Today, any organization is diverse and has people from different regions, backgrounds, skill sets, goals, and perspectives. Conflict in such a situation is always unavoidable and every employer should have conflict management strategies as a part of its HR policy. Beyond a certain limit, conflict proves to be dysfunctional and every organization should implement curative measures to deal with it before it hampers the productivity of the organization. Steps like restructuring the arrangement, reduction in interdependence, exchange of personnel, or even reference to higher authorities, in case, the issue is not solved at the lower level. Conflicts could be managed in different styles and it varies with situation and from person to person. This when handled effectively may widen the scope of learning opportunities and betterment in the policies of the organization.
Competing style-
This type of approach is adopted to solve an issue at hand at the earliest. Hence, the problem is addressed directly and bluntly in an assertive and uncooperative way. In competing style, the parties involved are not ready for compromise and stand firm in their opinion. This style could be apt one to choose while fighting for rights or morals. It is a win-lose approach and could be detrimental to the morale and productivity of a team.
Example: Prateek is handling a project and has made several requests to Ritesh for his permission to do certain changes in the working team of the project. But Ritesh bluntly refuses and orders Prateek to complete the project as per his instructions without changing the team. In this case Ritesh is well aware of the fact that Prateek is facing some issues which could be sorted by making certain changes in the members, but refuses to do. Prateek feels belittled by Ritesh’s authoritarian approach which affects the productivity of the team.
Accommodating style-
This style is giving in to the interests and opinions of the others or putting the others’ needs in top priority than one’s own. Accommodating style is simply trying to accommodate others just for the sake of maintaining peace and harmony. It may also be the case in which you are not very particular in winning the argument or conflict or you feel that it is not worth your time to fight for. This could be best adopted to resolve trivial issues and move on to important matters. By being highly cooperative you really win the situation, particularly when the other person is highly experienced and is right in his or her approach and also save the relationship for better business in future.
Example: Patrick works as a team leader where Jane is the manager. Patrick wants to take Mr. ‘X’ into the team, while Jane has an authoritative attitude and instructs Patrick to include Mr. ‘Y’ into the team. Here, Patrick gives in and accommodates Mr. ‘Y’ as said by Jane, to keep the peace of the team and the company as well.
Compromising style-
Compromising style is feasible when both the parties involved in the conflict are cooperative and assertive. In this case, there is a lot of compromise from either ends to preserve the relationship for the future. This could also be referred to as “lose-lose method, as significant sacrifice is to be made to resolve a conflict. This is a skill which every negotiator should know while making a negotiating deal. One should weigh the pros and cons of a situation thoroughly and should have a right idea as when to compromise and on what to compromise. The deal should be fair enough to make the parties feel that they have gained something worth in the transaction. Willingness is a sign of maturity and person who is ready for a compromise is usually looked upon with great respect.
Example: Peter and Paul are running a business that deals with furniture. Soon, they saw a huge profit in it and decide to expand their business. Peter plans to invest in advertisements as a strategy to promote their business, while Paul wants to invest the profit in buying some raw material for their business. After a long discussion and argument both Peter and Paul decide to spend 50% of the profit in advertisement and the other 50% in buying raw material. This final deal seemed to be satisfying and both agreed upon it.