Conflicts, Team Development stages,

Negotiations, Motivation models

Conflict Styles
Avoiding

The person seeks to avoid or postpone having to deal with

conflict (often until more facts can be gathered, or one party
has had time to think it through)

Accommodating

The person seeks to maintain the relationship with others by

subordinating his own position

Competing

The person seeks to impose his will or solution on others,

despite their misgivings or differing opinions

Compromising

The persons seeks to find a solution to the conflict by having

each of the parties make concessions

Collaborating

The person seeks to find a solution by involving all parties

affected by the conflict.

Resolving Conflicts

Forcing

Win-Lose -- One way to resolve a conflict is for one party to

force the other to agree. This is the kind of conflict resolution
that happens when one person has power over another and
exercises it.

Smoothing

Loss Loss -- Temporary Smoothing minimizes the

disagreement by making differences seem less important. This
kind of resolution occurs when either one of the persons
disagreeing or another person in the group attempts to make
the differences smaller than they seem.

Compromise

Loss Loss -- Compromise is similar to smoothing. Using this

type of conflict resolution, each of the parties gives up
something to reach a common ground. In this resolution the
parties themselves agree to give up on some points but not
others. In doing this they reach a common agreement that has
relatively few points of disagreement.

Problem Solving /
Confronting

Best Solution Win-Win

Withdrawal

Yield Lose -- Temporary

Team Decisions

Individual

Very Low Team Involvement One person actually makes the

decision

Minority

Low Team Involvement A few of those involved in a situation

meet to consider the matter and make a decision, and this
decision is binding for all concerned

Majority

Low Team Involvement - More than half of those involved in the

situation make a decision, and it is binding for all concerned.

Consensus

Very high Team involvement - Consensus is needed for most

important decisions.

Concordance

Complete and absolute - Concordance (100% commitment) is

needed for decisions of critical importance.

Motivation Models
Needs

People are motivated to satisfy perceived needs

MASLOW

Suggested that needs can be classified into 3 broad categories

CLAYTON ALDERFER

Existence

Needs include basic survival needs, both

physiological and Safety needs

Relatedness

Needs include all aspects of interpersonal

relationships Social Needs

Growth

Needs include self-esteem and

achievement of potential

Expectancy

If a person does not believe it is possible to do something, or

that no consequence of value will occur to the person if that
something is done, then the person will not be motivated to act
in the first place.

Equity

People wanted to be treated fairly, and will be motivated to

restore a feeling of equity if they are not treated fairly

Herzbergs Theory

Hygiene agents These are not motivate people,

absence of these will demotivate performance Job
security, Paycheck, clean & safe working conditions, sense
of belonging, civil working relationships etc.,
Motivating Agents These are the elements that
motivate the people to perform Responsibility,
appreciation of work, recognition, chance to excel,
education, other opportunities other than financial rewards.

Theory X

Managers think that, the workers are lazy, and no trust on

them, need micromanagement

Theory Y

Self-led, motivated, and can accomplish new tasks proactively

Theory Z

Participative management style. Workers will be motivated by

sense of commitment, opportunity, and advancement. Workers
in this organization learn the business by moving to through
the ranks of the company

Negotiations

Persuading

Based on logic or fact; can be measured objectively

Bridging

Offering of support; disclosing vulnerability

Disengaging

Legitimate tactic; use to buy time or de-fuse tense situations

Asserting

Based on personal beliefs, values and attitudes; very subjective

Attractive

Making others share positive feelings, envision desirable

outcomes
Avoiding

Not legitimate; used when we are not comfortable about

negotiating the issues

Team Development Stages

Forming

When first formed, a team is just a group of individuals who

have been assigned to work together. Individuals tend to focus
on their own goals

Storming

As teams begin actual work, they often go through a period of

conflict. This is natural: members are sorting out their roles and
differences in opinion on work issues

Norming

In the Norming Stage, the group starts to function as a team.

Group norms are established and peer pressure tends to keep
individual behaviors within expectations. Team member roles
are clear and the team agrees on the right decision-making
technique for a given situation. Real work tasks are attacked
and the group agrees on approaches and processes. Things get
done in a more definable, repeatable, predictable way.

Performing

Successful teams move on to the Performing Stage when their

effort becomes focused. Members are dedicated to achieving
team goals. The team responds to opportunities quickly.
Leadership, responsibility and recognition are typically shared
among team members. Members leverage the diversity of their
team mates, and play to their individual strengths. A high level
of trust and trustworthiness abounds.

Adjourning /
Mourning

Some teams, such as project teams and parallel teams, have a

scheduled end. When the team has realized its goal, it is
disbanded. This final phase is called the Adjourning or Mourning
Stage. When a team's work is finished, members may feel a
sense of loss or disillusionment that affects their ability to be
effective in their next assignment.

Conflicts are normal and they are an important aspect of our workplace. Conflict happens when the interests of two
or more stakeholders interfere with one another.
There will be hardly any project where you will not see a conflict that will not require the project managers
intervention. There can be many reasons for a conflict in a project, such as schedule priorities, scarce resources,
technical reasons, personal causes, etc.
Conflicts are not always bad; if managed properly, they build trust, and sometimes can bring new ideas and
opportunities. A proper conflict resolution can make the difference between a positive and negative outcome. An
improper resolution can negatively affect your project, as well as your impression on your team members and the
management.
The following are a few consequences of improper conflict resolution:

Low team morale

Impact on authority of the project manager

More personal clashes
Low productivity and efficiency
Low quality work

As a project manager it is your job to monitor and resolve conflicts in the early stage in order to keep them away
from becoming a major issue.
You can use many techniques to resolve conflicts. The fifth edition of the PMBOK Guide recognizes five conflict
resolution techniques. These techniques are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Withdraw/Avoid
Smooth/Accommodate
Compromise/Reconcile
Force/Direct
Collaborate/Problem Solve

Please note that these techniques are not given in any particular order, because each has its own place or use. It is the
responsibility of the project manager to select the suitable technique for a conflict.

Withdraw/Avoid
In this conflict resolution technique, you will avoid the conflict or simply retreat. You will let this issue be solved by
itself or just forget it.
You can use this technique in the following cases:

When stakes are low.

The stakeholders involved in the conflict are not important.
The issue is not worth investing your time.
The issue will disappear on its own after some time.
When there is a heated argument among parties and you want to give them some cooling time.
When there is limited or no information available about the conflict.

The advantage of this technique is that it saves your precious time that you can invest in some other productive
activities.
The disadvantage of this technique is that it may weaken your position as a project manager and negatively affect
your relationships.
There is a dispute with this conflict resolution technique: Some experts say that this is not a conflict resolution
technique because when the conflict arises you simply avoid it, no action is taken from your side, and escaping is not
a solution.

Smooth/Accommodate
In this type of resolution, you will try to find areas of agreement, and try to smooth the situation. Smooth or
Accommodate is a technique to avoid tough discussion.
In smoothing, you give more concerns to other parties rather than yours. Here you will try to just play down the
situation and behave like the problem never existed.
This technique can be used in the following cases:

When you are very busy and have no time.

You need a temporary solution to the problem.

The main advantages of this technique are that it cools down the temperature, brings harmony, creates goodwill, and
gives you sufficient time to find a permanent solution.
One disadvantage of this technique is that since youre giving more concerns to other parties, they may try to take
advantage of it.
The other disadvantage is that it may weaken your position as an authoritative leader.
You should avoid using this technique to solve issues.

Compromise/Reconcile
Here you take suggestions from both sides and try to make a compromise. Both parties involved in the conflict gain
something, so this solution partially satisfies both parties.
You may use this technique in the following cases:

All parties involved in the conflict need to win.

You have an equal relationship with them.
When Collaborative and Forcing techniques do not work.
When you need a temporary solution to move forward quickly.

The main advantages of this technique are that it brings a faster result, lowers the stress, keeps all parties cool, and in
the meantime you can search for a permanent solution.
The disadvantages of this technique are that it does not bring trust in the long run, and the conflict could resurface at
any time.

Force/Direct
Here you agree with one partys viewpoint and enforce their wishes. This is a win-lose situation and can demoralize
team members.
You can use this technique in the following cases:

You need a quick solution.

When stakes are high and you need an immediate solution.
When you know one party is right and dont have time to investigate.
The stakeholders involved in the conflict and not very important.
The relationship with them is not important.

The advantage of this technique is that it provides a quick solution to the problem.
The main disadvantage of this technique is that sometimes you may lose the opportunity gained from the opposing
partys viewpoint, and it may negatively affect your impression on your team members.

Collaborate/Problem Solve
In this technique you will discuss the issue with all parties involved in the conflict and find a solution considering
multiple viewpoints and agreed upon by all.

You may use this technique in the following cases:

When you want to incorporate multiple views.

The people involved in the conflict are very influential.
For a particular issue when consensus is required.
You may want to distribute the responsibility equally to all parties.

The advantages of this technique are that it brings consensus, commitment, and shared responsibility for the
outcome. This technique is considered a win-win approach.
The main disadvantage of this technique is that it takes more time and effort, so it cannot be used when youre in a
hurry and need a quick solution.
Please note: in the fourth edition of the PMBOK Guide, Collaborating and Problem Solving were different
techniques but now they are the same. Also in the fourth edition of the PMBOK Guide, Problem Solving was also
known as Confronting. The term Confronting is no longer visible in the fifth edition of the PMBOK Guide.
PMI does not recommend any single technique to be used in all types of conflict; it truly depends on the situation
and the person involved in the conflict.
Suppose if two ground level laborers are involved in a conflict, you may simply ignore it. However, if you see that
some important stakeholders are having a conflict, you will show interest in solving the conflict to save your project
from any harm.
Although there is no single technique to be used in all types of conflict, it is generally understood that
Collaborate/Problem Solve is a technique which brings consensus and commitment. It can be considered a win-win
situation.

Role of the project manager

I have explained all types of conflict resolution techniques and you can use them if any conflict arises in your
project. However, as a project manager you have to respond rationally and reach a solution which best serves your
project.
While resolving conflict, please keep the following points in mind:

Treat each participant respectfully.

Be calm and rational.
Keep people and problems separate.
Listen to each participant patiently.
Explore all possible solutions.
Dont take the side of any participant, unless you have arrived on a resolution and the participant is on the
resolutions side.
Try to avoid forcing and pressurizing participants to reach a solution.
Try to avoid postponing a conflict, as it may increase its severity.

Summary
There is no single conflict resolution technique that can be applied to all types of conflict resolution. It is your
responsibility as a project manager to find the suitable technique for any conflict which arises in your project.
However, you should try to implement a resolution which brings consensus and commitment from team members.
The technique which brings consensus and commitment is the Collaborate or Problem Solve technique.

Here is where this blog post on conflict resolution techniques ends. If you have something to share, you can do so in
the comments section.
Below is my old blog post based on the fourth edition of the PMBOK Guide. Although this post is not valid
now, it is still a good read.

Which is the Best Conflict Resolution Technique?

This was one of my favorite topics for my PMP certification exam preparation. When I was studying the PMP
reference books, I saw that confronting is the best conflict resolution to solve problems, and a project manager
should use this technique.
However, when I opened the PMBOK Guide and started reading, I found that it was recommending the collaborative
technique.
I believe it is more likely that you will not agree with me. In this case I request you read this blog to the end and
decide again whether you agree with me or not.
It is natural for conflicts to arise among human beings. PMI recognizes this fact, and therefore it has incorporated the
conflict resolution techniques into the PMBOK Guide.
Sources of conflicts include work schedule priorities, scarcity of resources, personal or technical problems, etc. And
as per the PMBOK Guide, there are six conflict resolution techniques, which you can use to resolve conflict. Here,
Im going to discuss the six techniques mentioned in the PMBOK Guide, and then I will defend the best technique
for conflict resolution.

Withdrawing or Avoiding
Here, the project manager simply chooses to avoid the conflict, and allows the persons involved in the conflict to
find their own solution. No action is taken by the project manager.

Smoothing or Accommodating
Here, the project manager is involved in the conflict, tries to avoid areas of disagreement, and focuses on
commonalities. Smoothing is a way to avoid tough discussions.

Compromising
This is a mid-way approach. Here, everybody loses and gains something. All parties get some sort of satisfaction. It
is a lose-lose approach.

Forcing
In this technique, a decision is made in favor of one partys viewpoint at the expense of others. It can demoralize
team members and may cause an increase in conflicts. It is a win-lose approach.

Collaborating
This is an example of a win-win approach. Here, the project manager will work with all parties to find a resolution
that involves multiple viewpoints and negotiates for the best solution. This technique reinforces mutual trust and
commitment.

Problem Solving or Confronting

In the problem solving or confronting technique, a conflict will be treated as a problem for which the project
manager has to find a solution. The project manager will conduct an in-depth root cause analysis of the reason for the
conflict, encourage open discussions to allow parties to express their areas of disagreement, and then arrives at a
solution.
I have gone through many books and Internet resources to look for the best problem solving or conflict resolution
technique. Amazingly, everywhere I looked, I got the same answer confronting or problem solving is the best
technique for conflict resolution.
However, I do not agree with this.
The job of the project manager is not an easy one, and he has to deal with many conflicts all the time. Moreover, the
kind of conflicts that he will face will not all be the same kind, so applying the same technique to all conflicts would
not be justified. He has to use his judgment and experience to decide the best conflict resolution technique, which is
suited best to the situation. Sometimes he will choose to simply ignore the problem, and other times he will force his
resolution on the conflict. The type of technique chosen depends on the situation, timing, and the persons involved in
the conflict.
The objective of the project manager is to successfully complete the project.
A project manager is not a judge whose job is to look for the root cause of every problem, finding and digging out
every available detail, each scrap of evidence, and then making the decision as written in the law books. For a judge,
even though it may take several years, he will always use a problem solving technique for every conflict. A project
manager cannot do this for every conflict.
In the problem solving technique, one wins and another other loses. It is not correct to say that it is a win-win
situation, because the person who loses will usually be unhappy and unsatisfied even he is wrong, and it is difficult
for him to digest his failure. A prudent project manager will try to avoid this situation, and always look for a solution
where he could keep all parties satisfied.
Therefore, he would be more likely to choose the collaborating technique, which is a win-win situation for all.
Now, let us see what the PMBOK Guide says about this:
If conflict escalates, the project manager should help facilitate a satisfactory resolution. Conflict should be
addressed early and usually in private, using a direct, collaborative approach.
managing conflicts in a constructive manner, and encouraging collaborative problem solving and decisionmaking.
I never read in the PMBOK Guide, anywhere, that it suggests using the problem solving/confrontation technique for
all conflict resolution; however, I notice that the PMBOK Guide is recommending the collaborative technique.
It seems that PMI is agreeing with me too!

Conflict Management Techniques

Conflict situations are an important aspect of the workplace. A conflict is a situation when the interests, needs, goals
or values of involved parties interfere with one another. A conflict is a common phenomenon in the workplace.
Different stakeholders may have different priorities; conflicts may involve team members, departments, projects,
organization and client, boss and subordinate, organization needs vs. personal needs. Often, a conflict is a result of
perception. Is conflict a bad thing? Not necessarily. Often, a conflict presents opportunities for improvement.
Therefore, it is important to understand (and apply) various conflict resolution techniques.

Forcing

Also known as competing. An individual firmly pursues his or her own concerns despite the resistance of the other
person. This may involve pushing one viewpoint at the expense of another or maintaining firm resistance to another
persons actions.
Examples of when forcing may be appropriate

In certain situations when all other, less forceful methods, dont work or are ineffective
When you need to stand up for your own rights, resist aggression and pressure
When a quick resolution is required and using force is justified (e.g. in a life-threatening situation, to stop an
aggression)
As a last resort to resolve a long-lasting conflict

Possible advantages of forcing:

May provide a quick resolution to a conflict

Increases self-esteem and draws respect when firm resistance or actions were a response to an aggression or
hostility

Some caveats of forcing:

May negatively affect your relationship with the opponent in the long run
May cause the opponent to react in the same way, even if the opponent did not intend to be forceful originally
Cannot take advantage of the strong sides of the other sides position
Taking this approach may require a lot of energy and be exhausting to some individuals

Win-Win (Collaborating)
Also known as problem confronting or problem solving. Collaboration involves an attempt to work with the other
person to find a win-win solution to the problem in hand - the one that most satisfies the concerns of both parties. The
win-win approach sees conflict resolution as an opportunity to come to a mutually beneficial result. It includes
identifying the underlying concerns of the opponents and finding an alternative which meets each party's concerns.
Examples of when collaborating may be appropriate:

When consensus and commitment of other parties is important

In a collaborative environment
When it is required to address the interests of multiple stakeholders
When a high level of trust is present
When a long-term relationship is important
When you need to work through hard feelings, animosity, etc
When you don't want to have full responsibility

Possible advantages of collaborating:

Leads to solving the actual problem

Leads to a win-win outcome
Reinforces mutual trust and respect
Builds a foundation for effective collaboration in the future
Shared responsibility of the outcome
You earn the reputation of a good negotiator
For parties involved, the outcome of the conflict resolution is less stressful (however, the process of finding
and establishing a win-win solution may be very involed see the caveats below)

Some caveats of collaborating:

Requires a commitment from all parties to look for a mutually acceptable solution
May require more effort and more time than some other methods. A win-win solution may not be evident
For the same reason, collaborating may not be practical when timing is crucial and a quick solution or fast
response is required
Once one or more parties lose their trust in an opponent, the relationship falls back to other methods of
conflict resolution. Therefore, all involved parties must continue collaborative efforts to maintain a
collaborative relationship

Compromising
Compromising looks for an expedient and mutually acceptable solution which partially satisfies both parties.
Examples of when compromise may be appropriate:

When the goals are moderately important and not worth the use of more assertive or more involving
approaches, such as forcing or collaborating
To reach temporary settlement on complex issues
To reach expedient solutions on important issues
As a first step when the involved parties do not know each other well or havent yet developed a high level of
mutual trust
When collaboration or forcing do not work

Possible advantages of compromise:

Faster issue resolution. Compromising may be more practical when time is a factor
Can provide a temporary solution while still looking for a win-win solution
Lowers the levels of tension and stress resulting from the conflict

Some caveats of using compromise:

May result in a situation when both parties are not satisfied with the outcome (a lose-lose situation)
Does not contribute to building trust in the long run
May require close monitoring and control to ensure the agreements are met

Withdrawing
Also known as avoiding. This is when a person does not pursue her/his own concerns or those of the opponent.
He/she does not address the conflict, sidesteps, postpones or simply withdraws.
Examples of when withdrawing may be appropriate:

When the issue is trivial and not worth the effort

When more important issues are pressing, and you don't have time to deal with it
In situations where postponing the response is beneficial to you, for example o When it is not the right time or place to confront the issue
o When you need time to think and collect information before you act (e.g. if you are unprepared or
taken by surprise)
When you see no chance of getting your concerns met or you would have to put forth unreasonable efforts
When you would have to deal with ostility
When you are unable to handle the conflict (e.g. if you are too emotionally involved or others can handle it

better)
Possible advantages of withdrawing:

When the opponent is forcing / attempts aggression, you may choose to withdraw and postpone your response
until you are in a more favourable circumstance for you to push back
Withdrawing is a low stress approach when the conflict is short
Gives the ability/time to focus on more important or more urgent issues instead
Gives you time to better prepare and collect information before you act

Some caveats of withdrawing:

May lead to weakening or losing your position; not acting may be interpreted as an agreement. Using
withdrawing strategies without negatively affecting your own position requires certain skill and experience
When multiple parties are involved, withdrawing may negatively affect your relationship with a party that
expects your action

Smoothing
Also known as accommodating. Smoothing is accommodating the concerns of other people first of all, rather than
one's own concerns.
Examples of when smoothing may be appropriate:

When it is important to provide a temporary relief from the conflict or buy time until you are in a better
position to respond/push back
When the issue is not as important to you as it is to the other person
When you accept that you are wrong
When you have no choice or when continued competition would be detrimental

Possible advantages of smoothing:

In some cases smoothing will help to protect more important interests while giving up on some less important
ones
Gives an opportunity to reassess the situation from a different angle

Some caveats of smoothing:

There is a risk to be abused, i.e. the opponent may constantly try to take advantage of your tendency toward
smoothing/accommodating. Therefore it is important to keep the right balance and this requires some skill.
May negatively affect your confidence in your ability to respond to an aggressive opponent
It makes it more difficult to transition to a win-win solution in the future

Some of your supporters may not like your smoothing response and be turned off