I was watching the new series of the reality TV show‘Castaway’ on BBC1 last night and was intrigued by the behaviour of the participants.

The format of the show is that a group of volunteers are ‘stranded’ on an island and have to deal with the pressures of living in that environment. On the first day, seven people swam ashore, bonded and began to establish a group dynamic. Two days later, they were surprised as a second wave of ‘castaways’ arrived.

Needless to say, this knocked the previous social order on its head. What intrigued me was the way in which the first group responded to the new situation. Group integration and an ability to resolve conflicts are popularly held to be valuable leadership skills and one might expect leadership to emerge clearly in such a situation.

So how did the first group of castaways react to the new situation?

As one would expect, the surprise appearance of these new arrivals was an uncomfortable adjustment. Resources, tasks and status had already been allocated – and it was clear that these balances would all change.

It’s not surprising that the first band of castaways tried to hold on to their status as an established group. The natural consequence of that is to see the new arrivals as a totally separate group.

It seems interesting to me that the two most vocal and politically aware people were in constant conflict until the new castaways arrived. Then they calmed down and developed a common cause, seeing the newcomers as competition - a win/lose scenario.

Competitiveness seems to be at the heart of the democratic model. The consequence of looking at the world this way is that triumph must go hand-in-hand with failure. For every winner there must be a loser – a classic conflict scenario involving the constant rebalancing of power.

But is that the only way to look at conflict? Why can’t we all just get along? And is conflict a bad thing?

The Dynamics of Conflict

Theorist Ken Thomas produced a model of conflict based on two vital balancing factors: assertiveness and cooperativeness. The interaction of these two aspects results in five distinct conflict styles: Competition, collaboration, compromise, avoidance and accommodation.

Each style is appropriate for a different kind of situation, though we may use some of them more than others.

For example, competition can encourage innovation, engages both positive motivation sources and often results in projects being completed earlier than expected.

Accommodation can be a great strategy in the short term, where one person is prepared to give the other what they want with little regard for personal concerns. This is part of the structure of reciprocity – the exchange of favours – and the long term benefits are evident.

The first group of castaways fell back on the strategy of competition as a way of dealing with the arrival of the newcomers. Potentially, they could have also:

• avoided the newcomers
• put their concerns aside to make the new castaways comfortable
• met the new arrivals halfway in their needs
• found common cause quite readily

Examining those options, it’s apparent that finding common cause (collaboration) may be the most productive strategy in that situation. So why did many of them automatically react in a competitive way?

We each use a number of different strategies for dealing with each other and with the world. Many of those strategies were learned from our parents and peers or through trial and error. Our life experience will determine which of the five conflict styles we are familiar with and which have led to the best outcomes, so it’s natural that preferences would evolve.

Exercise: Finding your own preferences

Let’s have a good look at that proposition, as I don’t just want you to take my word for it. Ask yourself:

• Do you use each style?
• If so, when do you use each one?
• What is your predominant way of dealing with conflict?

Take your time to go through those questions and answer them honestly and I guarantee you’ll learn a lot about yourself. Bear in mind that this isn’t necessarily just about conflict. You could consider these as ways of achieving integration and gaining solutions instead.

Established Habits

Steven Covey lists “win/win” thinking as one of the 7 Habits of Highly Successful People, but is that always so? Is the strategy of collaboration always the best model for interaction?

Not necessarily. It’s a lousy way to play a football game for starters. Competitiveness is an inbuilt part of our society and with good reason. The goal of ‘being the best’ implies competition and the consequences of failure can also act as a powerful motivator. Competition inspires peak performance, the pushing of the boundaries of possibility and the quest for excellence.

Also, what if there is little common ground between the conflicting parties? That’s possible in cases where resources are limited. For example, if there are two people with kidney failure and only one kidney is available, the win/win scenario is unachievable in the short term. The strategies of:

• competition (who needs/deserves it more?)
• accommodation (self-sacrifice)

both qualify as choices in this case. Bear in mind that there’s nothing wrong with the win/win or even the win/lose scenario. It’s just a matter of being aware of the choices and making the best one.

Given the presence of extra choice within this scheme, Ken Thomas suggests that good leaders do not necessarily specialise in resolving conflict, but can use it as a positive force by managing conflict correctly. Given the strengths brought out through each style, it’s easy to see how one might build this model into a flexible system for management.

Summary

When people meet, they must establish some boundaries in order to interact meaningfully. Integration/conflict resolution models can be great ways of exploring unconsidered options and discovering one’s own blind spots. Use the 5 conflict styles to have better options than you had learned before and you’ll become more resourceful as an individual and as a leader.

©2007 Philip Callaghan