Discuss the methods of reducing conflict that are most likely and least likely to leave a conflict aftermath. Why do the different methods leave or not leave an aftermath?

Reducing Conflict

Three types of approaches exist for reducing conflict in organizations: lose–lose, win–lose, and win–win. Although these approaches usually are called methods of conflict resolution, this chapter refers to them as methods of conflict reduction, because many do not remove conflict. Managers should use caution when reducing conflict to ensure it does not fall to a dysfunctionally low level.

U.S. organizations are increasingly convinced of the effectiveness of conflict reduction training. Training programs are now widely used. Some research points to their effectiveness in successfully reducing conflict.

Lose–lose methods of conflict reduction do not try to deal directly with the conflict. None of the parties to the conflict episode get what they want. These methods of conflict reduction leave a conflict aftermath that can start a new conflict episode about the same issues. Sometimes the lose–lose approaches ignore the conflict and do not try to reduce it. Typical lose–lose methods include avoidance, compromise, and third-party intervention.

Avoidance is an obvious way to reduce conflict in the short run, but it does not permanently reduce the conflict. A conflict episode can recur when the parties meet again. Withdrawal can happen because one party to the conflict has a low tolerance for conflict or because one party has an avoidance orientation to conflict. The conflict episode is stressful, and the party simply wants to avoid the confrontation. Anyone trying to manage conflict must be aware of the prospect of avoidance. Although manifest conflict levels will not be high, the latent conflict is still there. Later conflict episodes can arise and surprise those managing conflict.

Compromise uses bargaining and negotiation to reduce conflict. Each party to the conflict gives up something to get something he values. Although manifest conflict drops, there is no clear conflict aftermath. The parties to the conflict have not completely resolved the underlying issues. When the latent conflict is scarce resources, compromise is a common reduction method, because resources often cannot be expanded quickly. The conflict over the copying machine described earlier offers an opportunity for compromise. Let each party copy part of what he needs and return later to copy the rest. The manifest conflict behavior subsides, but the latent conflict stays.

Third-party intervention often asks a neutral person for a solution to a conflict episode. Arbitration of labor disputes is a common example of thirdparty intervention. The third party might try to reduce the conflict by giving something to each party in the conflict episode. In this respect, it is much like compromise, with the third party suggesting the compromise. Also, as with compromise, a conflict aftermath follows the episode. The issues often are not satisfactorily settled for all concerned. A manager can also act as the third party, but managers are rarely neutral in their view of the conflict episode.

Win–lose conflict reduction methods make one party to the conflict a clear winner and the other party a clear loser. Such techniques leave a conflict aftermath that can result in a new conflict episode about the same issues. The techniques include dominance, authoritative command, and majority rule.

Dominance happens when one party to a conflict overwhelms the other. Dominance can occur because one party has higher organization status or more power. It can also happen when one party to the conflict has a low tolerance for conflict. You can think of dominance as the other side of avoidance. If one party has an appeasement or avoidance conflict orientation, the other party can easily dominate the episode. Dominance leaves a conflict aftermath because it does not try to discover why the conflict occurred.

Organizations widely use authoritative command for conflict reduction, partly because of the formal authority relationships found there. Two people in conflict refer their conflict to a common superior who decides the solution to the conflict. Manifest conflict stops, but the conflict episode ends with a conflict aftermath.

Decision-making groups faced with conflict over issues can use majority rule to reduce the conflict. Each issue is put to a vote, letting some members of the group win and others lose. If the alternatives are acceptable to all concerned, this method can work effectively. If the same people lose repeatedly and personalize the loss, majority rule leaves a potentially destructive aftermath. With win–win conflict reduction methods, parties to the conflict episode get what they want. These methods include problem solving, integration, and a superordinate goal. Win–win approaches do not leave a conflict aftermath, because they directly address the causes of the conflict and try to remove them. Although these techniques do not strongly differ, they have some useful distinctions. 

Problem solving tries to find the true basis of a conflict episode. This method tries to fully expose all differences among the parties. All parties to the conflict encourage and support minority views to ensure they get full expression. As noted in Chapter 10, “Groups and Intergroup Processes,” minority views often positively contribute to group performance. The parties view differences as important sources of information leading to creative solutions to the conflict. Organizations and managers that use problem solving do not view conflict negatively. They see conflict episodes as constructive opportunities for creative solutions to problems. Properly done, problem solving leaves little or no conflict aftermath.

Integration seeks solutions that are in the best interests of all parties. It assumes that people’s deeply held interests and desires are the basis of conflict. This approach tries to find a solution that fully meets the goals of each party. A superordinate goal is a goal desired by all parties to the conflict but unattainable by any party alone. Superordinate goals compel cooperation even if the parties otherwise do not want to cooperate. Organizations using groupbased incentive programs are using a form of superordinate goal. Everyone in the group wants to get the reward, but no one can do it alone. Superordinate goals should work well where the latent conflict is high interdependence. The superordinate goal operates in the background, forcing the members of the group to cooperate. Later conflict episodes are less likely in the presence of a continually operating superordinate goal.