"Crisis Management" and "Conflict Management" Are Synonymous

There’s not a single aspect of crisis management (CM) that isn’t subject to serious debate:

• Is there a crisis for real? Is it something for which we’re prepared, or is it a series of multiple crises for which we’re totally unprepared? Why, why not?
• Were there clear signals that something was amiss and about to happen? Did we fail to pick up on the signals? Did someone actually observe them but ignored and thus deliberately failed to act on them? In other words, is someone at fault?
• Are we responsible in any way for what happened? Do we deserve blame?
• Are we prepared to do better next time? Will we learn the lessons that all crises have to teach? Why, why not?

All of the above questions are subject to serious debate. Indeed, the ability to examine issues dialectally is one of the cornerstones of CM. But this means that managing conflict is key.

In this regard, my good friend and life-long colleague Ralph H. Kilmann has developed the most comprehensive approaches to managing conflict. It shows in no uncertain terms the psychological processes that must be mastered if one is to have a productive dialectical debate.

Two dimensions are key to Kilmann’s framework. They are best understood in terms of a pie. The first deals with how much of a pie a person wants to have solely for him or herself. The second deals with how much of the pie one is willing to give to another. The first dimension is thus best described as “get,” and the second as “give.”

Whatever the issue, if one always strives to “get the whole pie,” then one’s conflict-handling style is competing. If on the other hand, “one habitually gives a pie to another,” then one is accommodating. If both parties avoid a conflict situation altogether, and hence neither one of them gets any of the pie, then they are avoiders. If both parties are satisfied with half of a pie, then they are compromisers. Finally, if both parties are willing to work together as collaborators, then (in principle) they can expand the pie such that both get a full one.

Notice how each of these plays a key role in CM. If one party is clearly an expert in a critical area, then accommodating to her or him is appropriate. By the same token, the party who is an expert in a particular area is justified in asserting their position, and thus being competitive. If in comparison to other issues, the particular issue is not important, then avoiding is called for. Compromise is appropriate if that’s the best one can get, and further, if it preserves the togetherness of a group.

Collaboration is the most interesting and important of all. As strange as it is, while competing all out for their respective positions, both parties need to collaborate if there is to be a true dialectical debate. They have to agree that neither of their original positions will necessarily be the final position that emerges from the debate. In other words, while arguing strongly for what they believe, they have to agree that the original positions are there to serve a greater purpose.

Ideally, one should have the ability to enact all five conflict styles: competing, accommodating, avoiding, compromising, and collaborating. Depending on the particular situation, one would then be able to respond as needed.

Once again, it shows why CM is complex. It demands that one be adept psychologically with the diverse ways of handling conflicts big and small.