Roah Rashed Al Jiblawi 200503795 HMPD 204 A critique of the bi dimensional model for handling interpersonal conflict adapted

by Rahim and Magner (1995)

Introduction
A high performing work teams is essential in the organizations that rely on team working, innovation and change. This could be approached by identifying individual team role preferences which by its terms associate conflict managing styles. Team role and conflict managing styles are defined by the relationship that the team members have with each other. Therefore, analysing the association between the team members would lead to a better understanding of team dynamics in problem solving situations. This study aims at the relationship between team role preference and the way the team members handle conflict. It also shed lights on conflict management model in which Im going to question its exhaustiveness and representativeness.

Conflict managing styles:

Team role preference depends upon the way the members approaches problems and on their acceptance of the level of control in dealing with other team members. Consequently their conflict managing style depends on the level of concern of ones results. The learning process during team working over time defines the role clarity in which a team member gets to change his/her team role preference since he/she would adapt to the nature of his/her task and to the team dynamics.

A conflict exists when confronting interests exist between the parties involved in social situations (Deutsch, 1973). There are three basic themes underlying common definitions of conflict. First, a conflict exists only if it is perceived as conflict by the actors involved. Second, there is a level of interdependence between the actors such that they have the ability to influence each other. Finally, in any conflict, scarcity of resources (such as money, power, and prestige) may generate tensions among the actors. In the course of individuals approach and handling conflict analysis, several models have been proposed. The most extended model of the styles of handling interpersonal conflict is a bi-dimensional model proposed by Blake and mouton (1964) and approached by Rahim and Magner (1995). It involves the concern for self dimension i.e. the degree in which an individual tries to satisfy his/her personal concerns or needs. And the "concern for others" dimension i.e. an individual tries to satisfy others' needs or concerns. Combining these two dimensions, five different styles of managing interpersonal conflict are obtained:

To begin with, the bi dimensional model fails in providing exhaustiveness that must be present in handling conflicts. When a distinctive style whether dominating or obliging is adapted, a party would not be able to deal with everything relevant to the matter in hand because he/she would be bias to one concern regardless of the other i.e. either concern of self or concern of others. To continue, the mentioned five styles were categorized separately but as a matter of fact they merge together. When a conflict resulting from a public disagreement is about to happen, the other side tends to prevent this from occurring, reorienting the discussion once more towards the central issue of the conflict. This is referred to as acting reciprocally in response to the other partys indirect fight behaviors (De Dreu et al., 1999). In this manner, the style followed is a combination of a compromising style along with the dominating style. A party may switch in his/her conflict managing styles in the most preferable manner. When the participant wishes to avoid or postpone conflict, the adversary tends to respond 3

through accusations, reproaches or direct orders; in contrast, when the participant receives personal attacks, there is a tendency on the part of the other to avoid conflict. So the style followed tends to change with the change of the situation. From this, the discussed patterns may show effectiveness or ineffectiveness depending on the conflict. Based on concern theory, a change in the dimension of self-interest to the dimension of the others interest which is what occurs when the subject uses accommodation or problem-solving behavior in response to direct fight has mitigating effects on the dynamic of conflict, which is what occurs when the subject changes from avoidance to direct fight does not produce changes in the tendency to escalation or de-escalation, but rather leads simply to a change in the dynamic of cooperation between the parties. In this sense, Janssen and Van de Vliert (1996) showed using diverse methodologies, that high levels of concern with the others interest, expressed in behaviors such as accommodation or problem-solving, lead to a reduction in intensity of the conflict and an improvement in relations between the parties. This depends on the effective negotiators taking into consideration, on carrying out their proposals, the interests of the other party in a situation of conflict escalation, despite the fact that the adversarys response may be oriented towards the fulfillment of his or her personal interests.

Conclusion:
Negotiation is one of the most effective means of managing and solving disputes between individuals. However, in certain cases this process fails, and the consequences of this for both parties can be disastrous (Munduate, 1993). Analysing the association between the team members would lead to a better understanding of team dynamics in problem solving situations and thus it would reduce unnecessary consequences. The two4

dimensional model of the styles needed for handling interpersonal conflict adapted by Rahim and Magner, however, cannot be accurately used in the analysis of such an association because the model lacks exhaustiveness and representativeness.