This presentation discusses approaches for managing interpersonal conflict. It defines conflict and interpersonal conflict as disagreements that interfere with goals. The Thomas Conflict Resolution Approach identifies five styles for resolving conflicts based on assertiveness and cooperation: avoiding, accommodating, compromising, competing, and collaborating. Behavioral styles like director, analyzer, relator, and socializer can also influence conflict handling. When dealing with difficult subordinates or bosses, managers should understand individuals, communicate positively, assess needs, and use techniques like reassigning tasks or modifying behaviors.

2. PRESENTATION ON
MANAGING INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT
Presented By:
Md. Shamiul Alim Shah
Email: shakil0701063@gmail.com

3. DEFINITION OF CONFLICT AND
INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT
Conflict: Conflicts means disagreement,
interference and negative emotion. According
to Oxford English Dictionary, conflict refers to
a series of disagreement or argument;
incompatibility between opinions, principles,
etc.
Interpersonal Conflict: Interpersonal
conflict occurs when a person or group of
people frustrates or interferes with another
person's efforts at achieving a goal. It can be
between co-workers, team members or
roommates.

4. MANAGING
INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT
Managing conflicts focuses on
maintaining conflict at the right level to
help the department, work unit or
organization reach its goals. It neither
means complete elimination of conflict
nor does it refer only to conflict
reduction.
The basic process of conflict
management is the selection of desired
level of conflict that varies according to
the perceived conflicts requirements by
the managers of the unit.

5. APPROACHES TO
CONFLICT RESOLUTION
There are different approaches to
conflict reduction. The key to effective
conflict prevention is to choose a
conflict management style appropriate
for the conflict. The most common
approaches used for conflict resolution
are as –
1.The Thomas Conflict Resolution
Approach
2.Behavioral Style and Conflict Handling
3.The Cosier Schank Model of Conflict
Resolution
4.Collaboration and Conflict Resolution

6. THE THOMAS CONFLICT
RESOLUTION APPROACH
The Thomas-Kilmann model of conflict
resolution is a widely used approach to
understand different ways people deals
with conflict.
It identifies five resolution styles along
two dimensions for resolving conflicts.
The Two dimensions are –
i)Assertiveness:
- Individual seeks to satisfy own
concerns
ii) Cooperativeness
- Individual seeks to satisfy other’s
concerns

7. THE THOMAS CONFLICT
RESOLUTION APPROACH
These two dimensions are
used to define five
conflict-handling modes –
1.Avoiding
2.Accommodating
3.Compromising
4.Competing
5.Collaborating

8. THE THOMAS CONFLICT
RESOLUTION APPROACH
1. Avoiding:
 It is unassertive and uncooperative.
 This is when you simply avoid the issue.
You aren’t helping the other party reach
their goals, and you aren’t assertively
pursuing your own.
 Avoiding might take the form of
diplomatically sidestepping an issue,
postponing an issue until a better time, or
simply withdrawing from a threatening
situation.

9. THE THOMAS CONFLICT
RESOLUTION APPROACH
2. Accommodation
 It is unassertive and cooperative—the
opposite of competing.
 This is when you cooperate to a high-
degree, and it may be at your own
expense, and actually work against your
own goals, objectives, and desired
outcomes.
 Accommodating might take the form of
selfless generosity or charity, obeying
another person’s order when you would
prefer not to, or yielding to another’s
point of view.

10. THE THOMAS CONFLICT
RESOLUTION APPROACH
3. Compromise
 It is intermediate in both assertiveness
and cooperativeness
 This is the “lose-lose” scenario where
neither party really achieves what they
want. This requires a moderate level of
assertiveness and cooperation.
 Compromising might mean splitting the
difference, exchanging concessions, or
seeking a quick middle-ground position.

11. THE THOMAS CONFLICT
RESOLUTION APPROACH
4. Competition
 It is assertive and uncooperative, a
power-oriented mode.
 This is the “win-lose” approach. You act in a
very assertive way to achieve your goals,
without seeking to cooperate with the other
party, and it may be at the expense of the
other party.
 Competing might mean standing up for
your rights, defending a position you
believe is correct, or simply trying to win.

12. THE THOMAS CONFLICT
RESOLUTION APPROACH
5. Collaboration
 It is both assertive and cooperative.
 This is where you partner or pair up with
the other party to achieve both of your goals.
This is how you break free of the “win-lose”
paradigm and seek the “win-win.”
 Collaborating between two persons might
take the form of exploring a disagreement to
learn from each other’s insights, resolving
some condition that would otherwise have
them competing for resources, or confronting
and trying to find a creative solution to an
interpersonal problem.

13. SUMMARY OF THE THOMAS CONFLICT
RESOLUTION APPROACH

14. Which one is Best??
There is no BEST way to handle conflict. Each conflict is different and
requires a different response.
As a society, we teach:
“Leave well enough alone.” (Avoiding)
“Kill your enemies with kindness.” (Accommodating)
“Split the difference.” (Compromising)
“Might makes right.” (Competing)
“Two heads are better than one.” (Collaborating)

15. BEHAVIOURAL STYLE AND
CONFLICT HANDLING
Sometimes, conflict arises in organization due to the
individual’s specific behavioral style in approaching
the problem.
To explain different styles, researchers have taken
two dimensions of interactive behavior. They are –
i)The Assertiveness Scale:
It is the degree to which behaviors are seen by others
as forceful or directive.
ii)The Responsiveness Scale:
It is the degree to which behaviors are seen by others
as emotionally expensive or controlled.

16. BEHAVIOURAL STYLE AND
CONFLICT HANDLING
The interactive dimensions
of assertiveness and
responsiveness form the
two axis of the behavioral
style model.
Each quadrant of this
model identifies one type
of behavioral style. They
are –
1.Analyzer
2.Director
3.Relator
4.Socializer
Director Socializer
RelatorAnalyzer
Assertiveness
Responsiveness
MoreLess
MoreLess

17. BEHAVIOURAL STYLE AND
CONFLICT HANDLING
1. Analyzer/Thinker
 This type is less responsive and less
assertive.
Prefers indirect approach, caution,
analysis, organization, precision, problem-
solving, and solitude.
Avoids openness, group activities, and
spontaneity.
Does not easily display or acknowledge
emotions.

18. BEHAVIOURAL STYLE AND
CONFLICT HANDLING
2. Director
 This type is less responsive and more
assertive.
Prefers direct approach, control,
freedom, action, and results.
Rejects openness, wastage of time,
excessive display of emotions, and
unsolicited advice.
Often decides and works alone.

19. BEHAVIOURAL STYLE AND
CONFLICT HANDLING
3. Relator
 This type is more responsive and less
assertive.
Prefers indirect approach, openness,
close relations, listening, and security.
Avoids decision-making, conflicts, big
picture, and self-reliance.
May need counseling in weak areas.

20. BEHAVIOURAL STYLE AND
CONFLICT HANDLING
4. Socializer
 This type is more responsive and more
assertive.
Prefers direct approach, openness,
group activities, camaraderie, and
spontaneity.
Avoids solitude, urgency, and
concentration.
Is an excellent team player, but may not
deliver results. Direct and Open

21. DEALING WITH
DIFFICULT SUBORDINATES
Effects of Difficult Subordinates
The cost of difficult people can be calculated in terms of
the followings –
 Its negative effects on manager’s physical and mental
health.
 Its ripple effect on customers, HR personnel's, and
even other departments.
 Reduced enjoyment of their own work.
 Wastage of a lot of their time
 Reduced productivity and job satisfaction
As a result of these, it leads to poor performance and
reduced productivity.

22. DEALING WITH
DIFFICULT SUBORDINATES
Characteristics of Difficult Subordinates
The major characteristics of the difficult
subordinates are –
1. Hostile-aggressive
2. Complainers
3. Calms
4. Super agreeables
5. Negatives
6. Know-it-alls
7. Indecisive stallers

23. APPROACHES TO HANDLING
DIFFICULT SUBORDINATES
Managers can deal with difficult employees in different ways. Few of
the suggestions regarding handling the problems are –
1.Do not assume or focus on ‘Person’ rather than on ‘Facts’.
2.Understanding employees through positive communication
3.Assessing the need and significance or working relation
4.Provide information tactically
5.Working on task together
6.Assess and explain the cost of behavior
7.Reassign or redesign the job
8.Leave the individual alone
9.Distance the individual from yourself
10.Break the vicious cycle
11.Behavioral modification techniques

24. DEALING WITH
DIFFICULT BOSS AND COLLEAGUES
Subordinates find it difficult to work with a boss
who exercise too much control over them. It
can take various forms like ignoring, sarcasm,
blaming, dismissing or patronizing.
The reasons why conflict with boss arises are –
 due to unnecessary interference and threat
by the boss
 due to misuse the legitimate power by the
boss
 feeling of insecurity or dive to control
 when the boss perceives his status as
greater than what it is reality.

25. DEALING WITH
DIFFICULT BOSS AND COLLEAGUES
Few steps that can helps to deal with the
difficult bosses are –
a)Preparing
b)Challenging
c)Standing up for oneself

26. DEALING WITH
DIFFICULT BOSS AND COLLEAGUES
Preparing
While dealing with difficult bosses, one need to
remain calm, prepare psychologically oneself
while thinking realistically and positively.

27. DEALING WITH
DIFFICULT BOSS AND COLLEAGUES
Challenging
Challenging means demanding a response
from the other person. It can be done
by seeking information as to what he
meant by it. This quarry gives enough
time to think on how to proceed and
thus the others have to be cautions
about his behaviour .

28. DEALING WITH
DIFFICULT BOSS AND COLLEAGUES
Standing up for oneself
One’s should stick to one’s point of view. If
a criticism is made in the form of a
personal attack, try to separate the
personal nature of the remark from the
actions criticized. If the criticism has
some valid point , it is wise to accept
those points.