There are two different characteristics of the conflict resolution technique. The first one is “how much a person gets of what he wants” and “how much the other person gets of what he wants as well.” From there, the evaluation of the process of settlement needs an elaboration. Let me walk you through the essentials of these conflict resolution methods.
Avoidance – In this resolution, neither two of the parties get what they want. Both sides tend to suffer from the decision of not getting anything from the dispute. In all honesty, avoiding is usually the perfect way to handle some minor to mid-level arguments. That’s because if the issue seems too small or not of a big a deal, both sides won’t genuinely care about it that much. Avoiding the conflict won’t make them have to waste time, effort, and money trying to arrange a settlement on things that don’t even deserve that much attention. However, both sides need to be careful though. Because if the matter is serious, avoiding it can potentially make it worse.
Accommodation – Accommodating is the process of “giving in.” Now, this is a useful technique when you see and realize that the dispute is more important to the other person. Instead of pushing it into yourself, you might as well give in and let it go. However, the trouble can start when people accommodate using the wrong technique. It is when the person feels obligated to give in without having an option. From there, he can move to the victim corner where there’s a chance of getting another issue. A relationship is about “give and take,” so people should at least consider taking turns of giving and receiving. If ever, if either one of them can accommodate and let go whole-heartedly, the better the resolution. If not, then they have to choose another conflict resolution option.
Dominance – This technique is not advisable. However, it seems to take most disputes into considerations. It is somehow the opposite of accommodating because it resolves the conflict by power, force, rank, and intimidation. It focuses on pressuring a person to give in. Though it sets on a negative side of approach, it is by far the best method in some crucial situations. However, when dominance takes place in a nonemergency situation, it becomes bullying. If used in a dispute settlement, the one who uses it might win the battle. However, he might expect a high price in return because dominating is most likely to create more conflict along the way.
Compromise – This conflict resolution technique is the best among the other methods. It’s where both parties get what they want from the dispute. Though it may not be all of it, it’s preferably some things that both sides can agree upon having. But people shouldn’t consider it as a win-win situation, because it’s somehow sort of not. Preferably, both parties still leave something on the table that’s not allowed to be taken away. Therefore, the situation is a tie. Compromising is the process of getting something as close as you can while splitting the difference. Though it may sound saddening, the procedure only takes a minute or two. Therefore, you don’t have to feel too attached. But take note, though composing can settle a dispute, it does not ensure a long-term alignment. Especially for those people who are deeply committed to their values and position, compromising is never a good option.
Disputes differ in many cases. Sometimes it can become an emotionally intense issue and sometimes it’s not a big of a deal. Therefore, learning to know more about conflict resolutions and applying the technique still varies. These handfuls of different techniques ensure benefits as well as drawbacks.