Conflict Components

Cuban

1.      3 6.      2 11.    2 16.   1 21.   2	2.    4 7.    3 12.  3 17.  4 22.  3	3.    3 8.    4 13.  4 18.  3 23.  3	4.    3 9.    3 14.  3 19.  2 24.  3	5.    2 10.   1 15.   3 20.   2 25.  3
Total
Avoiding	Dominating	Compromising	Obliging	Integrating
10	17	17	14	11

Dieny

1.    3 6.    2 11.  3 16.  4 21.  3	2.    3 7.    4 12.  3 17.  3 22.  4	3.     2 8.     4 13.   2 18.   2 23.   4	4.    3 9.    3 14.   3 19.   4 24.   3	5.    4 10.   3 15.   3 20.   4 25.   3
Total
Avoiding	Dominating	Compromising	Obliging	Integrating
15	17	14	16	17

Understanding self-conflict style is an ideal starting point in learning how to manage conflicts. That is, learning and adapting to limit the negative aspects of conflict and fostering the positive ones. This is critical since both personal and professional relationships rely on the methods of conflict management. Besides, all interpersonal relationships are seldom devoid of conflicts (Ahmed, 2015). From the coursebook, one may choose to participate in a conflict in five types of conflict management styles, namely avoiding, dominating, compromising, obliging, and integrating. In this exercise, the Conflict Style Assessment questionnaire has enabled finding a score for each style, referencing interpersonal relationships with Cuban and Dieny.

I have learned that self-assessment of conflict management style is mostly inaccurately determined without an assessment tool. This has also been briefly mentioned in the course book, that when conducting a self-assessment, the conclusion is mostly at risk of self-reported bias. For instance, it is surprising that I have such a significant avoidance with Cuban. From a general perspective, I thought that I am always engaging with high degree for collaborating in solving conflicts. The assessment questionnaire indicates that I avoid conflicts with him and do not foster integrating styels, which has been found to relate negatively with outcomes of an interpersonal relationship (Weider-Hatfield & Hatfield, 1995). Besides, I have never thought of being a dominating type, but both relationships’ score indicates that I am significantly dominating in both conflict management styles when I do. Therefore, one can best assess their conflict styles by using a tool like the Conflict Style Assessment questionnaire.

The second thing I have learned about the relationship between personality and conflict participation style. First, conflict management or participation preference style varies from one person to another due to individuality. Since everyone has their personality type, the difference is one of the bases of conflict and divergent conflict participation styles. For instance, I have a different perception and preference for handling conflicts compared to both Cuban and Dieny. That is possibly the reason we still have a reasonably stable interpersonal relationship with Cuban, even where the conflict style assessment questionnaire indicates coercive control. That is, neither Cuban, Dieny, nor I have ever identified that I am stuck in a style that is controlling, compromising, and at times avoidant. These conclusions suggest a link between personality and conflict participation style, and both influence the nature or longevity of an interpersonal relationship.

An individual’s role in an interpersonal relationship or a team is influenced by conflict participation style. This is also in line with personality, as a study has found that personality and, thus, conflict management style affects performance at both personal and team levels (Ayub et al., 2017). Also, Weider-Hatfield & Hatfield (1995) found that conflict participation style determines an individual’s commitment in both the public and private sectors. For instance, I have had numerous leadership opportunities, where I decide the course of action and offer other people direction. I am very assertive; thus, I always have the promptest and practical solutions to issues. Therefore, in teams, I am compelled to take the lead and that others should follow, rather than codepedence. While the autocracy may be seen as incivility, there are no discrepancies in account for more beneficence, since I am sensitive of harassment, bullying, and verbal aggressiveness. Thus, since leadership style relates to one’s personality, my leadership style influences conflict participation style.

Lastly, all conflict participation styles are best for given times and places. It is seldom that an individual would have only one conflict participation style. Instead, people have all the five styles, but generally at a ratio, with the most and least robust style. For instance, except for dominance, all the other conflict participations styles vary from Cuban to Dieny’s relationships. This variation is possibly most influenced by relationships and context. That is, seniority and currency of the relationship. In leadership positions, say a manager, dominance might be a better choice for conflict participation, to guide a team into the best course of action. In times of disasters, compromising and verbal aggressiveness are better to ensure the safety of others and self amid chaos. Also, obliging is better when one intends to cement a relationship and make promises. In that perspective, no one conflict participation style is better than another, but all apply best in different contexts.

References

Ahmed, K. (2015). The Relationships between Conflict Management Styles, Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment among Workers in Public and Private Sectors. Universal Journal Of Psychology, 3(2), 41-50. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujp.2015.030203

Ayub, N., AlQurashi, S., Al-Yafi, W., & Jehn, K. (2017). Personality traits and conflict management styles in predicting job performance and conflict. International Journal Of Conflict Management, 28(5), 671-694. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijcma-12-2016-0105

Weider-Hatfield, D., & Hatfield, J. (1995). Relationships Among Conflict Management Styles, Levels of Conflict, and Reactions to Work. The Journal Of Social Psychology, 135(6), 687-698. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1995.9713972