REACTION PAPER ON NO LOSE APPROACH OF CONFLICT

MANAGEMENT

WILFRED P. GACULA
MAGSAYSAY NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL-CALAWAG EXTENSION

I. Executive Summary

Conflict situation exist between at least two independent parties

involved that is characterized by perceived differences and beliefs; it was
inevitable and all-pervasive element in our society and in the world.
The alternative method as stated in resolving conflicts between
employees in an institution or organization is known as the No Lose
Method. In this kind of method, no one loses in the concerned
individuals who has disputes with one another as it has been heard by
the authority in the organization where the said conflict has occurred.
According to the author of this book, this said method is usually
the one being employed by an effective leader, and I quote “An effective
leader is a person who has skills to meet the needs of his/her group
members as well as the needs of the organization”. Having this as a
premise, it is also sound that the conclusion of the author as regards to
such leader is that: he has acquired the flexibility and sensitivity to know
when and where to employ quite diverse skills to achieve mutual
satisfaction of the needs of the group members and the needs of the
leader. In addition, the author of the book brags that the no lose method
brings mutual needs satisfaction.
 II. Critique

Employee conflict is quite inevitable and a common occurrence in

many businesses. Employees have different values, expectations, needs
and understanding. Employee conflict is not necessarily a bad thing - it
can provide a solid base for changing and improving your
organization.

The Win-win outcomes occur when each side of a dispute feels

they have won. Since both sides benefit from such a scenario, any
resolutions to the conflict are likely to be accepted voluntarily. The
process of integrative bargaining aims to achieve, through cooperation,
win-win outcomes. However, this kind of method needs an expert
mediator to implement. Mutuality of satisfaction of needs within an
organization is not that easy to find or pinpoint because of the obvious
differences that exist between the members; this differences of
whatever sort has made decision making not an easy task even to the
most skillful leader there is in existence. In this sense, the organizations
must produce a real effective leader to make possible such flows of
conflict management in an organization.

III. Conclusion

Conflict resolution methods are highly effective and applicable at

managing conflict at work and improving your workplace environment.
This is more appropriate to say as regards to the third method or “No
Lose Method”. Ignoring conflict does not make it go away; use conflict
management strategies to improve the workplace for all stakeholders. It
is then advised that the organization must have or at least has the
capacity to produce an effective and skillful leader for it to benefit from
the use of “No Lose Method” which is indeed, the most appropriate
approach there is in existence.
 Communication plays a vital role in building effective conflict
management styles. Here, as an effective leader you must set up rules
before meeting with the individuals involved. Rules such as, identify and
focus on the issues or problem, not the people nor personal point of view;
actively listen/accept to what everyone has to say in generating alternate
solutions; try to determine and evaluate the objective facts; that need to
work together to find solution (rather than making a decision to be
implemented) or impose a settlement. And lastly, the leader needs
employee’s participation in resolving the conflict. It is therefore true here
that “negotiation” is a means of resolving differences between people. In
the process of negotiation, not only are different opinions taken into
account, but also individual needs, aims, interests and differences in
background and culture. In addition, the leader here must: Focus on
maintaining the relationship - ‘separate the people from the problem;
Focus on interests not positions; Generate a variety of options that offer
gains to both parties before deciding what to do; Aim for the result to be
based on an objective standard. And lastly, Focus on Maintaining the
Relationship, meaning, not allowing the disagreement to damage the
interpersonal relationship, not blaming the others for the problem and
aiming to confront the problem not the people. This can involve actively
supporting the other individuals while confronting the problem.
 REACTION PAPER ON WIN-LOSE APPROACH OF CONFLICT
MANAGEMENT

WILFRED P. GACULA
MAGSAYSAY NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL-CALAWAG EXTENSION

I. Executive Summary

The other stated method in this book is called the “Win-Lose

Conflict Resolution Method”. It goes by several names such as: Unilateral
Decision Making, Authoritarian Decision Making, Leader Centered
Decision Making and Dominion.
It is clearly stated that this kind of method means imposing a
solution that enables one to get their way at the expense of others that
is/are not getting theirs. Meaning the needs of the first party are being
satisfied and the other people’s needs are rejected. In turn, the looser
feels resentment toward the winner because it seems unfair to him. In
addition, the book has quoted that if we are to base this from the “Social
Exchange Theory”, this will fall on the category called “Inequitable Social
exchange” with the benefits tipped heavily on the first party’s favor.

II. Critique

A lot of the question on my mind about this kind of leaders was

overflowing. What will happen if to the relationship between leaders and
employee? As we all know that leadership is always a temporary thing
and the tendency for this to happens to decisions that likely to be
increasingly autocratic and increasingly disconnected from their
employees.
 As take place this kind of leaders negotiation sometimes fail, this
failure reflects the capacity of the leader that makes the negotiation
process fail. Here, negotiation is sometimes seen in terms of ‘getting your
own way’, ‘driving a hard bargain’ or ‘beating off the opposition’. While in
the short term bargaining may well achieve the aims for one side, it is
also a Win-Lose approach. This means that while one side wins the other
loses and this outcome may well damage future relationships between
the parties. It also increases the likelihood of relationships breaking
down, of people walking out or refusing to deal with the ‘winners’ again
and the process ending in a bitter dispute.

Win-lose situations result when only one side perceives the

outcome as positive. Thus, win-lose outcomes are less likely to be
accepted voluntarily. The bargaining are probably the most familiar form
of negotiating that is undertaken. Individuals decide what they want,
then each side takes up an extreme position, such as asking the other
side for much more than they expect to get. Here, through haggling – the
giving and making of concessions – a compromise is reached, and each
side’s hope is that this compromise will be in their favor. Distributive
bargaining processes, based on a principle of competition between
participants, are more likely than integrative bargaining to end in win-
lose outcomes--or they may result in a situation where each side gets
part of what he or she wanted, but not as much as they might have
gotten if they had used integrative bargaining. Therefore, there are still
some collateral damages that cannot be compensated by a measure or
two to maintain harmonious relationship within the group, more so, the
concerns of the after effect of which in their productivity.

Hence, the leader here can be branded as incompetent and

ineffective leader in a sense that there still remains dissatisfaction on one
strand of the working population in the agency or groups within his
wards. He or she as a leader, many professional negotiators prefer to aim
 towards what is known as a Win-Win solution. This involves looking for
resolutions that allow both sides to gain. In other words, negotiators aim
to work together towards finding a solution to their differences that
results in both sides being satisfied. A thing that in this case, the
negotiator or leader lacks.

III. Conclusion

This method will always be associated with ineffective leaders. Note

that, there will always be some conflict in everyday life, and in the
workplace. Some thoughts on managing conflict at work: Manage the
conflict, don’t ignore it and hope it will go away. If the conflict is more
than one issue, or there are a number of conflicts in progress, deal only
with one at a time. Start with one that can be more easily solved first, if
and only if possible. Here, a leader must try to defuse the anger in the
communications – people say things in the heat of the moment that they
will regret later. Don't rush to problem solve; sometimes the first answer
is not the best answer. Let people think it over and discuss the next day.
Don't set the conflict up as a right/wrong; win/lose situation – someone
will leave the discussions unhappy. In addition, an effective leader must
use his human resources staff to help you manage the situation or
consider the advantages of outsourcing.
 REACTION PAPER ON LOSE-WIN APPROACH OF CONFLICT
MANAGEMENT

WILFRED P. GACULA
MAGSAYSAY NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL-CALAWAG EXTENSION

I. Executive Summary

The third method mentioned in the book is conceptually a

deprivation of the first party’s needs in favor of the second party. The
first party in this case feels resentful and angry; obviously, he or she
does not feel very good about it. Just like method I, this is also a form of
decision making procedure that goes with so many names such as:
Unilateral Decision Making, Authoritarian Decision Making, Leader
Centered Decision Making and Dominion. Just like Method I, leaders
who use this method; meaning those who gives to the wants and wishes
of their group members usually pay the price of developing a group that
is not productive and task oriented.

II. Critique

Lose-Win Method, or method III mentioned here is just a reciprocal

of that of the latter or Method two, in that the first party loses over the
demands and claim of the send party. Still the said approach is of
dominion type wherein the leader gives favor of the other side and does
not foster equity and due fairness. Note that, when you approach a
negotiation with a lose-win mindset, remember that it may well be you
that loses. Even if you think you have won, you may have damaged the
relationship with the other person beyond repair. Furthermore, in lose-
win battles there is, by definition, a winner and a loser. Each person
usually sees the event as a life-or-death struggle, where the only way to
avoid defeat is to win. The relationship with the other person is
 unimportant as to think kindly of them is to show weakness and expose
yourself to defeat.
It is noteworthy to say that, if the situation truly is lose-win, then
prepare for the battle beforehand to ensure that you are not the loser.
Fight hard, but clean, whilst being prepared to handle any dirty tricks
that the other person may use. This makes it not noteworthy of the
process of mitigation in the field, unless the leader is into litigation.

III. Conclusion

Just like the latter, or in method II, rather than win-lose think win-
win. Seek ways to increase the size of the pie such that you both can get
a large part of what you want. Since win-win outcomes can only be identified
through cooperative or integrative bargaining, and are likely to be overlooked if
negotiations take a competitive distributive instance. This method is identified
with the absence of the said… A thing that will reflect upon the kind of leader
an organization has.