Conflict Management Skills

Gregorio Billikopf
DOWNLOAD FREE MEDIATION AND CONFLICT
MANAGEMENT BOOK IN PDF FORMAT, OVER 300 PAGES,
by Gregorio Billikopf, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, 2008.
Beth just got turned down by Carlos, the mechanic. She had asked
Carlos to plan on working a couple of overtime hours this coming
Thursday and Friday evenings. Beth's nose was a bit bent out of
joint. She wondered if Carlos did not yield to her because she was
too kind when she asked. Or, because she was a woman. Or, because
Carlos was envious that she got the supervisory position for which
both had competed. Carlos was uncomfortable with the interaction,
too.
If Carlos had no clue that Beth was upset, would this scene still
constitute interpersonal conflict? Perhaps. The seeds of conflict are
planted when disharmony is felt within any one of the participants.
Next time Beth approaches Carlos she may change her approach.
She may be more abrupt, leading Carlos to wonder if Beth got up on
the wrong side of the bed. Carlos may then, in turn, react negatively
to Beth, thus escalating the conflict. Individuals sometimes
encounter stress and negative emotion out of an interaction
whether or not they ever confront each other about their feelings.
Wherever choices exist there is potential for disagreement. Such
differences, when handled properly, can result in richer, more
effective, creative solutions and interaction. But alas, it is difficult to
consistently turn differences into opportunities. When disagreement
is poorly dealt with, the outcome can be contention. Contention
creates a sense of psychological distance between people, such as
feelings of dislike, bitter antagonism, competition, alienation, and
disregard.

Whether dealing with family members or hired personnel, sooner or

later challenges will arise. It is unlikely that we find ourselves at a
loss of words when dealing with family members. Communication
patterns with those closest to us are not always positive, however,
often falling into a predictable and ineffective exchange.
With hired personnel and strangers, we may often try and put forth
our best behavior. Out of concern for how we are perceived, we may
err in saying too little when things go wrong. We may suffer for a
long time before bringing issues up. This is especially so during
what could be called a "courting period." Instead of saying things
directly, we often try to hint.
But the honeymoon is likely to end sooner or later. At some point
this "courting behavior" often gets pushed aside out of necessity. We
may find it easier to sweep problems under the psychological rug
until the mound of dirt is so large we cannot help but trip over it.
Sometime after that transition is made, it may become all too easy to
start telling the employee or co-worker exactly what has to be done
differently. An isolated episode such as the one between Beth and
Carlos may or may not affect their future working relationship.
Persons differ in their sensitivity to comments or actions of others,
as well as their ability to deal with the stress created by a conflict
situation. While it is important that we are sensitive to how we
affect others, there is much virtue in not taking offense easily
ourselves. Or by finding constructive outlets to dissipate stressful
feelings (e.g., exercise, music, reading, an act of service to another,
or even a good night's sleep). It does little good, however, to appear
unaffected while steam builds up within and eventually explodes.
When disagreements emerge it is easy to hear without listening.
People involved in conflict often enlist others to support their
perspective and thus avoid trying to work matters out directly with
the affected person.

personal space is not violated. This arrangement underscores the

message that they are there to talk to each other. Because people
who are in conflict often discount the other person, having to
exchange eye contact can be powerful medicine toward
reconciliation. A table may be appropriate in some circumstances.
The mediator sits far enough away that stakeholders would have to
turn their heads if they wished to make eye contact with him. It is
not easy for the stakeholders to check if they have "scored a point,"
or to enlist the mediator to their side. If the stakeholders make such
an attempt, the mediator reminds them that the person they need to
convince is the other party.
The seating arrangement described above is such a powerful tool,
that I have seen people apologize to each other, be more considerate,
call each other by name, and use many positive behaviors even
when the complete mediation approach outlined in this chapter was
not used. The seating arrangement is a second mediation pillar.
The mediator can also encourage participants to call each other by
name. This can be a difficult thing at first. People who have been
contending tend to discount the other person and instead the person
"he," "she," "the boss," or something other than the person's name.
Addressing someone by name acknowledges and validates the other
person's humanness.
Successfully dealing with any issue under contention (e.g., the
offering and accepting of an apology, or having participants agree
on how they will deal with a future challenge) can be very
energizing and give the participants the confidence they need to face
the next difficulty that comes up.
It is good to talk about the past. A discussion of past behaviors is
essential to analyze patterns of conflict and help participants find
constructive ways of handling future disagreements. Without

understanding the past, it is hard to prepare for the future. At some

point, however, the focus of discussion turns to that of future
behaviors, rather than past injuries. The sooner the participants can
focus on the future, the greater the chances of successful
resolution.10
One of the roles of the mediator is to encourage participants to be
more specific in their agreements, to help question potential
landmines, and to encourage stakeholders to recapitulate what
seems to have been agreed upon. When dealing with more difficult
challenges, part of the role of the mediator is to keep the parties
from becoming discouraged by showing them how far they have
progressed.
Stakeholders can be taught to utilize the concepts introduced earlier,
in terms of participant positions versus needs. Recall the case of
Beth and Carlos at the beginning of the chapter, where each of their
stances appeared incompatible with that of the other (i.e., whether
Carlos should yield to the prescribed overtime request).
Mediators help dissipate contentious feelings by teaching
stakeholders how to find creative ways to achieve the sum11 of the
needs (theirs and the opposing ones). By going past an obvious
stance and looking into needs, we may find that (1) Beth wanted the
tomato harvester repairs completed before harvest--which is
scheduled to begin early next week, while (2) Carlos wanted to be
home to celebrate his daughter's quinceaera (coming of age party)
Friday evening.
Once the manager and mechanic understand each other's needs, they
can agree on a solutionperhaps the mechanic can work the
overtime on Wednesday and Thursday. This case may seem simple
and the solution obviousexcept, perhaps, to Beth and Carlos
before they explored each other's needs. The approach works well

for more complex issues, too.

Separating position from needs, in such a way that parties attempt to
understand each others needs is another mediation pillar.
Mediators should not be in too big of a hurry to move participants
from their position statement and explanation of their fears and
needs, to problem resolution. It is vital to first truly understand the
nature of the challenges that seem to divide individuals. Allowing
stakeholders to hold an initial position allows each to feel
understood and to retain a sense of control and ownership over the
process. A great tool is to have stakeholders explain, to the best of
their ability, the position of the other.
Stakeholders tend to discount each other by refusing to even
acknowledge that the other has a position. For instance, a cook was
asked to recognize that the field foreman needed meals to arrive on
time to the crews. Yet the cook could not focus away from the fact
that there were meals being wasted each day.
You see, its his fault because
We are not talking about faults at this time, we just want you to
state the perspective of the field foreman, the mediator interrupted.
Well, you see, he thinks that he can get away with .
The cook had to be stopped over a dozen times, because it was so
difficult for him to even state (and thus validate) the others
position. Once he stopped evading the process and gave the position
of the field foreman, and the field foreman did the same for the
cook, they quickly came to a solution that benefited everyone and
saved the grower money. A missing step here, one that may have
helped smooth the transition between an internal focus and stating
the other stakeholder's position, would have been to first encourage

the stakeholders to ask fact finding and non-judgmental questions of

each other.12 An agreement was made that the field foreman would
radio the cook with an exact meal count for the day. Because the
cook had an exact count, he had fewer meals to cook and thus could
produce them faster. A structured way to clarify positions and needs
for a two-person negotiation is outlined in Sidebar 13-2.
Sidebar 13-2. Position vs. needs13 in conflict management

Position A

Need A-1

Need A-2

Position B
Need B-1
Need B-2
Need B-3

1. Participants divide a paper, chalkboard, or wipe board into four

sections (as shown above).
2. Participants seek to understand and record each others position
(i.e., stance).
3. Participants are free to restate, modify, or further clarify their
position at any time.
4. Participants now seek to understand and record each others
needs. Taking the time to ask effective questions of each other
(see Chapter 12) is an important part of reaching such
understanding.
5. Participants brainstorm ways of fulfilling all the needs (in some
cases solutions may not be obvious at once and stakeholders may
want to sleep on it). For brainstorming to be effective, possible
solutions should not be evaluated at the time, and even outlandish
and extreme possible solutions should be entertained. Only later,
are these solutions examined for the positive and negative factors
that they contribute.

6. Participants should resist solutions where they no longer have to

interact with each other. To avoid each other takes little creativity
and is seldom the best solution. Instead, participants need to seek
creative, synergetic solutions.
7. Tentative co-authored agreements are evaluated and refined in
light of potentially difficult obstacles that such solutions may yet
need to endure.
8. Agreementsincluding a possible co-authored new position
are recorded.
9. Participants consent to evaluate results at pre-determined time
periods.
10. Fine tune agreements as needed and work on other challenges
together.
Stakeholders should not come to the table ready to expose or impose their solution. In
negotiation it is critical for stakeholders to first focus on defining and understanding
the nature of the challenge. It is often when stakeholders are not able to move past
their positions or stances that negotiations break down. Also, stakeholders want to feel
that they have some control over the decision-making process. This is hard to do when
decisions are made by others before the problems are fully explored (Chapter 17).
Each stakeholder needs to be vigilant that a solution will meet the other person's
needs, as well as their own. Stakeholders need to remember, that for the most part, the
only good solutions are those that will work for all the individuals involved.
Furthermore, sometimes people will yield to another as a test. These individuals want
to see if the other stakeholder has the minimum amount of care for anyone other than
himself. As a tactic, setting a trap to see if someone will get caught, is hardly a good
idea, of course. The more emotion involved, the less likely that the other stakeholder
will step back. Another manipulative approach is for a stakeholder to "give in" just to
be able to hold it against the other later on.
Negotiation will not be satisfactory when a person is more intent in:

punishing another rather than coming to an agreement or modifying future

behavior
winning rather than solving the challenge

Sometimes negotiation is attempted but peoples basic needs are incompatible. This
may be especially so when no distinction can be made between a persons need and
her position.
When negotiation has failedfor whatever reasonsa clear need for resolving the
dispute through arbitration may develop. Bush and Folger suggest, however, that if a
door is left open for continued conversation, and if individual empowerment and
mutual recognition have taken place, then mediation was not a failure. Much more of a
failure, they argue, is for a mediator to be so focused on having stakeholders come to
an agreement that the agreement is forced, reducing the chances that it will be long
lasting.14
Equalizing power
Participants may bring different amounts of power into a situation. As long as both are
interested in negotiating a solution, power is essentially equalized. The effective
mediator helps parties listen and communicate with each other. You may also need to
draw out an employee who is having difficulty expressing himself.
A stance from either party indicating a lack of interest (1) in talking about the problem,
or (2) in the other persons needs, would indicate unwillingness to be involved in the
negotiation process. Mediators can suggest that the joint session take place in a
location that is neutral and private--without telephone or any other sort of
interruptions.
Helping participants plan for future interaction
It is easier for employees to improve communication when aided by a competent
mediator. Part of the responsibility of the mediator is to help employees anticipate
some of the challenges they will face in the future. One difficulty is to take the time to
listen and communicate. Principal among the needed skills, is for sensitive listening. It
is difficult to always be on the alert for such sensitive listening and interaction as has

been discussed throughout this and the last chapter.

It sometimes takes years for employees to get into a pattern of negative interaction. It
is unlikely that one session will cure this no matter how outstanding the mediator or
the participants involved. One or more follow-up sessions with the mediator may help
participants refine skills and evaluate progress made.
Arbitration
The supervisor as an arbiter may do everything a mediator does but, at the end, will
make a judgment that the employees are expected to follow. It may be clear from the
outset that employees expect the supervisor to take the role of an arbiter. Or, it may
become increasingly evident as mediation is taking place, that an arbiter will be
needed. The supervisor needs to clearly communicate his role. If the role changes,
workers need understand that, too.
Because it is normally preferable for all parties involved to have a conflict solved at
the mediation rather than arbitration stage, it helps for a supervisor to be slow in
taking on the role of an arbiter, especially when these two individuals will have to
continue to work together. During the process of listening to the various perspectives,
and before making a decision, an arbiter may wish to offer employees the opportunity
to work out their own problem, or to work out difficulties through mediation.
At times, a judge and a judgment are needed. Supervisors who have to arbitrate should
avoid trying to make both parties happy with the decision. Most of the time it is simply
not possible. It may be an admirable goal for mediation, but not for arbitration.
Instead, the arbitrator is required to be impartial (there is no room for favoritism) and
fair (even if this seems one sided).
The well-loved story of wise Solomon of old is an early example of arbitration: Two
harlots had given birth. Some time after that, one of the women, while she was
sleeping, rolled over her child and suffocated him. When she woke up that night and
found the dead infant, she traded him for that of the other. When the second woman
woke up, she found the dead child by her. But when morning came, she could clearly
behold that this was not her child. Each woman claimed to be the true mother of the

baby that was still alive, and took their conflict before King Solomon. The king simply
asked for a sword, and then ordered: "Divide the living child in two, and give half to
the one, and half to the other." While the false mother thought this was a fine idea, the
true mother asked the king to save the child--even if this meant giving the infant to the
other woman. Solomon thus determined who the real mother was, and returned the
child to her.15 Unfortunately, Solomons pretended initial solution to the contending
mothers (to divide the baby in half) would often be carried out by supervisors in their
modern day arbitrator role. In their effort to try and please both workers, they create a
compromise that is often unfair, and frequently unworkable.
It takes little skill, and even less strength of character, to arbitrate in this manner.
Instead, a supervisor who arbitrates with fairness is more apt to be respected by
employees in the long run. After difficulties are worked out, employees often find that
their relationships have been strengthened.

Summary
Wherever there are choices to be made, differences may provide challenges or
opportunities. One difficulty is the possibility that differences will result in increased
contention. Supervisors may have to act as mediators and arbitrators from time to time.
The advantage of mediation is maintaining responsibility for problem solving and
conflict resolution at the level of those who own the challenge. Selecting an outside
mediator often makes sense.
Several roles taken on by the mediator include understanding each participants
perspective; setting ground rules for improved communication; coaching participants
on effective interaction styles; equalizing power; and helping participants plan for
future interaction.
When the supervisor acts in the role of an arbitrator, it is more important to make a fair
judgment than to try to please all workers involved.

Chapter 13 References
1. Covey, S. (1989). Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
2. Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement
Without Giving In (2nd ed.). Penguin Books, and Deetz, S. A., & Stevenson, S. L.
(1986). Managing Interpersonal Communication. New York: Harper & Row
Publishers.
3. Rackham, N. (1999). The Behavior of Successful Negotiators (3rd ed.) (p. 348).
Negotiation: Readings, Exercises, and Cases. Edited by Lewicki, Saunders & Minton.
Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.
4. Billikopf, G. E. Contributions of Caucusing and Pre-Caucusing to Mediation (in
press). Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal.
5. Winslade, J., & Monk, G. (2000). Narrative Mediation: A New Approach to
Conflict Resolution. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
6. Bush, R. A., Baruch & Folger, J. P. (1994). The Promise of Mediation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
7. Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating Across Cultures. New York: The
Guilford Press.
8. Deetz, S. A., & Stevenson, S. L. (1986). Managing Interpersonal Communication.
New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
9. Walton, R. E. (1987). Managing Conflict: Interpersonal Dialogue and ThirdParty Roles (2nd ed.) (p. 108). Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
10. Robert, M. (1982). Managing Conflict From the Inside Out (pp. 119-128).
University Associates. Excellent suggestions are also provided on how to manage
conflict among groups.
11. Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement
Without Giving In (2nd ed.). Penguin Books, and Deetz, S. A., & Stevenson, S. L.
(1986) Managing Interpersonal Communication. New York: Harper & Row
Publishers.
12. Bodine, N. (2001, July). Founder and member of Board of Directors of The
Workplace Institute (now Center for Collaborative Solutions) personal
communication.

13. No distinction is intended between the concept of need and that of interest. In
chapter 17, where we further discuss some of these issues, the terms are used
interchangeably.
14. Bush, R. A., Baruch & Folger, J. P. (1994). The Promise of Mediation. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
15. 1Kings 3:16-28.
Library of Congress Control Number 2001092378
2001 by The Regents of the University of California
Agricultural Issues Center
All rights reserved.
Printing this electronic Web page is permitted for personal, educational or noncommercial use (such that people are not charged for the materials) as long as the
author and the University of California are credited, and the page is printed in its
entirety. We do not charge for reprints, but appreciate knowing how you are making
use of this paper. Please send us a message through the E-mail link at the top of this
page. The latest version of this chapter is available as a PDF file with photos, at no
cost, and can be accessed by using the corresponding link at the top of the page. This
is a public service of the University of California.

Dealing with Conflict

Conflict occurs when individuals or groups are not obtaining what they need or want
and are seeking their own self-interest. Sometimes the individual is not aware of the
need and unconsciously starts to act out. Other times, the individual is very aware of
what he or she wants and actively works at achieving the goal.

About conflict:

Conflict is inevitable;
Conflict develops because we are dealing with people's lives, jobs, children,
pride, self-concept, ego and sense of mission or purpose;
Early indicators of conflict can be recognized;
There are strategies for resolution that are available and DO work;
Although inevitable, conflict can be minimized, diverted and/or resolved.

Beginnings of conflict:

Poor communication
Seeking power
Dissatisfaction with management style
Weak leadership
Lack of openness
Change in leadership

Conflict indicators:

Body language
Disagreements, regardless of issue
Withholding bad news
Surprises
Strong public statements
Airing disagreements through media
Conflicts in value system
Desire for power
Increasing lack of respect
Open disagreement
Lack of candor on budget problems or other sensitive issues
Lack of clear goals
No discussion of progress, failure relative to goals, failure to evaluate the
superintendent fairly, thoroughly or at all.

Conflict is destructive when it:

Takes attention away from other important activities

Undermines morale or self-concept
Polarizes people and groups, reducing cooperation
Increases or sharpens difference
Leads to irresponsible and harmful behavior, such as fighting, name-calling

Conflict is constructive when it:

Results in clarification of important problems and issues

Results in solutions to problems
Involves people in resolving issues important to them
Causes authentic communication
Helps release emotion, anxiety, and stress
Builds cooperation among people through learning more about each other;
joining in resolving the conflict
Helps individuals develop understanding and skills

Techniques for avoiding and/or resolving (board-superintendent) conflict:

Meet conflict head on

Set goals
Plan for and communicate frequently
Be honest about concerns
Agree to disagree - understand healthy disagreement would build better
decisions
Get individual ego out of management style
Let your team create - people will support what they help create
Discuss differences in values openly
Continually stress the importance of following policy
Communicate honestly - avoid playing "gotcha" type games
Provide more data and information than is needed
Develop a sound management system

Causes of board-superintendent conflict:

How does a school board cause conflict with a superintendent?

Trying to be administrators; overstepping authority

Making promises as board members individually
Involving themselves in labor relations or budgetary minutia
Not doing their "homework" and failing to prepare for meetings
Not following procedures for handling complaints
Not keeping executive session information confidential
Failing to act on sensitive issues
Failing to be open and honest with the superintendent
Making decisions based on preconceived notions
Not supporting the superintendent - lack of loyalty
Springing surprises at meetings
Having hidden agendas

How does a superintendent cause conflict with a school board?

Not treating board members alike

Not informing the board members of public concerns
Not providing adequate financial data or adequate information
Using poor public management practices
Making public statements before informing the board
Failing to be open and honest with the board
Not providing alternatives in an objective manner
Not adjusting to the new reality of an involved board
Not support the board - lack of loyalty
Springing surprises at meetings
Having hidden agendas

Elements of a strong board-superintendent partnerships

Full disclosure
Frequent two-way communication

Careful planning
Informal interaction
Periodic evaluation
Mutual support

Courageous decision controversies:

The controversies usually involve:

Changes in the way "we've always done things"

Notions of fundamental values
Determined, articulate advocates for every side
Inability to compromise
Rampant rumors
Threats of retaliation at the polls at the next bond, levy or school
Board election

Resolving Conflict
Searching for the causes of conflict is essential to be successful in resolving the
conflict. Nine possible causes of conflict include:

Conflict with self

Needs or wants are not being met
Values are being tested
Perceptions are being questioned
Assumptions are being made
Knowledge is minimal
Expectations are too high/too low
Personality, race, or gender differences are present

Reaching Consensus through Collaboration

Groups often collaborate closely in order to reach consensus or agreement. The ability to use

collaboration requires the recognition of and respect for everyone's ideas, opinions, and
suggestions. Consensus requires that each participant must agree on the point being discussed
before it becomes a part of the decision. Not every point will meet with everyone's complete
approval. Unanimity is not the goal. The goal is to have individuals accept a point of view based
on logic. When individuals can understand and accept the logic of a differing point of view, you
must assume you have reached consensus.
Follow these guidelines for reaching consensus:

Avoid arguing over individual ranking or position. Present a position as logically as

possible.
Avoid "win-lose" statements. Discard the notion that someone must win.
Avoid changing of minds only in order to avoid conflict and to achieve harmony.
Avoid majority voting, averaging, bargaining, or coin flipping. These do not lead to
consensus. Treat differences of opinion as indicative of incomplete sharing of relevant
information, keep asking questions.
Keep the attitude that holding different views is both natural and healthy to a group.
View initial agreement as suspect. Explore the reasons underlying apparent agreement
and make sure that members have willingly agreed.

In this Module:
Governance and
Management

Leadership and Teams

Professional
Development

Leadership
Responsibilities

In the Toolkit:
Toolkit Home Page

Why Change?

Why Technology?

Planning

Policy

Curriculum and Assessment

Community Involvement

Facility Planning

Funding

Prof'l and Ldrship

Development

What's Your Conflict Management Style

Instructions: Listed below are 15 statements. Each strategy provides a possible
strategy for dealing with a conflict.
Give each a numerical value (i.e., 1=Always, 2=Very often, 3=Sometimes, 4= Not
very often, 5= Rarely, if ever.)
Don't answer as you think you should, answer as you actually behave.
____ a. I argue my case with peers, colleagues and coworkers to demonstrate the
merits of the position I take.
____ b. I try to reach compromises through negotiation.
____ c. I attempt to meet the expectation of others.
____ d. I seek to investigate issues with others in order to find solutions that are
mutually acceptable.
____ e. I am firm in resolve when it comes to defending my side of the issue.
____ f. I try to avoid being singled out, keeping conflict with others to myself.

____ g. I uphold my solutions to problems.

____ h. I compromise in order to reach solutions.
____ i. I trade important information with others so that problems can be solved
together.
____ j. I avoid discussing my differences with others.
____ k. I try to accommodate the wishes of my peers and colleagues.
____ l. I seek to bring everyone's concerns out into the open in order to resolve
disputes in the best possible way.
____ m. I put forward middles positions in efforts to break deadlocks.
____ n. I accept the recommendations of colleagues, peers, and coworkers.
____ o. I avoid hard feelings by keeping my disagreements with others to myself.

Scoring: The 15 statements you just read are listed below under five categories. Each
category contains the letters of three statements. Record the number you placed next
to each statement. Calculate the total under each category.
Style

Total

Competing/Forcing
Shark

a. _____

e._____

g. _____

______

Collaborating Owl

d. _____

i. _____

l. _____

______

Avoiding Turtle

f. _____

j. _____

o. _____

______

Accommodating Teddy
Bear

c._____

k. _____

n. _____

______

Compromising Fox

b. _____

h. _____

m. _____

______

Results: My dominant style is _________________________________ ( Your

LOWEST score)
and my back-up style is_______________________________ (Your second Lowest
score)

Conflict Management Styles

The Competing Shark

Sharks use a forcing or competing conflict management style

sharks are highly goal-oriented
Relationships take on a lower priority
Sharks do not hesitate to use aggressive behaviour to resolve conflicts
Sharks can be autocratic, authoritative, and uncooperative; threatening and
intimidating
Sharks have a need to win; therefore others must lose, creating win-lose
situations
Advantage: If the shark's decision is correct, a better decision without
compromise can result
Disadvantage: May breed hostility and resentment toward the person using it
Appropriate times to use a Shark style
o when conflict involves personal differences that are difficult to change
o when fostering intimate or supportive relationships is not critical
o when others are likely to take advantage of noncompetitive behaviour
o when conflict resolution is urgent; when decision is vital in crisis
o when unpopular decisions need to be implemented

The Avoiding Turtle

Turtles adopt an avoiding or withdrawing conflict management style

Turtles would rather hide and ignore conflict than resolve it; this leads them
uncooperative and unassertive
Turtles tend to give up personal goals and display passive behaviour creating
lose-lose situations
Advantage: may help to maintain relationships that would be hurt by conflict
resolution
Disadvantage: Conflicts remain unresolved, overuse of the style leads to
others walking over them
Appropriate times to use a Turtle Style:
o when the stakes are not high or issue is trivial
o when confrontation will hurt a working relationship
o when there is little chance of satisfying your wants
o when disruption outweighs benefit of conflict resolution
o when gathering information is more important than an immediate
decision
o when others can more effectively resolve the conflict
o when time constraints demand a delay\

The Accommodating Teddy Bear

Teddy bears use a smoothing or accommodating conflict management style

with emphasis on human relationships
Teddy bears ignore their own goals and resolve conflict by giving into others;
unassertive and cooperative creating a win-lose (bear is loser) situation
Advantage: Accommodating maintains relationships
Disadvantage: Giving in may not be productive, bear may be taken advantage
of
Appropriate times to use a Teddy Bear Style
o when maintaining the relationship outweighs other considerations
o when suggestions/changes are not important to the accommodator
o when minimizing losses in situations where outmatched or losing
o when time is limited or when harmony and stability are valued

The Compromising Fox

Foxes use a compromising conflict management style; concern is for goals and
relationships
Foxes are willing to sacrifice some of their goals while persuading others to
give up part of theirs
Compromise is assertive and cooperative-result is either win-lose or lose-lose
Advantage: relationships are maintained and conflicts are removed
Disadvantage: compromise may create less than ideal outcome and game
playing can result
Appropriate times to use a Fox Style
o when important/complex issues leave no clear or simple solutions
o when all conflicting people are equal in power and have strong
interests in different solutions
o when their are no time restraints

The Collaborating Owl

Owls use a collaborating or problem confronting conflict management style

valuing their goals and relationships
Owls view conflicts as problems to be solved finding solutions agreeable to all
sides (win-win)
Advantage: both sides get what they want and negative feelings eliminated
Disadvantage: takes a great deal of time and effort
Appropriate times to use an Owl Style
o when maintaining relationships is important
o when time is not a concern
o when peer conflict is involved
o when trying to gain commitment through consensus building
o when learning and trying to merge differing perspectives

Source: Mastering Human Relations, 3rd Ed. by A. Falikowski 2002 Pearson

Education http://www.pearsoned.ca

BACK To Human Relations

BACK to Organizational Behaviour

PLEASE NOTE:
Information on this site is authorized for use only by the students of this
course.Students have permission to copy any of the content. For copyright
information of the linked sites please see the respective authors.
copyright 2002Karen E.Hamilton