Different Blake and Mouton (1964) in the

Different ways of dealing with conflict have been developed
over time by theorists. To deal with conflicts, the means used in dealing with
conflicts greatly affect the situation and conditions that occur. Follet (1940)
in the journal Rahim, Garret, and Buntzman (1992) says that there are three
ways to manage conflict: domination, compromise and integration. In addition,
other ways found are avoidance (avoid) and suppression (emphasis). Furthermore,
conflict management developed and explained by Blake and Mouton (1964) in the
journal Rahim (1983) by classifying the style of handling interpersonal
conflict in five ways:

1.     Forcing

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

2.     Withdrawing

3.     Smoothing

4.     Compromising

5.     Problem
solving

Mintzberg
(1973) in the journal Sayeed (1990) also discusses the context of interpersonal
conflict by saying that managing conflict with subordinates is one of the
functions of the managerial part. Rahim and Honoma (1979) in the journal Rahim,
Garrett and Buntzman (1992) differentiate ways of managing conflict into two
basic dimensions:

a.     A
selfish dimension, one tries to satisfy its interests by not caring about
others

b.     Dimensions
that are concerned with others, a person tries to place the interests of others
above his personal interests

With
the development of these two dimensions, Rahim (1983) describes specifically 5
ways of dealing with conflict:

§  Integrating: In
this first way, both conflicting parties sit together and cooperatively
identify problems, conduct discussions, form possible alternatives, and choose
the most appropriate solution. This method is best suited if the main problem
is misunderstanding between the two parties. However, this method is less
suitable to complete problems with the system. The drawback is that it takes a
lot of time.

§  Obliging: The second way that
can be done is one of the parties succumb to the other party. This way is often
also called smoothing, the parties concerned more priority to the equity than
the existing differences. This method is suitable if one of the parties who
succumbs will get a reward. The advantage in this way is to stimulate the
cooperative attitude of the conflicting parties. The drawback is that sometimes
it does not solve the root cause. According to Rahim, Garret and Buntzman
(1992), this ethical way is used when subordinates are in a healthy
organization and the subordinate has a more important view of something to be
done. While unethical use this style, if subordinates choose to agree on the
boss because of differences in hierarchy levels, although superiors have
different opinions about the goals set by the organization.

§  Dominating: This
is done when one party is self-serving and makes the other party lose the
conflict. This way is very suitable to do if you want to implement solutions
that are not popular in the eyes of employees. In addition, according to Rahim,
Garrett and Buntzman (1992), this ethical conflict management style is used
when decisions are made to support organizational and unethical interests are
used if this style harms and tends to exploit others.

§  Avoiding: The fourth way is that
both parties avoid discussing the ongoing conflict. This method is not good
because in the future, the conflict will reappear. But it is a good way to
delay discussing conflicts while working on other more important projects.
According to Rahim, Garrett and Buntzman (1992), this ethical way is used when
another person has a higher moral obligation and is not ethically used if the
avoiding motivation is only to attack a particular person morally.

§  Compromising: This
way is a conflict resolution both parties have to give and receive their
respective deficiencies and advantages. In addition, according to Rahim,
Garrett and Buntzman (1992), this conflict management style is ethical when
used when weak in support and unethical use when imposing a will when in the
wrong position.

The
manager in more detail can find the most suitable way to resolve conflicts that
occur within the company by using the method described in the journal Rahim
(1983). The fundamental difference between conflict resolution and conflict
management is that conflict resolution is more likely to reduce and eliminate
conflict, while conflict management seeks to manage and use the conflict in a
better direction (Rahim, Garrett, Buntzman, 1992). Some researchers have agreed
that there are positive consequences if there are conflicts within the
organization (Cosier and Daton, 1990; Janis, 1970; Wilson and Jerrell, 1981) in
the journals of Rahim, Garret and Buntzman (1992).

Rahim
and Bonoma (1979) in the journal Rahim, Garrett and Buntzman (1992) also agree
by giving clear exposure to the opinion that organizations that do not have
conflicts will continue to be stagnant, on the other hand organizations that
can not manage conflict well become dysfunctional. The existence of sufficient
and well-managed conflict that has a close relationship with the effectiveness
of the running of a company. Since the existence of a conflict is necessary for
the advancement of the enterprise, it is best if the organization has no
conflict or has too little conflict to make the conflict. As Brown (1973)
writes in the journal Rahim, Garrett and Buntzman (1992) conflict management
requires intervention in reducing conflict if there are too many conflicts, or
interventions to introduce conflict if there is no conflict at all. Pruitt
(1981) in the journal Poole, Holmes and Desanctis (1991) asserts that in order
to carry out productive conflict management, a manager must be able to combine
integrative and distributive factors in the interaction of conflict resolution.

A
well-exploited conflict can have a positive impact on working relationships
between individuals. Blake and Mouton (1964) in the journal Samantara (2004)
argue that individuals and organizations that place confrontation and problem
solving in solving conflicts will gain better interpersonal relationships. A
study by Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) in the Samantara (2004) journal of six
major American organizations proves that confrontation is done by two companies
with higher performance. Another research conducted by Samantara (2003) at an
aluminum manufacturing company, with 72 respondents from various lines, found
that integrating (prolem solving), bonding (smoothing) and compromising are the
most commonly used management styles to handle conflicts while forcing
(dominating ) and withdrawing (avoiding) is very rarely used. Samantara also
explained in more detail that the use of force integrating (prolem solving),
obliging (smoothing) and compromising are increasingly being used if the
hierarchy level of managers is higher.

If
conflicts occur between superiors and subordinates, Rahim (1983) states that
subordinates tend to approve what their superiors say rather than convey what
they actually know. Therefore, subordinates seem to prefer using the style of
obliging with a defeat attitude and agree with everything that is said by his
superiors. However, if it has a conflict with colleagues, the bonding style is
the most rarely selected. Philliphs and Chestor in the journal Rahim (1983)
argue that dealing with conflicts with forcing (dominating) styles is more
commonly done to resolve conflicts with subordinates.

Lawrence
and Lorsch (1967) in the journal Samantara (2004) say that the effectiveness of
conflict resolution using conflict resolution methods depends on the level of
performance of the company; high performance, medium or low. As for the
relationship between departments of Thomas (1971) in the journal Samantara
(2004) states that manager satisfaction in managing negotiations with other
departments is when counterparts use confrontation and obliging (smoothing)
instead of by dominating (forcing) and avoiding (withdrawing). According to
Kozan (2002) in the face of conflicts that occur within the organization,
avoiding style is preferred by management in general. According to Ting-Toomey
et al. (1991) in the journal Kozan (2002) in the face of conflict, collectivity
culture is widely used to avoid confrontation among employees within the
organization. According to Ting-Toomey et al. (1991) in Kozan’s journal (2002)
when an open confrontation takes place, then the conflict will result in the
loss of one party and the harmony of social kinship.