There are a multitude of theories on how to "manage" conflict and they range from the theoretical to the practical. Of course, many will argue that conflict is rarely managed at all. Rather, it is a force that usually cannot be stopped, but perhaps only contained. People spend a great deal of time and resources each year studying the issue of conflict, and the unfortunate truth is that some of this effort is wasted because situations are so individualized to personnel, environment, and atmosphere. Also, too often "conflict management tools" provide the user with utopian scenarios with tidy little outcomes. The reality is that conflict isn't always a bad thing. In fact, a little conflict can be extremely healthy for an organization in order to avoid stagnant practices. Still, there are times that conflict needs to be resolved on some level. Here are a few ways that people deal with conflict management in the organization.

BRUTE FORCE AND COWERING SURRENDER

Some conflict management comes down to a "slugfest" that is won Darwinism style. In other words, the person with the more powerful persona, argument, or pay-grade wins. If someone has the legitimate authority to resolve the conflict, the outcome can be fairly simple. The subordinate may not like it, but that is reality of a hierarchical structure. Of course, the savvy supervisor will make the employee feel like they have gotten something out of the deal or that some part of the resolution was their idea. Unfortunately, not all managers are that smart. When conflict happens between equal people, brute force may still prevail if one person is willing to force the issue and the other person does not have the strength to resist. Sometimes this is a regular occurrence for some personality types as some people always have to win while others never stand up for themselves.

SPLITTING THE DIFFERENCE

Other settings of equality may create a negotiation situation when both parties have semi-equal amounts of strength to contribute to the argument. If impasses are soon reached, then the conflict may result in "splitting the difference". In other words, they both want the whole pie but neither person will let the other have his or her way. Therefore, they agree to split things up. This is a fairly common conflict management strategy. In this situation neither party is usually happy and the conflict is not necessarily resolved. Still, each person came away with something, though this may be a small consolation if they still feel they are justified in wanting everything.

MUTUAL BENEFIT

Of course, the ideal situation that is talked about in all the textbooks is the scenario where everyone wins. This is the so-called "mutual benefit" situation. It can happen, but it is often an unlikely outcome. If there is a conflict over something, then it is unlikely that people will suddenly surrender their standpoint. Some level of mutual benefit can always be negotiated, but the reality is that conflict often restricts the amount of benefit for one or more parties.

Overall, conflict can be a healthy part of an organization. On the other hand, unresolved conflict can tear apart relationships and companies just as quickly as it can make them grow. Therefore, it behooves managers to do their best to identify, legislate, and manage conflict in order to move forward and make the best of situations.

Learn more about this author, Todd Pheifer.
Click here to send author comments or questions.

---

Add your voice

Know something about The basics of conflict management?
We want to hear your view. Write now!