Conflict resolution in project management

Conflict resolution in project management

Introduction

Successful conflict management is crucial to the smooth running of any organization

Successful conflict management is crucial to the smooth running of any organization. Dealing with conflict in a two-party situation can provide effective strategies for multiparty conflict. Two-party conflict strategies are classified according to how the conflict is resolved. These strategies are known as "win-win", "win-lose", and "lose-lose". Obviously "win-win" would be the most effective as both parties achieve what they want from the conflict situation. However, "win-win" is only possible when all parties involved offer full cooperation. The win-lose and lose-lose strategies are more widely used, given the generally competitive nature of organizations and their members' belief that conflicts can't be settled without at least one party losing out.

The win-lose strategy

Power plays a major role in the win-lose strategy. To get their way, a project manager can impose his or her authority on a team member, threatening punishment or offering reward. In this case, the project manager wins and the subordinate loses.

Majority and minority ruling

The win-lose strategy can incorporate majority and minority rulings. The majority rule uses a voting mechanism to make a decision. In most cases, this is a democratic way of resolving conflict. However, the same group can continually lose the vote, and so perceive that they lose in the very act of voting. Or there may be instances where a project manager suddenly marks an issue as urgent and calls a meeting at the most inopportune moment. This may not suit everyone, but subordinates aren't going to object and so risk showing an apparent lack of interest in the project. The project manager effectively forces subordinates to attend - the very fact of the meeting being held will make the project manager the "winner". If only a small number of subordinates attend, the project manager can use the minority-ruling situation to his or her advantage. In this situation the small number of people in the meeting can back each other up on a proposal, quickly voting and arriving at a decision before possible opponents have had time to organize an effective objection.

The lose-lose strategy

Proponents of the lose-lose strategy take the view that achieving something is better than getting nothing

Proponents of the lose-lose strategy take the view that achieving something is better than getting nothing, even if their ultimate goals aren't attained. Paying someone to do overtime or an unfavorable job is an example of the lose-lose strategy. In this situation, there is no winner as the company loses money and the individual has to undertake something that they dislike. Reverting to the rulebook to resolve conflict ignores the unique nature of certain situations and consequently fails to resolve the conflict. Another example of how the lose-lose strategy is implemented is the use of a neutral intermediary to resolve an issue. Although confrontation is avoided, the outcome normally incorporates a compromise of some sort resulting in neither party achieving their respective goals. If, however, a decision is made in favor of one party, then the conflict results in a win-lose outcome.

The win-win strategy

The win-win strategy recognizes that there may be three different groups involved in the resolution of a two-party conflict

The win-win strategy tries to achieve a solution that nobody involved finds unacceptable. What sets the win-win strategy apart from the win-lose and lose-lose strategies is that it recognizes that there may be three different groups involved in the resolution of a two-party conflict. These groups consist of those in favor of a solution, those against it, and those who are indifferent. The win-lose and lose-lose strategies concentrate on the first two groups. The win-win strategy, however, regards the "indifferent" group as being the key group. The objective of a win-win strategy is to, at worst, move the opponents of a proposal to a position of indifference, and so eliminate any opposition.

Consensus and integrative decision-making

Consensus and integrative decision-making are the two ways of successfully implementing the win-win strategy. Consensus encourages an ongoing discussion and analysis of the disagreement - the aim being to ensure that all parties have a clear understanding of everyone's standpoint and come to a workable consensus on the issue. Integrative decision-making incorporates a step-by-step process. First, the ultimate goal and the various problems associated with attaining that goal are identified. Information on the various misgivings and needs of those involved is gathered and a number of possible solutions are developed based on the different groups' suggestions. The feasibility of each is assessed by all concerned and the most appropriate one is selected. Any issues or conflict that may emerge from the selected alternative can be dealt with using the same process.

Conclusion

The win-win strategy takes up a great deal of time

There are many instances where none of the three strategies are effective enough to resolve a conflict. The win-win strategy will only work if trust exists among all the parties involved. They all have to be willing to try and achieve a solution using consensus or decision-making. If one party insists on trying to force its own agenda there is a danger that a win-lose strategy will emerge. The win-win strategy takes up a great deal of time - this may not be ideal in an organization where time is an important factor. In both the win-lose and lose-lose strategies the parties involved tend to focus on achieving their own personal goals. No attention is paid to the nature of the problem itself and the ultimate goal of the project. The overall effect of the conflict is overlooked and the parties lose sight of how the conflict could be avoided. Ultimately, the type of strategy that's used depends on the situation in which the conflict occurs.