5.

1 Conflict Resolution Styles

My Results:
Avoidance Score:  3; Accommodation Score:  6; Confrontation Score:  6; Compromise
Score:  12; Collaboration Score:  15

Preference in Resolution Style:

Although collaboration may be the best approach in theory, it cannot always be achieved in
practice. Occasions arise when different approaches to conflict resolution are best (Tjosvold et
al., 2014).

I currently work on multiple projects/programs across the company, where I work with folks at
different levels of the organization and from different cultures and personalities. While we all
strive to work collaboratively to achieve the optimized results, that style has not always worked
and may not always bring the results we strive for.

My results did not surprise me, as part of several self-managed team/leaderless teams, almost
everyone in the team is highly performing and come together to drive a solution or resolve an
issue. There have been many successful projects and there are a handful that did not see the light
of the day. What was successful is the commitment each of the teammates were able to bring to
the project – that commitment is done through open communication, valuing each other’s
opinion – we could always debate and discuss the best case/solution as there is no wrong solution
when we come together and lastly willing to compromise on non-critical factors like
time/schedule preferences. This aligns with the high performance and satisfaction teams from
Behfar et. al – where the team “Used discuss/debate and open communication to reach
compromise/ consensus”. (Behfat et. al 2008). While I have multiple examples to substantiate
why I landed in where in my results, I would like to put examples, where accommodating,
avoiding and confrontation worked out as well as collaboration and compromise for me.

Accommodation: Recently, I had to work with someone who my team and my manager warned
is not easy to work with. I had to collaborate with them, and I need to get them onboard to help
resolve an issue. When I reached out to them, I acknowledged the fact that they are really busy
with their primary project and I told them I am open to move the meetings around for a time that
will work for them. I also provided the details of the project and what I need from them. The
person not only attended the meeting on scheduled time, fully onboard with my project but also
told me that we should go out for lunch sometime to catch up on projects like this. Sometimes
just accommodating someone on smaller things like schedule can pave way for future
collaboration.

Avoidance: There is no arguing with ignorance or with power. We were on a meeting just three
of us and I was giving update on a solution – which I developed working with technology
partners. However, the project lead did not understand the technical aspect and could not agree
on what I was saying as the pros and cons of the approach and started to give conflicting
statements for statement I made. I tried to reason initially, and finally I said let us not delve into
this piece at this time. The problem was the 3rd person was the manager for both us. The
reasoning behind avoidance is that confronting or even to debate during an update, showcases to
the manager that one of us is not prepared and are not aligned on the project deliverable and
waste of time for a meeting meant to be for updates. Post-meeting catch-up where I explained the
details to my colleague and after understanding that we were both in agreement of the pros and
cons of the approach.

Confrontation: I think this would be a best case when there are too many folks trying to avoid
conflict or commitment or during emergencies. I am part of the business continuity planning
team and often when we are in the middle of an issue or incident, whoever has the quickest
resolution just take the bull by the horn and get it done.

Successful conflict management requires developing trust among participants (Ross & Ward,
1995). Whatever be the conflict management style, I believe being creative and create an
environment that develops trust and respect for the individuals is instrumental in successfully
managing results. When trust is there, when a team member is confrontational or resort to
avoidance, the team provides the platform for the team member to thrive. The goal of managing
team conflicts is to develop integrative, win-win agreements that are beneficial to both sides.
Integrative agreements are more rewarding than compromises and improve ongoing relationships
among parties (Pruitt, 1986).

Reference

Adams, S. L., & Anantatmula, V. (2010). Social and behavioral influences on team process.

Project Management Journal, 41(4), 89-98.

Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2008). The critical role of

conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management

strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 170- 188.

Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L., & Kendall, D. (2006). Understanding team

adaptation: A conceptual analysis and model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1189-1207.

Levi, D. (2017). Group dynamics for teams (5th Ed).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Nikolova, N., & Devinney, T. M. (2009). Influence and power dynamics in client-consultant

teams. Journal of Strategy and Management, 2(1), 31-55.