Conflict handling styles

CHAPTER 14 Conflict Management and Negotiation Skills

Nancy Borkowski, DBA, CPA, FACHE

LEARNING OUTCOMES

After completing this chapter, the student should understand:

· The definition of conflict.

· The four basic types of conflict.

· The five levels of conflict.

· The five conflict-handling modes.

· The three major negotiation models.

OVERVIEW

Conflict is inevitable and unavoidable because it is a natural part of human relationships. It is a part of our everyday professional and personal lives, and therefore, it is inherent in any type of work setting (Thomas, 1976 ). Although there are numerous definitions of conflict, Thomas ( 1992 ) suggests that there are three common components to most definitions: (1) perceived incompatibility of interests, (2) some interdependence of the parties, and (3) some form of interaction. For example, Rahim ( 1985 ) defined conflict as an “interactive state” manifested in disagreement or differences, or incompatibility, within or between individuals and groups. For our discussions, we will define conflict as occurring when an individual or group feels negatively affected by another individual or group.

No organization is exempt from conflict; however, the healthcare setting has been referred to as one of the highest conflictual environments because of factors such as high stress, high emotions, scarce resources, competition, down-sizing, mergers, excessive regulations, diversity and cultural issues, and multiple stakeholders’ demands. These factors increase conflict in organizations (Gardner, 1992 ; Johnson, 1994 ). For example, research has shown that managers, both healthcare and nonhealthcare, spend an average of 30 percent of their time dealing with conflict, and this is frequently cited as one of the least enjoyable aspects of their leadership roles (McElhaney, 1996 ; Robbins, 1990 ; Shelton & Darling, 2004 ; Thomas & Schmidt, 1976 ).

It is important to note that conflict does not necessarily lead to ineffectiveness. Conflict, like stress, can either be positive or negative. Positive conflict can act as a stimulus for positive change. Positive or constructive conflict can lead to creative problem solving and alternatives, increased motivation and commitment, high-quality work, and personal satisfaction (i.e., functional outcomes) (Cosier & Dalton, 1990 ). However, negative or unconstructive conflict can be counterproductive for an organization by diverting efforts from goal attainment (i.e., dysfunctional outcomes). Negative conflict may also affect the psychological well-being of employees. If severe, unconstructive conflicts may result in employee resentment, tension, and anxiety, which may lead to low-quality work, personal stress, and possible sabotage. For example, it is estimated that over 65 percent of performance problems result from strained relationships and that conflict accounts for up to 50 percent of involuntary employee departures (Dana, 2000 ; Watson & Hoffman, 1996 ). Negative conflict may create an organizational culture of competition versus cooperation, thereby eliminating the sustainability of supportive and trusting relationships, which are necessary for successful organizations (Baron & Richardson, 1990 ). For example, Forte ( 1997 ) points out that in clinical environments, conflict among healthcare professionals can be counterproductive with respect to patients, which can result in increased mortality and morbidity rates due to medical errors.

Lewicki, Weiss, and Lewin ( 1992 ) identify six major areas in conflict research: the microlevel (psychological) approach, the macrolevel (sociological) approach, the economic-analysis approach, the labor-relations approach, the bargaining and negotiation approach, and the third-party dispute approach. The microlevel approach includes research on factors that affect intrapersonal and interpersonal conflict (i.e., within and among individuals), whereas the macrolevel approach focuses on factors affecting conflict among and within groups, departments, and organizations (i.e., intragroup, intergroup, and interorganization). Economic analysis refers to economic rationality and how it applies to individual decision making. The research areas of labor relations, bargaining and negotiation, and third-party resolution relate to studies that deal with the effects of workplace and conflict resolutions and/or conflict management.

Using this framework, we will first discuss the various types and levels of conflict. Second, we will examine the various methods to deal with conflict effectively, referred to as conflict resolution or conflict management. This discussion includes individual decision making and the negotiation skills necessary for effective conflict management.

TYPES OF CONFLICT

There are four basic types of conflict: goal, cognitive, affective, and procedural (Kolb & Bartunek, 1992 ). Goal conflict occurs when two or more desired or expected outcomes are incompatible. It may involve inconsistencies between the individual’s or group’s values and norms (e.g., standards of behavior). Cognitive conflict occurs when the ideas and thoughts within an individual or between individuals are incompatible. Affective conflict emerges when the feelings and emotions within an individual or between individuals are incompatible. Procedural conflict occurs when people differ over the process to use for resolving a particular matter. As illustrated in Case Study 14–1 , the different types of conflict are not mutually exclusive.

Case Study 14–1 Who’s the Boss?

“Dr. Jordan on line three for you, Mary.” When Mary Jones pressed the blinking button, she knew Dr. Jordan was not calling to set up their next tee time. As Chief of Surgery, Dr. Jordan had full access to the Board of Directors and Mary, the Chairperson of the Board, noticed he took full advantage of it. Lately, Dr. Jordan’s calls were mostly about Harriet Briggs, the hospital’s administrator. Today was no different.

“Mary, as Chief of Surgery, I have authority over all issues that affect the quality of patient care. When something or someone is compromising that quality, it is my prerogative, not the prerogative of some layman [Dr. Jordan’s word for anyone not holding an MD] to do what I deem necessary to correct the situation. Don’t you agree?”

Mary mentally ran through job descriptions and the hospital’s charter and she could remember no clause that explicitly gave the Chief of Surgery this authority. Implicitly though, his stance was probably correct. “I’ll reserve comment on that, Alex, until you tell me the specific situation that has you this upset.”

The problem that concerned Dr. Jordan involved the nursing supervisor, Judith Brady, RN. Ms. Brady scheduled the hospital’s surgical nurses according to her interpretation of established hospital policy. Surgeons were frustrated with her attitude that maximum utilization must be made of the hospital’s operating time for training purposes. She therefore scheduled in such a way that nurses were often assigned to procedures they had not seen before. Surgeons complained that this scheduling method often added to the time it took to perform an operation. This caused problems because the Operating Room was run at full capacity. Surgeons already felt they must hurry to complete a procedure because another procedure was scheduled directly following theirs. Having to wait because a nurse did not automatically know what instrument is needed next only exacerbated this problem and did not permit them sufficient time to complete a surgical procedure in the proper manner.

The surgical staff was concerned that this scheduling system was impacting quality of care. Furthermore, some of the surgeons had complained that Ms. Brady clearly favored some physicians over others and tended to assign more experienced nurses to their procedures.

The situation came to crisis earlier in the morning when Dr. Jordan, following a confrontation with Ms. Brady, told her she was fired. Ms. Brady then made an appeal to Harriet Briggs, the hospital administrator. Harriet overturned Ms. Brady’s dismissal and then instructed Dr. Jordan that discharge of nurses was the purview of the hospital administrator and only she had the authority to do so. Dr. Jordan vehemently disagreed. The conversation ended with Dr. Jordan yelling, “This is clearly a medical problem and I am sure the Board of Directors will agree with me.” Dr. Jordan then called Mary.

After listening to Dr. Jordan, Mary decided to call Harriet Briggs to get her side of the story. Harriet told Mary, “I cannot be responsible for improving patient care if the board will not support me. I must be able to make decisions and develop policies and procedures without worrying whether or not the board will always side with the physicians. As you already know, Mary, I am legally responsible for the care that patients receive here at the hospital. And another thing, the next time Dr. Jordan tells me that I should restrict my activities to fund raising, maintenance, and housekeeping, I will not be responsible for my actions!”

The severity of the problem was obvious, but the answers were not. All Mary knew was she needed to fix the situation quickly.

Discuss the goal, cognitive, affective, and procedural conflicts illustrated in this case.

Source: “Musical operating rooms: Mini-cases of health care disputes,” by R. Friedman, 2002 . International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(4), pp. 419–420. Reprinted with permission.

LEVELS OF CONFLICT

There are five levels of conflict: intrapersonal conflict (within a person), interpersonal conflict (between or among individuals), intragroup conflict (within a group), or intergroup conflict (between or among groups), and interorganizational conflict (between or among organizations).

Intrapersonal Conflict

Intrapersonal conflict occurs within the individual and may involve some form of goal, or cognitive or affective conflict. Intrapersonal goal conflict happens when several alternative courses of action are available and when the outcome is important to the individual, whether positive or negative (Locke, Smith, Erez, Chah, & Schaffer, 1994 ). Brehm and Cohen ( 1962 ) identified three types of intrapersonal conflict, which may develop involving alternative courses of action:

· • Approach/Approach: The approach/approach type occurs when an individual must choose among two or more alternatives, each of which is expected to have a positive outcome. For example, Judy Lewis, a recent graduate of a local university’s Master of Health Services Administration (MHSA) program, has been offered job positions in two different health-care organizations. The first is a managed care coordinator position with a national, publicly held laboratory company. The second is a network analyst position with a fast-growing third-party administrator. The salary levels of both positions are comparable.

· • Avoidance/Avoidance: The avoidance/avoidance type occurs when an individual must choose among two or more alternatives, each of which is expected to be or result in a negative outcome. For example, after Judy Lewis accepted the position as the managed care coordinator with the laboratory company, management announced that because of a recent merger, the company is in the process of rightsizing. Two options were presented to Judy: to retain her position by relocating to the organization’s headquarters, which is 1,000 miles away from her hometown, or be laid off.

· • Approach/Avoidance: The approach/avoidance type occurs when an individual must choose an alternative that is expected to have both positive and negative outcomes. Judy Lewis chooses the relocation option. Although Judy realizes she will gain valuable experience working in the organization’s corporate headquarters with opportunities for advancement, she is saddened by the fact that she must leave her family, friends, and familiar surroundings.

Intrapersonal conflict may also be a consequence of cognitive dissonance, which occurs when individuals recognize inconsistencies in their thoughts and behavior. As discussed in Chapter 3 , individuals seek consistency among their beliefs and/or opinions (i.e., cognitions), and when an inconsistency arises between an individual’s attitude or behavior (i.e., dissonance), something must change to eliminate or lessen the conflict. When there is a discrepancy between an individual’s attitude and behavior, it is more likely that the individual’s attitude will change to accommodate his or her behavior, thereby reducing or eliminating the intrapersonal conflict (Brehm & Cohen, 1962 ).

In the workplace, dissonance occurs most often within the context of role conflict. The three types of role conflict are: (1) the person and the role, (2) intrarole, and (3) interrole. Person-role conflict occurs when the expectations associated with a work role are incompatible with the individual’s needs, values, or ethics—for example, a pharmaceutical representative who believes that making untested claims about a new drug is unethical, but whose work role requires him or her to do so. Intrarole conflict occurs when an individual experiences different expectations from his or her role. For example, a hospital’s purchasing manager reporting administratively to the vice president of operations and functionally to the medical director may face conflicting expectations, as the former may, because of decreasing reimbursements, stress cost efficiency by restricting choices of prosthesis devices in the surgery department, whereas the latter may emphasize having available whatever prostheses the surgeons prefer to use without regard to cost. Interrole conflict occurs when there is a clash between work and nonwork role demands. For example, if an individual must travel extensively or work excessive hours, it may conflict with family needs or demands to spend time together.

Interpersonal Conflict

Interpersonal conflict is a natural outcome of human interaction. Interpersonal conflict involves two or more individuals who believe that their attitudes, behaviors, or preferred goals are in opposition. Kottler ( 1996 ) relates that there are three major sources of interpersonal conflict: (1) personal characteristics and issues, (2) interactional difficulties, and (3) differences around perspectives and perceptions of the issues. Porter-O’Grady and Epstein (2003, p. 36) summarize these components as follows:

· Personal Characteristics and Issues: As a result of the diversity of today’s workplace, an extensive range of differences exists between persons and cultures. These differences are embedded with a kind of emotional content related to variations in beliefs, behaviors, roles, and relationships. Individuals function in the context of these diverse characteristics, further validating differences others see in us.

· Interactional Difficulties: As we mature and socialize, we learn effective communication and relational skills. A lack of communication skills, combined with our personal and cultural differences, creates powerful deficits in our ability to relate to one another. Because of this broad-based inadequacy, relational conflicts regularly emerge.

· Perspective and Perceptive Differences: When combined with personal differences and communication inadequacies, dissimilarity in the way people view issues and interactions is a common source of interpersonal conflict. This source of interpersonal conflict may include erroneous perceptions based on incomplete information, disparate interpretations of meaning, or personal bias.

Many interpersonal conflicts involve goal conflict or role ambiguity. Role ambiguity involves a lack of clarity or understanding regarding expectations about an individual’s work performance. Often, the misunderstanding is the result of perceptual differences regarding an issue or process. Unclear performance expectations may easily intensify interpersonal conflicts and undermine sustainability of healthy relationships. Role ambiguity may cause stress reactions, such as aggression, hostility, and withdrawal behavior (Jackson & Schuler, 1985 ).

Intragroup Conflict

Intragroup conflict involves clashes among some or all of a group’s members, which often affect the group’s processes and effectiveness (Chapters 15 and 16 provide a detailed discussion of group dynamics and the various interactions between group members). Jehn and Mannix ( 2001 ) suggest that there are three types of intragroup conflict: (1) relationship, (2) task, and (3) process.

· • Relationship conflict is an awareness of interpersonal incompatibilities. It includes affective components such as feeling tension and friction. Relationship conflict involves personal issues such as dislike among group members and feelings such as annoyance, frustration, and irritation.

· • Task conflict is an awareness of differences in viewpoints and opinions pertaining to a group task. Similar to cognitive conflict, it pertains to conflict about ideas and differences of opinion about the task. Task conflicts may coincide with animated discussions and personal excitement but, by definition, are void of the intense interpersonal negative emotions that are more commonly associated with relationship conflict.

· • Process conflict is an awareness of controversies about aspects of how task accomplishment will proceed. More specifically, process conflict pertains to issues of duty and resource delegation, such as who should do what and how much responsibility different people should be assigned. For example, when group members disagree about whose responsibility it is to complete a specific duty, they are experiencing process conflict.

Intergroup Conflict

Intergroup conflict involves opposition and clashes between groups. Under extreme conditions of competition and conflict, the groups develop attitudes toward one another that are characterized by a failure to communicate, distrust, and a self-interest focus (see Case Study 14–2 ). Nulty ( 1993 ) relates that there are four categories of intergroup conflict: (1) vertical conflict, (2) horizontal conflict, (3) line-staff conflict, and (4) diversity-based conflict.

· • Vertical conflict occurs between employees at different levels in an organization. For example, when supervisors attempt to control subordinates, subordinates may resist because they believe that the controls infringe too much on their autonomy to perform their jobs. Vertical conflict may also arise because of poor communication, goal or value incompatibility, or role ambiguity (Pondy, 1967 ).

· • Horizontal conflict occurs between groups of employees at the same hierarchical level in an organization. It occurs when each department or team strives only for its own goals, disregarding the goals of other departments and teams, especially if those goals are incompatible (see Case Study 14–3 ; also, Pondy, 1967 ).

· • Line-staff conflict occurs over authority relationships. Most managers are responsible for the processes that create the organization’s services or products. Staff managers often serve an advisory or control function that requires specialized technical knowledge. Line managers may feel that staff managers are imposing on their areas of legitimate authority. Staff personnel may specify the methods and partially control the resources used by line managers. Line managers often believe that staff managers reduce their authority over employees, although their responsibility for the outcomes remains unchanged (March & Simon, 1993 ).

· • Diversity-based conflict relates to issues of race, gender, ethnicity, and religion. These conflicts may encompass all five levels of conflict—intrapersonal, interpersonal, intragroup, intergroup, and interorganizational.

Case Study 14–2 Turf Battles

Andrea Bevans, chief operating officer of Holy Name Hospital, knew it was a matter of when, not if. The memo she had just read was the first salvo in what promised to be another turf battle within the medical staff organization. In the memo, the hospital’s vascular surgeons demanded that radiologists not be allowed to perform balloon angioplasty. Bevans knew that this treatment used a balloon at the end of a catheter and that after the catheter had been threaded into an artery in the peripheral vascular system, the balloon was inflated to break up deposits that narrowed the arteries.

The memo stated that vascular surgeons had the background, training, expertise, and proven outcomes using surgical skills and that they could best learn and apply the new techniques, if those techniques were appropriate at all. To allow radiologists to work inside the peripheral vascular system would violate previously tried and tested relationships and would cause other, unspecified, disruptions. The memo ended with a chilling, thinly veiled threat: “Should the hospital allow radiologists to perform balloon angioplasty, it may not be possible for members of the surgical staff to be available to treat untoward events, should they occur as the result of a procedure done by radiologists.”

Bevans reread the memo and mused about the path of modern medicine. It was reaching the point where many conditions were treated without a scalpel. She thought fleetingly about “Bones,” the Star Trek physician, who had only to pass a device over a patient’s body to make a diagnosis. “Is this where we’re headed?” she thought. “But, enough of science fiction,” she said to herself. “How do I solve yet another turf battle without too many casualties, not the least of whom could be me?”

Discuss the intergroup conflicts reflected in the Turf Battle case study.

Source: “The developing crisis in medical staff organization,” by K. Darr, 1996. Hospital Topics, 74(4), pp. 4–6. Reprinted with permission.

Case Study 14–3 The Managed Care Factor

Cedars-Sinai is a 400-bed community hospital located in a major East Coast metropolitan area. The hospital has a reputation as a high-quality, low-cost provider. The medical staff at Cedars-Sinai comprises board-certified physicians who are predominantly solo practitioners or are part of two- or three-physician practices. No single- or multispecialty group practices are affiliated with Cedars-Sinai. Medical staff matters are handled cautiously and conservatively by the hospital administration.

Nine years ago a large West Coast health maintenance organization (HMO) established a presence on the East Coast and grew rapidly. Because of its fine reputation, Cedars-Sinai has become a major provider of services for the HMO, and many of the HMO’s physician–employees have admitting privileges. Almost 20 percent of Cedars-Sinai’s inpatient days come from the HMO.

Following a review of the HMO’s utilization patterns, a West Coast consultant noted the large difference in hospital inpatient days per 1,000 enrollees between East and West Coast branches of the HMO. The HMO’s clinical director was asked to assess how many days of care and, consequently, how many premium dollars could be saved with various levels of progress toward the West Coast utilization patterns.

Word of this study came to the attention of Cedars-Sinai’s chief executive officer (CEO), who was immediately alarmed by the implications. He knew that if the HMO’s physicians reduced the lengths of stay for their patients by moving utilization patterns toward the West Coast experience, shockwaves would run through the majority of the members of his medical staff—the voluntary, fee-for-service physicians. The consequences of such a disparity in patient-day utilization patterns could be a decision by the medical staff leadership not to reappoint the HMO’s physician–employees to the medical staff because the voluntary medical staff would judge that the lengths of stay were inappropriately short and risked patient morbidity and mortality.

Discuss the horizontal conflict reflected in the Managed Care Factor case study.

Source: “The developing crisis in medical staff organization,” by K. Darr, 1996. Hospital Topics, 74(4), pp. 4–6. Reprinted with permission.

Interorganizational Conflict

Interorganizational conflict occurs between organizations as a result of interdependence on membership and divisional or system-wide success. For example, as Longest and Brooks ( 1998 ) point out, healthcare organizations participate in a variety of forms of organizational integration. The most extensively integrated organizations are integrated delivery systems (IDS). As integration levels increase, senior managers increasingly become involved in interorganizational conflict. Integration that involves extensive linking of providers at different points in the patient care continuum—and even more so when IDSs are linked with insurers or health plans and perhaps with suppliers in very highly integrated situations—brings into close interactive proximity what are often quite disparate organizations. Conflicts are unavoidable; knowledge and skills useful in managing them effectively are imperative. Interpersonal/collaborative competence is, of course, required of senior managers in all settings, but in an IDS, such competence becomes more complex overall, especially given the new dimension of managing interorganizational conflict (Longest & Brooks, 1998 ).

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

Winder ( 2003 , p. 20) points out that:

· Disagreements between people are an inherent and normal part of life. These disagreements can stem from differences in perceptions, lifestyles, values, facts, motivations or procedures. Differing goals, expectations or methods can turn disagreements into conflict, which can be damaging to both parties. Conflict may also be positive and beneficial in that it can force clarification of policy or procedures, relieve tensions, open communications and resolve problems. In its negative form, conflict can direct energy from real tasks, decrease productivity, reduce morale, prevent cooperation, produce irresponsible behavior, break down communication, and increase tension and stress, all resulting in loss of valuable human resources.

Understanding how conflict arises in the workplace is helpful for anticipating situations that may become conflictual. However, individuals also need to understand how they cope with or handle these conflictual situations. Thomas and Kilmann ( 1974 ), building on Blake and Mouton’s ( 1964 ) work in the area of leadership, identified five conflict-handling modes (see Chapter 9 for discussion of Blake and Mouton’s Managerial Grid). Thomas and Kilmann describe the five conflict-handling modes within two dimensions: (1) assertiveness (i.e., attempt to satisfy one’s own concern) and (2) cooperativeness (i.e., attempt to satisfy others’ concerns). The five conflict-handling modes are: (1) competition, (2) avoidance, (3) compromise, (4) accommodation, and (5) collaboration (see Figure 14–1 ).

Competition involves assertive and uncooperative behaviors and reflects a win–lose approach to conflict. A dominating or competing person goes all out to win his or her objective and, as a result, often ignores the needs, concerns, and expectations of the other party (Rahim, Garrett, & Buntzman, 1992 ). When dealing with conflict between subordinates or departments, competition-style managers use coercive powers such as demotion, dismissal, negative performance evaluations, or other punishments to gain compliance (Winder, 2003 ). When conflict occurs between peers, a competition-style manager will try to get his or her own way by appealing to his or her supervisor in the attempt to use the supervisor to force the decision on his or her peer (Blake & Mouton, 1984b ).

However, in some situations competition-style management is appropriate. For example, when the issues involved in a conflict are trivial or when emergencies require quick action, this style may be appropriate. It is also appropriate when unpopular courses of action must be implemented for long-term organizational effectiveness and survival (e.g., cost cutting, and dismissal of employees for poor performance). This style is also appropriate for implementing the strategies and policies formulated by higher-level management (Dewine, Nicotera, & Perry, 1991 ; Rahim et al., 1992 ).

Collaboration involves highly assertive and cooperative behaviors and reflects a win–win approach to conflict. A collaborating-style manager attempts to find a solution that maximizes the outcomes of all parties involved. Managers who use the collaborating style see conflict as a means to a more creative solution, which would be fully acceptable to everyone involved (Winder, 2003 ). This involves openness, exchange of information, and examination of differences to reach an effective solution acceptable to all parties. Rahim et al. ( 1992 ) suggest that when issues are complex, the collaboration conflict-handling mode emphasizes the use of skills and information possessed by different employees to arrive at creative alternatives and solutions. This style may be appropriate for dealing with the strategic issues relating to objectives and policies, long-range planning, and so forth. However, as Winder ( 2003 ) points out, this style requires sufficient interdependence and parity in power among individuals so that they feel free to interact candidly, regardless of their formal superior/subordinate status. In addition, this style requires expending extra time and energy; therefore, sufficient organizational support must be available to resolve disputes through collaboration (Winder, 2003 ).

Figure 14–1 Thomas and Kilmann’s Two-Dimensional Taxonomy of Conflict-Handling Modes

 

Compromising is the “middle ground,” with managers displaying both assertive and cooperative behaviors. It involves give-and-take, whereby both parties give up something to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. According to Rahim et al. ( 1992 ), it may mean splitting the difference, exchanging concessions, or seeking a middle-ground position. Compromising may be appropriate when the goals of the conflicting parties are mutually exclusive or when both parties, who are equally powerful (e.g., labor and management), have reached a deadlock in their negotiation.

According to Winder ( 2003 ), heavy reliance on this style may be dysfunctional because the compromising style may create several problems if used too early in trying to resolve conflict. First, the people involved may be encouraged to compromise on the stated issues rather than on the real issues. The first issues raised in a conflict often are not the real ones, so premature compromise may prevent full diagnosis or exploration of the real issues. Second, accepting an initial position presented is easier than searching for alternatives that are more acceptable to everyone involved. Third, compromise may be inappropriate to all or part of the situation, because it may not be the best decision available.

Compared to the collaborating style, the compromising style does not maximize optimal outcomes for all involved parties. Compromise achieves only partial satisfaction for each person. Kabanoff ( 1991 ) points out that this style is likely to be appropriate when agreement enables each person to be better off or at least not worse off than if no agreement were reached, achieving a total win–win agreement is not possible, and conflicting goals or opposing interests block agreement on one person’s proposal.

Accommodating involves cooperative and unassertive behaviors and is the opposite of competing. Accommodations may represent an unselfish act, a long-term strategy to encourage cooperation by others, or a submission to the wishes of others (Winder, 2003 ). This style is associated with attempting to play down the differences and emphasizing commonalities to satisfy the concern of the other party. An obliging person neglects his or her own concern to satisfy the concern of the other party; as such, accommodating-style managers may be perceived as weak and submissive because these individuals try to reduce tensions and stress by reassurance and support (Rahim et al., 1992 ; Winder, 2003 ).

According to Lee ( 1990 ), accommodating is generally ineffective if used as a dominant style, but it may be effective on a short-term basis when individuals are in a potentially explosive emotional conflict situation, and smoothing is used to defuse it; when keeping harmony and avoiding disruption are especially important in the short run; and when the conflicts are based primarily on the personalities of the individuals and cannot be easily resolved. In addition, this style is useful when an individual believes that he or she may be wrong or the other party is right and the issue is much more important to him or her. It can be used as a strategy when a party is willing to give up something with the hope of getting something in exchange from the other party when needed (Rahim et al., 1992 ).

Avoiding involves unassertive and uncooperative behaviors and is the opposite of collaborating. It is associated with withdrawal, buck-passing, or sidestepping situations (Rahim et al., 1992 ). This approach often reflects a decision to let the conflict work itself out, or it may reflect an aversion to tension and frustration. Because ignoring important issues often frustrates others, consistent use of the avoidance conflict-handling mode usually results in frustration by others. When unresolved conflicts affect goal accomplishment, the avoiding style will lead to negative results for the organization (Winder, 2003 ).