Many team leaders and
directors believe that conflict is a part of life or people working together,
and that differences of opinion cannot be avoided. They think it would be
better left in the hands of Human Resources (HR) to resolve conflicts,
arguments, or disagreements and often believe that they should not get involved
in conflict.
However, a lack of conflict
management skills costs organisations severely in terms of time and money and
can affect organisational cohesion. Workplace conflicts can snowball out of
control, causing people to avoid them and evade the problems presented where
conflicts exist.
Disagreements and workplace
conflicts can cause people to verbally attack each other, escalating to a point
where one or both team members fail to turn up for work, preferring to avoid
the symptoms of stress caused by workplace conflicts and disagreements.
The situation can only
worsen if workplace conflict is not dealt with properly. The costs of poor
conflict management can escalate as those involved in the conflict include
colleagues, rather than concentrating and focusing on the organisation's needs.
In the main, there are two significant types of conflict:
- Positive: Where most conflicts start as a
difference of opinion about a subject that leads to an active disagreement
with another person.
- Negative: In which positive conflicts
become personal, opinions differ between two parties who cannot agree on a
subject, and the organisation becomes unproductive.
Many organisations strive
for positive conflict, as it is rarely a personal attack on another. Instead,
it is a disagreement that challenges the idea put forth by another, using
conflict management to achieve opportunities for an agreement to be reached
through negotiation or mediation.
Positive conflict is
productive as it generates ideas and conversation. However, disagreements can
become negative without conflict management, where people feel their views are
being attacked.
Harmful conflicts are not
progressive and usually originate from missed opportunities when the discussion
of a subject turns into insults, and conflict management protocols fail to
prevent the conflict or disagreement from becoming negative. The following are
examples of the principal types of resolution strategies:
- Compromise (lose/lose): This method of conflict
resolution calls upon team members to set their differences aside and to
give up a little of what each other wants to reach a common ground upon
which both sides can agree. Usually, this strategy is used when both
team members are equally powerful but are willing to work together. The
issue with using this method is that both sides in the dispute can be left
dissatisfied with the agreed compromise, which is sometimes time-consuming
to reach.
- Accommodation (lose/win): The accommodation method is used
in conflict management when a person takes a passive position in the
conflict, for the other party to “win” to keep the peace. The
drawback to using this conflict resolution method is that it could lead to
people feeling that they have been overly "accommodating" and
feeling that they are unimportant. Their work performance declines as they
lose interest in the organisation and its purpose.
- Avoiding (lose/lose): When team managers and directors
fail to deal with conflicts and disagreements, they choose instead to
"avoid" them, as they fear stepping on anyone's toes
diplomatically to avoid a political incident. This could be an
excellent tactic to prevent conflicts and disagreements and give time to
consider the resolution method. However, in avoiding disputes or
disagreements, nobody wins as they go unresolved. It will only make them
worse, with one or both parties leaving.
- Competition (win/lose): This conflict resolution method
pits two parties against each other competitively. Highly power-driven
individuals typically use it. These conflicts and disagreements are
usually won through arguments, pulling rank or using leverage against each
other. Utilising competition to resolve differences usually creates
more problems than it solves, so this conflict resolution strategy must be
thought through carefully before being used. While competing with
other parties can be productive, it can also lead to problems if used
excessively or inappropriately, as it could lead to fraudulent, unethical,
or illegal tactics being used to "win" the conflict.
- Collaboration (win/win): Collaboration is what every
organisation should strive for in dealing with conflict or disagreement,
as it deals with differences of opinion head-on to utilise the parties'
positives. This conflict or disagreement resolution technique is the
most complex to use as it relies on the exceptional interpersonal skills
of the mediator to bring both parties to an amicable solution. The effort
often turns arguments into teamwork to increase organisational cohesion in
a method that can be time and resource-consuming.
Where conflict occurs
outside an organisation, perhaps with suppliers or customers, arbitration is a
form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) commonly used to resolve disputes
without the court system.
The dispute will be decided
by one or more third parties known as "arbitrators",
"arbiters", or "arbitral tribunal", which renders an
"arbitration award" that is usually binding legally on both parties
and can be enforced by the courts.
Arbitration is often used to
resolve commercial disputes, particularly within international trading
transactions. However, it may also be employed in consumer and employment
matters, where arbitration is usually mandated within the relevant commercial
or employment contract terms.
Arbitration to resolve a
conflict or disagreement may include one party waiving the right to claim
damages. It's important to note the difference between mandatory consumer and
employment arbitration, which distinctly differs from consensual, mainly commercial
arbitration.
Arbitration may be voluntary
or mandatory. However, compulsory arbitration is utilised only from a statute
or contract that one party imposes on another. In this contract, both parties
agree to submit all their current or future disputes to arbitration, which can
be either binding or non-binding, without knowing precisely what disputes will
ever occur. Non-binding arbitration is a form of mediation in which a decision
can only be imposed on either party by mutual consent.
Arbitration is a dispute
procedure where a dispute is submitted by agreement of both parties to one or
more arbitrators who decide on the conflict. In choosing arbitration, the
parties to the disagreement opt to resolve differences privately instead of in
court. The characteristics are principally that:
- Arbitration is Consensual: Arbitration may only occur if all
parties agree. The parties usually insert an arbitration clause into the
relevant contract for future disputes arising under a contract. However,
an existing dispute can be referred to arbitration employing a submission
agreement between the parties. In contrast to mediation, neither party can
unilaterally withdraw from arbitration.
- The Parties Choose The
Arbitrator(s):
Under the general arbitration protocol, both parties can select a sole
arbitrator together. If they decide to have a three-member arbitral
tribunal, each party may appoint one of the arbitrators. Those two
individuals then agree on the presiding arbitrator.
- Arbitration is Neutral: In addition to selecting neutrals
of appropriate nationality, the parties to the dispute can choose vital
elements such as the applicable law, language, and venue of the
arbitration. This allows the parties to ensure the other party does not
enjoy a home-court advantage.
- Arbitration is Confidential: The arbitration protocol
specifically protects the confidentiality of the parties' identities in
the arbitration. Any disclosures made during an arbitration procedure and
the award remain private. In specific circumstances, the arbitration
protocol allows a party to restrict access to commercially sensitive
information or other confidential data submitted to the arbitral tribunal
or a confidentiality advisor to the tribunal.
Arbitration is a process in
which a dispute is resolved by an impartial third party, whose decision the
parties to the conflict have agreed will be binding, or that legislation has
decreed will be binding and final, with limited rights of review or appeal
concerning arbitration awards.
The arbitral tribunal's
decision is final and easy to enforce, as, under the arbitration protocol, the
parties agree to carry out the tribunal's conclusion without delay. In absolute
terms, arbitration is binding, whereas non-binding arbitration could
technically be described as merely a form of mediation.
The significant distinction
between binding and non-binding arbitration is that, in contrast, a mediator
will assist both parties in finding a common middle ground upon which to
compromise. The non-binding arbiter remains removed from the settlement process
and may only give an opinion of liability and, if appropriate, indicate the
value of damages payable.
Additional
articles can be found at People Management Made Easy. This site looks at people
management issues to assist organisations and managers in increasing the
quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of their services and products to the
customers' delight. ©️ People Management Made Easy. All rights reserved.
