The essence of conflict is known to exist since the times a human being has learned to keep an upright posture. As Whetten and Cameron state, “conflict is the lifeblood of vibrant, progressive, stimulating organizations. It sparks creativity, stimulates innovation, and encourages personal improvement” (306). Facing conflicts is a natural course of events in the major part of activities humanity has managed to invent so far. Resolving those, however, is a task involving maximum efforts and focus on a problem. Looking for a compromise has been one of the acting instruments to solve emerging issues, yet, in contrast to collaboration, it does not always lead to an outcome suited for both parties and, thus, often provoked a conflict reoccurrence.
As a counterargument to a compromise theory (stating that it is the only way to fight conflicts), one may bring the argument that compromises quite often lead to increasing demands. Halperin et al. state in their research “accumulated evidence shows that emotions affect public opinion on issues of negotiation and compromise” (31). Therefore, when led by emotions, a winning party usually tends to wish for more. By attempting to take the middle path and applying for a compromise, one is showing his/her weaker side and gets exposed to pressure. This kind of behavior can be tracked through all the spheres of human life, from infantile pastimes to countries’ external policies. With regards to this fact, one may state that compromise is an ineffective sort of solution for any conflict. Collaboration usually works more efficiently, since both parties are involved in the process of decision making. Thus, none of the sides takes a winning or losing position.
In their book the researchers state that despite the fact managers realize that conflict is a “necessary ingredient of the free-enterprise system”, they still tend to avoid its occurrence (307). The presence of a compromising factor is what makes people concerned about possible outcomes, for it simply puts them in a disadvantageous situation. On the other hand, there is still an opportunity to collaborate, which then changes a situation to the direct opposite and makes both parties equally responsible. According to the authors’ opinion, avoiding confrontation is always a lose-lose option (Whetten and Cameron 313). Using compromise as a strategy can only be appropriate when a company’s reputation is at stake and, not to affect it, the board of managers refers to concessions. However, those are treated as the methods of last resort. A collaborative approach is given priority in all of the cases. The examples of international relations show it might take time to solve a problem. Each side comes to the need for collaboration in the end.
As an attempt to draw a parallel between creative problem solving and a collaborative approach to the matter, one may say that finding suitable way-outs requires both sides to demonstrate creativity to come to mutually beneficial decisions. Whether those goals will be achieved or not, to a greater extent depends on the leaders’ competence and their level of self-awareness. In this case “individual coaching sessions prior to a joint meeting will increase your understanding of the root causes and improve the individuals’ abilities to resolve their differences” (327). In its turn, it will help an individual to switch from compromises and turn debates into a productive form of collaboration.
Works Cited
Halperin, Eran, Smadar Cohen-Chen, and Amit Goldenberg. “Indirect Emotion Regulation in Intractable Conflicts: A New Approach to Conflict Resolution.”European Review of Social Psychology, vol. 25, no. 1, 2014, pp. 1-31.
Whetten, David A., and Kim S. Cameron. Developing Management Skills. 9th ed., Pearson Higher Ed, 2016.