Conflict Management in the Workplace

¶ … individual deals with conflict reflects on his or her attitude, maturity level, and self-confidence. Explain how you would use the five basic rules when dealing with conflict to handle a conflict that you experience at work. Explain in detail.

Maturity and the ability to think and behave rationally is obviously the linchpin of dealing with conflict properly. Many people tend to react viscerally and with no hesitation when it comes to conflict. This would be a mistake…and potentially a big one. Rather than acting too prematurely and without the proper amount of diligence, a thorough and well-considered assessment of the problem should be done. Further, other parties involved in the issue should be approached with respect and deference and only when emotions are not flaring. If things get heated, people should disperse and circle back later. Further, getting heated in general over something that is not life and death is a very dim-witted move and is very telling about the management skills, maturity and acumen of the person who loses their cool. This goes double if the person is a leader or manager. Beyond that, people should not behave and move in cliques, groups and alliances that are not encompassing of the larger group. People in a traditional white-collar workplace are not in high school. Thus, they should actually behave as though this were true. Mutual respect, a unifying allegiance to a goal and self-control should be the hallmark of any well-rounded group of men and women in the workplace or any other organization.

Several different conflict management styles include: forcing conflict management, avoiding conflict management, accommodating conflict management, compromising conflict management, and collaborating conflict management. Explain the difference between each type of management style. Which style do you favor the most? Which one would be most likely associated with an experience you have encountered at work?

The style that I personal prefer the most is compromising…but that is followed by forcing conflict management. I prefer those two in general because allowing conflict to fester is not a workable solution. If compromise is not possible due to one or more parties not wanting to be conciliatory, then forcing the issue is a must. Avoiding is dead last in terms of what should happen. Collaborating conflict management would be more for resource/business need conflict resolution rather than more traditional and severe conflicts. Forcing is when a solution is demanded and garnered even if the parties are not involved. Compromising is when there is a negotiation. Collaborating is when the cooperating goes even further. Avoiding and accommodating are either not dealing with the issue (avoiding) or dancing around it rather than fixing it (accommodating). I personal see forcing more than anything because a lot of people are unwilling to admit fault or make concessions. It would seem that a lot of people nowadays are very entrenched and affixed to their viewpoint and thus are very unwilling to budge. This is not to say that it happens all of the time but it does definitely seem to be a pattern. There is a general lack of trust in a lot work situations and people seemed to be more concerned about personal proverbial territory rather than the common good of the company. This language can get to the point of navel gazing quite quickly but there is absolutely some credence to it.