MANAGING PEOPLE
How do you react
to conflict?
Dr Ben Hardy qualified from Edinburgh Vet School in 1995.
After working in academia, general practice and the
pharmaceutical industry he studied management, completing
his PhD at Cambridge. He now lectures at the Open University
and researches morale in organisations, the effects of hormones
on decision making and the role of language in surveys.
I
HIGH
Concern for Others
HIGH
Concern for Self
Integrating
LOW
Obliging
Compromising
LOW
n her piece in September/October’s Practice Life
Teresa Mulvena offered some advice as to how to manage
conflict. This focussed on the things that you could do
to help manage conflict. But sometimes we’re not managing
conflict, we’re living it. What can we do to help understand
how we handle conflict and so manage our own personal
conflicts better?
Before we go any further, though, we need to think carefully
about whether we want conflict or not. Your initial response
might be ‘no, of course not, we don’t want conflict’. If it is,
then you might want to think again. The research on conflict
makes a distinction between task and relationship conflict. Task
conflict is about how resources should be used, procedures,
policies, decisions and the interpretation of facts. Relationship
conflicts, by contrast, are about personal tastes, politics, values,
personality and so forth.
Relationship conflict is always bad news as it makes people
do a less good job and it reduces the enjoyment they get from
their job. Task conflict, by contrast, can be beneficial if carefully
managed. Too little conflict and people can be disengaged,
too much and they are so irate that they can’t engage with
one another. Goldilocks-like, the level of conflict has to be
just right.
People differ in the ways in which they respond to conflict.
Understanding how you respond to conflict can help you
better understand yourself. Understanding how others respond
to conflict can help you understand them better – and also
understand why you might be in a state of conflict.
Researchers have identified two different components in
response to conflict. One of these is the degree of concern
for yourself and for achieving your objectives. The other is
the degree of concern for others and their objectives. The
questionnaire opposite assesses how you measure on each
of these components. By putting them together we get a
2x2 matrix.
The INTEGRATING style, with high concern for both
your own and others’ interest, is one which is associated with
problem solving. Using this style demands the free exchange
of information, looking for multiple alternative solutions and
carefully unpicking the cause of conflict to try and devise a
Dominating
Avoiding
Fig 2. Adapted from A theory-based measure of conflict management strategies
in the workplace, C. K. W. De Dreu et al. J.Organiz.Behav. 22, 645-668 (2001)
solution which works for everyone. This style needs to be given
time to work and may well be the best style for dealing with
toxic social conflict. It is also useful for working out practice
policies and long range planning.
The OBLIGING style is one where people put others’
interests before their own. This style tends to play down
differences and emphasise what people have in common.
People using this style tend to neglect their own concerns to
make others happy. It can be useful where something is much
more important to the other person than it is to you, or where
you are in a weak position but want to preserve the relationship.
Sometimes this style is used when people hope that, by giving
something up now, they will benefit in the long run. This
approach can be disastrous when you believe that the other
person is wrong or behaving unethically.
DOMINEERING is a where you have to win at all costs.
As a consequence you may steamroller the interests of others.
It can be appropriate when the issue is vital to you and if
someone says ‘no’ then it is disastrous. Bosses can use this style
if deciding on routine things, when a speedy decision is needed,
when dealing with someone less senior who is very assertive or
when the other person does not have the necessary expertise
to make the decision. It can also be useful in implementing
unpopular decisions.
Practice Life ❚ December/January 2015 ❚ www.practicelife.biz
29
MANAGING PEOPLE

What Is Your Primary Conflict-Handling Style?
Indicate how often you rely on each of the following tactics by circling the number you feel is most appropriate.
When I have a conflict at work, I do the following:
Not at all
Very much
1
I give in to the wishes of the other party
1
2
3
4
5
2
I try to realize a middle-of-the-road solution
1
2
3
4
5
3
I push my own point of view
1
2
3
4
5
4
I examine issues until I find a solution that really satisfies me and the other party
1
2
3
4
5
5
I avoid a confrontation about our differences
1
2
3
4
5
6
I concur with the other party
1
2
3
4
5
7
I emphasize that we have to find a compromise solution
1
2
3
4
5
8
I search for gains
1
2
3
4
5
9
I stand for my own and the other party’s goals and interests
1
2
3
4
5
10
I avoid differences of opinion as much as possible
1
2
3
4
5
11
I try to accommodate the other party
1
2
3
4
5
12
I insist we both give in a little
1
2
3
4
5
13
I fight for a good outcome for myself
1
2
3
4
5
14
I examine ideas from both sides to find a mutually optimal solution
1
2
3
4
5
15
I try to make differences loom less large
1
2
3
4
5
16
I adapt to the other party’s goals and interests
1
2
3
4
5
17
I strive whenever possible toward a 50-50 compromise
1
2
3
4
5
18
I do everything to win
1
2
3
4
5
19
I work out a solution that serves my own as well as the other party’s interests
as well as possible
1
2
3
4
5
I try to avoid a confrontation with the other party
1
2
3
4
5
20
Scoring Key:
To determine your primary conflict-handling strategy, place the number 1 through 5 that represents your score for
each statement next to the number for that statement. Then add up the columns. Your primary conflict-handling
style is the category with the highest total. Your fall-back intention is the category with the second-highest total.
Obliging
Compromising
Dominating
Integrating
Avoiding
1 ______
2 ______
3 ______
4 ______
5 ______
6 ______
7 ______
8 ______
9 ______
10 ______
11 ______
12 ______
13 ______
14 ______
15 ______
16 ______
17 ______
18 ______
19 ______
20 ______
______
______
______
______
Totals
______
That said, it can be the wrong style when making complex
decisions where there is enough time to make a good decision.
It can also produce a stalemate when both parties are equally
powerful. If this style is used on people who know what they
are doing it may breed resentment.
AVOIDING is associated with buck-passing or sidestepping
the issue. It can, however, be useful when damage from
confronting the other person outweighs the benefits of solving
the problem, or when time is need to allow the situation to
settle down before tackling the problem again. This style is
www.practicelife.biz ❚ December/January 2015 ❚ Practice Life
inappropriate when the issues are important to you and
where it’s your responsibility to make decisions.
The COMPROMISING style involves give-and-take,
with everyone giving something up to resolve the situation.
This style is useful when it is impossible for both sides to
fully satisfy their demands or when an impasse is reached.
It avoids protracted conflict and can be useful when other
styles have proved unsuccessful. It’s not a good approach for
dealing with complex problems which need a problemsolving approach. It may also be a bad idea when one person
30
MANAGING PEOPLE
has much more power than the other or is completely
convinced that they are right.
Most of us have a style that we naturally tend to use but it is
possible for us to ‘flex’ our style and approach conflict using a
different approach. This means that we can approach situations
differently and, potentially, reach better outcomes. But, when
the pressure is on, we slip back to our natural style as that’s the
one we feel familiar with.
The matrix shows you how you tend to respond to conflict.
Another useful thing to think about is how you actually handle
conflict. The diagonals on the 2x2 matrix give you some idea
of the approaches that you use to resolve conflict. The diagonal
which runs from integrating to avoiding i.e. top left to bottom
right, is concerned with how likely you are to problem solve. By
subtracting your integrating style score from your avoiding style
score you will get a number between 16 and -16. The higher
you score, the more likely you are to problem solve. Lower
scores suggest that you are likely to try and avoid the problem
and not use a problem solving approach.
The other diagonal, running from dominating to obliging,
is concerned with your bargaining style. Again, if you subtract
your dominating style score from your obliging score you will
get a number from 16 to -16. Higher scores mean that you
tend to try and drive a hard bargain, imposing your will on the
other person. Lower scores suggest that you are more likely to
compromise with the other party, potentially damaging your
own interests.
This tool gives you some insight into how you tend to handle
conflict and also possible approaches that you could take to do
things differently. This tells you quite a lot about yourself and
gives you some thoughts as to what you might do differently.
By getting others to fill in the survey you can compare yours
and others’ approaches to conflict. Bear in mind that people
who approach problems differently to you may just look odd.
For example, if you adopt an integrating approach and the
other person is avoiding then they are just going to look weird
to you. They look like they are running away when you are
trying to solve the situation. By contrast, you look to them like
someone who’s obsessed with a problem that really doesn’t need
to be addressed.
Understanding that someone else’s world is not the same as
yours is key to resolving conflict. We tend to assume that other
people are very much like us. This isn’t a bad starting point but
the problems start when we don’t update this in the light of the
behaviour of others. Seeing the situation from another’s point
of view is a useful skill. As an exercise in understanding the
views of others you might want to do a two box exercise. This
is a simple way of forcing you to think about the other person’s
point of view.
My view of the situation
Other’s view of the situation
●
The dog was discharged
without proper instructions
●
We were incredibly busy and
I had to discharge 3 dogs at once
●
I was angry as aftercare
is very important
●
I know aftercare is important
but I was swamped
●
This is not the first time
that this has happened
●
There is only one person to do
the discharges and everyone
comes at once. It’s not surprising
this happens
When we do the two box exercise we start to think how our
actions look to other people. This helps us understand their
point of view and think about how we might solve the conflict.
By understanding how we handle conflict we can help handle
it better. When we know our natural style and the styles of
others then their behaviours may not seem so odd to us. When
we make strenuous attempts to put ourselves in others’ shoes,
we also understand their world a little better. So their behaviour
isn’t odd or bad, it’s likely to be perfectly rational in their
opinion. It’s just that, like the source of the conflict itself, their
opinion differs from ours.
In a new series of short inspirational articles on Leadership, Mark Hedberg, of the College of Animal Welfare asks…
“Why won’t my minions do as I say?”
If you’ve been watching movies
and trailers recently, you may
have heard of ‘Despicable Me’
– starring an evil genius with a
host of small yellow Minions,
getting up to wacky hijinks and
crazy adventures. Some of you
may even have been a little
envious – who wouldn’t love an
army of hyperactive helpers to
do their nefarious bidding?
Photo:Wikipedia
While the official definition of
‘minion’ is “a follower or underling of a powerful person,
especially a servile or unimportant one” – the Minions in the
Despicable Me franchise are actually anything but unimportant
minions – they’re a vital part of Gru (the antihero’s) success. What
is their secret? Why is it that his minions perform miracles, while
you can’t even get your staff to take care of the ops list?
For those of you who haven’t seen the movie, when Gru
needs something done, he gives the task to his minion army
and lets them get on with it, only judging the final product.
Some of the finished concepts are rejected as being unsuitable
(or even dangerous!) but others prove to be key to the success
of the mission.
The secret, of course, is trust. Trust is a vital part of any
employee/employer relationship, because if you can’t trust
each other, you can’t work together. Gru gives his team a
task and gets out of the way.
So how can you get your team to trust you? Start by
simply trusting them more. Give them clear (not simpleminded!) tasks with measurable goals and standards, and
get out of the way. If it gets the job done well and makes the
team happy, go with it. As time goes by, you can delegate
more complicated work, giving you the time to concentrate
on the jobs you love.
(Oh, and don’t call them minions!)
Practice Life ❚ December/January 2015 ❚ www.practicelife.biz