Many team leaders and directors believe
that conflict is a part of life or people working together, and that
differences of opinion cannot be avoided. They think it would be better left in
the hands of Human Resources (HR) to resolve conflicts, arguments, or
disagreements and often believe that they should not get involved in conflict.
However, a lack of conflict management
skills costs organisations severely in terms of time and money and can affect
organisational cohesion. Workplace conflicts can snowball out of control,
causing people to avoid them and evade the problems presented where conflicts
exist.
Disagreements and workplace conflicts
can cause people to verbally attack each other, escalating to a point where one
or both team members fail to turn up for work, preferring to avoid the symptoms
of stress caused by workplace conflicts and disagreements.
The situation can only worsen if
workplace conflict is not dealt with properly. The costs of poor conflict
management can escalate as those involved in the conflict include colleagues,
rather than concentrating and focusing on the organisation's needs. In the
main, there are two significant types of conflict:
- Positive: Where most conflicts start as a
difference of opinion about a subject that leads to an active disagreement
with another person.
- Negative: In which positive conflicts
become personal, opinions differ between two parties who cannot agree on a
subject, and the organisation becomes unproductive.
Many organisations strive for positive
conflict, as it is rarely a personal attack on another. Instead, it is a
disagreement that challenges the idea put forth by another, using conflict
management to achieve opportunities for an agreement to be reached through
negotiation or mediation.
Positive conflict is productive as it
generates ideas and conversation. However, disagreements can become negative
without conflict management, where people feel their views are being attacked.
Harmful conflicts are not progressive
and usually originate from missed opportunities when the discussion of a
subject turns into insults, and conflict management protocols fail to prevent
the conflict or disagreement from becoming negative. The following are examples
of the principal types of resolution strategies:
- Compromise (lose/lose): This method of conflict
resolution calls upon team members to set their differences aside and to
give up a little of what each other wants to reach a common ground upon
which both sides can agree. Usually, this strategy is used when both
team members are equally powerful but are willing to work together. The
issue with using this method is that both sides in the dispute can be left
dissatisfied with the agreed compromise, which is sometimes time-consuming
to reach.
- Accommodation (lose/win): The accommodation method is used
in conflict management when a person takes a passive position in the
conflict, for the other party to “win” to keep the peace. The
drawback to using this conflict resolution method is that it could lead to
people feeling that they have been overly "accommodating" and
feeling that they are unimportant. Their work performance declines as they
lose interest in the organisation and its purpose.
- Avoiding (lose/lose): When team managers and directors
fail to deal with conflicts and disagreements, they choose instead to
"avoid" them, as they fear stepping on anyone's toes
diplomatically to avoid a political incident. This could be an
excellent tactic to prevent conflicts and disagreements and give time to
consider the resolution method. However, in avoiding disputes or
disagreements, nobody wins as disputes go unresolved. It will only make
them worse, with one or both parties leaving.
- Competition (win/lose): This conflict resolution method
pits two parties against each other competitively. Highly power-driven
individuals typically use it. These conflicts and disagreements are
usually won through arguments, pulling rank or using leverage against each
other. Utilising competition to resolve differences usually creates
more problems than it solves, so this conflict resolution strategy must be
thought through carefully before being used. While competing with
other parties can be productive, it can also lead to problems if used
excessively or inappropriately, as it could lead to fraudulent, unethical,
or illegal tactics being used to "win" the conflict.
- Collaboration (win/win): Collaboration is what every
organisation should strive for in dealing with conflict or disagreement,
as it deals with differences of opinion head-on to utilise the parties'
positives. This conflict or disagreement resolution technique is the
most complex to use as it relies on the exceptional interpersonal skills
of the mediator to bring both parties to an amicable solution. The effort
often turns arguments into teamwork to increase organisational cohesion in
a method that can be time and resource-consuming.
Where conflict occurs outside an
organisation, perhaps with suppliers or customers, arbitration is a form of
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) commonly used to resolve disputes without
the court system.
The dispute will be decided by one or
more third parties known as "arbitrators", "arbiters", or
"arbitral tribunal", which renders an "arbitration award"
that is usually binding legally on both parties and can be enforced by the
courts.
Arbitration is often used to resolve
commercial disputes, particularly within international trading transactions.
However, it may also be employed in consumer and employment matters, where
arbitration is usually mandated within the relevant commercial or employment
contract terms.
Arbitration to resolve a conflict or
disagreement may include one party waiving the right to claim damages. It's
important to note the difference between mandatory consumer and employment
arbitration, which distinctly differs from consensual, mainly commercial
arbitration.
Arbitration may be voluntary or
mandatory. However, compulsory arbitration is utilised only from a statute or
contract that one party imposes on another. In this contract, both parties
agree to submit all their current or future disputes to arbitration, which can
be either binding or non-binding, without knowing precisely what disputes will
ever occur. Non-binding arbitration is a form of mediation in which a decision
can only be imposed on either party by mutual consent.
Arbitration is a dispute procedure where
a dispute is submitted by agreement of both parties to one or more arbitrators
who decide on the conflict. In choosing arbitration, the parties to the
disagreement opt to resolve differences privately instead of in court. The
characteristics are principally that:
- Arbitration is Consensual: Arbitration may only occur if all
parties agree. The parties usually insert an arbitration clause into the
relevant contract for future disputes arising under a contract. However,
an existing dispute can be referred to arbitration employing a submission
agreement between the parties. In contrast to mediation, neither party can
unilaterally withdraw from arbitration.
- The Parties Choose The
Arbitrator(s):
Under the general arbitration protocol, both parties can select a sole
arbitrator together. If they decide to have a three-member arbitral
tribunal, each party may appoint one of the arbitrators. Those two
individuals then agree on the presiding arbitrator.
- Arbitration is Neutral: In addition to selecting neutrals
of appropriate nationality, the parties to the dispute can choose vital
elements such as the applicable law, language, and venue of the
arbitration. This allows the parties to ensure the other party does not
enjoy a home-court advantage.
- Arbitration is Confidential: The arbitration protocol
specifically protects the confidentiality of the parties' identities in
the arbitration. Any disclosures made during an arbitration procedure and
the award remain private. In specific circumstances, the arbitration
protocol allows a party to restrict access to commercially sensitive
information or other confidential data submitted to the arbitral tribunal
or a confidentiality advisor to the tribunal.
Arbitration is a process in which a
dispute is resolved by an impartial third party, whose decision the parties to
the conflict have agreed will be binding, or that legislation has decreed will
be binding and final, with limited rights of review or appeal concerning
arbitration awards.
The arbitral tribunal's decision is
final and easy to enforce, as, under the arbitration protocol, the parties
agree to carry out the tribunal's conclusion without delay. In absolute terms,
arbitration is binding, whereas non-binding arbitration could technically be
described as merely a form of mediation.
The significant distinction between
binding and non-binding arbitration is that, in contrast, a mediator will
assist both parties in finding a common middle ground upon which to compromise.
The non-binding arbiter remains removed from the settlement process and may
only give an opinion of liability and, if appropriate, indicate the value of
damages payable.
Additional articles can be found at Procurement Made Easy. This site looks at procurement issues to assist organisations and people in increasing the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness of their product and service supply to the customers' delight. ©️ Procurement Made Easy. All rights reserved.
