Conflict Management Techniques

Conflict management uses a small set of techniques, and each one has its place. Four core techniques (and a fifth, avoidance) make up the working toolkit. A school head who knows all of them can choose deliberately based on the situation.

Forcing (also called Competing)

The first technique is forcing one’s own position. An individual firmly pursues 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 person’s actions.

A principal who decides on a course of action and proceeds despite staff objection is using forcing. A teacher who insists on her classroom rule despite student resistance is using forcing.

Advantages of forcing

Forcing may provide a quick resolution to a conflict. It can also draw respect when firm resistance was a response to aggression or hostility.

Forcing produces speed. The conflict resolves in the direction of the forcer.

Forcing also has a place when the other party is acting in bad faith. A school head who firmly refuses an unreasonable demand from a parent shows backbone; her staff respects her for it.

Limitations of forcing

Forcing may negatively affect the relationship with the opponent in the long run. The party who was forced loses. She tends not to forget, and she brings the loss into future interactions.

A school head who uses forcing regularly tends to have staff who comply but resent. A school head who uses it only when necessary, with reason, preserves relationships.

When forcing fits

1. Emergencies. No time for collaboration.
2. Safety issues. Non-negotiable matters.
3. Bad-faith negotiation. The other party is not engaging honestly.
4. Trivial issues. Not worth the time of more elaborate approaches.

Win-Win (Collaborating)

The second technique seeks mutual benefit. Also known as problem confronting or problem solving, it treats the situation as an opportunity to find a mutually beneficial result. It includes identifying the opponents’ concerns and finding a jointly acceptable solution.

Collaborating treats the conflict as a problem to solve together. Both parties work to find a solution that satisfies both.

Advantages of collaborating

Collaboration leads to solving the actual problem and builds a foundation for effective work together in the future. The agreement addresses the underlying interests, not just the surface positions, and the relationship is strengthened by the process.

Limitations of collaborating

Collaboration may require more effort and more time than some other methods. It may not be practical for a quick solution.

It is expensive. It takes time. It requires both parties to engage in good faith. It requires trust.

When collaborating fits

1. Important issues. The stakes justify the investment.
2. Long-term relationships. Future collaboration matters.
3. Complex problems. Multiple interests can produce creative solutions.
4. Time available. No urgent deadline forcing speed.

A school head should default to collaborating for significant conflicts where both relationship and outcome matter. The investment pays off.

Compromising

The third technique splits the difference. It looks for an expedient and mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties. Compromise is most useful when goals are moderately important and not worth the heavier approaches of forcing or collaborating.

Compromise is the middle ground. Each party gives up something and gets something. Neither is fully satisfied; both can accept the outcome.

Advantages of compromise

Compromise gives faster issue resolution, is more practical when time is a factor, and lowers tension and stress. It is workable, faster than collaboration, and defuses tension.

Limitations of compromise

Compromise may result in a situation where both parties are not satisfied with the outcome (a lose-lose). Both parties may walk away with a residue of disappointment, and the compromise may not actually solve the underlying issue; it just papers over it.

When compromise fits

1. Moderately important issues. Not worth full collaboration but not trivial.
2. Time pressure. Need a workable answer now.
3. Equally strong parties. Neither can prevail through forcing.
4. As a temporary solution. While working on a longer-term answer.

Smoothing (Accommodating)

The fourth technique gives in. Also known as accommodating, it puts the concerns of the other person first. It is useful for providing temporary relief from the conflict or buying time until you are in a better position to respond.

Smoothing is when one party gives in to the other. The party that smooths accepts the loss for the sake of relationship, time, or strategy.

When smoothing fits

1. Issues that do not matter much to you but matter to the other party. Give the win where it costs little.
2. When you are wrong. Acknowledging error and giving in builds credibility.
3. Preserving the relationship. When the relationship matters more than the issue.
4. Buying time. Smoothing now to engage substantively later.
5. When the other party has more at stake. Let them win when it really matters to them.

A school head who never smooths is rigid. A school head who only smooths is a doormat. Used selectively, smoothing is a useful technique.

Avoidance (implied fifth)

A fifth technique is sometimes mentioned: avoidance. Simply not engaging with the conflict. Walking away. Letting it sit.

Avoidance has its place too.

1. Trivial conflicts not worth the energy.
2. When emotions are too hot to engage productively.
3. When the other party will resolve it themselves with time.
4. When engagement would make things worse.

A school head who avoids significant conflicts is failing her job. A school head who avoids trivial conflicts is being wise.

Choosing the right technique

A useful two-dimensional framework adds importance of the issue and importance of the relationship.

The matrix is rough but useful. When both issue and relationship matter, invest in collaboration. When the issue matters but the relationship is not central, force may be necessary. When the relationship matters but the issue does not, smooth. When neither matters much, compromise or avoid.

A school head should keep all four (or five) techniques available and choose deliberately based on the situation. A school head who relies on only one technique uses it inappropriately in many situations.

A common mistake

The most common mistake school heads make: using forcing too often.

The instinct to force comes from the principal’s position. She has the authority; she can decide. The mistake is treating every conflict as something she should decide, rather than as something the parties should work through.

A school head who forces frequently tends to have staff who comply but disengage. A school head who collaborates by default tends to have staff who develop, contribute, and own outcomes.

Forcing has its place. Collaboration is the more productive default.

Building conflict competence in a school

Beyond her own practice, a school head can build the school’s collective ability to handle conflict.

1. Train staff. Many staff members never learned how to handle conflict. Training helps.
2. Establish norms. What is the school’s expected behaviour in disagreement?
3. Provide channels. Where do staff go when they have a conflict that cannot be resolved between them?
4. Model the techniques. Staff observe the principal’s conflict handling and copy it.
5. Recognise productive conflict. Acknowledge when staff have worked through a disagreement well.

Over years, these practices build a school that handles conflict well. Conflict becomes a tool, not a threat.

Flashcard

What are the four (or five) conflict management techniques, and which is the most productive default?

Tap to reveal

Answer

Forcing, Collaborating, Compromising, Smoothing, and Avoidance.

The most productive default for significant conflicts is collaborating.

Technique	When to use
Forcing	Emergencies, safety, bad-faith negotiation
Collaborating	Important issues, long-term relationships, time available
Compromising	Moderately important issues, time pressure, equal parties
Smoothing	Other party’s issue more than yours; preserving relationship
Avoidance	Trivial; emotions too hot; let it resolve naturally

Use the issue x relationship grid: how important is the issue? How important is the relationship? The combination points to the right technique.