Conflict Resolution Styles in Organizational Behaviour Essay

Conflict is a process that each ane of us has experienced throughout our lifes. in that location be various definitions of contraventions as described by antithetic authors but generally, conflict is a process whereby one individuals interests is opposed or negatively affected by the other(a) party (McShane et al. 2010). Workplace and organisational conflicts argon usually more complex. Isenhart and Spangle (2000) points out that at the beginning the conflict whitethorn fasten on because of improper placement of workers and their responsibilities in a workplace, but it may get worse if they faces unfair rules, in rough-and-ready management, unclear responsibilities or too some(prenominal) work assigned. Organisational conflicts tooshie result in many possible outcomes, the negatives ones such as damaged employee relations, violence, increased tension amongst bosses and employees but it can nurse substantiative outcomes too such as increased employee-cohesiveness and inc reased motivation. How it will be achieved will be discussed through the elements of conflict and will be listed in greater details.Ways in which people approach conflictAvoidingAvoiding is probably the fastest way of re solve a conflict but at the aforementioned(prenominal) season it is not the best way because close of the time the avoider will remain unhappy even after the conflict. It does not permanently resolve the conflict (McShane et al. 2010) and in my opinion it is just postponing the problem to feel it solved at a later date. McCollum et al. (2009) states that the person who is avoiding thinks that confronting the conflict will bring more foreboding than it is worth. The avoider also decides to not deal with the conflict because he or she might not have the confidence to do so. This seems like the more popular survival of the fittest amongst the five ways in which people approach conflict based on my experiences because people simply do not want unnecessary annoy o r aggravate the problem, especially if it is a minor issue. Avoiding pays no attention in concerns of either self or others (Kotthoff & Spencer-Oatey 2008). This is the least-sought option amongst the five approaches but however, McCollum et al. (2009) suggests that avoiding can be a tactical approach when the other party has more strength and authority over you and/or the avoiding the conflict will bring detailed or no devastating consequences.Problem-SolvingI deemed this to be the most effective way in resolving organisational conflicts because both parties will benefit if they manage to attend a double-win solution to the problem. This is considered to be the most desirable approach to conflict as there atomic number 18 no negative impacts at all. Only positive results will surface. Runde & Flanagan (2009) suggests that there might be a link surrounded by avoiding and problem-solving. Because many people tend towards avoidance, they often rush through problem solving and imme diately use the first solution that they can think of so as to quickly get over the conflict, without any beneficial solutions. The key in using problem-solving as an approach to resolve conflicts lies in having patience to create multiple potential solutions. Careful reflection and consideration will progress into agreements that are both satisfying and successful (Runde & Flanagan 2009). Therefore when undergoing problem-solving, both parties must not rush to a solution immediately or else the solution may cringe or do not satisfy both parties needs. ternion strategies that financial aid people manage conflict Before discussing about the three different strategies that help people to manage conflict, the strategies used are basically divided into three categories and they are interest-based, proper(ip)s-based and business leader-based (Jameson 2001). Three different strategies from the three categories will be discussed respectively. Jameson (2001) advises that all resolutions of disputes and conflicts should start with a interest-based strategy, and if it does not resolves the conflict, it is followed by a rights-based strategy and if conflict persists, power-based strategy is then applied.Mediation (Interest-based)Jameson (2001) suggests that mediation is a form of ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution). Research has shown that interest-based strategies such as mediation had the best long-termed results such as improved relationship between parties, greater commitment to solutions and reduced future conflicts from happening. This is why involved parties in a conflict should use this approach as it reaps the most benefits. Even though there are many theories and various methods underlying mediation, it is generally outlined as an intervention by a neutral third party which facilitates the process but allow participants in the conflict to control the outcome (Jameson 2001). Depending on the severity of the conflict, the mediator is to provide useful inform ation in legal issues, help the participants into perspective thinking, provide a guide in finding the most satisfying and realistic settlement, help to improve the working/personal relationship between participants, or engage in some combination of the above methods.inquisitorial Intervention (Rights-based)This describes intervention by a person of a higher authority in most cases is the manager, who will make a final decision. Managers who gull this strategy allow employees more or less control over presentation of their arguments before deciding on an appropriate solution (Jameson 2001). Because the third party(manager) listens to every partys arguments before making a judgment, the manager acts as a judge and this usually results in a win-lose situation, unlike Mediation which results in a win-win situation most of the time. Employees are given the opportunity to present their arguments and influence the final decision and this result in higher amount of comeliness and satisf action with outcomes. Employees involved in the conflict usually agree that the outcome decided by the third party is fair, but it could be better if they are able to retain the outcome control.Restructuring (Power-based)This is the more realistic popular method amongst power-based strategies because they are efficient (at least in the nearsighted run) and it follows a problem-solving procedure that is really part of the managerial role (Jameson 2001). A powerful third party restructures the work and responsibilities of employees in order to solve problems. For example if employees does not see eye-to-eye with one another and it affects efficiency or quality of work produced, restructuring may simply solve this issue even though parties involved are not well-off but at least they will not be able to see each other, proving restructuring to be a efficient method in the short run. This method may be efficient if time issues are being involved, such as the organisation needs to achi eve a certain pit by a certain date.Influence of culture in conflict resolution stylesThe three cultural values dimensions that are popularly discussed are individualism-collectivism, power distance and high-low context (McShane et al. 2010). Low/high context refers to the amount of information contained in a clearly-expressed message versus implied message (Adair et al. 2004). Low-context culture is direct and negotiations are uninflected and fact-based, while high-context culture is indirect and high-context negotiators tend to use an indirect communication method with usually contains implied meanings. An example of a low-context culture would be the United States of the States and a high-context culture will be Japan (Adair et al. 2004). Individualism/Collectivism Individualism refers to a society where the relationships between people are loose and they are expected to look after themselves or their immediate families only. Collectivism which is the opposite, refers to a soc iety that people focus on being harmonious and emphasize on cohesiveness within themselves.In organisational context, individualism means individuals only care about their own goals and prefer to work alone and collectivism means working harmoniously in a teams and it emphasizes on teamwork. Power distance McShane et al. (2010) defines power distance as the degree of importance that people place on office and power to control. Basically it means that human inequality may occur in many fields such as status, wealth, power, rules etc. In organisational settings it refers between superiors/managers and employees mainly. In a high power distance working environment, employees tend to just do their work without raising doubts or question their bosses, due to worship in the difference of their power, low power distance means otherwise, where employees and their superiors work hand in hand to resolve issues.A few decades ago, managers can omit up to twenty percent of their time in resol ving conflicts. Nowadays, conflicts are generally much more complex and take up more time to resolve due to technological advances, worlds exponential growth rate and globalization which led to increase contacts between people of many different cultures (Kotthoff & Spencer-Oatey 2008). This suggests that our modern world has an increase of numbers of cultural conflicts and they are usually hard to resolve due to the extreme range of differences in thinking, values, ethics etc between individuals of different cultures. To further elaborate on this point, Brigg (2008) states that most experts in this field now come to an agreement that culture frames the experiences of conflict of people, their reactions and responses to other people in conflict, and the types of strategies they might consider to manage or otherwise address disputes.Therefore when facing against a cultural conflict issue, one must understand that the other party does not grow up in the same environment as him/her, had not been taught the same teachings and values since young. To put in simpler terms, the definition of what is right and what is correct might not be the same between the two parties. This also explains why it is so difficult in applying conflict resolution styles when it comes to cultural conflicts because it is hard to accept the other partys correct values which may be the wrong values of one as both of them have been gorged those values since young in their growing up environment.ConclusionTwo ways of conflict-handling styles were discussed and avoiding can be a good approach sometimes contempt many of its negativity and although problem-solving is the best approach, it cannot be rushed and many potential solutions must be raised in order to finding the best solution. Three strategies from three different categories of conflict resolution styles were discussed and despite the major differences in terms of popularity of usage and way of handling, all the three strategies can pro duce effective results in organisational settings if they were applied in the correct circumstances. Three cultural values dimensions were discussed and it was also explained that influence of culture in conflict resolution styles remains fundamentally significant and it is currently the most challenging in conflict resolution.