Strategies to handle workplace conflict

Conflict can be stressful, draining and uncomfortable. PHOTO | PHOTOS.COM 

By SCOTT BELLOWS

In Summary

• Use non-offensive objective language, such as “declining to listen” instead of “refusing to listen”. You do not desire to start of conflict resolution with the other side defensive.

Koki worked in an international news organisation in its East Africa division based in Nairobi. She enjoyed the fast paced environment and standing at the forefront of representing the region to the world.

Upon her third year with the firm, she received a promotion to bureau chief. Gratified by the acknowledgement of her efforts, Koki continued working hard for the company.

By her fourth year, the news organisation decided to undergo cost cutting measures and detailed a plan to merge regional news bureaus into super-regional outposts. The news chief informed Koki that the East Africa and Southern Africa bureaus would merge.

She strongly disagreed with the firm’s decision and decided to debate and negotiate in order to win concessions in the organisational conflict.

The company remained steadfast regarding the cost saving benefits while Koki firmly believed that the move would decrease the responsiveness of regional news dissemination while providing no cost benefit. She argued that while a few staff could be retrenchment in the merger, more travel expenses within the region commensurate with the change would negate any savings.

Both Koki and her regional team would not budge while the news entity also would not move off of their initial position.
Conflict afflicts every organisation from time to time. However, most seem ill-prepared.

So, first, let us examine the five different types of conflict management styles. While many conflict management models exist, two major schools of thought exist. We will apply Robert Lussier and Christopher Achua’s five- step framework and see where Koki falls.

First, some workers fit into the avoiding conflict style. Such passive avoiders flee conflict like the plague. Instead of negotiating the conflict, they run from it entirely. Therefore, they lose and so does the other party. They hold low concern for other people’s needs as well as their own. Neither receive satisfaction from obtaining resolution.

Second, other professionals may harbour accommodating conflict styles. While they do not avoid disagreement, conflict makes them so uncomfortable that they accommodate the complete will of other people.

The passivity causes the other party to win while they themselves sadly lose almost every time. They retain very high concern for the needs of others, but do not mind their own needs. Koki clearly does not fall into the first or second category.

Third, on the opposite, one might keep complete low regard for other individuals’ needs but quite high importance on their own needs. Such aggressive individuals fall into the forcing conflict style category. They win and others regularly lose.

Both Koki and the news organisation fall into the third category because of their refusal to parley. In the Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode model, such behaviour is regarded as competing behaviour that results in a zero sum game.

Fourth, an individual could demonstrate more maturity and incorporate a collaborating conflict style. The assertive behaviour, rather than aggressive or passive, looks to accommodate both sides fully in a “you win and I win” outcome with all parties winning.

They demonstrate high regard for their own needs and the needs of others. However, a true win-win for all sides often becomes elusive to realise.

Inasmuch, the fifth category often presents itself as a more attractive alternative. In the negotiating conflict style, sometimes they win and sometimes the other party wins.

Also assertive behaviour, such workers hold moderate regard for their own needs and the needs of other.

Koki and the news firm should move towards the fourth or fifth category above for more advanced conflict resolution outcomes.

A solution that psychologists find as an effective conflict resolution technique for willing participants involves framing disagreements into BCF statements. BCF stands for behaviour, consequences, and feelings. Instead of accusing, blaming, and pointing proverbial fingers at each other, both sides should prepare BCF statements.

State the specific offending behaviour of the other party. State it succinctly and without emotion. Koki could state that the news chief’s behaviour includes declining to listen to other points of view.

Use non-offensive objective language, such as “declining to listen” instead of “refusing to listen”. You do not desire to start of conflict resolution with the other side defensive.

Next, detail the consequences of that offending behaviour. Again, give objective consequences. Koki, as an example, could claim that the consequences entail less responsiveness to news stories and therefore reduced viewers that lower advertising profits. Such objectivity with clear negative outcomes from the behaviour is hard to argue against.

Finally, state how the consequences make you feel as the offended party. Koki could claim that the consequences would make her feel less professional and less competent because she could not respond as quickly to news stories.

Now, think of a situation where you have some conflict with another person. It could include conflict at home or in the workplace. Try to jot down some notes on how you could reframe the conflict into a BCF statement.

Then, during your next encounter with that individual, implement the BCF statement into the early part of your conversation. You will find them more responsive than before. The brilliance of a BCF statement hinges on that it does not accuse, comes off as more objective, and shows feelings as the last part.

If you initiate conflict resolution, start with your BCF statement first. If you respond to conflict, then restate their argument into a BCF statement.

If you happen to mediate between two conflicting parties, make both sides state their case in BCF statements. Then in all situations, develop resolutions and alternative solutions, and then agree.

Discuss conflict resolution horror stories and successes with other Business Daily readers through #KenyaExecutives on Twitter.

**********
Prof Scott serves as the Director of the New Economy Venture Accelerator (NEVA) at USIU’s Chandaria School of Business and Colorado State University, www.ScottProfessor.com, and may be reached on: info@scottprofessor.com or follow on Twitter: @ScottProfessor