We all tend to think that we are good at some basic daily tasks, and managing disagreements is one of them. Time after time, we face conflicts big and small and handle them with varying degrees of success. Yet, since they are the things of the past, you have somehow settled them so that you can do it. That’s how the reasoning goes.
Lifeline In The Sea Of Conflict
Some people are born negotiators and mediators, and maybe you are one of them. It’s good news because a person who can tame a conflict when it’s just starting is a welcomed member of working teams and informal communities. But what to do if you feel that your conflict management experience is very modest and comes down to avoid an unpleasant conversation or situation at all costs?
Well, the most reasonable solution is to improve conflict resolution skills with help of a reliable provider and face the next disagreement in full armor. Yes, the most surprising part for you may be that dealing with conflicts properly can be learned, like languages or swimming. So, with every next challenging situation you’ve helped to settle, you will become a better conflict manager, just like a swimmer becomes a decorated professional with every distance conquered and a personal sports record broken. Ready to take the plunge?
What types of conflict-solving exist?
Essentially, you’ll find 5 types of approaches that work with various outcomes, beneficial to one party, all parties, or none. We will tell you about all types of conflict resolution, describe their weaknesses and strengths, and in what situations it is better to use a particular strategy.
Avoiding or ignoring the conflict –
it is a different style of dealing with conflicts. The reasoning goes along the line that the conflict will somehow solve itself or get forgotten if ignored. Unfortunately, it is not true. This strategy can be helpful either when the subject of the conflict is not very important or when it is not necessary to maintain a long-term relationship with the other conflict party. But in a long-term relationship, the problem will grow like a snowball every following day. Nobody benefits from this approach because sooner or later, you will have to deal with it.
Accommodating or giving in –
you accept all demands of the person or party that started the conflict to avoid exclamation, even if the demands are unreasonable or unacceptable. You lose, someone wins, and the situation is ruined. If it’s a conflict with a random customer who will never visit your shop again, it’s one thing. If you plan to continue working with this person or team, expect to get an endless stream of wild demands because they have tasted your blood and liked it, so to speak.
Compromising or going tit for tat –
you succumb to something, and the other conflicting party does the same. Everyone is dissatisfied, but the conflict is closed. Some of the demands of each party are satisfied, so another conflict will not happen too soon.
Although a compromise takes into account the interests of all conflicting parties, and this outcome can be called fair, in most cases – a compromise can only be seen as an intermediate stage of conflict resolution before finding a final solution.
Compromise is often perceived as the fairest solution. The disadvantages of a compromise strategy are that one side may, for example, increase its claims to appear magnanimous later or surrender its position much earlier than the other.
Competing or pushing the pedal –
You ram the other party with your schedule and demands until they give in. No compromise, no civil dialog. If they decide to attack you, they will regret it. A preference for this behavior in conflict is often explained by a subconscious desire to protect oneself from the pain caused by a sense of defeat.
This strategy reflects a power struggle in which one side emerges as a winner. This strategy is necessary when a particular person in power must restore order. It is undoubtedly justified when someone takes control to protect people from violence or reckless acts. But the strategy rarely yields long-term results – the losing side may not support a decision taken against its will or even try to sabotage it. Whoever lost today may refuse to cooperate tomorrow.
Collaborating or working together on the solution –
it is the most complex but the most successful and satisfying way of solving the conflict. By choosing this strategy, the participant seeks to resolve the conflict in a way that benefits everyone. Not only does he consider the other party’s position, but he also seeks to ensure that the other party is satisfied.
You and the other party walk step by step back to the root of the problem, pinpoint where the troubles began, and eliminate the cause (and maybe fix the damage already done). The solution is found together, steps are taken together, and everybody wins. It may sound too perfect, but it is possible to achieve.
This approach fosters mutual respect, understanding, and trust and thus makes the relationship more robust and stable. If the subject matter of the dispute is important to both participants, this method of conflict resolution can be perceived as the most constructive.
This behavior strategy in conflict can be named the bird, to which people have long attributed such qualities as wisdom and common sense. “Owl” openly acknowledges the conflict, presents its interests, expresses its position, and offers ways to resolve it. He expects his adversary to cooperate in return.
Each of these ways of behavior has its pros and cons, and it may fit one life situation but be utterly inappropriate for others. You probably have recognized one of these styles as your preferred way of conflict-solving. If it’s not what you expected it to be, you have the chance to learn the ins and outs of this art with reliable, experienced trainers. So book a place in one of the offered courses and acquire useful skills!