Chapter 5: Conflicts and Conflict Management

Meaning and Nature of Conflict

Conflict can be a serious problem in any organization. It might not bring about the
demise of a firm but it certainly can hurt an organization’s performance as well as lead to
the loss of many good employees. However, all conflicts aren’t bad. Conflict has a
positive side as well as a negative side.
There has been no shortage of definitions of conflict. Despite the divergent meanings the
term has acquired, several common themes underlie most definitions. Conflict must be
perceived by the parties to it; whether or not conflict exists is a perception issue. If no one
is aware of a conflict, then it is generally agreed that no conflict exists. Additional
commonalities in the definitions are opposition or incompatibility and some form of
interaction. These factors set the conditions that determine the beginning point of the
conflict process.
We can define conflict, then, as a process that begins when one party perceives that
another party has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something that the
first party cares about. This definition is purposely broad. It describes that point in any
ongoing activity when an interaction “crosses over” to become an interparty conflict. It
encompasses the wide range of conflicts that people experience in organizations—
incompatibility of goals, differences over interpretations of facts, disagreements based on
behavioral expectations, and the like. Finally, our definition is flexible enough to cover
the full range of conflict levels—from overt and violent acts to subtle forms of
disagreement.
Conflict is another term which can be defined and interpreted in a number of ways. For
our purpose we can see conflict as behavior intended to obstruct the achievement of
some other person’s goals. Conflict is based on the incompatibility of goals and arises
from opposing behaviors. It can be viewed at the individual, group or organisation level.
Ackroyd and Thompson use the term ‘organizational misbehavior’ to refer to ‘anything
you do at work which you are not supposed to’. Management establishes boundaries that
distinguish acceptable and non-acceptable behavior from employees. The actions of
employees are then judged as falling one side or the other of these boundaries.
Common definitions of conflict tend to be associated with negative features and
situations which give rise to inefficiency, ineffectiveness or dysfunctional consequences.
The traditional view of conflict is that it is bad for organizations. Conflict is perceived as
disruptive and unnatural, and represents a form of deviant behaviour which should be
controlled and changed. Clearly, extreme cases of conflict in organizations can have very
upsetting, or even tragic, consequences for some people and have adverse effects on
pg. 1
organizational performance. Conflict situations can give rise to excessive emotional or
physical stress.
Transitions in Conflict Thought
It is entirely appropriate to say that there has been “conflict” over the role of conflict in
groups and organizations. One school of thought has argued that conflict must be avoided
—that it indicates a malfunctioning within the group. We call this the traditional view.
Another school of thought, the human relations view, argues that conflict is a natural and
inevitable outcome in any group and that it need not be evil, but rather has the potential to
be a positive force in determining group performance. The third, and most recent,
perspective proposes not only that conflict can be a positive force in a group but
explicitly argues that some conflict is absolutely necessary for a group to perform
effectively. We label this third school the interactionist approach. Let’s take a closer look
at each of these views.
1. The Traditional View
The early approach to conflict assumed that all conflict was bad. Conflict was viewed
negatively, and it was used synonymously with such terms as violence, destruction, and
irrationality to reinforce its negative connotation. Conflict, by definition, was harmful
and was to be avoided.
The traditional view was consistent with the attitudes that prevailed about group
behavior in the 1930s and 1940s. Conflict was seen as a dysfunctional outcome resulting
from poor communication, a lack of openness and trust between people, and the failure of
managers to be responsive to the needs and aspirations of their employees. The view that
all conflict is bad certainly offers a simple approach to looking at the behavior of people
who create conflict.
Since all conflict is to be avoided, we need merely direct our attention to the causes of
conflict and correct these malfunctionings in order to improve group and organizational
performance. Although research studies now provide strong evidence to dispute that this
approach to conflict reduction results in high group performance, many of us still
evaluate conflict situations utilizing this outmoded standard. So, too, do many boards of
directors.
2. The Human Relations View
The human relations position argued that conflict was a natural occurrence in all groups
and organizations. Since conflict was inevitable, the human relations school advocated
acceptance of conflict. Proponents rationalized its existence: It cannot be eliminated, and
there are even times when conflict may benefit a group’s performance. The human
relations view dominated conflict theory from the late 1940s through the mid-1970s.

pg. 2
 3. The Interactionist View
While the human relations approach accepted conflict, the interactionist approach
encourages conflict on the grounds that a harmonious, peaceful, tranquil, and cooperative
group is prone to becoming static, apathetic, and nonresponsive to needs for change and
innovation. The major contribution of the interactionist approach, therefore, is
encouraging group leaders to maintain an ongoing minimum level of conflict—enough to
keep the group viable, self-critical, and creative.
Given the interactionist view, it becomes evident that to say conflict is all good or bad is
inappropriate and naive. Whether a conflict is good or bad depends on the type of
conflict. Specifically, it’s necessary to differentiate between functional and dysfunctional
conflicts.

Functional vs. Dysfunctional Conflict

The interactionist view does not propose that all conflicts are good. Rather, some
conflicts support the goals of the group and improve its performance; these are
functional, constructive forms of conflict. Additionally, there are conflicts that hinder
group performance; these are dysfunctional or destructive forms of conflict.
Of course, it is one thing to argue that conflict can be valuable for the group, and another
to be able to tell if a conflict is functional or dysfunctional. The demarcation between
functional and dysfunctional is neither clear nor precise. No one level of conflict can be
adopted as acceptable or unacceptable under all conditions. The type and level of conflict
that creates healthy and positive involvement toward one group’s goals today may, in
another group or in the same group at another time, be highly dysfunctional. The criterion
that differentiates functional from dysfunctional conflict is group performance. Since
groups exist to attain a goal or goals, it is the impact that the conflict has on the group,
rather than on any individual member, that determines functionality.
Of course, the impact of conflict on the individual and its impact on the group are rarely
mutually exclusive, so the ways that individuals perceive a conflict may have an
important influence on its effect on the group. However, this need not be the case, and
when it is not, our focus will be on the group. So whether an individual group member
perceives a given conflict as being personally disturbing or positive is irrelevant. For
example, a group member may perceive an action as dysfunctional, in that the outcome is
personally dissatisfying to him or her. However, for our analysis, that action would be
functional if it furthers the objectives of the group.

Sources of Conflict

pg. 3
For conflict to occur, three key conditions must exist: interdependence, political
indeterminism, and divergence. Interdependence is found where individuals, groups, or
organizations depend on each other for assistance, information, feedback, or other
coordinative relations. For example, two groups that share a pool of funds may fight over
who will receive money to buy new office equipment. Similarly, employees organized
along a sequential assembly process may disagree about the pace of work. In the absence
of interdependence, however, parties have nothing to fight about and, in fact, may not
even know of each other’s existence.
The emergence of conflict also requires political indeterminism, which means that the
political pecking order among individuals or groups is unclear and subject to question. If
power relations are unambiguous and stable, and if they are accepted as valid by all
parties, appeals to authority will replace conflict, and differences will be resolved in favor
of the most powerful. Only a party whose power is uncertain will gamble on winning
through conflict rather than by appealing to power and authority. For this reason,
individuals and groups in a newly reorganized company are much more likely to engage
in conflict than are parties in an organization with a stable hierarchy of authority.
Finally, for conflict to emerge, there must be divergence, or differences or disagreements
deemed worth fighting over. For example, differences in the functions they perform may
lead individuals or groups to have varying goals. Individuals and groups may also have
different time orientations. For example, tasks like making a sale to a regular customer
require only short-term planning and can be initiated or altered quite easily. In contrast,
tasks like traditional assembly-line manufacturing operations necessitate a longer time
frame, because such activities require extensive preplanning and cannot be changed
easily once they have begun. Certain tasks, such as the strategic planning activities that
plot an organization’s future, may even require time frames of several decades.
When parties in a firm have different time orientations, conflicts may develop regarding
which orientation should regulate task planning and performance. Often, resource
allocations among individuals or groups are unequal. Such differences usually stem from
the fact that parties must compete with each other to get a share of their organization’s
resources. When the production department gets new personal computers to help
schedule weekly activities, the sales department may find itself forced to do without the
new computers it wants for market research. In such instances, someone wins and
someone loses, laying the groundwork for additional rounds of conflict.
Another source of conflict may be the practices used to evaluate and reward groups and
their members. Consider, for example, that manufacturing groups are often rewarded for
their efficiency, which is achieved by minimizing the quantity of raw materials consumed
in production activities. Sales groups, on the other hand, tend to be rewarded for their
flexibility, which sometimes sacrifices efficiency. Conflict often arises in such situations
pg. 4
as each group tries to meet its own performance criteria or tries to force others to adopt
the same criteria.
In addition, status discrepancies invite conflict over stature and position. Although the
status of a person or group is generally determined by its position in the organization’s
hierarchy of authority—with parties higher in the hierarchy having higher status—
sometimes other criteria influence status. For instance, a group might argue that its status
should depend on the knowledge possessed by its members or that status should be
conferred on the basis of such factors as loyalty, seniority, or visibility.

Conflict can emerge in jurisdictional disputes when it is unclear who has responsibility
for something. For example, if the personnel and employing departments both interview a
prospective employee, the two groups may dispute which has the ultimate right to offer
employment and which must take the blame if mistakes are made.
Finally, individuals and groups can differ in the values, assumptions, and general
perceptions that guide their performance. Values held by the members of a production
group, which stress easy assembly, for instance, may differ from the values held by the
research and development staff, which favors complex product designs. These values can
clash, leading to conflict, whenever researchers must fight for demanding product
specifications that production personnel dismiss as unnecessarily complicated.
There are many potential sources of organizational conflict including the main ones
summarized below.
■ Differences in perception. We all see things in different ways. We all have our own,
unique picture or image of how we see the ‘real’ world. Differences in perception result
in different people attaching different meanings to the same stimuli. As perceptions
become a person’s reality, value judgments can be a potential major source of conflict.
■ Limited resources. Most organizational resources are limited, and individuals and
groups have to fight for their share; for example, at the time of the allocation of the next
year’s budget or when cutbacks have to be made. The greater the limitation of resources,
the greater is the potential for conflict. In an organization with reducing profits or
revenues the potential for conflict is likely to be intensified.
■ Departmentalization and specialization. Most work organizations are divided into
departments with specialized functions. Because of familiarity with the manner in which
they undertake their activities, managers tend to turn inwards and to concentrate on the
achievement of their own particular goals. When departments need to co-operate with
each other this is a frequent source of conflict. Differing goals and internal environments
of departments are also a potential source of conflict.
■ The nature of work activities. Where the task of one person is dependent upon the
work of others there is potential for conflict; for example, if a worker is expected to
pg. 5
complete the assembly of a given number of components in a week but the person
forwarding the part-assembled components does not supply a sufficient number on time.
If reward and punishment systems are perceived to be based on keeping up with
performance levels, then the potential for conflict is even greater. If the work of a
department is dependent upon the output of another department a similar situation could
arise, especially if this situation is coupled with limited resources; for example, where the
activities of a department, whose budget has been reduced below what is believed
necessary to run the department efficiently, are interdependent with those of another
department, who appear to have received a more generous budget allocation.

■ Role conflict. A role is the expected pattern of behaviors associated with members
occupying a particular position within the structure of the organisation. In practice, the
manner in which people actually behave may not be consistent with their expected
pattern of behavior. Problems of role incompatibility and role ambiguity arise from
inadequate or inappropriate role definition and can be a significant source of conflict.
■ Inequitable treatment. A person’s perception of unjust treatment, such as in the
operation of personnel policies and practices, or in reward and punishment systems, can
lead to tension and conflict. For example, according to the equity theory of motivation the
perception of inequity will motivate a person to take action to restore equity, including
changes to inputs or outputs, or through acting on others.
■ Violation of territory. People tend to become attached to their own ‘territory’ within
work organizations; for example, to their own area of work, or kinds of clients to be dealt
with; or to their own room, chair or parking space. Jealousy may arise over other people’s
territory – for example, size of room, company car, allocation of a secretary or other
perks – through access to information; or through membership of groups. A stranger
walking into a place of work can create an immediate feeling of suspicion or even
resentment because people do not usually like ‘their’ territory entered by someone they
do not know, and whose motives are probably unclear to them.
Ownership of territory may be conferred formally, for example by organization charts,
job descriptions or management decisions. It may be established through procedures,
for example circulation lists or membership of committees. Or it may arise informally,
for example through group norms, tradition or perceived status symbols. The place where
people choose to meet can have a possible, significant symbolic value. For example, if a
subordinate is summoned to a meeting in a manager’s office this might be taken that the
manager is signaling higher status. If the manager chooses to meet at the subordinate’s
place of work, or on neutral territory, this may be a signal that the manager wishes to
meet the subordinate as an equal. If a person’s territory is violated this can lead to the
possibility of retaliation and conflict.

pg. 6
■ Environmental change. Changes in an organization’s external environment, such as
shifts in demand, increased competition, government intervention, new technology or
changing social values, can cause major areas of conflict. For example, a fall in demand
for, or government financial restrictions on, enrolments for a certain discipline in higher
education can result in conflict for the allocation of resources. If the department
concerned is a large and important one, and led by a powerful head, then there could be
even greater potential for conflict. There are many other potential sources of
organizational conflict, including:
 individual – such as attitudes, personality characteristics or particular personal
needs, illness or stress;
 group – such as group skills, the informal organization and group norms;
 organization – such as communications, authority structure, leadership style,
managerial behaviour;
 the age gap – for example, relationships between older employees and younger
managers, where experience is on one side and power on the other, can lead to
conflict. The problem for the inexperienced manager in conflict with an older
employee is that it is all too easy to label someone ‘difficult’ rather than
intelligently trying to explore the reasons behind their behaviour. If steps are not
taken to improve the relationship both manager and employee can end up feeling
threatened and undermined.
Conflict Outcomes
FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES How might conflict act as a force to increase group
performance? It is hard to visualize a situation where open or violent aggression could be
functional. But there are a number of instances where it is possible to envision how low
or moderate levels of conflict could improve the effectiveness of a group. Because people
often find it difficult to think of instances where conflict can be constructive, let’s
consider some examples and then review the research evidence.
Conflict is constructive when it improves the quality of decisions, stimulates creativity
and innovation, encourages interest and curiosity among group members, provides the
medium through which problems can be aired and tensions released, and fosters an
environment of self-evaluation and change. The evidence suggests that conflict can
improve the quality of decision making by allowing all points, particularly the ones that
are unusual or held by a minority, to be weighed in important decisions. Conflict is an
antidote for groupthink. It doesn’t allow the group passively to “rubber-stamp” decisions
that may be based on weak assumptions, inadequate consideration of relevant
alternatives, or other debilities.
Conflict challenges the status quo and therefore furthers the creation of new ideas,
promotes reassessment of group goals and activities, and increases the probability that the
pg. 7
group will respond to change. For examples of companies that have suffered because they
had too little functional conflict, you don’t have to look further than Sears, Roebuck and
General Motors. Much of the problems that beset both of these companies throughout the
1970s and 1980s can be traced to a lack of functional conflict. They hired and promoted
individuals who were “yes men,” loyal to the organization to the point of never
questioning company actions. Managers were, for the most part, conservative white
Anglo-Saxon males raised in the Midwestern United States who resisted change—they
preferred looking back to past successes rather than forward to new challenges.
Moreover, both firms kept their senior executives sheltered in their respective Chicago
and Detroit headquarters’ offices, protected from hearing anything they didn’t want to
hear, and a “world away” from the changes that were dramatically altering the retailing
and automobile industries.
Research studies in diverse settings confirm the functionality of conflict. Consider the
following findings. The comparison of six major decisions made during the
administration of four different U.S. presidents found that conflict reduced the chance
that groupthink would overpower policy decisions. The comparisons demonstrated that
conformity among presidential advisors was related to poor decisions, while an
atmosphere of constructive conflict and critical thinking surrounded the well-developed
decisions.
There is evidence indicating that conflict can also be positively related to productivity.
For instance, it was demonstrated that, among established groups, performance tended to
improve more when there was conflict among members than when there was fairly close
agreement. The investigators observed that when groups analyzed decisions that had been
made by the individual members of that group, the average improvement among the high-
conflict groups was 73 percent greater than was that of those groups characterized by
low-conflict conditions.
Others have found similar results: Groups composed of members with different interests
tend to produce higher-quality solutions to a variety of problems than do homogeneous
groups. The preceding leads us to predict that the increasing cultural diversity of the work
force should provide benefits to organizations. And that’s what the evidence indicates.
Research demonstrates that heterogeneity among group and organization members can
increase creativity, improve the quality of decisions, and facilitate change by enhancing
member flexibility. For example, researchers compared decision-making groups
composed of all-Anglo individuals with groups that also contained members from Asian,
Hispanic, and black ethnic groups. The ethnically diverse groups produced more effective
and more feasible ideas and the unique ideas they generated tended to be of higher
quality than the unique ideas produced by the all-Anglo group.

pg. 8
Similarly, studies of professionals—systems analysts and research and development
scientists—support the constructive value of conflict. An investigation of 22 teams of
systems analysts found that the more incompatible groups were likely to be more
productive. Research and development scientists have been found to be most productive
where there is a certain amount of intellectual conflict. Conflict can even be constructive
on sports teams and in unions. Studies of sports teams indicate that moderate levels of
group conflict contribute to team effectiveness and provide an additional stimulus for
high achievement.
An examination of local unions found that conflict between members of the local was
positively related to the union’s power and to member loyalty and participation in union
affairs. These findings might suggest that conflict within a group indicates strength rather
than, as in the traditional view, weakness.
From a survey of practicing managers, who reported that they spend approximately 20
per cent of their time dealing with conflict situations, Schmidt records a number of both
positive and negative outcomes of conflict.
Positive outcomes include:
■ better ideas produced;
■ people forced to search for new approaches;
■ long-standing problems brought to the surface and resolved;
■ clarification of individual views;
■ stimulation of interest and creativity;
■ a chance for people to test their capacities.
DYSFUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES The destructive consequences of conflict upon a
group or organization’s performance are generally well known. A reasonable summary
might state: Uncontrolled opposition breeds discontent, which acts to dissolve common
ties, and eventually leads to the destruction of the group. And, of course, there is a
substantial body of literature to document how dysfunctional conflict can reduce group
effectiveness.
Among the more undesirable consequences are a retarding of communication, reductions
in group cohesiveness, and subordination of group goals to the primacy of infighting
between members. At the extreme, conflict can bring group functioning to a halt and
potentially threaten the group’s survival.
Negative outcomes include:
■ some people felt defeated and demeaned;
■ the distance between people increased;
■ a climate of mistrust and suspicion developed;
■ individuals and groups concentrated on their own narrow interests;
■ resistance developed rather than teamwork;
pg. 9
■ an increase in employee turnover.
Conflict Management
Although a certain amount of organizational conflict may be seen as inevitable, there are
a number of ways in which management can attempt to avoid the harmful effects of
conflict. The strategies adopted will vary according to the nature and sources of conflict
outlined above.
■ Clarification of goals and objectives. The clarification and continual refinement of
goals and objectives, role definitions and performance standards will help to avoid
misunderstandings and conflict. Focusing attention on superordinate goals that are shared
by the parties in conflict may help to defuse hostility and lead to more cooperative
behaviour.
■ Resource distribution. Although it may not always be possible for managers to increase
their allocated share of resources, they may be able to use imagination and initiative to
help overcome conflict situations – for example, making a special case to higher
management; greater flexibility to transfer funds between budget headings; delaying staff
appointments in one area to provide more money for another area.
■ Human resource management policies and procedures. Careful and detailed attention
to just and equitable HRM policies and procedures may help to reduce areas of conflict.
Examples are: job analysis, recruitment and selection, job evaluation; systems of reward
and punishment; appeals, grievance and disciplinary procedures; arbitration and
mediation; recognition of trade unions and their officials.
■ Non-monetary rewards. Where financial resources are limited, it may be possible to
pay greater attention to non-monetary rewards. Examples are: job design; more
interesting, challenging or responsible work; increased delegation or empowerment;
flexible working hours; attendance at courses or conferences; unofficial perks or more
relaxed working conditions.
■ Development of interpersonal/group process skills. This may help to encourage a
better understanding of one’s own behaviour, the other person’s point of view,
communication processes and problem-solving. It may also encourage people to work
through conflict situations in a constructive manner.
■ Group activities. Attention to the composition of groups and to factors which affect
group cohesiveness may reduce dysfunctional conflict. Overlapping group membership
with a ‘linking-pin’ process, and the careful selection of project teams or task forces for
problems affecting more than one group, may also be beneficial.
■ Leadership and management. A more participative and supportive style of leadership
and managerial behaviour is likely to assist in conflict management – for example,
showing an attitude of respect and trust; encouraging personal self-development; creating
a work environment in which staff can work co-operatively together. A participative
pg. 10
approach to leadership and management may also help to create greater employee
commitment.
■ Organizational processes. Conflict situations may be reduced by attention to such
features as: the nature of the authority structure; work organization; patterns of
communication and sharing of information; democratic functioning of the organization;
unnecessary adherence to bureaucratic procedures, and official rules and regulations.
■ Socio-technical approach. Viewing the organisation as a socio-technical system, in
which psychological and social factors are developed in keeping with structural and
technical requirements, will help in reducing dysfunctional conflict.

Conflict Stimulation
Conflict stimulation techniques include the following:
Problem solving: Face-to-face meeting of the conflicting parties for the purpose of
identifying the problem and resolving it through open discussion.
Superordinate goals: Creating a shared goal that cannot be attained without the
cooperation of each of the conflicting parties.
Expansion of resources: When a conflict is caused by the scarcity of a resource—say,
money, promotion opportunities, office space—expansion of the resource can create a
win-win solution.
Avoidance: Withdrawal from, or suppression of, the conflict Smoothing Playing down
differences while emphasizing common interests between the conflicting parties.
Compromise: Each party to the conflict gives up something of value.
Authoritative command: Management uses its formal authority to resolve the conflict
and then communicates its desires to the parties involved.
Altering the human variable: Using behavioral change techniques such as human
relations training to alter attitudes and behaviors that cause conflict.
Altering the structural variables: Changing the formal organization structure and the
interaction patterns of conflicting parties through job redesign, transfers, creation of
coordinating positions, and the like.

Conflict Resolution
Conflict resolution techniques include the following:
Communication: Using ambiguous or threatening messages to increase conflict levels.
Bringing in outsiders: Adding employees to a group whose backgrounds, values,
attitudes, or managerial styles differ from those of present members.
Restructuring the organization: Realigning work groups, altering rules and regulations,
increasing interdependence, and making similar structural changes to disrupt the status
quo.
Appointing a devil’s advocate: Designating a critic to purposely argue against the
majority positions held by the group.
pg. 11
Interpersonal Relations Management
Bargaining and negotiation are two closely associated processes that are often employed
to work out the differences in interests and concerns that generate conflict. Bargaining
between conflicting parties consists of offers, counteroffers, and concessions exchanged
in a search for some mutually acceptable resolution. Negotiation, in turn, is the process
in which the parties decide what each will give and take in this exchange.
In the business world, relations between management and labor are often the focus of
bargaining and negotiation. Both processes also occur elsewhere in organizations,
however, as people and groups try to satisfy their own desires and control the extent to
which they must sacrifice so as to satisfy others. In tight economies, for example, groups
of secretaries who are dependent on the same supply budget may have to bargain with
each other to see who will get new office equipment and who will have to make do with
existing equipment. A company’s sales force may try to negotiate favorable delivery
dates for its best clients by offering manufacturing personnel leeway in meeting deadlines
for other customers’ orders. In deciding which conflicting interests will be satisfied,
parties engaged in bargaining and negotiation can choose the degree to which they will
assert themselves and look after their own interests. They can also decide whether they
will cooperate with their adversary and put its interests ahead of their own.
Five general approaches to managing divergent interests exist that are characterized by
different mixes of assertiveness and cooperativeness. Using two dimensions
(cooperativeness and assertiveness) five conflict handling intentions can be identified:
competing (assertive and uncooperative), collaborating (assertive and cooperative),
avoiding (unassertive and uncooperative), accommodating (unassertive and cooperative),
and compromising (midrange on both assertiveness and cooperativeness).
Cooperativeness is the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy the other party’s
concerns and assertiveness is the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy his or her
own concerns.
COMPETING When one person seeks to satisfy his or her own interests, regardless of
the impact on the other parties to the conflict, he or she is competing. Examples are
intending to achieve your goal at the sacrifice of the other’s goal, attempting to convince
another that your conclusion is correct and his or hers is mistaken, and trying to make
someone else accept blame for a problem.
COLLABORATING When the parties to conflict each desire to fully satisfy the concerns
of all parties, we have cooperation and the search for a mutually beneficial outcome. In
collaborating, the intention of the parties is to solve the problem by clarifying differences
rather than by accommodating various points of view. Examples are attempting to find a

pg. 12
win-win solution that allows both parties’ goals to be completely achieved and seeking a
conclusion that incorporates the valid insights of both parties.
AVOIDING A person may recognize that a conflict exists and want to withdraw from it
or suppress it. Examples of avoiding are trying to just ignore a conflict and avoiding
others with whom you disagree.
ACCOMMODATING When one party seeks to appease an opponent, that party may be
willing to place the opponent’s interests above his or her own. In other words, in order for
the relationship to be maintained, one party is willing to be self-sacrificing. We refer to
this intention as accommodating. Examples are a willingness to sacrifice your goal so the
other party’s goal can be attained, supporting someone else’s opinion despite your
reservations about it, and forgiving someone for an infraction and allowing subsequent
ones.
COMPROMISING When each party to the conflict seeks to give up something, sharing
occurs, resulting in a compromised outcome. In compromising, there is no clear winner
or loser. Rather, there is a willingness to ration the object of the conflict and accept a
solution that provides incomplete satisfaction of both parties’ concerns. The
distinguishing characteristic of compromising, therefore, is that each party intends to give
up something. Examples might be willingness to accept a raise of $1 an hour rather than
$2, to acknowledge partial agreement with a specific viewpoint, and to take partial blame
for an infraction. Intentions provide general guidelines for parties in a conflict situation.
They define each party’s purpose. Yet, people’s intentions are not fixed. During the
course of a conflict, they might change because of reconceptualization or because of an
emotional reaction to the behavior of the other party.
However, research indicates that people have an underlying disposition to handle
conflicts in certain ways. Specifically, individuals have preferences among the five
conflict-handling intentions just described; these preferences tend to be relied upon quite
consistently, and a person’s intentions can be predicted rather well from a combination of
intellectual and personality characteristics. So it may be more appropriate to view the five
conflict-handling intentions as relatively fixed rather than as a set of options from which
individuals choose to fit an appropriate situation. That is, when confronting a conflict
situation, some people want to win it all at any cost, some want to find an optimum
solution, some want to run away, others want to be obliging, and still others want to “split
the difference.”

pg. 13