Conflict

(research from Wing Tam)

The definition by Leland R. Beaumont is simply defined as the ‘Contradiction between goals’, when different goals exist between different parties, conflicts will be occurred. Another explanation was suggested by Robbins & David as a perceived incompatible differences resulting in some form of interference or opposition.

It can be believed that conflict is inevitable in collaboration as members within a team or an organization must have differences such as communication differences, structural differences, and personal differences. Communication differences may arise from semantic difficulties or misunderstanding. Structural differences which arising between members within the structure of the organization or the team such as having individual goals, decision alternatives and performance criteria by different parties or members. Personal differences referred to different background, education, experience, or even training mold, these personal differences can create conflict.

Traditionally conflict was assumed as bad and would always bring a negative impact on an organization, thus conflict was to be avoided. However conflict was not necessary bad nowadays, an interactionist view encourage conflict with harmonious and peaceful in order to keep units viable, self-critical and creative.

Both Guy Hutt & Dr. Mary Nikola presented a similar description about five different styles of handling or managing conflicts. Each strategy has particular strengths and weakness, no one option is ideal for every situation, the degree of cooperativeness and the degree of assertiveness are the most important elements in deciding the strategy of managing conflicts.

Avoidance (unassertive and uncooperative)

Avoidance can be employed effectively as a short-term or interim strategy until more information is available or emotions cool down.

Accommodation (unassertive but cooperative)

Accommodation is appropriate and effective if one party is not as concerned as the other. It is effective when preserving harmony and avoiding disruption are important.

Competition (assertive but uncooperative)

Competition is appropriate when a quick resolution is needed on an important issue, to achieve the desired outcome, the competitor uses whatever power is available and acceptable.

Collaboration (assertive and cooperative)

Collaboration requires more commitment than the other styles and takes more time and energy. With this style, the parties often are more committed to the resolution because an outcome that meets the needs of both parties is more likely to be supported.

Compromise (midrange on both assertiveness and cooperativeness)

Compromise is the midway between the previous four styles. Compromise is appropriate when the goals of the parties are moderately important and not worth the effort and time required for collaboration.

References:

Robbins Stephen P. and De Cenzo David. A 1995, Fundamentals of management:essential concepts and applications, 3rd edition,Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs N.J.

Hofstrand, D 2006, Solving Conflicts Between Business Associates, accessed 6 May 2009, <http://www.agmrc.org/business_development/getting_prepared/business_skills/articles/solving_conflicts_between_business_associates_.cfm>

Leland R., B 2005-2009, Logic of Passion: Conflict, accessed 6 May 2009, <http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/conflict.htm>