Contents
When we work as a team, disagreements are inevitable. And that’s okay. The problem is that not everyone knows how to defend their point of view correctly: some try to manipulate their colleagues, others violently attack, and others close in on themselves. It depends on the type of person, and on what is important for the employee – the result of the dispute or the process itself.
Styles of behavior in work conflicts are different. Study the list to find your typical line of behavior, and you will learn how to act most effectively during an argument without quarreling with the rest of the participants.
1. Competitor
Behavioral scholars Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann argue that “competitors” act without consideration for others and are generally uncooperative. In the struggle for the result, all means are good for them – it is not shameful even to appropriate someone else’s idea, passing it off as your own.
“Either you or me!” is their motto. It often allows you to achieve what you want, although relationships with colleagues and the atmosphere in the team as a whole suffer. Once faced with such behavior, the colleagues of the “competitor” in the future, most likely, will by all means avoid intersections with him.
If you notice a tendency to “go over your head” behind you, you should ask yourself: “Am I sure that I offer the best solution? Maybe one of the colleagues has another option that will lead to a better result?
2.Cooperating
The main goal for such a debater is to reach an agreement, and for this he carefully listens to each participant in the conflict and takes into account all opinions. It would seem that this is the optimal strategy of behavior in a dispute, which one should strive for. But everything is not so simple.
It is common for someone who adheres to such tactics to break data in an impulse to please everyone and not be completely open. His main task is to make everyone feel that victory is on their side. Because of this, employees may not see the whole picture of what is happening and their contribution in particular.
3. Pleasing
This type of disputant goes even further than the collaborator and sacrifices his own interests. He yields, shows gentleness, tries to be as helpful and supple as possible. This, of course, gives others a sense of support, but makes them think that it will always be so. They simply begin to “ride” on this person, which is why the success of a common cause often suffers.
4. Negotiator
Such a person bargains to get the result he wants. He strives with all his might to come to a compromise, as if saying to the interlocutor: “I have this. And as far as I know, you do. Neither you nor I can get 100% what we want. So, can we find a compromise? We’ll meet somewhere in the middle of this path.”
The most unpleasant moment is that the “negotiator” can promise something completely unrealistic, therefore, when communicating with such a colleague, try to document all agreements.
5. Sneak
Employees of this type never resolve the conflict at their level, with colleagues. No, they immediately turn to their superiors: either because of the urgency, or because this is the only way they can be sure of their “victory”. Of course, no one likes when they act behind their backs. This means that when interacting with this colleague, at a minimum, trust is undermined, and at a maximum, the conflict is aggravated.
6. Avoiding conflict
On the one hand, such a colleague is inclined to protect the atmosphere in the team with all his might and avoid conflicts. On the other hand, this is what often makes him say: “It’s okay, it’s nothing, they forgot,” even when the collision takes place on a really important issue.
“Such employees either believe that the conflict will only increase problems, or they are simply not ready to get involved in the situation and invest in resolving it,” explains psychologist Cecily Horsham-Braithwaite. “But sometimes it’s really important to listen to everyone, to let everyone have their say in order to find the best way out.”
7.The Devil’s Advocate
Usually he chooses the opposite point of view solely for the sake of the argument, and not for the sake of achieving the desired result for the company. He does not neglect any means – neither fictitious examples, nor endless assumptions in the spirit of “what will happen if” and “suddenly”.
Experts advise asking such an interlocutor directly: “It seems that the current version does not suit you at all – can you explain what exactly? What is behind this? What do you really want?
Perhaps this will help the “devil’s advocate” at least to himself to formulate the reasons for his “vague dissatisfaction”, and this will be the first step towards a constructive conversation.