The Conflict Management Styles Developed Psychology Essay

The Conflict Management Styles Developed Psychology Essay In this diagram developed by Thomas and Kilmann , the forcing/competing style is high in concern for self or simultaneously describes as high in assertiveness, which is epitomized to satisfy his personal needs under all circumstances even at the expense of others. This style is in contrast to the collaborating style, which is interested in long term and long lasting relationship and looks for solutions to meet the needs of all parties involved. The avoiding style is low in concern for self and is escapism to conflict. This style normally occurs when a party is neither interested in his own goals nor interested in maintaining relationship; he simply withdraws and does not want to deal with the conflict. The accommodating style deals with sacrificing of self-interests to satisfy the needs of others to resolve the conflict. Finally, compromising is the midpoint and struggles between cooperativeness(concern for others) and assertiveness (concern for self), and involves making concessions for both parties to arrive at a resolution of conflict. This where both parties are ready to listen to each other and willing to climb down from their expectation and sacrifice to achieve peace. However compared to Thomas and Kilmann model, Putnam and Wilsons (1982) divide the conflict management style model into three factors namely the non-confrontation (obliging), solution-oriented (integrating) and control (dominating). Putnam and Wilson (1982) state that non-confrontation or obliging strategies manage conflict indirectly, by simply avoiding disagreements or by minimizing controversial issues. Solution-oriented or integrating strategies manage conflict both by searching for cooperation, integrative solutions and by making compromises. Control, or dominating, strategies manage conflict by arguing persistently for their positions and using nonverbal messages to emphasize demands. Furthermore numerous researchers proposed revisions of the preceding frameworks, likewise Rahim and Bonomas (1979) conceptualization has been one of the most popular, with empirical evidence (e.g., Rahim Magner, 1995; van de Vilert Kabanoff, 1990) suggesting it to be most valid. Rahim and Bonoma (1979) differentiated the styles of resolving interpersonal conflict on two basic dimensions: concern for self and concern for others. The first dimension explains the degree (high or low) to which a person attempts to satisfy their own concerns, while the second dimension explains the degree to which an individual tries to satisfy the needs or concerns of others. And the combination of these two dimensions, results in five specific styles of conflict management, known as integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding and compromising. Some researchers like (Blake Mouton, 1964; Likert Likert, 1976) have also criticized and suggested that successful conflict management needs specific styles to resolve conflict situations; for example, that the integrative or problem-solving style is most appropriate for managing all conflict. Other researchers such as (Rahim Bonoma, 1979; Thomas, 1992) have indicated that for conflicts to be managed most effectively, one style is more appropriate than the other, based on the kind of situation. According to Gross and Guerrero (2000), the effectiveness of individuals is perceived based on which conflict management styles they choose to incorporate. They discovered that an integrative conflict management style is generally perceived as the most appropriate (in terms of being both a polite, prosocial strategy, and an adaptive, situational appropriate strategy) and most effective style. The dominating style is perceived as inappropriate, and the obliging style as neutral. The avoiding style was generally perceived as both ineffective and inappropriate. Finally, compromising was perceived as a relatively neutral style. Authors high concern for self low c concern for others intermediate concern of both self and others high concern for self high c concern for others low concern for self low c concern for others low concern for self high concern for others Follet (1940) Domination Compromise Integration Avoidance Suppression Blake and Mouton (1964) Forcing Compromising Problem-Solving Withdrawing Smoothing Thomas and Kilmann (1974) Competing Compromising Collaborating Avoiding Accommodating Rahim and Bonoma (1979) Dominating Compromising Integrating Avoiding Obliging Putnam and Wilson (1982) Control _ Solution-oriented Non-confrontation _ Figure 2: shows an overview of the different conflict management styles developed by various authors. 2.3.1 Characteristics of Conflict Management styles Although there has been a plethora of research which has been conducted to drive the essence of the conflict management styles, it was observed that many of the derived styles have specific attributes or characteristics that set them apart to deal with a particular group of people or individuals posited more precisely by their behavioral conflict strategies (Follet 1940). They are all different by virtue and respond differently to specific situation. In this study we are going to scrutinize first and foremost the characteristics of each conflict management styles and formulate on what basis the choice of peoples conflict management styles is influenced. This research follows Thomas and Kilmann (1974) model, which is organized around two dimensions cooperativeness and assertiveness. Combinations of these dimensions lead to five modes of handling conflict: Avoiding style Be it an avoiding style, withdrawing, or non-confrontation, this style is characterized with low concern for self (assertiveness )and low concern (cooperativeness) for to others, in other words this style wants to emphasize that it is neither assertive nor cooperative and usually stay away from issues which are linked to a conflict. This style makes us believe that conflict is difficult to break and the best way is to withdraw physically or psychologically for a conflict rather than facing it. De Dreu, (1997), Hocker Wilmot, (1998) advocate that avoiding is most often associated with negative substantive outcomes and that issues which consider this style are not resolved ,and usually become more serious over time especially in case where there are strong relationships between parties strongly tied through feelings, emotions and actions. Besides Gross and Guerrero (2000) is perceived to be of similar view as (De Dreu, 1997; Hocker Wilmot, 1998). Gross and Guerrero (2000) relate the avoiding conflict style as being situationally and relationally inappropriate, as well as ineffective, when it comes to achieving personal and dyadic outcomes. Hence many of these authors argue that avoiding can be effective in the short run, but perceived of having negative effects in the long run. In this regard if we consider avoiding in the short term, it can be concluded that it is the most dominating style compared to other styles. In combination with other conflict behaviors such as comp eting, avoiding certain issues can undoubtedly contribute to effectiveness. For example if we temporarily leave the conflict to cool down and reconsider our previous position before the conflict aroused, therefore avoiding can contribute to effectiveness (Van de Vliert 1997). In this style people who are willing to give up both personal goals and relationships withdraw from the conflict. When the question of adopting the avoiding style is raised to a group, members will avoid the actual conflict and become outside observers. By listening to the input on an observation basis, the group can gain invaluable feedback on emergent points of discussion, as well as team members behaviours can hamper resolution. Competing style The competing style whether we call it forcing, dominating or control is epitomized by high concern for self (assertive) and low concern (cooperative) for others. The main characteristics of the competing style is that it usually keep track with personal goals, always ready to win and they assume conflicts are usually a win/lose game and winning gives them a sense of pride and achievement. Based on the assumptions made by Van de Vliert, (1997) it is most likely that the competing style is the result of a negative relationship between conflicting parties. In this sense people that adopt this style can bring progress to a group that lacks direction or is landed in a debate. Similarly Sorenson, Morse, Savage, (1999) agree with the view of Van de Vliert, (1997) and advocate that competing will usually not improve a relationship. Although it was found in some studies, individuals can achieve important outcomes or results through forcing behavior De Dreu Van de Vliert, (1997); Rahim, (1992); Thomas, (1992), other research have suggested that the quality of the results substantially decreases with increased forcing behavior (Van de Vliert et al., 1995). Furthermore Gross and Guerrero (2000) argue that dominating behavior is relationally inappropriate and there is little chance for it to be effective. We therefore conclude that the effect of dominating behavior on real outco mes is very lean and will cause the breakdown of social relationship. Accommodating style The accommodating style also known as the obliging, smoothing, suppression shows low concern for self (assertiveness) and high concern (cooperativeness) for others. The characteristics posed by this style is mainly associated with those people who want to be accepted and liked by others, and in this position they think that conflict should be avoided and maintaining the harmony that exist between parties is of prior importance. With the accommodating style it is very important put aside personal grudge or goals and look for a common ground of understanding where we are bound to satisfy firstly the other parties expectation. They also think that we cannot deal with a conflict without damaging a relationship. According to (Van de Vliert et al., 1995) the accommodating style means giving in to others parties wishes and does not have specific contribution to the level of effectiveness. This style is not likely to produce important outcomes, as it matters that the quality of decision making decreases with an increase in the accommodating behavior by one or by both parties (Mastenbroek, 1989; Papa Canary, 1995). However some authors suggest that the accommodating style contributes mostly to the interpersonal relationship (Papa Canary, 1995; Rahim, 1992). While Gross and Guerrero (2000) emphasiesed that accommodating is perceived as being neither relational nor situationally appropriate, nor effective and conclude that this behavioural style is more likely to be favorable. Collaborating style The collaborating style named by various model as being an integrative style, solution oriented, problem solving drive particular attention to high concern for self (assertiveness) and high concern (cooperativeness) for others. Its main characteristics is that it takes too long trying to find consensus and it is usually not satisfied until it finds a solution that achieve the goals and resolves any negative feelings and can as well irritate others as a result of their behaviors when they are on the verge to seek for perfection in a consensus. (Van de Vliert et al 1995) argue that this style places high value on relationships and goals which are both assertive and cooperative. Parties adopting this style are likely to collaborate to accomplish their objectives. They view conflict as problems to be solved and as a way to improve relationships with each other. This style is termed as having a positive effect on the end result of a conflict management style while having negative effect on relational outcomes. Authors like (Fisher, 1997; Turner Pratkanis, 1997) suggest that the collaborating style is used to define and analyze conflict issues. In contrast, (Euwema, 1992; Van de Vliert, et al., 1995) state that collaborating behavior eventually make complex interpersonal relation at stake and make negative contribution to the end result. Hence (Euwema, 1992) declared that when interpersonal relations are at risk people will undoubtedly hesitate to confront others. Compromising style The compromising style is based on intermediate concern for both the self (assertiveness) and others (cooperativeness). One of its characteristics is that it is a flexible and adaptive style, and goes for splitting the difference between parties, exchanging grounds of understanding. People who consider this style place medium value on goals and relationships and believe firmly on a compromise basis. They spend long time for looking for solution but not yearning for perfection. The compromising style satisfy only some of the parties needs and some authors like (De Dreu, Evers, Beersma, KIuwer, Nauta, 2001; Van de Vliert, 1997) delineate compromising as half hearted problem solving.Pruitt and Carnevale (1993) argue that a compromise is associated with a strong conciliatory tendency, coupled with moderate concern for self. (Gross Guerrero, 2000) advocate that compromising was found to operate highly on relational appropriateness and less effective to situational level. Unlike the various conflict management styles developed by researchers to resolve team conflict, it is often contented that a matter will be resolved easily if the right conflict management style is applied to. Likewise the selection of the proper conflict management style is not shaped by the choice of will by the parties involved but rather on various external factors that come to influence the choice of the conflict resolution style. These factors are mainly related to the culture (language and thinking patterns) of group members, their gender, emotions and their age group.

Are Gendered Etiquette rules Implicitly Sexual? Essay

In every culture, there exists ways through which different genders relate with each other. Both the sexes adopt a given mode of behavior which is normally characterized by chastity, modesty and all the noble train of virtues which are essential in dating. In particular, the men are required to be at the forefront in initiating a courteous gesture towards the women. However, this natural human behavior have evolved throughout the centuries and today with the acceptance of same sex relationships, some of its universal character has been lost. Among the men, there is marked difference between the heterosexuals and homosexuals with regard to etiquette. This could be as a result of how these two different groups perceive females. However, certain practices have stuck in various cultures even though the purpose have been lost. For instance, several cultures encourage certain practices towards women like holding the chair, opening the door and general positive gesture towards women. (Reskin, 1998 p. 64) It has often been claimed that etiquette results in men and women adopting an artificial mode of behavior because of this supposed necessity. In the present transgender and same sex marriage world, one may be interested in finding the relevance of certain etiquettes. Among the heterosexual and homosexual males, there exists differences in perception with regard to etiquette. While to the heterosexuals, a woman may seem worthy of some special treatment because of the natural attraction or the natural feelings that he has towards her, the homosexual translates this feeling to their male counterparts. As a show of regard and appreciation for the woman, heterosexual man may hold a chair, open the car door or address her in a manner which is likely to show approval and importance. This action of heterosexual man towards a woman in most cases is conditioned by the desire or need to gain recognition as a potential boyfriend or acquaintance. In contrast, a homosexual man may exhibit the same action towards a woman as a custom or as a mode of accepted practice towards women. (Snipes, 2007 p. 23) This action to open the car’s door has nothing to do with his desire to gain any form of recognition by the woman but rather, he might feel bound by culture to do this. For instance, it may be part of his culture to open the door for women of females in this case. In other words a â€Å"straight man† may be driven by some personal goals while the homosexual may do it as the natural and normal thing to do. If a natural order in the socializing influence to the code of etiquette is to be adopted, then there will be a distinct difference between the heterosexuals and the homosexuals. If not for culture, a homosexual man may not see any special reason to open the car’s door for a lady. Even if he does, his action will not be driven by any clear sexual motive. Heterosexual men are more sensitive when handling females than their homosexual counterparts. They are greatly concerned about how the females will regard their actions and behavior and hence are more cautious when dealing with them. Homosexuals on the other hand are insensitive to the females’ thoughts about them. However, they may show some form of interest in the ladies as much as this would further their aim of acquiring a new partner should this happen to be the lady’s friend. Still, this interest is not entirely directed to the lady but rather her acquaintance. With this regard, it may not be very clear if gendered etiquette are implicitly sexual since through the centuries, the human society has evolved so much and new ways of relationships have developed while some of the old ways have become irrelevant to the present society. However, there are certain modes of gender relationships that are regarded natural. Males and females have a unique way of relating with each other whether â€Å"gay† or â€Å"straight†. Reference Reskin, Barbara F. (1988) Gender and Society, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Mar. , 1988), pp. 58-81 Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. Retrieved 4/8/2008 Snipes, J. A. (May 31, 2008) Homosexuality Among Men and its Effect on Women. Everyday Journal, Issue 103

Basics of the English Slang for Chinese Students

Not only are English and Chinese different, but also the slang they use is rather different. Being a new student in a different country is challenging enough without the added monstrosity of the slang language. Not knowing what a phrase in slang means as well as not knowing what you would say to fit in a certain form of slang is rather an awkward situation to find yourself in. Did someone ever asked to ‘hang out’ and you didn’t know how to react? Well, this is one of the most prominent issues faced by a student of a different cultural background. So here is some basic slang which could save your life. It will help you in fitting in and making friends and avoiding any kind of embarrassing situations. Awesome It’s one of the most popular slang words in English used by everyone. It is used to express something wonderful or amazing and can be used in a sentence or as a one word. Example 1: â€Å"It was awesome! We loved the movie.† Example 2: â€Å"I’ll come to your house at 8 p.m.† â€Å"Awesome.† To be beat This describes that a person is tired or exhausted and has no connection whatsoever to hitting or winning. More commonly used when trying to deny or a perspective in a negative manner. Example: â€Å"Do you want to go out?† â€Å"No, I can’t. I am beat today and would just like to sleep.† To hang out This slang in English is used a lot and can mean any of the three things depending on how the sentence is phrased. But it is meant to mean time spent together or the act of spending time together. May also mean the specific place or location depending on the tone of the statement. Example 1: â€Å"So where do you hang out in evenings?†(Where do you like to spend your free time?) â€Å"I usually go to the bar around the corner of this street.† Example 2: â€Å"We must hang out soon.† (Spending free time together.) â€Å"Sure. I would love that.† Example 3: â€Å"Nothing, just hanging out with Rick.† (This means that they are free and doing nothing special.) To chill out This usually means that a person is relaxing or in some cases it means that you are overreacting. It can be used without the ‘out’ too. Example 1: â€Å"We are chilling at the bar.† Example 2: â€Å"We just chilled out in the weekend.† Example 3: â€Å"You need to chill out and stop thinking so much.† To be amped This means that a person is super excited and can’t wait for something to happen. Example: â€Å"I can’t wait to see Ed Sheeran live!† â€Å"Yes, I’m amped too.† Having a blast Normally it means an explosion but in slang it means to have fun and an amazing time. It should be clear not to mean nothing rather than in context of good times only. Example: â€Å"How was the concert?† â€Å"Awesome. Everyone had a blast.† Busted This usually means that you have been caught doing something you shouldn’t have. Example: â€Å"She got busted cheating in her exams.† Having a crush This means you are attracted to somebody and would like to know them. Example: â€Å"I have a crush on Michael. He is so cute.† Dump somebody This describes breaking up with their boyfriend/girlfriend. Example: â€Å"He dumped me. I am devastated.† Epic Fail Epic means huge and fail is a pretty straightforward word. Now if you put those together, it means a huge failure. Example: â€Å"Did you get your results back?† â€Å"It was an epic fail and I have to redo the tests again.†