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.
Disagreement 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 in the conflict, 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.
Positive conflict is what many organisations strive for, as it is rarely a personal attack on another. Instead, it is a disagreement that challenges the idea put forth by another, that uses 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 avoid conflicts and disagreements and give time to consider the resolution method. However, in avoiding the conflict or disagreement, nobody wins as it goes 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.
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 either be voluntary or mandatory. However, mandatory arbitration is utilised only from a statute or contract that one party imposes on another, in which both parties agree to put 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 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 such vital elements 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: arbitration protocol specifically protects the confidentiality of the party's identities to the arbitration. Any disclosures made during an arbitration procedure and the award remain private. In specific circumstances, 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 conclusion of the arbitral tribunal 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.
.jpg)
More articles can be found at Procurement and Supply Chain Management Made Simple. A look at procurement and supply chain management issues to assist organisations and people in increasing the quality, efficiency, and effectiveness in the supply of their products and services to customers' delight. ©️ Procurement and Supply Chain Management Made Simple. All rights reserved.
