Framework

This framework proposes eight styles of conflict management based on two modes: avoidance modes (avoiding or postponing conflicts) and
approach modes (aggressive or confrontationist conflicts) (Fig.).

Pareek’s Conflict Management Framework

a) Avoidance Modes: There are four main avoidance styles:

• Resignation: This is the extreme avoidance mode with a sense of helplessness.

• Withdrawal: In this form of avoidance, the attempt is to get away from the conflict.

• Defusion: The main objective of the defusion mode of conflict resolution is to buy time for dealing with a conflict.

• Appeasement: The main objective is to buy temporary peace. As a result, conflict remains unresolved and situation deteriorates further.

b) Approach Modes: There are also four styles under this mode:

• Confrontation: Confrontation is fighting on an issue to get a solution in one’s favour. This style involves coercion and is likely to fail to reach a solution.

• Compromise: This is the process of sharing the gain without resolving the conflict.

• Arbitration: In this case, third party may be sought to assess the conflicting situation objectively and give an award acceptable to both the parties.

• Negotiation: The most satisfactory solution can emerge only when both groups jointly confront the problem and explore alternative
solutions.

During the conflict situation, the in-group and out-group are addressed as we and they. Out-group is considered to have interest opposed to in-group and the former is seen as belligerent. Then conflict seems to be inevitable. But if the out-group is perceived distracted or disinterested, conflict may not arise.Once conflict has surfaced, out-group may still be perceived in two ways – open to reason (interested in listening, holding a dialogue and solving the problem) and unreasonable (not amenable to logic and hence a low probability of solution).

The avoidance mode is based on fear and results in defensive behaviour like rationalisation, emotional displacement and anger. Approach mode is based on positive psychology characterised by effort to find solution with the help of others. We briefly describe the avoidance and approach styles.Avoidance styles: Extreme avoidance of conflict happens when the out- group is belligerent and unreasonable. This results in a sense of helplessness. However, if the out-group is perceived interested in power, avoidance takes place in a manner that opportunity for interaction is minimum. However, when out-group is perceived as open to reason, avoidance takes the positive form of withdrawal from the conflict. If both groups are interested in peace, they may suppress the conflict and hide hurt feelings and losses. Under the avoidance mode no conflict gets resolved.

Approach styles: Conflict management may vary from very aggressive approach to a very positive and constructive approach. If in-group perceives the out-group both as opposed to its interest and unreasonable, in-group members fight for solution in their favour. This is also called the ‘win-lost trap’.This is where parties use confrontation style. If out-group is perceived as unreasonable but interested in peace, compromise is used. When out-group is perceived as belligerent but open to reason, arbitration or third party intervention is considered appropriate. When parties are reasonable, having their own interest but keen to arrive at a peaceful solution, negotiation will be the most appropriate strategy.
 

•Contingency Framework
Contingency framework for conflict management proposes three main strategies: collaboration, bargaining and power play. It suggests that collaboration is best suited when relationship between the parties is of an interdependent nature, cost of unresolved conflict is very high and organisation supports the open expression of disagreements and working on the same.

Bargaining works fine when parties are interested in showing adjustment.It is used as a mechanism to allocate scarce resources and usually invoked for arriving at a formal agreement. Bargaining is also effective in situations where parties to disagreement use either collaboration or power play and fail to arrive an agreement; bargain works for them as a middle path.

Power play is used to deal with conflict through striking balance between competing forces. This strategy works well with people who are well versed in using power tactics.Negotiation is the greatest weapon and used only when various processes have matured. It may not always be a desirable mode for resolving conflict.However, it is a constructive mode of conflict management. Parties involved in conflict may like to move towards negotiation mode eventually as negotiation recognises the power and willingness of both parties to resolve the problem in mutually beneficial way.

Contingency Model of Conflict Management

Two variables seem to influence the choice of mode or strategies: Integration of the in-group and criticality of the issue. If the group is not well integrated,negotiation may not be an appropriate strategy. If the group is internally divided, the group conflict may further worsen under the threat of out-group. A group would risk negotiation only when the issue of the conflict is very central to the group. Non-substantive issues may not get that much energy of the group (Fig.).

Integration of the in-group and criticality of the conflict may vary from low to high. As the two variables approach high, approach strategies of conflict management may become more relevant and eventually parities may move towards negotiation. Movement towards negotiation may be through compromise or through third party intervention, who can facilitate the process  of negotiation. Adoption of negotiation may be a gradual process and parties may take their own time to understand and proceed towards that.