Listen to thisDifferent consequences result from the various approaches to conflict resolution. In general four types of consequences are possible: (1) Lose-Lose, where neither side’s needs are met; (2) Win-Lose or Lose-Win, where the needs of one side only are met; (3) Compromise, where the needs of both sides are partially met; and (4) Win-Win, where the needs of both sides are met.
Lose-Lose
Where avoidance or delays are used to
resolve conflict, the consequence often is that everyone loses. Essentially,
the problem remains, and indeed often worsens. For example, a supervisor may
choose to ignore the behavior of a staff member who does not consistently
follow through agreed upon plans. Negative consequences may include: (1) The
supervisor loses respect among members of the working group; (2) The program
operates less effectively than might be possible with a consistent approach;
and (3) The inconsistent worker does not receive feedback which might have
helped to improve his performance. In a real sense supervisors who fail to
confront problematic situations show low concern for their own needs and for
the needs of others (Graham, 1980). Such supervisors are like a giant turtle
hiding inside its shell; they are difficult to ignore but they make very
little impact on their surroundings. For all intents and purposes they are
“not there” when needed.
Win-Lose
When power is a major factor in the
resolution of a conflict a Win-Lose result often emerges. Typically, the use
of power involves forcefulness, threats, demands, intimidation, deceit and
manipulation. Thus, a supervisor may summarily tell a worker to follow
instructions. In such a situation, the supervisor essentially says: "I am
the supervisor, I hold the formal authority, and you will do what you are
told." Alternately, the supervisor may use threats and intimidation, implied
or explicit, suggesting that a worker’s performance evaluation will be
contingent upon her support of the supervisor’s goals and plans. A
supervisor may also use manipulation in his approach, assuming the role that
Warschaw (1980) calls, “Big Daddy”. Such a supervisor will explain to
workers that only he has the "big picture" and suggest that, given his
access to all the relevant facts and his greater experience, his ideas are
the best. He is asking others to trust that he will take care of them and
that what he is proposing will ultimately benefit everyone.
For their part, workers will also, sometimes, resort to the use of power in situations of conflict. For example a worker may have a strong and forceful personality and persist in arguing a point until the supervisor finally gives way. Alternately, a worker might obtain the agreement of other workers for a particular point of view and use this support as a power lever. A worker might also attempt to manipulate by raising other issues of concern and attempting to divert attention from the matter at hand.
The examples above give an illustration of some ways that power may be used in conflict resolution. Obviously, other power-based approaches are possible and, indeed, are frequently used. People who use power to achieve their objectives reflect an attitude that indicates: “My expertise is greater, my knowledge is superior, my needs are more important.” As a corollary, they consider the needs and opinions of others to be of secondary importance. When they succeed in resolving conflict to their satisfaction, they inevitably leave in their wake a sea of bad feelings, bruised egos, and resentments. Supervisors who rely on the use of power are likely to face heavy costs in the form of low morale, loss of motivation and inadequate commitment in the work unit.
Lose-Win
In some situations, rather than relying too
much on the use of power, people will fail to make legitimate use of their
power and authority. Such people, in effect, show a higher regard for the
concerns and needs of others than for their own. A supervisor, for example,
may want to ensure that her workers are happy and that the work team is
functioning harmoniously. Thus she may place few demands on the work group
and shield her workers from organizational demands, thereby abdicating her
leadership role. Alternately, a worker may be unassertive regarding his
views and needs, taking the position that since the supervisor has more
experience and holds a more senior position, the supervisor must know best.
Evidently, the personal needs of such people are rarely met. Often they pay a price by experiencing negative feelings such as resentment, anger, a low sense of worth and decreased job satisfaction. Moreover, because they are unassertive, their views and opinions remain unheard, depriving the work group of their experience and perspective. Because a lack of assertiveness does not necessarily mean that the quality of ideas and opinions is low, the work group may lose the benefit of valuable ideas through this process.
Compromise
People will sometimes negotiate when faced
with conflict but lack a commitment to work towards solutions which can meet
as many needs as possible. They approach conflict resolution as a bargaining
session and are willing to give up some of their goals if others will give
up some of theirs. Thus they seldom arrive at a solution that meets all
their needs or those of others but the solutions arrived at allow some of
the needs of both parties to be met. A major shortcoming of compromise
solutions is that such bargaining is a negatively oriented process where the
main objective is to equalize gains and losses. The bargaining may not take
into account the quality of the solution but merely concern itself with what
is being traded for what. Thus, the worst part of each side’s position may
be retained in a compromise solution, while the more desirable elements of
each position are discarded as bargaining chips.
Win-Win
The most constructive solutions are those
which take into consideration the views of all persons involved and are
acceptable to all. Such outcomes are the result of negotiation strategies
where the needs of both sides are considered important and an attempt is
made to meet all needs. These solutions are appropriately called Win-Win
because there are no losers. While often difficult to arrive at, the process
leading to such solutions builds interpersonal relationships, increases
motivation and improves commitment. Win-Win solutions are the most desirable
outcomes of conflict resolution.
Reference
Warschcaw, T (1980). Winning by
negotiation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gabor, P. & Ing, C (1989). Managing conflict: Supervisory Skills and Strategies. The Child and Youth Care Administrator. Vol.2 No.2 pp. 53-55
