The document discusses different approaches to handling conflict, including avoidance, appeasement, coercion, compromise, and collaboration. It argues that collaboration, which involves open discussion and seeking solutions that meet both parties' needs, is the most effective approach. Avoidance, appeasement and coercion result in win/lose outcomes that breed resentment, while compromise still leaves both sides partially unsatisfied. True problem-solving requires confronting issues directly yet respectfully through rigorous dialogue and creative thinking.

1. Sees a vision
Requires candor, transparency, and credit
Makes the tough calls
Leader is relentless
Leadership is contagious
Is curious and Is a risk taker
Celebrates accomplishments

2.  Human Nature seeks to avoid conflict
 Candor will leave one ignored, dismissed,
quarantined
 It risks anger, resentment, pain,
confusion, and rejection
 Candor is vital to winning as it gives
clarity and provokes alternatives
 It promotes interaction going along to get
along is prevented. It promotes speedy
solutions and efficiencies

3.  Lack of candor
▪ Blocks ideas
▪ Prolongs speed of resolving
▪ Denies contributing by others
▪ Increases costs
▪ Hard to instill
▪ Hard to practice a wide open discussion

5.  Produce better ideas
 Force people to search for new approaches
 Cause persistent problems to surface and
be dealt with
 Force people to clarify their views
 Cause tension, which stimulates interest
and creativity
 Give people the opportunity to test their
capacities

6.  Is unhealthy - it produces stagnation
 It is called “group think” or over
conformity
 Creates a dearth of ideas
 Fosters mediocre judgment
 Absence of tension means less creativity
 Necessity is the mother of invention!
 Conflict is essential – it enhances problem
solving

7.  Analytically we need to solve the problem
 Conflicts that go beyond schedules and priorities
get sidetracked to be read by many as issues of
power and personalities
 Attacking the problem some people interpret as
attacking the person – resentment and a negative
critical response occurs.
 Misreads foster non cooperation and defiance
 Passive aggressive behavior or “quitting” is
exhibited It is labeled a “personality conflict”

8.  A radical change in the way people behave and the
culture of the unit needs to be learned.
 The goal is to avoid a “personality conflict” as it will
sabotage efforts. Achieve reciprocity and creativity
 The goal is to learn new methods of engagement so
candor is seen as a positive thing not to tear down but
advance the team. Change is an opportunity not a threat.
▪ Not hypercritical
▪ Not Belittling
▪ Not Power Taking
▪ Forward Looking
▪ Not met with Passive Aggressive Behavior

9.  Avoid
 Appease
 Coerce
 Compromise
 Collaborate
 At times All Appropriate – but one works best

10.  Withdrawal – at times wise especially if over
heated
 Retreat – to advance only worsens an outcome
 Avoidance – a neglect to face a lingering
problem - flee
①
Neither have need met – a lose/lose – a zero/zero
No Conflict

11.  Smooth Over – Pretend an Issue Does Not
Exist
 De-emphasize or Minimize
 Appease
②
One gets 100% of need met and the other yields getting 0% – a win/lose
No Conflict

12.  Force
 Coerce
 Exert Power
③
One gets 100% of need met and the other forced to take 0% – a win/lose
Conflict

13.  Compromise
 The Middle Ground
 Split 50/50
④
One gets 50% of need met and the other 50% – a half win/a half lose
Mild Conflict

14.  Confront through rigorous dialog
 Collaboration – a Win/Win
 Hard Work – It takes time, effort,
patience, innovation, determination, and
faith
⑤
One gets 100% of need met and the
other 100% – a win/win
The OneThatWorks the Best!
Collaboration with Candor

15. Yes/No Conflict Matrix Yes/Yes
100
%
3
Force or Coerce
100%/0%
Leads to abuse and
resentment
5
Collaborat
e Best!
100%/100%
Hard Work
Takes time
and effort
50% 4
Middle Ground
Compromise
50%/50%
1
Avoid – Quit – Veto
Not cooperate – Inaction
Passive Aggressive
A form of abuse
0%/0%
2
Appease
0%/100%
0%
No/No
50% 100%
No/Yes
L
e
v
e
l
a
t
w
h
i
c
h
I
g
e
t
m
y
n
e
e
d
s
m
e
t

16.  Choice 1:
▪ Ignore the concern or avoid or
neglect– Neither party gets their need
met to have a neat lawn. A 0%/0%
outcome. No/No
 Choice 2:
▪ One person nags the other and the 2nd
person relents to appease or enable.
One wins and the other loses as their
will is violated at the expense of the
other person. A 0%/100% result.
No/Yes. An appeaser avoids an
argument or conflict.
 Choice 3:
▪ One coerces the other to do the task
by issuing a series of ever mounting
threats. A 100% the enforcer gets his
need met and the slave 0%. A
100%/0% or Yes I got my need met
and zero you got your need met.
 Choice 4:
▪ The two parties agree to
compromise and share equally
the task. The burden 50%/50%.
 Choice 5:
▪ Constructive collaboration let us
discuss where each of us have
100% of our need met. What are
the alternatives?
▪ Hire an outsider
▪ One pay the other
▪ One must approach knowing done
for the common good. Done with
candor and respect. Belittling,
quitting, resenting, not
cooperating, passive aggressive
behaviors, avoidance,
appeasement, are forbidden.

17. CONFLICT MATRIX
Self Centered Other Centered
Coerce DETERMINED
EFFORT - NOT
NEGOTIATION
100% Assertive
Desire
to
Satisfy
Own
Concern
I
HAVE
NO
INTEREST
TO
I
DEMAND
MY
NEEDS
BE
MET
Collaborate: Identify
concerns of both,
search for alternatives,
identify consequences,
Identify most satisfing
solution. Invention
Imagination Synergy. A
direct product of time
plus effort affects the
quality
0% I HAVE NO INTEREST TO I WANT YOUR NEEDS MET 100%
Unassertive Desire to Meet Other's Concern
Uncooperative
Quit
Cooperate
Engage
Maslow Hierarchy
Physical Needs Satiable
Security Needs Satiable
Love Needs Satiable
Self Esteem Satiable
Self Actualization Insatiable
The attiudes towards assertiveness and colloboration affects mission, purpose, and organization
Avoidance
Neglect
Denial
Lose/Lose
Accomodate
Appease
Win/Indifferent
Competitive
Dominate
Winner/Lose
Collaborate
Integrate
Win/Win
Share
Compromise
Half Win Half
Lose