Articles from prior issues of The Advocate

November/December, 1997

Dealing with Conflict
by Melissa Robertz, Oregon DDS


THE STATED OBJECTIVES FOR THE workshop were to understand conflict and how we react to it and to build assertiveness skills for coping with difficult situations and people.

We started with an examination of something that Mr. Klee said was a Thomas/Kilman instrument. This tool is used for relating strategies bases on whether the primary goal of the strategy is to achieve a personal goal or to maintain a relationship.

The definitions of strategies that follow are tied to this instrument as you will see. Imagine if you will, I used to love it when Rod Serling said that, a graph in which the X axis (the one across the bottom) is titled “concern for relationships” and the Y axis (the vertical one) is titled “concern for personal goals”. The further you move to the right, the more concern there is for the relationship and as you move upward the greater the concern with achieving personal goals.

Starting in the upper right of this graph you would find a strategy called “collaborating” which aims to achieve goals and maintain relationships.



The collaborating approach to conflict is to maintain interpersonal relationships and ensure that both parties to the conflict achieve their personal goals. The collaborator works in the interest of his or her self-interest as well as in the interest of the other party. This is a win/win posture in which the collaborator expects both parties to leave the conflict winners. Collaborating requires a great deal of time and energy. Also, both parties have to have a vested interest in the outcome, they both have to feel the conflict can be resolved, they have to be focused on the problem and not locked to a solution, and they have to be able and willing to look at the conflict objectively.

At the upper left of the graph you find a strategy called “competing” which aims to win and achieve the personal goal of the person regardless of the effect on the relationship. This is a win or lose proposition with winning somehow equated with status and competence. This is a power oriented mode in which power is used to win or to defend the position you believe is correct. There are variations within competing. First, there is forcing or the use of power in an inflexible manner to force others to go along. The other variant is "contending" in which there is greater flexibility, though not enough to allow the person to lose. (Research indicates that using power to resolve a conflict is more effective if the one with superior power explains why the decision was made and bases it on objective factors.) In the lower right of the graph you find a strategy called "accommodating" in which the strategist attempts to maintain the relationship at all costs, regardless of the effect on personal goals. Giving in, appeasing, and avoiding conflict are seen as ways of protecting the relationship. This is a yield-lose/win approach to conflict in which the appeaser will yield-lose and allow the other to win. There are two variants of this strategy also. First, there is yielding in which the strategist appears apathetic to the conflict and shows no concern for their own needs but accommodate the other party entirely. Conceding is the other variant and is marked by a greater involvement in the conflict while still accommodating the other’s concerns. In the lower left of the graph is the strategy known as "avoiding". This strategy shuns conflict. The central theme is hopelessness, resulting in frustration for all parties. The avoider doesn’t care about anyone achieving their personal goals and is not concerned with the relationship either. This could take the form of diplomatically diverting an issue, postponing and issue until a better time, or simply withdrawing from a threatening situation. This is a leave-lose/win posture again allowing the other to win but in this strategy the other wins because they are left alone in the conflict. There are three variants of this style. First is protecting in which there is no attempt to surface the conflict at all. Both parties are determined to avoid conflict at all costs. Second is withdrawing in which may address some issues while avoiding others but actively work to keep the issues off the table. The final variant is smoothing in which the strategist attempts to emphasize the positive and avoid issue that may hurt feelings or arouse anger. This strategy involves down playing differences while emphasizing issues on which there is common interest. Right in the middle of the graph there is the "compromiser" strategy. This involves the assumption that a win/win is not possible and adoption of a negotiating stance that will involve a little winning and a little losing for both sides in both the goals and relationships. Persuasion and manipulation are the dominant styles of this strategist. Compromising has two variants. Firm compromising involves pushing the other side showing a tough approach designed to motivate cooperation. This is often the approach for the leader in the attempt to work out a compromise. In flexible compromising, a more cooperative approach is adopted. Parties to flexible compromising have less defined positions and see the sharing of thoughts and interests as an important ingredient in working out a solution. Pushing on with our new knowledge of conflict strategies, we discussed assertiveness and the continuum of assertiveness. This encompasses nonassertive, through assertive and responsive all the way to aggressive.

Nonassertive means you react to others by putting yourself down or denying your rights.

Assertive means you act upon others without putting them down or denying their rights.

Responsive means you react to others without putting yourself down or denying your rights.

Aggressive means you act upon others by putting them down or denying their rights.

Okay! At this point we were ready to actually examine some of the ways in which we could deal with situations we face every day. This was the adding tools to our tool box portion of the training, which was what we all wanted to begin with. One tool we learned was the broken record tool. This is the skill of calm repetition, saying what you want over and over again. Example, you get the telephone salesman from way down there who just really wants to sell you something. Your response, no matter his ploy, is “I appreciate the opportunity, but I am not interested”. Since the salesman soon recognizes there is no way past the rejection, he will soon stop as long as you maintain your calm repetition. Another tool is called fogging. When you are the subject of manipulative criticism, calmly acknowledge that there may be some truth in the criticism but maintain yourself as the judge of what you do. Example: your critic accuses you of presenting a speech that was not well organized and you respond by saying, “My speech could have been better organized.” In this case, the apparent acceptance of the criticism without accepting the critic’s judgement relative to the fault or error leaves the critic with no further step to take so they retreat. Another tool is the negative assertion in which you accept your errors and faults by agreeing with the valid criticism. Notice in the example the slight shift from the fogging response. Example: your critic accuses you of presenting a speech that was not well organized and you respond, “I agree that my speech was not well organized.” Since you admit to the error or fault, there is no where for your opponent to go other than finding a new criticism or backing off. Finally, we learned the negative inquiry tool. This is where you actively prompt criticism in order to use the information or exhaust it while prompting your critic to be more assertive and less dependent on manipulative ploys. Example: your critic makes a broad statement such as, “I wish you people would get better organized.” to which you respond, “What areas of organization do you feel need improvement?” This tool can be used over and over in the same conflict to bring the critic to more and more specific criticisms until you either determine there is no merit (when the critic backs down) or you identify an actual problem that can be addressed. As we think about conflict and resolution, we now have some tools to examine where the conflict initiator is coming from, what strategy do they initiate in the conflict? Are they interested in maintaining a relationship or just in achieving their goals? We also have the ability to decide which is important to us. Do we want to maintain a relationship or is our position (personal goal) so important that we will employ a strategy that may sacrifice that relationship in order to attain our goal? We also learned a few ways to gauge the forcefulness with which we employee those strategies through the use of the assertiveness continuum. And finally, we learned some effective tools to use in addressing specific conflict situations. The parting wisdom learned in this class? Practice centering, focus on yourself and remaining calm in the face of the conflict. Control your reaction to the conflict, think about your alternative approaches, and practice. In this manner will you gain success in resolving conflicts the way you would like them resolved.