Description
Managers often have an innate preference for only one or two. This article will present five conflict resolution styles, illustrate how to use these conflict resolution styles strategically, and offer advice regarding the negotiation of conflict resolution.
HR025
Managing Confict in the Workplace
1
Julie Gatlin, Allen Wysocki, and Karl Kepner
2
1. This document is HR025, one of a series of the Food and Resource Economics Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food
and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Original publication date June 2002. Revised October 2008. Reviewed February 2012. Visit the EDIS
website at http://edis.ifas.uf.edu.
2. Julie Gatlin, Master of Agribusiness student; Allen Wysocki, Assistant Professor; and Karl Kepner; Department of Food and Resource Economics, Florida
Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611.
The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Opportunity Institution authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to
individuals and institutions that function with non-discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national
origin, political opinions or afliations. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, IFAS, Florida A&M University Cooperative
Extension Program, and Boards of County Commissioners Cooperating. Millie Ferrer-Chancy, Interim Dean
Introduction
Experts agree that a number of confict resolution styles
exist (Bell, Reynolds/Kalish, Robin, and Wertheim, 2002).
None are right or wrong, just diferent. Managers ofen have
an innate preference for only one or two. Tis article will
present fve confict resolution styles, illustrate how to use
these confict resolution styles strategically, and ofer advice
regarding the negotiation of confict resolution.
Five Confict Resolution Styles
According to Robin (2002), there are fve confict resolution
styles: confront, compromise, collaborate, accommodate,
and avoid. Identify the preference(s) you most ofen use
from these resolution styles. Tink about times you have
interacted with styles other than your own. Once the
diferences between these styles are identifed, they can be
managed, and the appropriateness of when to use them can
be determined.
Style 1. Confront
Tis approach directly addresses the confict and is ofen
viewed as “might makes right” (Robin, 2002). A confron-
tational style usually involves high emotional levels, clear
clarity of both goals, weak relationship, low concern for
formalities or fear of punishment, moderate concerns for
traditions, and a moderate self-concept.
Style 2. Compromise
Compromise involves bargaining and mutually giving up
something to reach a settlement. It can be used to get a
quick resolution, with the prevention of further escalation
(Robin, 2002). Compromise usually involves high to
moderate emotional levels, high to low skill levels, moder-
ate clarity of both goals, moderate status of the relationship,
win-win attitude toward authority, moderate concern for
traditions, and moderate fear of punishment.
Style 3. Collaborate
Tis involves working together to generate win-win alterna-
tives for resolving issues (Robin, 2002). Collaborating
involves high to moderate skill levels of parties, clear clarity
of both goals, strong status of relationships, Win-Win
attitude toward authority, low concerns for formalities and
traditions, and a high self-concept.
Style 4. Accommodate
Tis involves listening and accepting without resistance.
Tis style is characterized by suppressed emotional levels, a
high to low skill level of parties, a moderate clarity of goals
of both, a weak status of relationships, a lose-win attitude
toward authority, high concerns for formalities, a moderate
self-concept, and a high fear of punishment.
Style 5. Avoid
Tis involves not addressing the confict. Avoidance is
characterized by a controlled emotional level, a high to low
2
skill levels of parties, a lose-win attitude toward authority,
high concern for formalities and traditions, a low self
concept, and a high fear of punishment.
Confict Resolution Styles Used as
Strategies
Te fve confict resolution styles (confront, collaborate,
compromise, accommodate, and avoid) can be used
strategically in three specifc ways when dealing with
confict. Tese three strategies are engage, do not engage,
and negotiate.
Engage Strategy
An engage strategy would be used when the situation
allows for confronting, compromising, or collaborating
(Robin, 2002).
In confrontations, the engage strategy can be aggressive
but not hostile, because the outcome should be a win-win
situation for all parties. If hostile feelings remain, consider
using another strategy.
Because compromise involves negotiating for a mutually
desirable outcome, the engage strategy means putting
diferences aside and working together for an agreeable
solution.
When using the engage strategy for collaboration, working
as a team is important. Everyone is responsible for input
and has a voice in the decision making process.
Do-Not-Engage Strategy
A do-not-engage strategy is appropriate when situations
allow for accommodating and avoiding. Not engaging
does not mean the same as resisting or being defensive, it
is a conscious and deliberate choice not to be adversarial
(Robin, 2002).
Te do-not-engage strategy is efective in accommodating
because the issue is less important than the relationship. For
example, suppose a farm has ordered several tons of feed
per week from your company, which it wants delivered on
a day your company does not make deliveries to that area.
In this instance, you may want to make special delivery
arrangements since the delivery issue is less important than
the large account relationship.
With avoidance, the do-not-engage strategy is one that does
not pursue any party’s particular concerns. It is appropri-
ate to use when there is no way for anyone to win or the
situation needs a “cooling of” period. For example, this
strategy might be most efective when management is not
present to make a decision or when emotions are too high
or alcohol use is involved.
Negotiate Strategy
It is important to know when and how to negotiate. Tere
are several styles of negotiation. Consider using negotiation
for confronting, compromising, or collaborating.
Te best time to negotiate is whenever you can make the
opponents ofers they may fnd more attractive than the
next-best alternative. Te following is a list of appropriate
times to negotiate (Robin, 2002):
• When you must make a decision and there are no better
alternatives.
• When the task or issue is important (if it is not, either let
it go or lead strongly).
• When you are in a position to explore other options.
• When not negotiating would cost you, or you have
something to gain.
• When there has been a misunderstanding, or no under-
standing or agreement.
• When you would prefer to openly discuss diferences.
• To be a model by demonstrating what efective negotia-
tion is all about.
Tere are many types of negotiators. Being aware of a
associate’s (employee’s) negotiating style can help the
confict resolution process. Following are some of the types
of negotiators suggested by E. Werthiem, PhD. (2002):
• Te aggressive: makes cutting remarks about the op-
ponent’s past performance or unreasonableness or makes
statements that imply that the opponent is inferior and
unimportant.
• Te long pauser: uses long silences for the purpose of
eliciting revealing information from the opponent.
• Te mocking negotiator: antagonizes the opponent to elicit
responses that will later be regretted.
• Te interrogator: challenges all answers in a confronta-
tional manner and continues to demand further details.
3
• Te cloak of reasonableness: appears to be reasonable
while making impossible demands for the purpose of
winning the opponent’s confdence while undermining
him.
• Divide and conquer: used when negotiating with a group
to create dissension among opponents so that opponents
are distracted by internal disagreements rather than the
issue at-hand.
• Te “act dumb” negotiator: pretends not to understand
the issue so that the opponent, or opponents, will become
so exasperated that he, or someone in the group, will
accidentally reveal information.
Conclusion
Managers and associates continually face confict in the
workplace. Using the fve confict resolution styles and
knowing when to use them makes resolving diferences
easier.
References
Bell, Art Ph.D. (2002). Six ways to resolve workplace
conficts. McLaren School of Business, University of San
Francisco website. Available on the World Wide Web at
http://www.usfca.edu/fac-staf/bell/article15.html. Date
visited, March 11, 2002.
Reynolds, Stephanie, and Eryn Kalish. (2002). Managing
collaborative confict resolution. Reynolds/Kalish website.
Available on the World Wide Web at http://www.reynolds-
kalish.com/mccr.html. Date visited, March 13, 2002.
Robin, Daniel. (2002). When to engage, when not to
engage. A Daniel Robin and Associates website. Available
on the World Wide Web at http://www.abetterworkplace.
com/085.html. Date visited, March 11, 2002.
Wertheim, Professor E. (2002). Negotiations and resolving
conficts: An overview. A Northeastern University website.
Available on the World Wide Web at http://web.cba.neu.
edu/~ewertheim/interper/negot3.htm. Date visited, March
11, 2002.
doc_758805180.pdf
Managers often have an innate preference for only one or two. This article will present five conflict resolution styles, illustrate how to use these conflict resolution styles strategically, and offer advice regarding the negotiation of conflict resolution.
HR025
Managing Confict in the Workplace
1
Julie Gatlin, Allen Wysocki, and Karl Kepner
2
1. This document is HR025, one of a series of the Food and Resource Economics Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food
and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Original publication date June 2002. Revised October 2008. Reviewed February 2012. Visit the EDIS
website at http://edis.ifas.uf.edu.
2. Julie Gatlin, Master of Agribusiness student; Allen Wysocki, Assistant Professor; and Karl Kepner; Department of Food and Resource Economics, Florida
Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611.
The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Opportunity Institution authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to
individuals and institutions that function with non-discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national
origin, political opinions or afliations. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, IFAS, Florida A&M University Cooperative
Extension Program, and Boards of County Commissioners Cooperating. Millie Ferrer-Chancy, Interim Dean
Introduction
Experts agree that a number of confict resolution styles
exist (Bell, Reynolds/Kalish, Robin, and Wertheim, 2002).
None are right or wrong, just diferent. Managers ofen have
an innate preference for only one or two. Tis article will
present fve confict resolution styles, illustrate how to use
these confict resolution styles strategically, and ofer advice
regarding the negotiation of confict resolution.
Five Confict Resolution Styles
According to Robin (2002), there are fve confict resolution
styles: confront, compromise, collaborate, accommodate,
and avoid. Identify the preference(s) you most ofen use
from these resolution styles. Tink about times you have
interacted with styles other than your own. Once the
diferences between these styles are identifed, they can be
managed, and the appropriateness of when to use them can
be determined.
Style 1. Confront
Tis approach directly addresses the confict and is ofen
viewed as “might makes right” (Robin, 2002). A confron-
tational style usually involves high emotional levels, clear
clarity of both goals, weak relationship, low concern for
formalities or fear of punishment, moderate concerns for
traditions, and a moderate self-concept.
Style 2. Compromise
Compromise involves bargaining and mutually giving up
something to reach a settlement. It can be used to get a
quick resolution, with the prevention of further escalation
(Robin, 2002). Compromise usually involves high to
moderate emotional levels, high to low skill levels, moder-
ate clarity of both goals, moderate status of the relationship,
win-win attitude toward authority, moderate concern for
traditions, and moderate fear of punishment.
Style 3. Collaborate
Tis involves working together to generate win-win alterna-
tives for resolving issues (Robin, 2002). Collaborating
involves high to moderate skill levels of parties, clear clarity
of both goals, strong status of relationships, Win-Win
attitude toward authority, low concerns for formalities and
traditions, and a high self-concept.
Style 4. Accommodate
Tis involves listening and accepting without resistance.
Tis style is characterized by suppressed emotional levels, a
high to low skill level of parties, a moderate clarity of goals
of both, a weak status of relationships, a lose-win attitude
toward authority, high concerns for formalities, a moderate
self-concept, and a high fear of punishment.
Style 5. Avoid
Tis involves not addressing the confict. Avoidance is
characterized by a controlled emotional level, a high to low
2
skill levels of parties, a lose-win attitude toward authority,
high concern for formalities and traditions, a low self
concept, and a high fear of punishment.
Confict Resolution Styles Used as
Strategies
Te fve confict resolution styles (confront, collaborate,
compromise, accommodate, and avoid) can be used
strategically in three specifc ways when dealing with
confict. Tese three strategies are engage, do not engage,
and negotiate.
Engage Strategy
An engage strategy would be used when the situation
allows for confronting, compromising, or collaborating
(Robin, 2002).
In confrontations, the engage strategy can be aggressive
but not hostile, because the outcome should be a win-win
situation for all parties. If hostile feelings remain, consider
using another strategy.
Because compromise involves negotiating for a mutually
desirable outcome, the engage strategy means putting
diferences aside and working together for an agreeable
solution.
When using the engage strategy for collaboration, working
as a team is important. Everyone is responsible for input
and has a voice in the decision making process.
Do-Not-Engage Strategy
A do-not-engage strategy is appropriate when situations
allow for accommodating and avoiding. Not engaging
does not mean the same as resisting or being defensive, it
is a conscious and deliberate choice not to be adversarial
(Robin, 2002).
Te do-not-engage strategy is efective in accommodating
because the issue is less important than the relationship. For
example, suppose a farm has ordered several tons of feed
per week from your company, which it wants delivered on
a day your company does not make deliveries to that area.
In this instance, you may want to make special delivery
arrangements since the delivery issue is less important than
the large account relationship.
With avoidance, the do-not-engage strategy is one that does
not pursue any party’s particular concerns. It is appropri-
ate to use when there is no way for anyone to win or the
situation needs a “cooling of” period. For example, this
strategy might be most efective when management is not
present to make a decision or when emotions are too high
or alcohol use is involved.
Negotiate Strategy
It is important to know when and how to negotiate. Tere
are several styles of negotiation. Consider using negotiation
for confronting, compromising, or collaborating.
Te best time to negotiate is whenever you can make the
opponents ofers they may fnd more attractive than the
next-best alternative. Te following is a list of appropriate
times to negotiate (Robin, 2002):
• When you must make a decision and there are no better
alternatives.
• When the task or issue is important (if it is not, either let
it go or lead strongly).
• When you are in a position to explore other options.
• When not negotiating would cost you, or you have
something to gain.
• When there has been a misunderstanding, or no under-
standing or agreement.
• When you would prefer to openly discuss diferences.
• To be a model by demonstrating what efective negotia-
tion is all about.
Tere are many types of negotiators. Being aware of a
associate’s (employee’s) negotiating style can help the
confict resolution process. Following are some of the types
of negotiators suggested by E. Werthiem, PhD. (2002):
• Te aggressive: makes cutting remarks about the op-
ponent’s past performance or unreasonableness or makes
statements that imply that the opponent is inferior and
unimportant.
• Te long pauser: uses long silences for the purpose of
eliciting revealing information from the opponent.
• Te mocking negotiator: antagonizes the opponent to elicit
responses that will later be regretted.
• Te interrogator: challenges all answers in a confronta-
tional manner and continues to demand further details.
3
• Te cloak of reasonableness: appears to be reasonable
while making impossible demands for the purpose of
winning the opponent’s confdence while undermining
him.
• Divide and conquer: used when negotiating with a group
to create dissension among opponents so that opponents
are distracted by internal disagreements rather than the
issue at-hand.
• Te “act dumb” negotiator: pretends not to understand
the issue so that the opponent, or opponents, will become
so exasperated that he, or someone in the group, will
accidentally reveal information.
Conclusion
Managers and associates continually face confict in the
workplace. Using the fve confict resolution styles and
knowing when to use them makes resolving diferences
easier.
References
Bell, Art Ph.D. (2002). Six ways to resolve workplace
conficts. McLaren School of Business, University of San
Francisco website. Available on the World Wide Web at
http://www.usfca.edu/fac-staf/bell/article15.html. Date
visited, March 11, 2002.
Reynolds, Stephanie, and Eryn Kalish. (2002). Managing
collaborative confict resolution. Reynolds/Kalish website.
Available on the World Wide Web at http://www.reynolds-
kalish.com/mccr.html. Date visited, March 13, 2002.
Robin, Daniel. (2002). When to engage, when not to
engage. A Daniel Robin and Associates website. Available
on the World Wide Web at http://www.abetterworkplace.
com/085.html. Date visited, March 11, 2002.
Wertheim, Professor E. (2002). Negotiations and resolving
conficts: An overview. A Northeastern University website.
Available on the World Wide Web at http://web.cba.neu.
edu/~ewertheim/interper/negot3.htm. Date visited, March
11, 2002.
doc_758805180.pdf