Home Litigation What Kind of Conflict Strategies Exist?

What Kind of Conflict Strategies Exist?

What kind of Conflict Strategies exist?

What Kind of Conflict Strategies Exist?

Conflict is an inevitable part of human interaction, and it can arise in any situation where people have different perspectives or goals. In order to effectively manage conflict, it’s important to have a variety of strategies at your disposal. In this article, we’ll discuss the different strategies that exist for managing conflict, including their advantages and disadvantages.

Collaboration

Collaboration is a strategy that seeks to find a solution that satisfies all parties involved in the conflict. This is achieved by working together to identify the underlying interests of all parties, and then devising a solution that meets those interests. Collaboration can be effective, especially in situations where the parties have ongoing relationships and need to preserve a sense of trust. However, it can be time-consuming and may require a high level of cooperation and mutual respect.

Competing

Competing is a strategy that seeks to “win” the conflict by getting the other party to acquiesce to your position. This strategy is often used in situations where quick, decisive action is required, or where one party has leverage over the other. However, competing can also create or exacerbate feelings of animosity, and may damage relationships between the parties involved.

Compromising

Compromising is a strategy that seeks to find a solution that meets the needs of all parties involved, without necessarily satisfying everyone’s interests completely. This strategy can be effective in situations where there is a time pressure to resolve the conflict, or where it is important to maintain a sense of cooperation between the parties involved. However, compromise can also result in a less-than-ideal solution if the parties are not able to find a mutually beneficial outcome.

Accommodating

Accommodating is a strategy that seeks to meet the needs of the other party, often at the expense of one’s own interests. This strategy can be effective in situations where the other party has significantly more power or leverage, or where preserving the relationship between the parties is more important than the outcome of the conflict. However, accommodating can also result in feelings of resentment or dissatisfaction if one party feels that their needs are not being met.

Avoiding

Avoiding is a strategy that seeks to ignore or avoid the conflict altogether. This is often done in situations where the parties involved feel that the cost of addressing the conflict outweighs the benefits. However, avoiding can also result in a lack of resolution and may cause the underlying issues to fester and grow worse over time.

Conclusion

There are many different strategies that can be used to manage conflict, and the choice of strategy will depend on the specific situation. Collaboration, competing, compromising, accommodating, and avoiding are all valid strategies, but each has its own advantages and disadvantages. The key to effective conflict management is to have a variety of strategies at your disposal, and to be able to choose the strategy that is most appropriate for each situation.


What are sometimes of Conflict Resolution Strategies?

There are numerous strategies for conflict resolution.  The most prevalent strategies in today’s society are the Khun and Poole’s model, the Dechurch and Mark’s Meta-Taxonomy model and the most current model known as the Rahim model.

What is the Khun and Poole model?

Khun and Poole’s model consists of two main sub-models, distributive and integrative.  The distributive sub-model involves the allocation of wins and losses between the parties.  The goal here is to have each party win some concessions.  It builds up confidence in the individuals and make each think that they are benefiting.  The integrative sub-model focuses on compromise.  There are no winners or losers in this sub-model.  The goal is to try to integrate the needs of both parties and meet halfway.  Studies have shown that the integrative model is more effective than the distributive model.

What is the DeChurch and Mark’s Meta-Taxonomy Model?

In the DeChurch and Mark’s Meta-Taxonomy Model the researchers found that conflict resolution can be broken down into two basic subtexts.  The first is activeness.  This involves a  parties directness in solving a problem, are they direct and assertive with what they want out of negotiations or are they passive and unpleasant.  The second subtext is agreeableness.  In agreeableness the parties are evaluated bases on how pleasant and relaxed they are.  It comes as no surprise that parties that are more hostile to each other are much less likely to come to a compromise over matters.  After the study was concluded the researchers found that no matter how positive the activeness portion was on the effectiveness of the outcome the more agreeable the parties were the more effective the outcome.

What is the Rahim approach?

The Rahim approach integrates five different approaches in one.  The idea behind it is that there is no one conclusive model to conflict resolution.  It involves integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising.  Integration involves the open exchange of information between the parties and looking for alternatives.  Obliging involves highlighting the similarities between the parties and minimizing the differences.  Dominating involves one of the parties attempting to achieve complete success, giving little regard to the needs and wants of the other party.  Avoiding involves the avoidance of both parties concerns and needs.  Compromising involves a give and take solution where both parties attempt to relinquish some goal that they may have in order to gain in another aspect of the negotiation.  There are different criteria that need to be met do decide on when and how to implement these different approaches.  Some of them work well when matters are complex and others work well when the matters are of a trivial nature.