Styles of

CONFLICT
MANAGEMENT

Ekansh Garg

Roll No- 20
Semester II
MBA-HRD
Department of Commerce

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank Dr. A.K. Singh for his invaluable guidance in completing
this project. It has been a great learning experience to put theoretical concepts
into practice, and is something that will definitely help me in the future.

Ekansh Garg
MBA-HRD
2014-2016

Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Introduction
What is Conflict?
Causes of Conflict
Stages of Conflict
Conflict management Styles
a. Questionnaire
b. Selection Key
7.
Objective of the study
8.
Data Collection
9.
Data Analysis
10. Research methodology
11. Limitations

INTRODUCTION
Conflict management involves implementing strategies to limit the negative
aspects of conflict and to increase the positive aspects of conflict at a level equal
to or higher than where the conflict is taking place. Furthermore, the aim of
conflict management is to enhance learning and group outcomes (effectiveness
or performance in organizational setting). It is not concerned with eliminating
all conflict or avoiding conflict. Conflict can be valuable to groups and
organizations. It has been shown to increase group outcomes when managed
properly.

What Is Conflict?

It is a process in which one party perceives that its interests are being
opposed or negatively affected by another party.
The interactive process manifested in incompatibility, disagreement, or
dissonance within or between social entities

Causes of Conflict
There are various causes of conflict. Amongst these are:

scarcity of resources (finance, equipment, facilities, etc)

different attitudes, values or perceptions
disagreements about needs, goals, priorities and interests
poor communication
poor or inadequate organisational structure
lack of teamwork
lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities

Stages of Conflict
There are five stages in a conflict. These are latent conflict, perceived
conflict, felt conflict, manifest conflict, and conflict aftermath.
(i) Latent Conflict: The first stage of conflict is latent conflict in which
the factors that could become a cause of potential conflict exist. These are
the dry for autonomy, divergence of goals, role conflict and the
competition for scarce resources.
(ii) Perceived conflict: Sometimes a conflict arises even if no latent
conflict is present. In this stage one party perceived the others to be likely
to thwart or frustrate his or her goals. The case, in which conflict is
perceived when no latent conflict arises, is used to result from the parties
misunderstanding each others true position. Such conflict can be resolved
by improving communication between the groups.
(iii) Felt Conflict: Felt conflict is the stage when the conflict is not only
perceived but actually felt and cognized. For example, A may be aware
that he is in serious argument with B over some policy. But this may not
make. A tense or anxious and it may have no effect, whatsoever, on As
affection towards B. The personalization of conflict is the mechanism
which causes many people to be concerned with dysfunctions of conflict.
In other words, it makes them feel the conflict.
There are two reasons for the personalization of the conflict:
(i) The inconsistent demands on efficient organization and individual
growth which is caused within the individual. Anxieties may also result
from crisis or from extra-organizational pressures. Individuals need to vent
these anxieties in order to maintain equilibrium.
(ii) Conflict becomes personalized when the whole personality of the
individual is involved in the relationship. Hostile feelings are most
common in the intimate relations that characterize various institutions and
residential colleges.

(iv) Manifest Conflict: Manifest conflict is the stage when the two parties
engage in behaviour which evokes response from each other. The most
obvious of these responses are open aggression, apathy, sabotage,
withdrawal and perfect obedience to rules. Except for prison riots, political
revolutions and extreme labour unrest, violence as a form of manifest
conflict is rare. The motives towards violence may remain they tend to be
expressed in less violent forms.
(v) Conflict Aftermath: The aftermath of a conflict may have positive or
negative repercussion for the organization depending upon the how
conflict is resolved. If the conflict is genuinely resolved to the satisfaction
of all participants, the basis for more cooperative relationship may be laid
or the participants in their drive for a more ordered relationship may focus
on latent conflicts not previously perceived and dealt with. On the other
hand, if the conflict is merely suppressed but not resolved, the latent
conditions of conflict may be aggravated and explode in a more serious
from until they are rectified. This conflict episode is called conflict
aftermath.

Styles of Conflict Management

There are the five conflict management styles according to Thomas,
K.W., and R.H. Kilmann:
1. Accommodating This is when you cooperate to a high-degree, and it
may be at our own expense, and actually work against our own goals,
objectives, and desired outcomes. This approach is effective when the
other party is the expert or has a better solution. It can also be effective for
preserving future relations with the other party.

2. Competing This is the win-lose approach. You act in a very assertive

way to achieve our goals, without seeking to cooperate with the other
party, and it may be at the expense of the other party. This approach may
be appropriate for emergencies when time is of the essence, or when we
need quick, decisive action, and people are aware of and support the
approach.

3. Collaborating This is where we partner or pair up with the other party

to achieve both of our goals. This is how we break free of the win-lose
paradigm and seek the win-win. This can be effective for complex
scenarios where we need to find a novel solution. This can also mean reframing the challenge to create a bigger space and room for everybodys
ideas. The downside is that it requires a high-degree of trust and reaching
a consensus can require a lot of time and effort to get everybody on board
and to synthesize all the ideas.

4. Compromising This is the lose-lose scenario where neither party

really achieves what they want. This requires a moderate level of
assertiveness and cooperation. It may be appropriate for scenarios where
we need a temporary solution, or where both sides have equally important
goals. The trap is to fall into compromising as an easy way out, when
collaborating would produce a better solution.

5. Avoiding - This is when we simply avoid the issue. We arent helping

the other party reach their goals, and we arent assertively pursuing our
own. This works when the issue is trivial or when we have no chance of
winning. It can also be effective when the issue would be very costly. Its
also very effective when the atmosphere is emotionally charged and we
need to create some space. Sometimes issues will resolve themselves, but
hope is not a strategy, and, in general, avoiding is not a good long term
strategy.

High
A
S
S
E
R
T
I
V
E
Low

Low

Cooperative

High

Thomas-Killman Conflict Mode Instrument

\

Questionnaire
Choose, from the following 30 pairs of statements, the one in each case which
best fits your preferred style of handling differences between you and others:
1. (1) I am usually firm in pursuing my goals.
(2) I attempt to get all concerns and issues immediately out in the open.
2. (1) I put my cards on the table and invite the other person to do likewise.
(2) When conflicts arise I try to win my case.
3. (1) once I adopt a position I defend it strongly.
(2) I prefer not to argue but to look for the best solution possible.
4. (1) I sometimes sacrifice my own wishes for the wishes of the other person.
(2) I feel that differences are not always worth worrying about.
5. (1) I accept the views of the other, rather than rock the boat.
(2) I avoid people with strong views.
6. (1) I like to co-operate with others and follow their ideas.
(2) I feel that most things are not worth arguing about. I stick to my own
ideas.
7. (1) I try to find some compromise situation.
(2) I am usually firm in pursuing my goals.
8. (1) When conflicts arise I try to win my case.
(2) I propose a middle ground.
9. (1) I like to meet the other person half-way.
(2) Once I adopt a position I defend it strongly.
10.(1) I feel that differences are not always worth worrying about.
(2) I try to find a compromise solution.
11.(1) I propose a middle ground.
(2) I avoid people with strong views.
12.(1) I feel that most things are not worth arguing about. I stick to my own
views.
(2) I like to meet the other person half-way.

13.(1) I am usually firm in pursuing my own goals.

(2) I sometimes sacrifice my own wishes for the wishes of the other person.
14.(1) I accept the views of the other, rather than rock the boat.
(2) When conflicts arise I try to win my case.
15.(1) Once I adopt a position I defend it strongly.
(2) I like to co-operate with others and follow their ideas.
16.(1) I try to find a compromise solution.
(2) I sometimes sacrifice my own wishes for the wishes of the other person.
17.(1) I would accept the views of the others, rather than rock the boat.
(2) I propose a middle ground.
18.(1) I like to meet the other person half-way.
(2) I like to co-operate with others and follow their ideas.
19.(1) I feel that differences are not always worth worrying about.
(2) I am usually firm in pursuing my goals.
20.(1) When conflicts arise I try to win my case.
(2) I avoid people with strong views.
21.(1) I feel that most things are not worth arguing about. I stick to my own
views.
(2)Once I adopt a position I defend it strongly.
22.(1) I attempt to get all concerns and issues immediately out in the open.
(2) I feel that differences are not always worth worrying about.
23.(1) I avoid people with strong views.
(2) I put my cards on the table and invite the other people to do likewise.
24.(1) I prefer not to argue but to look for the best solution possible.
(2) I feel that most things are not worth arguing about. I stick to my own
views.
25.(1) I attempt to get all concerns and issues immediately out in the open.
(2) I try to find a compromise solution.
26.(1) I put my cards on the table and invite the other person to do so.

(2) I propose a middle ground.

27.(1) I prefer not to argue but I look for the best solution possible.
(2) I like to meet the other person half-way.
28.(1) I sometimes sacrifice my own wishes for the wishes of the other person.
(2) I attempt to get all concerns and issues immediately out in the open.
29.(1) I put my cards on the table and invite the other person to do likewise.
(2) I would accept the views of others, rather than rock the boat.
30.(1) I like to co-operate with others and follow their ideas.
(2) I prefer not to argue but to look for the best possible solution.

Selection Key
Statement Pair

Conflict Resolution Made

A

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

TOTALS

Objectives of Study
To determine the style of conflict management from among
the Five i.e. Accommodating, Compromising, Collaborating,
Avoidance and Competitive.
To analyze the responses between males and females.
To analyze the responses of students and working
professionals

Data Collection
The data was collected by primary sources through an online
survey, link of which was mailed to the respondents.
Sample consisted of students and working professionals
between 19 to 32 years of age
Sample Size 100

Data Analysis
The data collected was analyzed further to obtain the conflict
management style of the male, females, students and working
professionals

Accommodatin
Competing
g

Males
Female
s

Collaborating

Compromising

12

10

13

11

10

10

Avoiding

Hypothesis Testing 1

7
12

 Statistical Tool: Chi Square Test

Null Hypothesis: Ho : There is no significant difference
between the conflict management style of males and
females.
Alternate Hypothesis : H1: There is significant difference
between the conflict management style of males and
females.
Level of Significance: 0.05

Accommod
ating

Competing Collaborati
ng

Compromisi
ng

Avoiding

Males

12

10

Femal
es

13

11

10

10

12

Chi Square contingency table for observed

frequencies (fo)

Chi Square Table for Expected Frequencies

(fe)
Accommoda
ting

Competing Collaborati
ng

Compromisin
g

Avoiding

Males

11

9.24

7.92

7.46

8.36

Female
s

14

11.8

10.1

9.52

10.6

Calculations:
For:LOS: 0.05
Degrees of Freedom : 4
X2 critical= .725
Calculating value of
X2calculated= (fo - fe)2/ fe = 0.742
Conclusion:
Since X2calculated > X2critical , we can reject the null
hypothesis that the responses of males and females do vary
significantly

Hypothesis Testing 2
Statistical Tool: Chi Square Test
Null Hypothesis: Ho : There is no significant difference
between the conflict management style of professionals and
students.
Alternate Hypothesis : H1: There is significant difference
between the conflict management style of professionals and
students.
Level of Significance: 0.05
Chi Square contingency table for observed
frequencies (fo)
Accommodat Competing Collaborati
ing
ng

Compromi
sing

Avoiding

Professio
nals

12

11

11

13

Students

11

Chi Square Table for Expected Frequencies

(fe)

Professio
nals
Students

Accommod
ating
11.8

Competin
g
12.3

Collaborati
ng
9.52

Compro
mising
10.1

Avoidin
g
12.3

9.24

9.68

7.48

7.92

9.68

Calculations:
For: LOS: 0.05
Degrees of Freedom : 4
X2 critical= .673

 Calculating value of
X2calculated= (fo - fe)2/ fe = 0.666

Conclusion:
Since X2calculated< X2 critical , we can accept the null
hypothesis that the responses Professionals and students does
not vary significantly

Limitations
Small sample size may cause errors a it may not be the
actual representation of the universe.
Unequal number of samples in each group can give
skewed results.
The results might suffer form individual biases and
prejudices.