Question 3: List and describe five approaches that a project manager could use to address
conflict within a project team
conflict within a project team
5 approaches to addressing conflict:
• Competing
• Collaborating
• Accommodating
• Avoiding
• Compromise
A key role of the project manager is to identify and address difference and conflicts. If there are not addressed the projects objectives. However managed correctly conflict can have a positive effect for example as an agent of change.
The Thomas –Kilmann model demonstrates how individuals in different situations demonstrate different levels of cooperativeness and assertiveness.
(Would add diagram here)
Competing
This person will highly assertive and un-cooperative and will try to get their own way, It means standing up for your rights, defending a position which you believe is correct, or simply trying to beat the other side. The PM needs to adopt a manner that will aim to increase their co-operation. Sometimes well managed conflict will help drive the project forward
Collaborating
This person will be both assertive and cooperative. It means the person believes that when two parties are at loggerheads, it is possible for both sides to come out with what they want.They will attempt to work with the project manager to find a solution to the problem, but it can be hard to reach compromise situation.
Accommodating
This person does not want to ‘rock the boat’ and does not want to get into conflict – they are unassertive and cooperative. Their lack of challenge can mean that the wrong ideas will get implemented.
Compromise
The Compromising option is at the centre of the model because it is both assertive and co-operative but only to some extent. It’s the approach of “half a sixpence is better than none”. Both sides get something but not everything. It might mean splitting the difference between the two positions, some give and take, or seeking a quick solution in the middle ground.
Compromise
The Compromising option is at the centre of the model because it is both assertive and co-operative but only to some extent. It’s the approach of “half a sixpence is better than none”. Both sides get something but not everything. It might mean splitting the difference between the two positions, some give and take, or seeking a quick solution in the middle ground.
Avoiding
The person will be unassertive and uncooperative. They will diplomatically sidestep an issue, or postponing an issue until a better time, or simply withdrawing from a threatening situation. This means that the issue will simply re-emerge later.
