It is impossible to avoid varying forms of conflicts in life. Conflict may happen in my student life during interaction with my peers and staff. However, of importance is the ability to assuage these conflicts before they metastasize (Overtone & Lowry, 2013). Conflicts arises during disagreements of issues. The failure of agreement can be passive or direct and can create significant tensions either way. I had not thought about how conflict may arise or how I may actively play a role in a conflict. I approached conflict as a battler before the beginning of the semester. My attitude towards conflict was; an individual has to battle his way out by telling the truth. In a situation where one party is telling the truth and another one does not own up to it, I always take the truth’s side.  I will not car about the delivery of facts as long as it is provided. I have never thought about the aftermath of a conflict or the need to reassess how I handled a particular dispute. Nonetheless, I have reevaluated my attitude. It has drastically changed. Presently, I can thoroughly criticize my conflict management skills. This paper delves into my conflict patterns deeply, skills, and how to improve them based on the conflict theories learned while undertaking this course. I will contrast my skills to the STLC theory of conflict then evaluate what to do. It will also expound on different cycles of disputes and how they reflect and relate to my conflict patterns.

Evaluation of Conflict Skills

Communication

I have learned that I am a poor communicator, which negatively affects my conflicts with individuals. I am a hostile communicator and come forward as rude most of the time, even though I genuinely want to clarify what I feel about a particular situation. I should avoid intimidating people I associate with to communicate well. Often, when I communicate, I am very presumptuous about what the other person thinks or understands about an underlying conflict. I may state their position, point out why they are wrong and pay attention to what I have to say. My hostile communication presents itself in three forms. The first is hostile rejection. When for an instant, a group member suggests something that I see as below standards, I would go out and call it below standard without sugar coating. In this instance, the other party will feel instantly rejected. The second and third form my communication strategy takes is avoiding responsibility and shifting blame. As a battler, I loved winning conversations rather than getting on the level ground of agreement. This I can easily do by presuming my assumed opponent position. Most of the time, I am caught up in being right that I fail to communicate the most critical points in a conflict. Learning about conflict skills has made me aware of my poor communication skills. For instance, it is not important to win; the most important thing is getting an amicable solution for the problem at hand.

Over the semester, I have had a chance to recall some of the major conflicts that I have been involved in as an individual. Conflicts differ depending on the people you are dealing with. There are instances when you communicate to people what you feel is not right and recoil or take it positively. Either way, they will not strive with you, and thus the conflict will not dissipate. The second class of individuals is battlers who strive to have their way. The second class makes tension progress over an extended period and may allow other minor conflicts to arise. The irony of this lesson on communication is that I have held both cards. There are some instances where I am the recipient of a battler’s position within a conflict. In other instances, I am the battler. I have not been able to improve my communication skills to an excellent degree. However, I have developed a habit of reminding myself to be mindful of what I speak, as it is key to controlling how a conflict would turn out.

Listening

Through the semester, I have understood that listening is also important during communication. Listening allows one to determine the position of the other party in a conflict. It also gives one time to reevaluate their position. I have learned that getting into a fist clenched, ready to battle, does nothing to diminish a conflict. When consumed with the need to be the one on the right, you will become easily dismissive and be presumptive of one’s opinion, often making statements like, “I already know what you want to say.” While I have not been able to master these needed skills, I have developed the art of admitting when I am wrong in how I handled a discussion. Admitting my wrongdoing about a situation is a provocation to do better.

Connecting Conflict Theories to Practice

Understanding different conflict theories give a basis for approaching conflicts. It enables one to weigh to break down existing conflict in manageable portions and determine the best approach. There are two approaches to looking at conflict, traditional and the modern approach. In the traditional approach, conflict is considered as a bad thing instigated by bad people and should be avoided (Omisore & Abiodun, 2014). The modern approach to conflict made famous by Knapff in 1994 stipulates that conflicts are a natural part of life; they occur with change, are beneficial, and can be easily managed. These two broad approaches help understand that one view of a conflict can quickly determine how one reacts when faced with conflict. For instance, it is good when a company manager comes up with HR software that will cut the HR department’s yearly budget by half. However, coming up with this software would only mean laying off some of the staff from the company. An individual in charge of the HR department can create conflict seeing the manager as the bad person for creating something that would deny individuals job.

On the other hand, the resource manager can look into this opportunity to change and collaborate with the manager on the way forward for the affected staff. From an in-depth understanding of the traditional and modern approaches, it is easy to decide which method is the best for understanding conflict. Good conflict does not necessarily mean conflict is always a good thing, but rather approach to deal with conflict should always be on a positive tone.  The theory that was most useful in understanding conflicts is the interactionist view. The interactionist view provides a middle ground between traditionalists and modern approaches to understanding conflict (Millis & Mene, 2020). It clarifies that there are two kinds of conflicts one may encounter, i.e., functional and destructive conflict. Functional conflicts serve to improve performance at group or personal. On the other hand, destructive conflicts always serve as obstacles for progress.

The theory suggested by Madiya and shaziya (2015) provides a suitable format for understanding different conflict styles. According to Madiya and Shaziya (2015), people fall in any of these five categories related to conflict types; competing, accommodating, compromising, accommodative and compromising. The difference in coping styles is based on how individuals value relationships and thus how it affects their ability to communicate and listen. Competing conflicts occur when one believes his way or opinion is much better than that of the other, it includes high levels of assertiveness without cooperation. The accommodation conflict style is inclusive of the high level of cooperativeness without assertiveness. Compromise falls right in the middle in terms of individual levels of assertiveness and cooperation. Avoidance conflict style measures so much with the traditional approach. It is inclusive of a high degree of assertiveness and the lowest amount of cooperation. The collaborative conflict style is by far the best. It involves high degrees of cooperation and assertiveness. While collaboration is by far the best, it is essential to know that personality and goal differences may force individuals to seek the other four alternatives. Ability to communicate and listen determines where one falls in all the provided conflict theories.

Behaviour Analysis

Understanding one’s behavior in conflict is necessary for change. The S-TLC model for conflict management is a good tool for understanding conflict behavior. The S-TLC model developed by Abigael and Khan is a simple format on how we communicate during a conflict. The first alphabet in the S-TLC model stands for stop. Stopping allows one to prepare for the conflict ahead mentally and thus reacting accordingly. Entering a conflict head-on, which is something I always do, can place one in an awkward position. If possible, one can even take time out to process a conflict and give a much more productive way forward.

The letter T in the S-TLC stands for think. Thinking is the second thing that automatically follows after one has conditioned himself to stop. In thinking, one can quickly evaluate a stand or opinion that the other party gives. Often when I am involved in a conflict, I am not quick to stop or think. I battle so much, and that may end up with me placing myself in a fix that I later regret. One time, I had a conflict with my roommate over her friend staying over at our room. I ended up saying many unkind words to realize that the student had lost her accommodation and needed a place to lay her head before moving to the next.

The L and C stand for communication and listening, which are the most important skills people need in conflict management. Communication allows one to extract the information required before they react. Listening is not just hearing but also fully understanding what the second or third party is asking of you. In the example I gave above, my roommate made the mistake of not telling me about her friend. However, the way I approached her was not the proper way of communication. I could have asked in a much kinder tone when inquiring how long her friend would stay and rationale for the stay. I also realized that she had a genuine reason to host her friend and could not tell me because she was afraid of reacting. In evaluating myself using the STLC approach, I find that I am a poor communicator and listener, and I act before I think when conflict arises.

Conclusion

This semester was instrumental in advancing my knowledge on understanding conflicts. Conflicts arise due to differences in ideas. I appreciate that everyone has a right to share their views in a conflict in a respectful way. A critical examination of my communication skills has shown why I always end up in unsolvable conflicts. I have always taken stands where I think my opinion is better and battle with a second party in the hope of winning them over. It is a power-based approach that has no respect for the autonomy of anyone but me. As a result, I may end up losing essential relationships. Besides, I may end up losing essential ideas that, if collaborated with mine, would build up to something much bigger. Over the semester, I have gradually trained myself to stop and think. It is still a considerable task. Presently, I can quickly retract when negotiation takes a negative twist. In summary, it is critical to overcome self-interests during conflicts. You should seek actively to understand each other’s position by letting each explain. Listening is only effective when one fully understands what the other party wants. It is not always that a conflict will end up in a collaborative stand. If the other party is toxic, avoidance can be the best choice.

References

Madiya, Y. and Shazia, K. (2015). Conflict management styles. A study of organisational politics among professionals. Journal of Political Studies 22(2), 697-710.

Mills, B. R., & Mene, C. T. (2020). Conflicts and Its Management In An Organisation: A Theoretical Review.

Omisore, Bernard & Abiodun, Ashimi. (2014). Organizational Conflicts: Causes, Effects and Remedies. International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management Sciences. 3.  http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJAREMS/v3-i6/1351

Overton, A. R., & Lowry, A. C. (2013). Conflict management: difficult conversations with difficult people. Clinics in colon and rectal surgery, 26(4), 259–264. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1356728