Identify and describe the five most common reactions to conflict.
Manager Know Thyself: The Skills and Behaviors of Great Conflict Managers
Learning Objectives
· Identify and describe the five most common reactions to conflict.
· Analyze the costs and benefits of your own habits when responding to conflict.
· Apply your knowledge of conflict styles to better communicate at work with those whose conflict styles differ from yours.
· Demonstrate active listening skills and evaluate the results of your listening experience on the speaker.
· Identify your strengths and challenges related to emotional intelligence, then set goals for your growth in one or more areas.
· Analyze your common work (or home) tasks and create a list of repetitive duties that can be successfully delegated to others.
RESPONDING TO CONFLICT AT THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
John Smith is not happy with his administrative assistant, Maria. On the days when John needs her most, she calls in “sick.” Today, John is scheduled to begin holding one-one-one meetings required for staff performance reviews. This week, he is supposed to meet with each of his twenty employees to share his ratings of their performances over the past year, while still getting his other work done. Any deficiencies in performance must be discussed, and, unfortunately, there are plenty of deficiencies to discuss. Although John has not administered performance reviews at this agency before, he knows that everyone dreads this experience. Because Maria is not here, John will have to find all the files himself, answer calls during the meetings with staff members, and try to keep on schedule without the benefit of his assistant who should strategically “buzz” him to let him know when his next appointment has arrived. Maria left a message on John’s answering machine saying that she feels that helping him manage the review process is “above her pay grade.” She said that she is happy to work on other tasks but won’t participate in the review-management process. John is wondering what he should do about this problem, and then it hits him: he will send out an email to his staff, including Maria, telling them that the performance reviews are being postponed until Maria is feeling better. Sending out this email will buy him at least another day or two to get his own work done (e.g., creating schedules, ordering supplies, and publishing ads for new positions) before getting sidetracked with the drama that will likely result from the performance reviews and from dealing with Maria. Hopefully she will take the hint and “get over herself.”
RESPONDING TO CONFLICT: FIVE COMMON APPROACHES
Conflict isn’t positive or negative. It is our reaction to conflict that determines whether the consequence will be constructive or destructive. Conflict presents an opportunity for positive change, deepening relationships, and problem solving. How you treat the other party or parties in conflict is highly predictive of the strength and duration of the relationship in the future (Gottman, 2014). In fact, the way in which two people communicate with each other when problem solving can predict whether or not they are able to work together productively with over 90 percent accuracy (Gottman, 2014). Therefore, it is not conflict that hurts our relationships—it is the way we approach it, manage it, and communicate it. As Mary Parker Follett wrote nearly 100 years ago, “All polishing is done through friction.” Tjosvold’s (2008) work shows that organizations that encourage constructive debate and the open expression of disagreement among team members can greatly improve their effectiveness, creativity, and efficiency. Nevertheless, when most people use the term “conflict,” there is an implied negative connotation. Is your reaction to conflict generally constructive or destructive? How do you feel after you address a problem with employees, your boss, or your clients? The post-conflict feeling can tell us a lot. Does conflict make you want to “fight” or “take flight”?
Before reading further, please read and complete the conflict styles inventory in boxes 1.1 and 1.2. This test uses a “forced-choice” methodology. This means you are forced to choose between response A or B for each question. There may be some questions where you wish you could answer “none of the above,” but please select the answer that best corresponds to your preferred methods for addressing conflict, either A or B.
The conflict styles inventory (CSI) is a questionnaire used to assess an individual’s habits in response to conflict. As the CSI indicates, there are five primary responses to conflict: avoidance, accommodation, collaboration, compromising, and competing. Each of these responses is appropriate in some circumstances and inappropriate or ineffective in others. You might have assumed that the collaboration style is the best of the five conflict styles since this is a book on the subject of collaboration. Surprisingly, that is not the case at all. Instead of pushing you toward the use of one of these conflict styles over the others, this text argues that competent conflict managers are adept at analyzing problems and consciously choosing the style most likely to produce the desired results. Sometimes accommodation is called for, while other situations call for compromise, and so on. Each conflict presents an opportunity for the parties to consciously articulate their goals in the interaction and identify the best conflict-style response to achieve those goals. Sometimes preserving or enhancing the relationship is the ultimate goal, while in other cases your goal may be to avoid a no-win situation or to make a quick and fair decision. Matching the conflict style to the particular dispute or decision-making opportunity is an important skill both at work and in our civic and personal lives.
It can be problematic that most of us predominantly utilize only one or two of these conflict styles as we unconsciously respond to problems as opposed to analyzing situations and choosing the style that best matches the problem at hand. The best conflict management works something like good health care. When health problems are avoidable, they should be avoided through preventive measures such as good eating habits. When health problems arise in spite of our preventive efforts, they must be diagnosed and treated based on that diagnosis. Conflict should be diagnosed and treated in a similar fashion. However, even the most stressful conflict provides you with an opportunity to showcase your conflict management skills and communicate the importance you place on treating others fairly and respectfully, even when you disagree with the outcome of a dispute.
THE FIVE CONFLICT STYLES
There are five predominant styles for dealing with conflict. Most people habitually use only one or two of these styles. Your choice of preferred styles likely depends on the culture in which you were raised and the way your family of origin dealt with conflict. Knowing your own habits will help you improve your response to conflict, while deepening your understanding of others—especially if their preferred style is different. Rather than vilifying those who seem to “fight every fight” or those who behave with passive aggression, you will come to understand why others exhibit different responses to conflict and how to work successfully with those who do not share your preferred approach.
Conflict Avoidance
Clearly, avoidance is the approach used by both John and Maria in the scenario at the beginning of this chapter. Consistent with the avoiding style, John is avoiding dealing with performance reviews and addressing the absenteeism problem with Maria. He has rationalized his avoidance with the thought that he is new to the position and that maybe Maria’s performance over the long term will improve. Avoidance becomes the preferred conflict-management style for individuals with negative past experiences of failed conflict engagement. If avoidance is your preferred approach, then you probably view conflict as a win-lose situation, with you likely to be on the losing end. Conflict avoiders tend to be people in low-power positions, from cultures that prioritize “social harmony,” traumatized by childhood conflict, introverts, and/or people with lower verbal and social skills. Remember—conflict avoiders rarely rise to upper management because leaders must manage conflict every day. While it is important to avoid “no win situations,” by improving your skills or helping others to improve theirs, you can improve the ability to choose among all five styles rather than defaulting to avoidance.
John is not in a low-power position, so why did he use avoidance? In this case, he may perceive he can’t influence Maria’s behavior. As any psychologist will tell you, we can only control what we think, say, and do, but we cannot control what others think, say or do. If Maria wants to use her sick leave, the organization’s policies allow her to do so. The fact that she uses it at the worst times doesn’t change the policy. However, John does have some tools at his disposal, and, so far, avoidance hasn’t solved this recurring problem. Later in this chapter we will read more about the changes he decides to make in his response to conflict.
Conflict avoidance is not always a bad or irrational response when faced with a daunting problem. In fact, avoidance is the right approach if a problem is small and likely to go away on its own. When we fight every fight, we expend energy that might be better used to address the most important problems. It is important to pick your battles. If you scored low on this style (3 or below), then you might want to be more judicious at picking your battles so that you can save your energy for problems that are more central to the mission of your work unit or to your career goals. If you scored high on this style (7 or above), then you might want to work on your framing and problem-solving skills (covered in chapter 4) so you feel confident in your ability to proactively address problems.
For many problems, avoidance works temporarily but makes matters worse in the long run. Avoiders tend to repeatedly let things go until something snaps and they explode—sometimes over a relatively small infraction. In other words, “the volcano effect” occurs (see below for more information on volcanoes at work). Large organizations are better at conflict avoidance than smaller organizations. In large organizations, if one person procrastinates about addressing a problem, then maybe someone else will take charge and deal with the issue. In smaller organizations, there are fewer people onto whom we can push our problems.
Do not confuse conflict prevention with conflict avoidance. Conflict prevention occurs when an individual or group examines the sources of predictable and recurring problems, and then takes reasonable steps to address the root causes so they do not occur or recur. Examples of conflict prevention within organizations may include changing overlapping job descriptions so as to have greater role clarity and accountability. On the other hand, conflict avoidance or the avoiding style occurs when an individual or group has evidence that a problem currently exists or will soon exist, but no steps are taken to address the problem. Conflict avoiders refuse to acknowledge the problem exists, hoping it will just go away. This may work for small, nonrecurring problems, or when you lack the authority or power to bring change. However, do not underestimate your power to bring organizational change (see chapter 6). Avoidance is unlikely to work for systemic, recurring, or large problems.
There is a clear connection between some conflict-avoidance behaviors and the psychological phenomenon of denial. Like avoidance, denial occurs when an individual or group refuses to acknowledge a reality that is highly unpleasant. Denial is a protective mechanism that comes into force when a reality is so overwhelming that to acknowledge its truth could result in a psychological or physical breakdown. One example is when an organization announces it is “downsizing” and your unit will be entirely eliminated, yet you refuse to look for other work until the doors officially close because you keep hoping some miracle will occur and the decision to close will be reversed. Denial protects the individual from the shock that the reality poses to his psyche.
If you are conflict avoidant, how did this pattern develop? Perhaps you had traumatic experiences with conflict in your family or in your work environment. Perhaps you feel a sense of hopelessness or powerlessness to positively impact decisions and fix problems. Perhaps you have a shy personality and prefer not to engage in the long conversations often needed to solve problems productively. The first step to becoming a more proactive and successful conflict manager is to understand why you tend to prefer avoiding conflict. The next step is to work on your conflict management skills so you can feel confident in your ability to proactively impact conflicts and solve problems. The third step is to develop a plan and timeline for improving your ability to proactively address problems as they arise (see the Goal Setting section at the end of this chapter).
As you push yourself away from the default style of conflict avoidance, you may fear that you are being too confrontational with others or taking on too many problems. This is rarely the case with someone who scored high on avoidance (or, coincidentally, on accommodating). So long as you are not acting out of anger when you address problems with other people, and you use tactful and constructive language, then you are much more likely to see positive results and be viewed as a problem solver.
Accommodation
Accommodation occurs when an individual has a preferred outcome but is willing to sacrifice his preference so the other negotiator can realize his own conflicting preference, thereby ensuring no harm enters the relationship. Those who use the accommodating style care deeply about the feelings of others and seek to maintain harmony in their relationships and work environments. If you scored high on this style (7 or higher), then you may believe it is often necessary to place your own wishes as secondary to others’ in order to maintain positive relationships. While this belief is certainly true in some situations, a high score here indicates you are probably “too nice.” You may seem too indecisive when difficult decisions need to be made at the managerial level. Your desire to please others and to be liked by those you manage may mean that some people take you for granted or take advantage of you, with suggestions like, “Ask Barbara to work late, she never says no.” Another example would be, “Try to get Jose to work that holiday since you have plans. He’s such a nice guy.” While everyone needs to “take one for the team” now and then, accommodating people tend to sacrifice more than their fair share. But why not, since it does not seem to bother them? Constant accommodation does bother them, yet, they have learned to keep their opinions to themselves. Accommodators sometimes experience negative health or psychological effects from holding in their frustration and bottling up their emotions.
Conflict accommodators struggle with openly sharing their ideas, feedback, and concerns so as not to offend others. As a result, the team often misses out on the full contribution these team members could make, and so their ideas do not surface. Accommodators have difficulty delegating work to subordinates because they worry it will upset others. Inability to delegate is a recipe for disaster in a manager’s career. The ability to delegate reasonable tasks to others by using clear direction and adequate oversight is crucial for maintaining efficient workflow and for reserving the manager’s time for truly management-level decisions.
In contrast, if you scored low on this measure (3 or lower), then you may want to consider being a bit more flexible, accommodating, and occasionally making concessions to others so that you are viewed as more of a team player. This shows you care about others and are willing to engage in the give-and-take necessary for healthy teamwork. Those who seldom act in an accommodating manner are viewed as pushy, selfish, and not team players.
Accommodation can be the best approach to conflict when an individual is in a low-power position, with little hope of achieving the preferred outcome; when an issue is of relatively little importance to you but of higher importance to others; when you seek to demonstrate you are reasonable and build goodwill. However, if you find yourself repeatedly accommodating others, and it is becoming frustrating, then you may not be adequately communicating or asserting your own needs. When accommodators learn how to identify situations calling for a more collaborative, competitive, or compromising approach, they can then use their assertion skills to frame their comments in a way that allows them to share their concerns or ideas without alienating or angering others (framing skills will be covered in greater depth in chapter 2).
Collaboration
A high score in the collaboration category indicates a preference to work together with others to achieve outcomes that meet the needs of all. Collaboration occurs when two or more individuals work together to share information and make joint decisions. If you scored low on this measure (3 or lower), then you may have trouble delegating and/or sharing decision-making authority with others, even when their buy-in is crucial to the implementation of decisions. If you scored high on the collaborative style (7 or higher), you likely view conflict as an opportunity to solve problems by working positively with others. Some have called this the “win-win” viewpoint, meaning that for one person to win in a negotiation or conflict, the other person’s needs must also be met (meaning they must also win). You are not willing to win at the cost of the relationship, but you believe that by putting your heads together, you can generally find mutually acceptable solutions to the problems at hand.
Collaboration is important in workplace teams. Workplace teams with cooperative approaches to conflict management, as opposed to competitive approaches, exhibited higher levels of trust between team members (Hempel, Zhang, & Tjosvold, 2009). Chan, Huang, and Ng (2008) found that managers with a cooperative style showed more concern for their employees as people, and this concern fostered more trust. The deeper levels of trust between cooperative managers and their employees leads to greater deference to those same managers when difficult decisions have to be made or when the manager intervened to resolve conflict.
So why isn’t collaboration the “best” style of conflict management? Not all problems call for collaboration. Imagine the following scenario. The captain of the Titanic realizes there is an iceberg off the starboard bow. He quickly assembles all the officers on the bridge of the ship and asks each one, “What is the best response to this problem?” Just then, the ship hits the iceberg, and the rest is history. There are times when a quick decision by our leaders is called for, and times when it is not. Collaboration takes time. When time is short, leaders must act swiftly and decisively. In other situations, the decision is not important enough to justify bringing together everyone to jointly reach a decision. If you have laid the groundwork by building strong relationships with others in your organization, then they will typically trust your judgment when decisions must be made quickly or do not warrant the time it takes to engage in collaborative decision making.
The larger the group, the harder it will be to obtain 100 percent consensus on any issue. Imagine trying to get 100 people to agree on whether to order Chinese or Mexican food for lunch. This would not be a good use of time, may create conflict, and a competent leader could make an executive decision on this matter without much pushback. While an open and collaborative discussion of issues is often warranted, sometimes it is necessary to adopt a decision rule that allows for something less than 100 percent consensus, especially in large groups. Requiring 100 percent consensus gives extraordinary power to potential “spoilers” who enter into a process with the intention of derailing any agreement or stalling as long as possible. If the decision is made to use a collaborative style, it will be helpful to clarify the decision-making parameters at the outset. For example, will the manager seek input and brainstorming from the group, but then retain final decision-making authority, or will the manager defer to the expressed preferences of the group? If the latter route is adopted, decisions will require 100 percent consensus or something less, such as a simple majority vote, a supermajority vote, or consensus minus one or two. Voting is a process that matches the competitive style of decision making, yet it can be combined with participant input, dialogue, and collaboration to create a process deemed fair, participatory, and efficient.
As a manager, you cannot seek consensus on every decision. Employees do not want to be bothered for their input on issues they view as noncritical or decisions they feel should be reserved for managers. The more they trust their managers, the less they feel their input is needed on small decisions. The tricky part is for managers to have a good understanding of where these lines are drawn. Sometimes, a collaborative manager should seek input from one or more employees by asking whether this is a decision in which they wish to be involved. Sometimes they will say, “No thanks. I trust your judgment on this one.” In that case, your inquiry has signaled that you value their feelings and that you understand the decision will likely impact them and their work. Reserve the use of collaborative decision making for the following instances: when others have the information needed to make a good decision; when buy-in will be needed in order to effectively implement the decision; when there is likely to be push-back if input is not sought; when there is adequate time for input and discussion; and when you seek to build or repair relationships with others.
Compromise
The compromising style indicates a preference for “splitting the difference” between the negotiators’ positions. Compromise can be a quick, efficient way to reach a solution. For example, in hiring negotiations an employer offers the prospective employee a salary of $60,000 and she counters with a request for $70,000. The two quickly decide the most efficient and fair outcome would be to settle at $65,000. Both got part of what they wanted and left the negotiation feeling that the process was fair. The negotiation was relatively short and painless. The compromising style is appropriate when a decision is not highly important, the time for negotiation and discussion is relatively short, and the process needs to be viewed as fair to all parties. One risk of using compromise is that value might be left “on the table,” so to speak. For example, what if the employee offered to take on additional duties that would have otherwise required the hiring of a part-time employee in exchange for the previously requested $70,000 salary? By engaging in discussions to learn more about each negotiator’s needs, it may be possible to reach a solution that is better for everyone. Compromise often misses these opportunities.
One of the most widely known stories of compromise comes to us from the biblical, Judaic, and Qur’anical traditions: the story of wise King Solomon. In the story, a mother had accidentally rolled over on her own baby and killed it as they both slept. In her grief, she stole another woman’s baby and claimed it as her own. The two women came before King Solomon, asking him to determine the true mother of the infant. In his wisdom, Solomon stated that he intended to use a sword to cut the baby in half, so that each mother could lay claim to half the child (the compromising style). One of the mothers cried out that she would give up her claim to the baby and allow the other mother to have the child (the accommodating style). King Solomon knew this was the baby’s true mother and awarded the baby to her (competitive style).
This story illustrates the largest flaw in the compromising style. It focuses on creating a fair process (you each get equal amounts) but can ignore even better solutions that lie unexplored. The compromising style encourages game-playing rather than open and sincere expression of needs, goals, and limitations. It encourages parties to “start high” instead of telling each other what is desired and why. It sometimes leads negotiators to miss opportunities for joint gains that might occur if a more collaborative style were used. To return to the earlier salary negotiation example, the employer may have been willing to go as high as $80,000 but she started small so as to make it look like she was “being nice” by agreeing to a higher salary. While the higher salary of $65,000 was appreciated, what if the job applicant really wanted a flexible work schedule and was willing to sacrifice some pay in order to obtain that type of schedule? Perhaps this would have been acceptable to both sides in the negotiation, yet the needs beneath the monetary amounts were not fully discussed. So they walked away with an agreement, but not one that met all of their needs as fully as a collaborative negotiation could have accomplished.
If you scored high on compromising and on accommodating (7 or above), then you may leave negotiations feeling a bit disrespected or taken advantage of. You generally start off your negotiations using the compromising style because you see it as fair, but if the other individual is a tough negotiator, you give in rather than risk the chance of hurting the other person’s feelings or damaging the relationship.
You can improve this by choosing carefully among the different conflict styles to utilize the one that best matches your needs in any particular situation. Be sure you have a number (or other end result) in your head that is your “bottom line” before you enter the negotiation, and only change that bottom line if new information comes to light during the negotiation that justifies reconsideration. Communicate to the other party about why you are asking for X or Y. Invite the other party to brainstorm solutions that are mutually satisfying in regard to solving the problem or reaching a negotiated agreement. If the other person is unwilling to engage in this type of conversation or unwilling to reach what you view as a fair compromise, consider walking away from the negotiation and telling him you need time to think about it. This may make the person reconsider his willingness to compromise or to engage in collaboration with you. See chapter 3 for more on negotiation theory and skills.
Competition
The competitive style indicates a preference to “win as much as you can,” even at the expense of the other side or damage to the relationship between negotiators. You have probably heard that individuals tend to have either a “fight or flight” response to conflict. It is apparent that the responses we are examining here are much more nuanced and varied. However, if the avoidant style represents “flight,” then the competitive style represents “fight.” High scores on the competitive style (7 or higher) tend to reflect individuals with strong opinions and a tendency to make decisive unilateral decisions. Competitors tend to communicate directly and are more concerned about the outcome of a decision than they are about the feelings of others. We call this a focus on “task over relationship.” They may err in believing that many interactions are competitions with zero-sum outcomes, when in reality the situations are more amenable to negotiations that yield joint gains for both parties, also known as “win-win” outcomes. Individuals scoring high on the competitive style are often viewed by others as overly assertive, abrasive, or insensitive. Individuals who scored low on this style (3 or lower) tend to score high in either the accommodating and/or avoiding conflict styles. As a result, these individuals are often seen as “pushovers” who will not adequately advocate for themselves or their team.
When does a competitive response to conflict make sense? Some situations such as elections or sporting events are inherently structured as competitions and call for competitors. However, many organizations inject competition into the workplace in ways that result in unintended negative consequences. For example, an internal sales competition may result in attempts to steal clients from other team members rather than from other firms or to sabotage the efforts of team members in order to win. The trick with the competitive spirit is to harness its energy in positive directions while remembering to correctly identify those areas in which competition results in the best possible outcomes. When done correctly, competition can result in increased productivity and healthy camaraderie. When done poorly, competition pits team members against each other, leading to hard feelings and negative outcomes.
A competitive style of decision making is called for when a unilateral, swift decision is needed because time is short and you, as a manager, believe that your preferred outcome is the only one that is acceptable or in the best interests of the company. It is better to be transparent about this assessment than to pretend to engage in collaboration or compromise, knowing that in the end, your decision will be final.
CHOOSING BETWEEN THE CONFLICT STYLES
As a child, you began learning about conflict management by watching your family members and others in your environment. You may have adopted the conflict techniques exhibited by one or more of your family members, or you may have developed a style that is the opposite because you determined theirs to be dysfunctional. Whichever style(s) you adopted, you have had many years to develop your current conflict habits. Changing habits feels awkward at first, and mistakes or backtracking is to be expected. Eventually, with practice and reflection, choosing the best style or approach will become habitual. Until then, it helps to ask yourself some explicit questions about the problem, decision, or conflict in question.
Begin by asking these questions: How important is this issue? Is there passion around this issue among my employees, superiors, or clientele? What will likely happen if no action is taken or if action is delayed? How soon is a decision needed? Who will be impacted by the decision, and who will be tasked with implementing the decision? Would a decision that had the input and expertise of other stakeholders likely be a better, more substantive decision for addressing the problem? Do I have the information I need to make a good decision? How much buy-in will be necessary for the decision to be implemented smoothly? Do I have the power or authority necessary to make a unilateral decision? How will a unilateral decision be received by others? Do others in my organization trust that I will make the best decision possible, even if they are not particularly happy with the outcome of the decision? How are my pre-existing conflict management habits biasing my answers to these questions?
It is also important to note that your choice of a specific conflict management response will need to take into consideration the context of the dispute, its importance to the organization and individual employees, whether the conflict or project is in its early or late phases, and the preferred style or approach of those with whom you work.
As you strive to be more analytical and proactive in your approach to dealing with conflict, do not be too hard on yourself or on those around you. You are developing a deeper cognitive framework for understanding conflict and its management, but changing patterns of behavior takes time and practice. Allow yourself a “do-over” when you catch yourself falling back into old, destructive patterns of communication or decision making. If you are explicit with others about your desire to improve these skills, you are likely to find that your colleagues and employees are not only open to working with you, but they will also appreciate that you are trying to develop your abilities in these areas. At the end of this chapter, review the goal setting section to get started on making improvements in your conflict management habits.
THE LANGUAGE OF CONFLICT
We learned how to manage conflict the same way we learned language—by watching and listening to those around us. The way in which we communicate our approach to conflict includes both verbal and non-verbal signals we give to others, either purposefully or subconsciously. Just as every spoken language has rules of grammar and punctuation, so does the language of conflict. However, for most people, the unspoken rules or norms of conflict management, also known as the language of conflict, have never been explicitly discussed except at the most obvious level, with statements such as, “Tommy, we don’t hit,” or, “We have a zero-tolerance policy for bullying.” The rules vary within each family or organization and within each of the five conflict styles discussed in this chapter. When an individual exhibits a conflict style that is different than that of the group’s style (such as with one’s coworkers or with one’s in-laws), it seems as if he is breaking an unwritten and unspoken rule, one that everyone should know. Because we learned our language of conflict through the osmosis of watching the world around us, we implicitly believe that everyone saw the same world that we saw, and therefore they should have learned the same lessons. When someone’s communication mode or approach to problem solving irritates you, ask yourself, “What approach to conflict is he using, and how different is it from my preferred approach?” You may find that it is the difference in styles that is the obstacle to smoother interactions rather than the preferred outcomes voiced by each party about the conflict.
Let’s revisit the scenario at the beginning of this chapter with John and Maria. At the Bureau of Reclamation, Maria has previously called in “sick” when she was dreading her work more than usual. She has even told John why she is calling in sick: “I hate performance review season.” Her direct, rather competitive approach is at odds with that of her boss. John has not complained before, which is an avoidant approach. Maria has concluded that it must not bother him too much when she calls in sick. For them to communicate more proactively, they would need to sit down together to explicitly discuss what is or is not working about this approach to problem solving and, hopefully, brainstorm ways to address the problems so that avoidance feels less necessary. In other words, a collaborative conversation is called for. John could use his authority to instruct Maria not to miss any more work, which would be a competitive approach. However, she could quit or simply ignore him, so long as she has enough sick leave to use. Since he cannot force compliance, collaboration would be the best option.
TRAITS AND BEHAVIORS OF EXCELLENT MANAGERS
Reflect back on the best manager you have ever had. It could be your little league coach, the supervisor at your first job, or if you are lucky, it could be your current manager. What traits made him or her an excellent manager? Traits include patience, kindness, and flexibility. What specific behaviors did this manager frequently engage in, which led you to think of him as your best boss? For example, some managers respond promptly to email, sponsor social events, recognize the birthdays of their employees, provide needed resources to employees, advocate up the chain of command, or listen empathetically. While personality traits may seem hard to acquire, each of us can engage in more of the behaviors exhibited by effective managers. By making a list of the behaviors of effective managers, you can set your own goals as a manager (or manager in training). Which behaviors would you like to increase or decrease?
When asked to create lists of effective managerial behaviors, employees frequently respond with the following inventory. Great managers show they care; get to know employees as individuals; lead from the front; communicate what they need from each employee (and why) and what they will give back (and why); listen with empathy; nurture, train, support, and hold accountable; are open to new ideas and ways of operating; advocate for the needs of their team; are proactive problem solvers; invite input; share rewards and recognition; and they engage in strategic thinking and planning.
A body of management theory known as leader-member exchange theory has become popular since the 1980s. This research examines the types of relationships that form between leaders and organizational members as well as the benefits that accrue to leaders and members as a result of these relationships. This approach posits that the best managers develop positive relationships with organizational members based on “trust, respect, loyalty, liking, intimacy, support, openness and honesty” (Wilson, Sin, & Conlon, 2010, p. 358). Leaders provide members with goods such as access to information, assignment to interesting projects, and recommendations to higher managers, whereas members supply commitment, engagement, and loyalty. Both accrue benefits from the nurturing of close, effective relationships that include recognition of their interdependence.
In early 2009 Google began “Project Oxygen,” an internal study aimed at identifying the characteristics of the company’s most successful managers. Luckily, what they found applies not only to Google managers, but also to management generally. They mined performance reviews, employee feedback surveys, and nominations for top manager awards to find out what makes the best managers (Bryant, 2011). The Project Oxygen team asked employees to rank the qualities that made for the best managers. The research team predicted that technical expertise would be high on the list of attributes found among the best managers—after all, when employees get stumped on a technical matter they are supposed to turn to their managers for assistance. Yet technical abilities ranked last out of eight attributes of great managers. “What employees valued the most were even-keeled bosses who made time for one-on-one meetings, who helped people puzzle through problems by asking questions, not dictating answers, and who took an interest in employees’ lives and careers” (Bryant, 2011, p. 2). Making a connection to employees and being accessible were key qualities of great managers. A study by Watson and Hoffman (1996) found that the most successful and powerful managers engaged in cooperative behaviors with their colleagues and employees whereas lower-power managers attempted to make gains by resorting to authoritarian and competitive practices. Table 1.1 examines the findings from Project Oxygen, showing the habits and behaviors of effective managers.
In addition to yielding these eight habits of successful managers, the Google study also found three pitfalls common to their worst managers (see table 1.2). The first pitfall is that great workers do not always make great managers. A hard working frontline employee may or may not have the knowledge and skills necessary to successfully transition into the management role. Organizations can ameliorate these deficits through training programs designed to help employees transition successfully to managerial roles or through tests of these skills as part of the promotion process. When organizations choose to hire managers from outside rather than promoting from within, it is crucial that new hires take the time to learn the organization’s processes, policies, and culture during their transition phase. The second and third pitfalls deal with managers who do not communicate consistently, proactively, and effectively. Ineffective managers hold meetings only when a crisis emerges. They don’t follow up to ensure their employees’ career development needs are being met and they don’t listen well.
Great managers are rarely born; they are made. They seek continuous improvement in their skillset no matter how well they manage already. One thing is clear: to be a great manager, you must be a great listener.
LISTENING SKILLS: THE FOUNDATION OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
Few managerial skills are as neglected as listening skills. Listening skills are the foundation for most forms of collaboration, problem solving, and dispute resolution. Everyone can improve personal listening skills, and when you work on these, people notice. Most managers believe they already have good listening skills, but would their employees agree?
In a typical conversation in English-speaking countries, there is an overlap of one to two syllables that occurs when the speaker slows down and the listener jumps into the conversation, thereby becoming the next speaker (see figure 1.1). Culture influences speech patterns, therefore not all English speakers will conform to this pattern, although it will apply to the majority of English speakers. Two problems arise when this listening pattern is used. First, there is an overlap during which the person who is supposed to be listening starts to speak before the speaker has completed his statement. Second, instead of listening to understand, the listener listens to respond, especially in situations of conflict. This means the listener is preparing a rebuttal, an evaluation, or a question of interest to the listener rather than focusing on what the speaker is saying and any emotional needs that underlie his or her speech. The first step to solving problems is to understand the nature of the problem and the various parties’ perspectives and views of the conflict. By listening to respond, people generally listen to figure out when they can jump into the conversation and get out their view, opinions, and thoughts. Instead of listening to respond, the first step in a problem-solving conversation is listening to understand. Listening to understand requires listeners to suspend judgment and their own need to drive the conversation. Instead of listening for the moment to jump into the conversation, the goal of listening to understand is to allow the speaker to completely share his or her thoughts, concerns, or emotions with the listener, uninterrupted. This calls for active listening.
Before you can know how best to respond to a concern or problem, you must seek to understand it. Most listeners listen to respond rather than listening to understand. In other words, we listen in order to find a brief opening so we can jump into the conversation as a speaker rather than remaining in the role of listener. When the speaker pauses to take a breath or to see if we are still paying attention, we jump in and offer our own observations, insights, or opinions. However, when someone is upset or a problem exists, we need to listen first and problem-solve later. Listening to understand is the first step to becoming a better manager, spouse, parent, or friend. Through the application of active listening skills, you can gain the ability to understand the concerns at hand while conveying that the other person’s needs are important to you. Active listening refers to a set of techniques often used by counselors and conflict resolution specialists intended to help the listener focus on the speaker, elicit detailed stories related to conflicts or problems, build rapport between the listener and speaker, and form the foundation for later problem-solving efforts.
Figure 1.1 Common English Speaking-Listening Pattern
Step 1: Determine the purpose of the conversation. Not all conversations require active listening. When someone comes to you with high emotional energy because they are excited, upset, or frustrated, then you have an opportunity to increase your understanding and show you care about this relationship by engaging in active listening. Sometimes they seek your help to solve a problem, but equally often, they simply seek someone to listen empathetically. A general rule to follow is to refrain from offering problem-solving advice unless the speaker requests it or you have ascertained that they genuinely seek your input. Some conversations serve a solely recreational purpose. For example, two or more people can discuss a recent soccer match over the water cooler or complain about the bad food in the cafeteria. Rather than seeking to solve a problem, seek camaraderie as an end in itself. Identifying the purpose of the conversation helps you determine when to apply active listening skills.
Step 2: Give the speaker your undivided attention. In the era of smart phones and omnipresent TV monitors, this is increasingly difficult. When someone is upset or excited, we need to set aside all distractions and give the speaker our full attention. Even if we think we know what he or she is about to say, by allowing them the space to say it and listening without distraction, we send the signal that they are important to us. We build rapport. Close the door to make a quiet environment. Silence your cell phone. What if you cannot drop everything when they need to speak to you? Let them know you want to make time to listen to them uninterrupted. Tell them you will circle back to them when you are finished with your conference call (or whatever task is monopolizing your attention), but make sure to follow through.
Step 3: Your body language, eye contact, and non-verbal signals should convey, “I’m listening.” Turn your chair toward the speaker, look them in the eye, and clearly convey this time is theirs to share their concerns.
Step 4: Use door openers, check-ins, and summaries to encourage them to tell their story fully. Start with an open-ended question that allows the speaker to tell their story fully such as “What is going on?” or “Tell me how you are feeling about this,” or “What’s happened?” Then, as they speak, if they pause to see if you are still listening, you can offer a check-in, which can vary by listener and culture. It could be as simple as a head nod or a short phrase such as, “uh-huh.” A longer check-in can summarize the emotion you hear the speaker conveying: “You sound frustrated.” The listener’s goal is to refrain from saying anything that could take the speaker in a different direction or take the focus off the speaker and onto the listener.
In other words, avoid the temptation to build rapport through shared experiences by stating, “That happened to me once. Let me tell you all about it.” When the speaker is finished, summarize what you heard so he or she feels understood. Be sure to include a reference to not only the speaker’s perceived facts of what happened but also the emotional importance of the event to them. For example, you can say, “It sounds like you are really angry and frustrated because you feel you were passed over for that promotion.” As a manager, you may need to respond with your own perception or facts, but not before ensuring the speaker feels heard.
Step 5: Develop a response to the concerns raised by the speaker, if appropriate. After using steps one through four, if the speaker is seeking a response or resolution from the listener (the manager, for our purposes), then the listener should convey a desire to respond to the legitimate needs of the speaker, even if that response requires time for reflection and information gathering. For example, you can say, “I would like to speak to the human resources representative to learn more about this hiring concern and then get back to you in a few days.” If the goal of the conversation is joint problem solving, then each person should leave the meeting with an understanding of the next steps in the process, any action items to be accomplished and by whom, and a timeline for decision or action. However, do not shorten the first four steps in an effort to get to step five. Remember, it is often worth asking the speaker to share his or her ideas for problem solving as well. Not every problem is the manager’s to solve.
Be sure to avoid common listener pitfalls that either derail the speaker’s train of thought by interjecting the listener’s own experiences (“That happened to me once and it was even worse!”) or by offering judgments or advice. Agreeing or disagreeing with the speaker may swing the conversation onto a different path or may simply be inappropriate in your role as manager. You will be tempted to interrupt by asking clarifying questions. Hold these until the end if possible. When you summarize what you heard, you can ask for clarification then. You will find that some people cognitively process difficult decisions through the act of speaking. For these individuals, all they need is a good listener, and they can solve the problem themselves. In fact, they will often thank you for being a good listener rather than asking you what to do. Avoid interrupting—even when you believe you know what they are going to say—because the act of listening is to not only understand the speaker but also show respect and build rapport. Plus, you will be surprised at how often you actually did not predict what they were going to say. Remain open to hearing them and being surprised.
Why would a book on conflict management suggest that listeners avoid trying to solve problems? Good conflict managers have one main tendency in common. We tend to be fixers. We want to help others fix their problems by imposing our solutions on them. Sometimes, this is necessary and appropriate. Fixing the speaker’s problem is rarely, if ever, appropriate at the active listening stage. If need be, the time for fixing the problem may come after deep listening has occurred. Additionally, there will be times when it is most appropriate for parties to generate their own solutions to the problems they face. They will usually be more satisfied with solutions they generate themselves—even if it is the same exact solution you would have recommended or imposed (review the procedural justice discussion in chapter 2). The time to worry about problem solving is after all parties have had an opportunity to listen actively to each other and to their manager.
Opportunities for active listening occur regularly, but we tend to miss them. Look for signs of high emotional energy on the part of the speaker: excitement, frustration, anger, weariness, or anxiety. Try to identify these opportunities, and you will see noticeable improvements in your relationships and problem-solving abilities
A colleague once told me that he earned money as a lumberjack during his summers in college while he was studying to be a therapist. He claimed that he was significantly more tired at the end of the day as a therapist than as a lumberjack because active listening can be exhausting. Try it out with your colleagues and family members to see for yourself
In summary, use these active listening techniques to listen for understanding rather than listening solely to respond. Later in the exchange, you may get to problem solving, but the success of the problem-solving phase will depend upon how well you lay the groundwork through listening to understand, which builds rapport and trust between the speaker and listener.
Questioning
Whether you are acting as a facilitator, an informal mediator, or simply trying to better understand a problem or person, questioning skills are critical for good communication. The first step in selecting the appropriate question is to consider the question’s purpose. Questions may be used to elicit information, to promote reflection or analysis, or to challenge the speaker. The next step is to select a question type: “general (open-ended), opinion seeking, fact finding, direct-forced choice, or leading questions” (Hughes & Bennett, 2005, p. 95).
To elicit the most comprehensive information, open-ended questions may be most useful. Open-ended questions ask speakers to share any information they deem useful with which to answer the question. For example, “Please tell me how this problem started and evolved?” An example of an opinion-seeking, open-ended question might be, “What kind of solutions would you like to see?”
When more specific information is needed, questioners may turn to fact finding (slightly more general) for forced-choice (more specific) questions. For example, a fact-finding question would be, “What kind of employment information did you include in your application?” A similar question posed as a forced choice would be, “Did you tell us of your previous termination on your employment application?” These questions provide precise information needed to better understand the problem. These tend to be relatively low-risk questions, but expect defensiveness to decrease as openness of the question increases.
Questions designed to promote reflection or analysis are used to get speakers to think through the consequences of potential solutions or to better understand their own role in the problem or solution. These are often phrased as opinion-seeking questions, such as, “If we moved Bob to another team, would your team be short-handed?” or “Can you think of any options or changes that you can make that would lead to a better outcome than before?” Depending on how they are phrased, questions demanding reflection and analysis can be incredibly useful during a problem-solving or decision-making process. It is important for questioners to have developed rapport and trust with the speaker so that they do not become defensive during the use of these questions.
Questions that challenge the speaker are the riskiest of all. They are not truly part of a problem-solving or decision-making process but are instead used to express frustration or judgment by the questioner. These are often leading questions that are an indirect way for the questioner to make a statement rather than ask a question. Such a question might be, “Don’t you think you overreacted?” or the famous standby, “When did you stop beating your wife?” A leading question can be difficult to answer without sounding defensive or guilty. In general, leading questions are not commonly used in problem-solving processes.
Leading questions lead us to the important issue of framing and reframing. As chapter 2 describes, the framing effect is a cognitive bias that occurs when the same option is presented in different formats or with different phrasing (it is framed differently), and the choice of format or phrasing unduly influences one’s opinions or preferences on the matter (Druckman, 2001). Therefore, framing refers to the language used to put one’s thoughts into words. During conflicts or tense decision-making processes, it is important to choose your words carefully. The wrong word choice can lead parties to question the neutrality of the mediator or facilitator. The words used to describe a thought or situation can reveal implicit judgments or biases that influence the course of a conversation or conflict. Additionally, individuals generally seek to avoid losses more than they endeavor to seek out equivalent gains. People tend to avoid risk when a negative frame is presented but seek risks when a positive frame is presented (Kahneman & Tversky, 1972). For instance, if the organization’s leaders are seeking to solidify employee support for a proposed merger, they might focus on the risks to the company’s survival if they remain small and less competitive in an increasingly globalized world. Framing also speaks to the procedural justice issues raised in chapter 2. For example, a facilitator at a contentious zoning meeting might avoid this framing: “Where will the big-box stores be built?” and instead ask participants, “What is your vision for the economic future of our town?”
Reframing refers to the language used to summarize, paraphrase, and reflect back on what a party has said but using a different frame than originally intended with the goal of altering the course of the communication between two or more parties. To illustrate, if two employees come to their manager with complaints about how the other is not doing her fair share of work on a joint project, the manager might begin to reframe the discussion to refocus on the importance of teamwork by saying, “I can tell that getting the work done well and on time is important to you both. What ideas do you have for improving your teamwork?” The manager is beginning her interaction by reframing the dispute as an opportunity for collaboration rather than competition. If taken to extremes, this technique runs the risk of being seen as manipulative or putting words into the mouths of others, so use caution when reframing the words of others.
Facilitators, mediators, and conflict managers often use reframing techniques when creating an agenda based on the expressed positions or concerns of the parties. To exemplify, if a party says, “I’ll agree to her demands over my dead body!” a neutral reframing might be, “I can tell you have strong feelings about this. Please tell me more about why you feel this way.” Reframing can be used to move parties from a past to a future focus, to depersonalize comments away from a personal attack to an attack on the problem, or to redirect parties from an adversarial to a collaborative focus. There are ethical implications of reframing because it can be used to manipulate a party’s statements or to put words in their mouths. When used correctly, reframing helps refocus a conversation from a destructive to a constructive focus.
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE COLLABORATIVE MANAGER
Emotional intelligence (EI) refers to the ability to perceive, control, and evaluate emotions in oneself and others (Cherry, 2012; Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Emotional intelligence can be further broken down into five facets: self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills. While some of the facets of EI are related to personality or intelligence and are therefore unlikely to change, others can be increased through goal-setting and skill development.
Great managers tend to have high EI scores.
Individuals vary in their ability to correctly perceive the emotional states of others through the interpretation of body language, tone, and facial expressions. Emotion plays an important role in the prioritization of tasks, determining the importance of different events or activities, and motivating our responses to these events. Some individuals are better at using emotion for these purposes than others. Individuals differ greatly in their ability to manage their emotional states or react to the emotional states of others. This is particularly important in the field of management since supervisors and managers are asked to respond to crises, make decisions that impact many people, and communicate the reasons behind those decisions to the impacted populations. Employees who are upset with customers, co-workers, or company decisions come to us to vent their frustrations and seek redress. The best managers convey empathy and compassion while maintaining healthy boundaries with employees. This requires well-developed EI.
Research into EI remains in its early stages, and evidence for the linkages between EI scores and leadership abilities has not been proven (Harms & Credé, 2010). As this research evolves, what we can say from anecdotal evidence is that managers with good emotional control and empathy tend to create more stable and pleasant working environments. Employees or managers who struggle with emotional outbursts or insensitivity to the emotions of others can create difficult working environments.
CONCLUSION
The first step to improving your managerial skills is to take stock of them: understand how you communicate and respond to conflict. Improve your listening skills while identifying managerial behaviors you seek to improve in your own performance. Know your own level of emotional intelligence and find strategies to compensate for areas of weakness (using listening skills more purposefully, wording comments constructively, and regulating your own emotional responses to others). Understanding common responses to conflict will help you choose among those responses more explicitly when problems arise.
Look around your organization or at your competitors. Describe the skillsets of the best managers—those with low turnover, high productivity, and high employee/client satisfaction levels. How do they communicate with their employees, peers, and superiors? How do they respond to inevitable problems? Managers who understand themselves will be able to better understand and respond to others.
Reference
Raines, S. S. (2019). Conflict Management for Managers (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group. https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/books/9781538119945
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.