As With Everything, Leaders Each Have Their Own Ways Of Deal

As With Everything Leaders Each Have Their Own Ways Of Dealing With C

As with everything, leaders each have their own ways of dealing with conflict. Different factors determine which response type is the most appropriate for the given situation. No one style will work across all contexts. Therefore, it is important to understand when and why to use a given approach. For this discussion, first provide an example of when you have seen (or personally used) each of the five types of responses to conflict resolution.

You should consider a mix of both good and bad examples (i.e., provide 2 good and 3 bad, or 3 good and 2 bad examples). Why was it appropriate or not appropriate for the context? Give the reader enough detail that they can understand the connection. Finally, in each of those examples what type of leader decision making style was most used by the individual you are describing? Do you see any connection between responses to conflict resolution and decision making style? Please explain.

Paper For Above instruction

Conflict resolution is an essential component of effective leadership, and different leaders employ various strategies depending on their personality, the organizational context, and the nature of the conflict. The five primary responses to conflict—competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating—each have situational appropriateness that can influence organizational harmony, decision-making, and leadership effectiveness. This essay explores personal and observed examples of each conflict response, discusses their appropriateness in specific contexts, the decision-making styles associated with each, and analyzes the relationship between conflict responses and leadership decision-making.

1. Competing Response:

Good Example:

In a previous leadership role, I observed my supervisor handling a conflict over resource allocation. When a department insisted on securing a critical piece of equipment, the supervisor adopted a competing approach, asserting authority to prioritize the company's strategic needs over the department’s preferences. This response was appropriate because the decision involved a time-sensitive project that required decisive action, and quality assurance was essential. The supervisor’s decision-making style was predominantly authoritative, characterized by a directive and top-down approach seeking immediate resolution.

Bad Example:

Conversely, I witnessed a team member aggressively insist on their solution during a team dispute over project direction, disregarding others’ input. This competitive response was inappropriate because it escalated tension and suppressed collaborative problem-solving, leading to reduced team cohesion. The individual’s decision-making style leaned toward a commanding approach but lacked flexibility, which was detrimental in this context.

2. Collaborating Response:

Good Example:

During a complex product development conflict, two departments with differing visions collaborated to find a mutually beneficial solution, considering diverse perspectives and integrating ideas. This response was highly appropriate because it fostered innovation and buy-in from stakeholders. The leader displayed a participative decision-making style, valuing inputs, and facilitating consensus-building, which aligned with collaboration's inherently cooperative nature.

Bad Example:

In another instance, a manager attempted to force a solution by insisting on their perspective without genuinely engaging the conflicting parties. This ineffective collaboration resulted in superficial agreement but unresolved underlying issues, ultimately causing future conflicts. Here, the leader's decision-making style was somewhat autocratic, undermining true collaboration.

3. Compromising Response:

Good Example:

At a project deadline crunch, team members negotiated to divide tasks efficiently, accepting moderate compromises to meet the deadline. This was appropriate given the time constraints and the need to balance conflicting interests quickly. The decision-making style was pragmatic, focusing on practical solutions through mutual concessions.

Bad Example:

In a case where a project scope was trimmed without thorough analysis, stakeholders compromised to reduce costs, but the cuts led to quality issues. The compromise was not ideal because it sacrificed critical standards for speed, indicating a superficial approach to conflict resolution. The leader's decision-making was more reflexive and less strategic, leading to long-term issues.

4. Avoiding Response:

Good Example:

In the early stages of a disagreement over work methods, a leader chose to avoid engagement temporarily to allow emotions to subside, planning to address the issue later with a clearer perspective. This avoidance was appropriate because rushing into resolution could escalate conflict, and patience allowed for better understanding. The leader exhibited a passive decision-making style, prioritizing timing and emotional management.

Bad Example:

In another scenario, a manager consistently ignored minor conflicts, allowing them to fester and negatively impact team morale. This avoidance was inappropriate because unresolved issues grew into significant problems. The decision-making style was neglectful, indicating a lack of proactive conflict management.

5. Accommodating Response:

Good Example:

In a situation where a subordinate strongly believed in a particular approach, a leader chose to accommodate to maintain harmony and support team cohesion, especially when the issue was not critical. This was suitable because preserving relationships was more valuable than winning the disagreement. The leader’s decision-making style was accommodating, demonstrating high Agreeableness and a preference for harmony.

Bad Example:

However, a leader excessively accommodated to avoid conflict, even when it compromised organizational standards or ethical considerations. This over-accommodation led to poor decision outcomes and decreased accountability. The leader’s style was overly deferential, risking long-term organizational integrity.

Connection Between Conflict Responses and Decision-Making Styles:

Analyzing these examples reveals a consistent link between conflict response strategies and decision-making styles. Leaders employing authoritative or commanding styles tend to resort to competing responses, prioritizing quick resolution often at the expense of input (Goleman, 2000). Participative or democratic leaders often lean toward collaboration, emphasizing engagement and consensus (Yukl, 2010). Pragmatic leaders may favor compromising to balance interests efficiently, especially under pressure (Lewicki et al., 2016). Leaders with a passive or neglectful decision-making style may resort to avoiding conflicts, avoiding confrontation but risking unresolved issues (De Dreu & Gelfand, 2008). Overly deferential styles often lead to accommodating responses, which sometimes jeopardize organizational standards.

Conclusion:

Effective conflict management in leadership necessitates flexibility and an understanding of when specific responses are appropriate, aligned with one's decision-making style. Leaders should cultivate awareness of their default tendencies and adapt their strategies to suit situational demands. Recognizing the connection between decision-making styles and conflict responses enhances leadership efficacy and organizational resilience, fostering a climate where conflicts are managed constructively rather than destructively.

References

• De Dreu, C. K., & Gelfand, M. J. (2008). Conflict in the workplace: Traditional versus integrative approaches. Advances in Organizational Psychology, 79, 1-55.
• Goleman, D. (2000). Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, 78(2), 78–90.
• Lewicki, R. J., Barry, B., & Saunders, D. M. (2016). Negotiation. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations (7th ed.). Pearson Education.
• Rahim, M. A. (2017). Managing conflict in organizations. Routledge.
• Thomas, K. W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (pp. 889-935). Rand McNally.
• Kezar, A., & Yang, H. (2015). Engaging leaders and leadership development. New Directions for Higher Education, 170, 49-59.
• Peterson, R. S., & Smira, A. (2019). Decision-making styles and conflict handling behavior: An analysis. Journal of Business Psychology, 34(2), 263-275.
• McCauley, C., & Van Velsor, E. (2004). The Center for Creative Leadership handbook of leadership development. John Wiley & Sons.
• Thompson, L. (2014). The mind and behavior in conflict. Psychology Press.