give examples of each conflict management strategies Integrating Style This style indicates high concern for self and others. This style is also known as problem solving. It involves collaboration between the parties (i.e., openness, exchange of information, and examination of differences to reach a solution acceptable to both parties). “The first rule . . . for obtaining integration is to put your cards on the table, face the real issue, uncover the conflict, bring the whole thing into the open” (Follett, 1926/1940, p. 38). Gray (1989) describes this as Nature of Conflict 29 collaborating—“a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible” (p. 5). Prein (1976) suggested that this style has two distinctive elements: confrontation and problem solving. Confrontation involves open communication, clearing up misunderstanding, and analyzing the underlying causes of conflict. This is a prerequisite for problem solving, which involves identification of, and solution to, the real problem(s) to provide maximum satisfaction of concerns of both parties. Compromising Style This style indicates intermediate concern for self and others. It involves giveand-take or sharing whereby both parties give up something to make a mutually acceptable decision. It may mean splitting the difference, exchanging concession, or seeking a quick, middle-ground position. A compromising party gives up more than a dominating party but less than an obliging party. Likewise, such a party addresses an issue more directly than an avoiding party but does not explore it in as much depth as an integrating party. Additional insights may be gained by reclassifying the five styles of handling interpersonal conflict according to the terminologies of game theory. Integrating style can be reclassified to a positive-sum on nonzero-sum (win–win) style, compromising to a mixed (no-win/no-lose) style, and obliging, dominating, and avoiding to zero-sum or negative-sum (lose–win, win–lose, and lose–lose, respectively) styles. Although we have indicated that the five styles of handling interpersonal conflict can be reclassified using the taxonomy of game theory, it will be seen in Chapter 5 that the description of the styles as win–win, lose–win, win–lose, lose–lose, and no-win/no-lose may be misleading. Each of the five styles of handling interpersonal conflict may be appropriate depending on the situation. In general, integrating and, to some extent, compromising styles can be used for effectively dealing with conflicts involving strategic or complex issues. The remaining styles can be used effectively to deal with conflicts involving tactical, day-to-day, or routine problems. Thus, the selection and use of each style can be considered as a win–win style provided that it is used to enhance individual, group, and organizational effectiveness.
give examples of each conflict management strategies
Integrating Style
This style indicates high concern for self and others. This style is also known as problem solving. It involves collaboration between the parties (i.e., openness, exchange of information, and examination of differences to reach a solution acceptable to both parties). “The first rule . . . for obtaining integration is to put your cards on the table, face the real issue, uncover the conflict, bring the whole thing into the open” (Follett, 1926/1940, p. 38). Gray (1989) describes this as Nature of Conflict 29 collaborating—“a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible” (p. 5). Prein (1976) suggested that this style has two distinctive elements: confrontation and problem solving. Confrontation involves open communication, clearing up misunderstanding, and analyzing the underlying causes of conflict. This is a prerequisite for problem solving, which involves identification of, and solution to, the real problem(s) to provide maximum satisfaction of concerns of both parties.
Compromising Style This style indicates intermediate concern for self and others. It involves giveand-take or sharing whereby both parties give up something to make a mutually acceptable decision. It may mean splitting the difference, exchanging concession, or seeking a quick, middle-ground position. A compromising party gives up more than a dominating party but less than an obliging party. Likewise, such a party addresses an issue more directly than an avoiding party but does not explore it in as much depth as an integrating party. Additional insights may be gained by reclassifying the five styles of handling interpersonal conflict according to the terminologies of game theory. Integrating style can be reclassified to a positive-sum on nonzero-sum (win–win) style, compromising to a mixed (no-win/no-lose) style, and obliging, dominating, and avoiding to zero-sum or negative-sum (lose–win, win–lose, and lose–lose, respectively) styles. Although we have indicated that the five styles of handling interpersonal conflict can be reclassified using the taxonomy of game theory, it will be seen in Chapter 5 that the description of the styles as win–win, lose–win, win–lose, lose–lose, and no-win/no-lose may be misleading. Each of the five styles of handling interpersonal conflict may be appropriate depending on the situation. In general, integrating and, to some extent, compromising styles can be used for effectively dealing with conflicts involving strategic or complex issues. The remaining styles can be used effectively to deal with conflicts involving tactical, day-to-day, or routine problems. Thus, the selection and use of each style can be considered as a win–win style provided that it is used to enhance individual, group, and organizational effectiveness.
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 1 steps
