3. CONFLICT MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
When the needs, aims, or values of the parties concerned disagree with each other, there is conflict which at work is frequent and unavoidable as harsh as it sounds. Different members of the team could have varying priorities/opinions, and conflicts could arise between team members, departments, projects, an organization, a client, a boss and a subordinate, or the needs of the company versus those of a worker. As explained conflicts frequently arise as a result of different perceptions on a variety of matters, but conflicts also offer a chance for development. Therefore, it's crucial to comprehend (and use) a variety of conflict resolution strategies to be able to handle conflict but also use it to your advantage. The basic face-negotiation theory by Ting-Toomey (1988) and the competing theory among team members to manage intergroup conflict by Cohen and Ledford (1994) are two examples of historical conflict management strategies. Another strategy that is frequently cited is the Thomas and Killman 5 model strategy (1974) . These five approaches are the basic ones that managers need to consider when they try to resolve problems: Forcing/Competing This technique is best used when there is opposition from the other person, and especially when they persistently pursue their own issues. By using this technique, you will be supporting one point of view at the expense of another or standing your ground against someone else's behaviour. Collaborating Collaboration entails making an effort to work with the other person to find a solution to the current issue that best addresses the needs of both sides. The win-win strategy views resolution of disputes as an opportunity to reach a win-win outcome. Finding a solution that addresses the needs of both parties involves understanding the fundamental issues of your adversary. This technique is used mostly as the first tool for the resolution of a disagreement. If collaborating doesn’t work, then it’s better to continue with other techniques that may not being win/win outcomes . Compromising The goal is to find a quick, amicable solution that only partially meets the needs of both sides . Examples of situations in which compromise may be necessary: When a problem is not that major and not worth using more forceful or complicated strategies, such collaborating or forcing To temporarily resolve problems that need a long time to find a solution To quickly resolve significant problems that it is worth compromising for When collaboration or forcing do not work as a first step and the persons concerned do not know each other well or do not yet have a high level of mutual trust. Withdrawing This occurs when a person does not advance either their own interests or that of the one that he is having a conflict with. He or she avoids, defers, or just withdraws from the problem instead of resolving it . Smoothing Smoothing means emphasizing other people's concerns over one's own by putting their needs before your own . Smoothing is appropriate when: When it is crucial to diffuse a situation temporarily or to buy some time until you are in a stronger position to react or push back. But you need to be sure that by putting others’ needs before your own you don’t permanently damage your case. When the situation doesn't matter to you as much as it does to the other person When you acknowledge that you are mistaken When there is no other option or when a protracted argument might be harmful Benefits of smoothing: Smoothing can sometimes be used to safeguard more vital interests while sacrificing some less important ones. Provides a chance to reconsider the situation from a different perspective. Generally, doesn't involve a lot of effort.