If in the process of conflict analysis manager can not understand its nature and source, it can bring for this competent persons (experts). Expert opinion is often more persuasive than the opinion of the immediate supervisor. However, in this case each of the parties to the conflict may suspect that the manager-umpire in certain circumstances or for any subjective reasons, it may take the side of her opponent. And in such a situation, the conflict does not die, and is enhanced, as the “wronged” party has to fight is against the manager.
There are three points of view on the conflict:
manager believes that the conflict is not needed and does nothing but harm the organization. In such a case, the case manager – remove it by any means;
proponents of the second argument is that the conflict – is unwanted, but a fairly common by-product of the organization and the manager should eliminate it wherever it arose;
Managers who hold a third point of view, believe that the conflict is not only inevitable, but necessary and potentially useful. For example, it can be a labor dispute, in which the truth is born.
They believe that, no matter how grown and no matter how well managed organization, conflict will always arise, and this is quite normal.
Depending on which of these viewpoints adheres manager and will depend upon the procedure to overcome the conflict. In this regard, methods of conflict management are divided into two groups: the pedagogical and administrative (Figure 12.4).
A particular challenge for managers is to find ways to resolve interpersonal conflicts. In this sense, there are several possible strategies for behavior and their management options to eliminate the conflict.
Behavior management conflict has essentially two independent measurements:
assertiveness, perseverance characterize the behavior of the individual, aimed at the realization of their own interests, pursue their own, often mercantile purposes;
kooperativnost characterizes the behavior aimed at the interests of the other person (s) in order to go towards meeting their (his) needs.
The combination of these parameters at different degrees of severity identifies five main ways to resolve interpersonal conflicts.
Avoidance, evasion (low assertiveness combined with low cooperativity). With this strategy, behavior management actions are intended to get out of the situation without conceding, but did not insist on his own, refraining from joining in the debates and discussions, statements from his position. In response to the claim or allegation of such a leader takes the conversation to another topic. It does not take responsibility for the problems, does not want to see matters not give value differences, denies the existence of conflict or general considers it useless, trying not to get into situations that provoke conflict.
Compulsion (confrontation) – in this case, the high assertiveness combined with low cooperativity. Actions aimed at the manager to have his own way of open struggle for their own interests, the use of power, coercion. The confrontation involves the perception of the situation as a victory or defeat, occupation assertive and manifestation of the irreconcilable antagonism in the case of resistance to the partner. This will cause the head to accept his point of view at any cost.
Smoothing (compliance) – weak assertiveness combined with high cooperativity. Actions of a leader in a conflict aimed at maintaining or restoring good relations, to ensure the satisfaction of another person by smoothing out the differences. For this he is ready to give up, ignore their interests, seek to support the other, do not hurt his feelings, consider his arguments. His motto: “Do not quarrel, because all of us – one happy team, which is in the same boat, which should not be rocking.”
Compromise, cooperation – high assertiveness combined with high cooperativity. Contact our the manager’s actions are aimed at finding solutions that fully meet his interests and wishes of the other person in the course of an open and frank exchange of views on the issue. He is trying to resolve the differences, giving something in return for concessions on the other hand, in the process of negotiations seeking interim “average” solutions satisfying both sides, in which nobody loses anything particularly, but not acquire.
Among the leaders of the majority there is a belief that even with full self-righteousness is better not to “get involved” in the conflict situation in general or to retreat than to enter into open confrontation. However, if it is a business decision on the validity of which depends on the success of the case, such flexibility is wrapped mismanagement and other losses. According to experts in the field of management, the choice of strategy of compromise – the best way to eliminate contradictions. Thanks to the cooperation can be achieved most efficient, stable and reliable results.
The solution involves the recognition of differences of opinion and a willingness to learn from other points of view to understand the causes of the conflict and resolve it acceptable to all parties manner. Anyone who uses this strategy is not trying to get things done at the expense of others, and look for the best option solutions conflict. Here are some suggestions for using this management style of conflict resolution:
define a problem in terms of goals, not making;
after a problem is identified, determine solutions that are acceptable to both parties;
focus the attention on the problem, not the personal qualities of the other party;
create an atmosphere of trust, mutual influence on increasing the exchange of information;
during intercourse create a positive attitude in conflict with each other, showing sympathy and listening to the views of one and the other, as well as minimizing the manifestation of their anger and threats.