This style was previously discussed in some detail. The key to this approach is that it is grounded in the combination of being both aggressive (which is commonly viewed in the workplace as positive) and uncooperative (which is viewed as negative). This approach is often driven by a hunger for power where individual concerns and goals are pursued at the expense of others. As previously stated, this approach can be useful in specific situations in which unpopular actions must be taken in a fast-paced environment on tasks when one is certain that their position is correct. Although competing is effective under these types of conditions, it must be used judiciously and not used as a primary tool. When competing is overly used or applied in the wrong setting, the result can be certain negative consequences, such as stalemating the conflict, alienating the other parties, not hearing the views of the other party, and losing sight of the overall goals and objectives of the project.

Competing should be applied with caution. The following is a situation in which competing worked well for one project manager:

A project manager on a construction project was presented with a dilemma that needed immediate resolution. The housing project was located in a hurricane- and flood-prone area. The weather report issued a forecast for a “Category Four” hurricane, and it appeared that the hurricane was headed directly for this particular area on the West Coast of Florida. Another hurricane was farther out in the Atlantic, but this storm could hit this area as well.

The buyer ordered hurricane shutters, but they had yet to be installed. The shutters would be economical but would require significant time to install. The buyer was unavailable for consultation. The project manager made a decision to install expensive, roll-up shutters for ease of use, since materials for this model were available.

Several team members indicated that these shutters were not part of the specification on the signed contract and would result in a significant increase in costs, approximately 10 times as much as the initial price. They urged the project manager to stick to the original specification. A heated exchange occurred between the project manager and three of the team members. Nevertheless, the project manager, concerned about the impending storms, decided on the more expensive approach, since he believed that he needed to implement an immediate solution, and materials were available for the more costly approach. He used the style of competing as a way to resolve the conflict; quick, decisive action was required because of the impending weather disaster.

Before using this approach to conflict resolution, it is wise to:

The individual using this approach, as noted earlier, may be lacking in the qualities of assertiveness and cooperation. The positive applications of this method would be in situations when the issue at hand is trivial, when there is little chance of winning, when more information or data are needed before the issue can be resolved, or when emotionally heated interactions or some form of “cooling off” period is warranted.

Avoiding can be harmful when it results in unnecessary delays for the project, when it results in hindered communication because of severed lines of communication, and when the “avoiding” person runs the risk of being perceived by others as dysfunctional.

Below is a vignette that illustrates how avoidance served the goals of one project manager:

A project manager had recently received her new assignment: a project to develop an e-commerce application for her company. She was pleased to have been selected for this highly visible initiative. She was also pleased about the opportunity to have access to many talented people from a variety of units in the company, as well as the use of leading-edge technology.

As her project team was formed, she began to be concerned when two team members from a key functional unit expressed concern during the kickoff meeting that excessive overtime may be required. They had young families and valued time outside the office.

When considering the application of this approach to conflict:

• Determine whether the issue is crucial or trivial to the project.
• Assess the risk of possible project delay.
• Consider the effect on personal reputations and the perception of others.

The accommodating team member or project manager is “high” on the value of cooperation but is “low” on the quality of assertiveness. Frequently, the focus for the accommodating person is on meeting the needs of the other person, occasionally at the expense of his or her own appropriate agenda.

The accommodating approach to conflict management can be helpful in demonstrating the quality of open-mindedness, particularly during the early, formative stages of the project. The preservation of harmony is another reason for using accommodation, as well as the need to avoid pointless competition over insignificant points.

When the project manager employs accommodation, he or she needs to do so judiciously. When used to an extreme, accommodation can severely undercut one’s standing in the eyes of other team members and important parties-of-interest. The individual using accommodation may be viewed as weak and ineffectual, and such a person runs the risk of creating anger from fellow team members who believe that their positions were not pursued forcefully.

The following vignette is an example of how accommodation can be applied in a focused manner:

Two team members, located in Kuala Lumpur, expressed their concerns about a geographically dispersed, virtual team. They felt that their agenda items were not being properly discussed and given the attention they deserved during conference calls. Typically, the project manager prepared the agenda and distributed it for comment. These two team members did not see their items reflected in three of the agendas used to date. They worried that their ideas were not being heard.

However, because these two team members began to complain privately, through e-mail messages to other team members, the project manager recognized that possible conflicts on larger issues might occur later in the project. He decided to admit openly during the next team meeting that he had been wrong in omitting these agenda items. He realized the issue was really important to the team members in Kuala Lumpur, and he wanted their support in the future, though the issue was not high on his list. He was concerned about smoothing and preserving a relationship with these two team members and felt he needed to show support for their views.

When considering the conflict resolution approach of accommodation, it is wise to consider the following questions:

• Is accommodation too much a part of my character, something that I use too often?
• Will my team react negatively to the use of accommodation?
• What are the long-term implications for my perception in the organization if I use accommodation?
• Can I preserve the integrity of my position and the standing of the project if I use accommodation?

The collaborator is the team member who emphasizes both assertiveness and cooperation and is willing to consider the merits of the other person’s position. This approach is based on an attempt to combine the best of both positions into an integrated resolution in which synthesis and the ability to move forward are crucial. Positive applications of collaboration would include situations in which both positions are, to some degree, important and viable. Collaboration works particularly well in those instances when insights from different perspectives exist, such as on projects that are culturally diverse.

Other pitfalls to collaboration involve those settings in which the desire to integrate different points of view equally causes a team member to lose focus on his or her own key points and agendas.

The following example represents a project situation in which collaboration was appropriately used to resolve a conflict:

A veteran project manager was a member of a volunteer association of project management professionals. He had been asked to lead a project of fellow volunteers to develop an approach to managing enterprises by projects. This effort, he believed, had a number of different goals, and paramount in his mind was the need to develop an organizational standard for enterprise project management. He formed a core team of eight people, representing different geographical areas and different areas of expertise.

During discussions with the core team, however, he learned that a couple of the team members did not share his view that project management maturity at the organizational level also needed to be part of this effort. These team members believed that attention to organizational quality issues was crucial. The project manager did not want this debate to result in interpersonal hostilities later during the project and wanted to combine insights from team members with different perspectives. He wanted to work toward a mutual, beneficial solution that would meet the overall project goals for the volunteer association and also meet his individual goals and those of the team members.

He decided to schedule a face-to-face meeting with the purpose of focusing on the team goals for the project. He set up the meeting as a way to draft a “scope” statement for the project that would then be presented to the entire membership of the organization, rather than preparing such a statement on his own. Through his efforts at collaborating, he demonstrated that he was open-minded and willing to consider the desires of others. His approach was one of forging an integrative solution by which all parties’ concerns were considered equally important. He managed to achieve an outcome that everyone believed was a “win-win” solution.

Consider the following questions when using the collaborative approach:

The compromising approach involves a stance of moderately high assertion combined with adequate cooperation. Compromise sounds similar to collaboration but differs in that it is more short-term oriented, used productively in situations when temporary agreements need to be achieved quickly. As with using collaboration and accommodation, the use of compromise runs the risk of the person being perceived as too willing to give in to the other side, too willing to give up on one’s original position.

Compromise was effectively applied in the following situation:

A project manager on a software usability project saw that her two key development people on the project had a technical conflict. One technical lead wanted to use a different system interface on a small and noncritical part of the project. Both people were strongly committed to mutually exclusive positions. This conflict began to spread to other areas of the project, even ones that seemed rather trivial to the project manager and other members of the team.

The project manager decided to bring these two team members together and began to work with them on a compromise position. However, before the first compromise meeting, she consulted with other technical “gurus” in the company to obtain their ideas on alternative methods that could be used. She had a different approach in mind as she began the meeting, an approach that was not as “high-tech” as one of her team members wanted but had greater sophistication than the other team member believed was necessary.

She suggested this solution during the meeting, one to which, she believed, they could all agree quickly. She pointed out that the issue, though important, was not critical in terms of the overall goals and objectives of the project, and they needed to reach an agreement and move on to other aspects of the project.

Use compromise when the following conditions are present:

• A short-term action needs to be taken quickly, and the compromise may not be of great significance.
• The need exists to demonstrate a posture of flexibility and openness, possibly to create a positive impression with the “other side.”

Extracted from “People Skills for Project Managers”