Team Leadership Toolkit

Leadership Skills

Setting the Team Direction

Coaching

Click here to access the Lindsay Sherwin Homepage and further toolkits.

Conflict Strategies

The Five Conflict Handling Modes

These are used in the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, designed to assess an individual’s behaviour in conflict situations. “Conflict Situations” are situations in which the concerns of two people appear to be incompatible. In such situations, we can describe a person’s behaviour along two basic dimensions:

assertiveness, the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy his/her own concerns, and
cooperativeness, the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy the other person’s concerns.

These two basic dimensions of behaviour can be used to define five specific methods of dealing with conflicts. These five “conflict-handling modes” are shown below:

Kilman conflict model

Conflict Strategies

Competing

Pursuing own concerns at the other person’s expense - “Might makes right”

This is a power- oriented mode, in which one uses whatever power seems appropriate to win one’s own position - one’s ability to argue, one’s rank, economic sanctions.
Competing might mean “standing up for your rights”, defending a position which you believe is correct, or simply trying to win.

Uses:

When quick, decisive action is vital - e.g. emergencies.
On important issues where unpopular courses of action need implementing - e.g. cost cutting, enforcing unpopular rules, discipline.
On issues vital to company welfare when you know you’re right.
To protect yourself against people who take advantage of non-competitive behaviour.

Accommodating

The opposite of competing - “Kill your enemies with "kindness"

When accommodating, an individual neglects their own concerns to satisfy the concerns of the other person; there is an element of self-sacrifice in this mode.
Accommodating might take the form of selfless generosity or charity, obeying another person’s order when one would prefer not to, or yielding to another’s point of view.

Uses:

When you realise that you are wrong.
When the issue is much more important to the other person than to yourself.
To build up social support/credits for later issues which are important to you.
When continued competition would only damage your cause or when preserving harmony and avoiding disruption are especially important.

Avoiding

Does not immediately pursue their own concerns or those of the other person - “Leave well enough alone”

They do not address the conflict. Avoiding might take the form of diplomatically sidestepping an issue, postponing an issue until a better time, or simply withdrawing from a threatening situation.

Uses:

When an issue is trivial or of low priority.
When you perceive no chance of satisfying your concerns.
When the potential damage of confronting a conflict outweighs the benefits.
To let people cool down .
When gathering more information outweighs the advantages of an immediate decision.
When others can resolve the conflict more effectively.

Collaborating

The opposite of avoiding - “Two heads are better than one”

Collaborating involves an attempt to work with the other person to find some solution which fully satisfies the concerns of both persons. It means digging into an issue to identify the underlying concerns of the two individuals and to find an alternative which meets both sets of concerns.

Uses:

When both sets of concerns are too important to be compromised.
When your objective is to learn - e.g. understanding the views of others.
To merge insights from people with different perspectives on a problem.
To gain commitment by incorporating others’ concerns into a consensual decision.
To work through hard feelings.

Compromising

Intermediate - “Split the difference”

The objective is to find some expedient, mutually acceptable solution which partially satisfies both parties. It falls on a middle ground between competing and accommodating. Compromising gives up more than competing but less than accommodating. Likewise, it addresses an issue more directly than avoiding, but doesn’t explore it in as much depth as collaborating. Compromising might mean a quick middle-ground position.

Uses:

When goals are moderately important, but not worth the effort of more assertive modes.
When two opponents with equal power are strongly committed to mutually exclusive goals - as in labour- management bargaining.
To achieve temporary settlements to complex issues.
To arrive at expedient solutions under time pressures.

Notes:

All five modes are useful in some situations: each represents a set of useful social skills.
Each of us is capable of using all five conflict-handling modes: none of us can be characterised as having a single, rigid style of dealing with conflict. However, any given individual uses some modes better than others and therefore, tends to rely upon them.
The conflict behaviours which an individual uses are a result of both their personal predispositions and the requirements of the situations in which they find themselves.

Dealing with Their Anger

Dealing with someone who is angry is difficult.

For example, if you are angry, you not very likely to be receptive to listen to reasons and logical arguments. In fact, if the person dealing with you is too reasonable and rational, then you might well just become angrier.

And then there are "Inflamers & Defusers". Although some of the things that the other person says to you may defuse the situation, others may well irritate you further and make you angrier. As an example, saying to someone who is angry "Calm down" rarely helps.

When dealing with someone who is angry, it is important to recognise that until you can get them to lose some of their anger (often simply a cry for recognition and acknowledgement) there is little you can do. We have found it useful to think of handling conflict in stages, as depicted below.

4 steps to handling conflict

Step 1 is to "Cool it" - to help the person who is angry to lose their anger so that the whole temperature of the confrontation can fall. Only when it has fallen somewhat can one move onto Step 2.
Step 2 is to get the facts on the table. To get their viewpoint and understanding, to present your perspective, and to start to get a mutual understanding. Unfortunately, during this they may well get angry again and you return to Step 1.
Step 3 is to "work the problem" and attempt to look for common ground and differences, establishing the overlap.
Step 4 is to negotiate to a consensus and agreement.

Clearly, such discussions rarely go in a straightforward linear fashion, and often the discussion slips back to a previous stage before moving onto the next stage.

Progressing through the stages depends very much on the behaviour and skills of the manager. The following list covers some common guidelines about this.

Guidelines

Someone who is very angry is unlikely to be rational. They are also unlikely to listen well. These guidelines may help.

Try to get into the right "setting".
- Away from an audience. In an quiet office if possible.
- Both of you sitting down - preferably next to each other rather than across a desk. So that neither of you is in too dominant a position.
Listen well - this may not be easy.
Clarify what the other person is saying.
Do not argue back yourself.
Do not try to be too rational.
Acknowledge the anger - “yes, I can see that you are angry.”
Stay calm yourself.
State your case assertively.
Try to problem solve. If possible, involve the other person.
If it is possible, try to arrange to talk at a later stage. The physical emotions may have calmed down.
DO NOT SAY. “Come back when you have calmed down a bit”.