Coaching models for conflict resolution and communication styles

Negotiation and Conflict Resolution

CONFLICT STYLES

Most Valuable Communication Help

Communication is central to the management of conflict and organizational leaders know this too well (Jones & Brinkert, 2008). Possessing the most brilliant ideas or translating them into action means little or nothing unless existing conflict is adequately dealt with. Conflict usually involves communication behaviors in relationships. Chapter 8 discusses the functions of communication in conflict, namely confrontation, confirmation, and comprehension and how coaches help their clients perform these functions. They enable clients to transmit the message on the need for conflict management, which is confrontation; respect and protect individual and cultural identity, which is confirmation; and establish understanding on both sides concerning the conflict, which is comprehension. The individual is the main focus. The client should be able to objectively understand his conflict and craft the correct strategies and skills to address and solve it. The authors propose a coaching model, consisting of four stages. In the first stage, the client breaks the situation in detail from several accounts and viewpoints, In the second stage, the client evaluates the accounts and perspectives by applying the perspectives of identity, emotion and power. In the third stage, he designs a future narrative that connects with the first accounts and perspectives. And under stage four, the coach helps the client create an action plan, based on the three functions. At the same time, the coach applies a learning assessment method in devising a solution and identifying areas of improvement. The authors tackle the importance of assessing needs and how one-on-one coaching could be considered and made part of it. Coaches can take advantage of the client's narrative of events and his interpretation in forming the appropriate response to the conflict and in shaping the precise and effective action plan to deal and solve his own conflicts (Jones & Brinkert).

C. My Natural Conflict Style

Of the five styles, I seldom adopt avoidance if the conflict is serious. It is serious if it affects my work or personal values. If I can peaceably discuss the conflict with the other party, I would opt for it. If it is not possible or advisable or if it fails, I would ask our common superior for assistance. I would not resort to competing. I would much prefer to work for either a collaboration or a compromise if my job or moral principles are not disturbed. If this does not work, my ultimate choice is will be to separate from the organization.

D. Circumstances Where It is Most Appropriate

These will include sexual harassment, false intrigues, unreasonable workloads, nepotism and the imposition of unreasonable preferences. More specifically, I would seek out a collaboration if my employer imposes his own personal preferences on me and my work and if these preferences are not expressly those of the organizations and opposed to my moral principles. My employer, for example, may insist on a particular dress style when there is no office uniform or expresses disfavor if I do not behave in a way that is flattering to him or her but not in violation of organizational policies. If the conflict does not offend my moral principles or violate the organization's own code of ethics, I may agree to a compromise.

E. What to Add for Effectiveness in More Situations

The authors' recommended narrative mechanism banks on the client's perception of the event of conflict and the assumption that the solution hangs on what the client recognizes. Applying this perspective to my natural or preferred conflict style, I would be willing to learn more about the other party's perception and seek out third-party perceptions too. I can incorporate other perceptions into my own store of beliefs and preferences but without violating self-respect. I will endeavor to see my opponent's viewpoint as far as possible and in objectiveness as well as in the pursuit of organization's goals and code of ethical conduct. At the same time, I will seek out means of getting my view to the opposite side as objectively as possible without being condescending or ingratiating. I will be willing to come to terms with him or her without losing self-respect or sacrificing cherished personal moral values.

F. How to Develop this Skill

Jones and Blinkert (2008) believe that focusing or emphasizing mistakes and problems in a conflict situation is likely to lead to action that will eliminate both the good and the bad aspects and details of the conflict. Instead, they suggest giving more attention and effort to one's strengths. When this is done, weaknesses will necessarily surface. But will lose some relevance (Jones & Blinkert).

I believe that my natural conflict style will be effective in more situations if I take a closer look at the strengths or reasonableness of the other party's position or viewpoint. I am willing to stretch my understanding to the maximum. But I will not understate the weaknesses or mistakes, if they are of substantial significance. I would appeal to the reason of the other party as far as possible or repeatedly. At the same time, I would subject my own position in the conflict to repeat assessment by other persons I respect outside the organization. I will also conduct research on similar cases and how they were resolved.

I will also allow time and other developments solve part of the problem if there is an impasse. I believe that the other party will also consider other means to solving the conflict and will not want to stay too long in it. It is also quite possible that he or she will receive or seek out other parties' opinion and agree to a collaboration. I believe that it is the best option even if it takes time, as it satisfies both sides and retains mutual respect.

The authors' narrative method will also be beneficial. If my opponent and I are given all the opportunities to express or narrate what we know about the conflict, our perceptions can be weightier and more realistic than empirical evidence (Jones & Blinkert, 2008). Our respective perceptions can have greater value than philosophical analysis because they take into proper consideration how we see the situation and feel about it. In addition, narrated perceptions are likely to bring out details, which objective philosophical analysis will not be able to do. These incidental revelations will be valuable information, which should be incorporated into the organization's store of values and goals (Jones & Blinkert).

The search for truth is inherent in me. I am always willing to overwrite even a cherished position if I find sufficient rational evidence of its inaccuracy or defect. I can develop more objectiveness and incorporate it into my current conflict style by constant and fearless self-assessment.