The idea of conflict is likely to make many people shutter at the idea, while others smile and give you the inevitable comment "I enjoy a great argument!" In our personal and work lives conflict can there be and it is inevitable. Great ideas and some soured relations turn out of conflict. With all this being said conflict is element of our lives. Whether we agree or disagree, it touches all us. As with most people over the years, we have caused people who have been great at winning arguments. It is obviously nice to learn and be associated with them before the conflict is between you and one of them.

You will find five types of conflict. These five styles represent every way we handle those conflicts. The five styles are Competing; Compromising, Accommodating, Avoiding, and Problem Solving. They can be distinguished along two dimensions: assertiveness, their education to which the style attempts to satisfy the individual's concerns with respect to the problems; and cooperativeness, their education to which the style attempts to satisfy one other person's concerns.

Once the term conflict pops up, people instantly think of situations they've had inside their lives and winning or losing. People often associate this because the tactic in working with others through the conflict. We make an effort to convince individuals we're right by showing them the light or battling the point.

I once caused a gentleman which was the consummate professional. When he first started, I was amazed at his ability to take care of the stressful situations on earth of restaurants. No matter how busy it was, he always appeared to smile. He was polite to employees and generally would do the best thing. Using one slow afternoon we were standing in the kitchen of the restaurant. I noticed he was heating a pot of soup incorrectly. It wasn't unsafe but beyond your guidelines of the business we worked for. I approached him and began the conversation with "that's not the appropriate procedure." Once we talked about the process I explained why it wasn't the accepted standard. He disagreed in what we discussed and cited his past experience. Prior to the conversation had ended we were debating technical spec's proper cool down temperate, the goal of the NSF (National Safety Foundation) and everything in between. I knew the process he was using was incorrect, yet I conceded and walked away. For months after the incident I played the knowledge back in my mind looking for what might have been said to offend this easy going individual and strain our relationship. Sometime later I came across the different types of conflict. In most conflict we select a style. This does not mean you actively stop what you're doing and pick one, yet we all tend to move towards a mode with regards to the conflict. Three of the styles one thinks of when I relive this experience.

With a much better knowledge of the styles I wondered how the results could have been different. I determined that when I started conversing with that employee, it put the conversation on edge. I put him on the defense and he felt he had a much better way to do the job. Once it was determined I wouldn't change the way in which this job was done, he took the conflict style of competing. As the name suggests it is all about winning. The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines compete as; to strive consciously or unconsciously for an objective: be in a constant state of rivalry. A person who exhibits this behavior attempts to manage the situation and deny other's control. As the conversation continued it was about winning and definitely not about that which was best or correct. When I would begin to talk, he'd overpower the conversation and tell me how I was incorrect. He continued to force his view and convince me I was wrong. Not about the process as much as carrying it out another way, his way. It became clear he wouldn't back off even when our relationship was damaged. Below is just a brief description of how exactly we compete in a conflict.

Description: Increased exposure of satisfying the party's own concerns and disregard of others'concerns.


Attempt to manage the situation and to deny others'power or control.
Often hide true motives.
Hide information that could weaken their position.
Often relationships are quit for "getting their way."

Forcing - exhibits suprisingly low flexibility and openness, looking to get others to go along via power.
Contending - somewhat flexible with another, as long as flexibility does not threaten to prevent attaining goals.
When he started to compete and become aggressive, I returned with the same. During our discussion, each time I moved to a place there was a counter move. When a couple become ingrained making use of their views or beliefs, it becomes evident quickly that there will be frustration and ultimately someone always loses. As we progressed I was concerned with your relationship and started to back down. It absolutely was clear that people weren't planning to agree and I was frustrated at his inability to see so it was only in regards to a policy the business we worked for had. I walked away and allowed him to continue using the method he had. As I look back I consider how I handled the situation and what has been done differently. I began with the conflict style of Compete and by the conclusion I simply just Accommodated. The conflict had reached a point to which I did not want to continue and I was tired. To take this stance it had been the best way to walk away from an extremely uncomfortable place. The connection was strained and I wondered each time we worked together what sort of conversation we would have. I quickly found myself not wanting assist him due to the conflict we had. He left the business a short time later. Here are some of the characteristics of what I displayed in the Accommodating Model:



Permits others to appreciate their concerns but gives less focus on the party's own concerns.


Highly flexible.
Willing to provide directly into others'demands.
Change their particular positions frequently.
Disclose little of their particular position.
Empower another party and suspend their particular control.

Yielding -exhibit apathy toward the conflict. Allow others to manage the situation and define the outcomes.
Conceding - still accommodate others'concerns, but is more active in the conflict trying to create better relationships.
When looking at a predicament, a response could be the direct results of just how someone is approached; it is safe to say people can shift styles during a conflict. The styles aren't standard or concrete for someone, but choices for that conflict. Below are a few applying for grants shifting styles: 

In picking a conflict style, people should consider several factors. First and foremost, how effective will the style likely be in the immediate situation? The potency of styles will be different depending on characteristics of the situation, that will be discussed shortly.
Second, parties should consider the long-term consequences of a style. Styles may improve or worsen relationships and this may return to help or haunt if people must work with one another in the future. Then, too, the styles that people adopt may change them.
Third, people should consider the ethical implications of selecting a style. While no group of values could be applied in every conflicts, people should assess their particular values with respect to the styles. Some folks are uncomfortable with styles that do not take another into account. This may indicate a choice for problem solving, compromising, and accommodating, and a dislike for competing and avoiding.
Fourth, it is very important to remember that when people enact a mode, they could provoke responses from others. Others still have latitude to choose how they'll respond, and in many cases they are attempting to be strategic too.
When conflicts arise, we choose a mode that has implications and results. Looking back a connection may have lost because of the style that was chosen. I wrote briefly of two styles and the impact they had in a situation.

Published by Samantha Brown