Conflict Management

What conflict management is

Conflict management (إدارة الصراع) is a practice carried out by a manager and a team. Its aim is that a disagreement at work is noticed early, named for what it is, and steered toward a resolution that keeps the work going and the working relationship able to continue. Conflict is a difference in goals, priorities, roles or methods between individuals or teams, and it is not in itself a defect in an organisation. It becomes a burden when it is left unnamed and unaddressed. Managing it is not a written procedure and not a formal route. It is a skill and a way of working that takes place in everyday conversation, before the matter becomes a complaint.

This definition belongs to management and concerns dealing with disagreement between colleagues inside the work. It describes no formal procedure, states no right belonging to anyone and no duty resting on anyone, and it is not legal advice.

How conflict management differs from a grievance

A grievance is a formal complaint that an employee submits about a decision, the way they were dealt with or a working condition they consider incorrect, through an announced internal route. It is a recorded procedure with a path and a documented reply. Conflict management comes before it and covers more than it: it begins when a difference in viewpoints appears, it works through conversation between the parties to the disagreement, and it may settle the matter before its owner needs a formal route. Its success does not mean that a grievance has no value, and the existence of a grievance does not mean that management has failed. Each is a tool in its place. The details of the formal route are covered in the glossary term on grievances.

How conflict management differs from labour disputes

Labour disputes concern disagreements between a worker and an employer over a right, and they have their own announced route in the glossary term devoted to them. That is another level: a dispute revolves around a right that is claimed, and conflict management revolves around work that is coordinated. A disagreement between two colleagues over who prepares a report, or over the priority of tasks, is addressed by everyday management and does not fall under a dispute. If the disagreement goes beyond the bounds of the work to a right being claimed, its reference is the specialised glossary term and not this definition.

A disagreement left unaddressed may push toward these formal routes, but that is a possibility and not a rule, and we offer no share for it.

How the ways of handling conflict are classified

A model for styles of handling disagreement is attributed to Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann. It classifies the styles on two axes: how far a person pursues their own concern, and how far they pursue the concern of the other party. According to what the body that publishes the tool associated with the model has set out, the following five modes branch from those two axes.

• Competing. Pursuit of one’s own concern is high and attention to the other’s concern is low.
• Accommodating. Pursuit of one’s own concern is low and attention to the other’s concern is high.
• Avoiding. Pursuit is low on both sides, so the disagreement is set aside.
• Collaborating. Pursuit is high on both sides, so a solution is sought that meets both concerns.
• Compromising. Pursuit is moderate on both sides, so each party gives up a part of what it wanted.

The model rests on the view that no single mode suits every situation, so the skill lies in moving between them according to the case. This describes the model, and it is not our judgement on the rightness of any mode. The Arabic names for these modes are translations of the English terms above, and the translations may differ from one reference to another.

When each mode may suit

The manager is not asked to memorise the classification, only to attend to what suits the situation. What follows is a possible judgement of fit and not a rule.

• Competing. It may suit a situation that calls for a quick decision on a matter that cannot wait, but if it becomes the only mode it may silence those who differ.
• Accommodating. It may suit a case where the matter weighs more for the other party than for oneself, but if it recurs with nothing in return it may build up resentment that is never voiced.
• Avoiding. It may suit a case where both parties need to calm down before speaking, or where the matter is passing, but if it goes on for long it may postpone the disagreement without removing it.
• Collaborating. It may suit a case where the matter is important to both parties and there is time for dialogue, but it demands time and frankness that may not be available.
• Compromising. It may suit a case where time is short and the weights are close, but it may leave each party with half of what it wanted.

The role of emotional intelligence in conflict management

Emotional intelligence helps a person recognise their own feelings and those of others and understand their effect on behaviour, which is what someone addressing a disagreement between colleagues needs. A person who notices their own agitation before speaking may choose to delay a reply by an hour, and a person who picks up what was not said in the room may understand that a disagreement about form hides a disagreement about role. Emotional intelligence is nevertheless a skill that supports the practice and does not replace it. A manager may have it and the disagreement may remain, because its cause lies in the distribution of roles itself.

Where conflict falls among the stages of team development

The Tuckman model describes stages a team may pass through, among them a stage in which differences appear over roles and methods. Disagreement may therefore be expected in a new team or in a team that has been reshaped. That changes how a disagreement is judged: it may point to a stage and not to a fault in the people. The model describes the stage, and conflict management is what is done when the differences appear within it.

What makes a team able to disagree

Talking about disagreement requires that an employee feels safe to speak. Where psychological safety is present, a colleague may be able to say “I do not agree” without it being held against them, so the disagreement surfaces early, while it is small. Where it is absent, the parties may lean toward avoiding, and the disagreement is not known until it has grown. Safety is not the opposite of disagreement. It is what lets disagreement be voiced.

An organisation may use arrangements that help, such as appointing an ombudsman to receive what an employee wishes to bring outside the line of management. That is an arrangement the organisation chooses for itself and whose powers it defines itself, and it is not a condition of conflict management.

How a manager deals with a disagreement in the team

There is no fixed procedure. The following are steps we suggest for reflection, not a list to be carried out.

• Early notice. The manager attends to indicators such as a delay in replies between two colleagues, or one of them avoiding a meeting the other attends.
• Naming the disagreement. The manager puts what the parties differ on into one neutral sentence, such as “The disagreement is over who issues the report and when”, so that it turns from a feeling into a matter.
• Listening to each party. The manager hears each party separately first, and asks what they need and not only what they want.
• Looking for a shared interest. The manager ties the disagreement to a goal both parties agree on, such as the delivery date or the quality of the product.
• Agreeing a step and a review. The manager settles what each party will do and a date for looking at the effect; otherwise the talk stays without effect.

Coaching may help a manager acquire this skill through questions and not through a formula, by practising questions that open dialogue in place of a quick judgement.

A worked example of the cost of a postponed disagreement

Take a hypothetical team in which two members disagreed over the format of a weekly report, and each avoided speaking to the other directly. The report came to pass through 3 extra rounds of review, with 4 people taking part in each round and each round lasting two hours. The total extra effort is 3 × 4 × 2 = 24 working hours a week.

Suppose the manager brought the two parties and their team into a conversation of 45 minutes, which is 0.75 of an hour, with 3 people present. Its effort is 0.75 × 3 = 2.25 hours. The difference is 24 minus 2.25, which is 21.75 hours, so the effort of the review rounds is about 10.7 times the effort of the conversation (24 ÷ 2.25 = 10.67). The example is hypothetical, with figures set only to illustrate, and it has no reference in an organisation or a study. It does not mean that every disagreement is resolved in this time: a single conversation may not settle the whole matter, and a disagreement may need several meetings.

How conflict management is misunderstood

• Thinking that its purpose is to abolish disagreement. It does not seek a team without differences, but differences that are managed.
• Treating a personal matter as a work matter. A disagreement over procedure may hide a problem in the relationship, and redistributing tasks alone does not address it.
• Choosing the middle course every time. Compromise may satisfy everyone a little and not settle the root of the matter.
• Taking silence for agreement. Silence may be avoidance and not acceptance.
• Stepping into every disagreement. The team may learn to refer everything to the manager, and colleagues may become weaker at resolving their own disagreements.

How long a disagreement takes to resolve

In the sources we reviewed, we found no reference duration that we adopt for resolving a disagreement at work, and no accredited share of a manager’s time to set aside for it, and we do not propose a figure of our own. A disagreement over a deadline differs from one over a role or a relationship, and the resolution of each has its own pace. Each case is examined on its own, and its effect is compared before and after it is addressed.

Conflict management remains a practice of examining what goes on between colleagues and not a procedure applied to people. It points the manager to a place that needs dialogue, and what is decided afterwards rests on what the parties themselves say and on the nature of the work they share.

This is an explanation of the concept, not legal advice.