The Road-map for

understanding the
 The Conflict
• The condition in which the
concerns of interacting people
appear to be incompatible.

Ø Fighting is merely one way of dealing

with conflicts.
Conflicts in organizations
• Disagreement over Task-related
matters, with people bringing in
different perspectives,
information and expertise to
bear on an issue.

Ø Where some key input is often

suppressed or ignored.
 Conflict under microscope
• In organizations; people’s
concerns might center around:

Ø Allocating resources.

Ø Determining the factors to bear on an

issue.

Ø Supporting different strategies.

 Conflict under microscope
• American managers spend 18%
to 26% of their time dealing with
conflicts “ depending on their
managerial level”

Ø Huge investment in time.

Time =
Money
Ø Poorly managed task-related conflicts
can be a major cause of absenteeism
 Conflict under microscope
• Poorly managed Task- related
conflicts:
Ø Can easily turn into personal-
generating resentment, antagonism
and hostility.
Ø This type of emotional conflicts
interfere with work relationships
causing loss in time and effort.
A lot of time + A lot
of effort
 Hence; comes the
importance of handling
• Conflict management should be
a strategic priority.

Ø Especially for big (growing)

organizations.

Ø And even for daily basis human

interaction; which is likely to be
charged with different concerns ,
perspectives and behavioral
 Objective / Constructive
conflict handling
While the objective of handling
conflicts simply is to settle them
quickly & effectively to maintain
pursuing maximum productivity.

Remains, Constructive handling of

Conflicts bear the meaning of
appreciating all perspectives,
considering every point of view
and putting them to their merits.
 Road map to improve the
conflict management
1. Identifying & Measuring
Conflict styles (modes) &
Interpersonal behavioral
orientations.
2. Building Conflict management
Skills:
Ø Choosing the right conflict mode.
Ø Implementing the mode effectively.
Ø Reducing the cost of the used mode.
 Importance of
Identifying conflict
“Know thyself”
“Treat Others the way you like
them to treat you”

Or is it?

“Treat others the way

they want you to
 Measuring & Identifying
Conflict Styles
1. Conflict handling modes:

• When people find themselves in

conflict their behavior can be
described in terms of where it
lies along two independent
dimensions:
Ø Assertiveness: the degree of which
you try to satisfy your own concerns.
Ø Cooperativeness: the degree to
Asserti
ve

Competing Collaborating
Assertive

Compromisin
ness

Accommodati
Avoiding ng
Assertive
Un-

Un- Cooperative Cooperati

Cooperative ve
Asserti
ve

Competing Collaborating
Assertive

Compromisin
ness

g
Assertive / Uncooperative
Trying to satisfyAccommodati
your own
Avoiding
concerns at ng
Assertive

The Other person’s

Un-

Un- Cooperative Cooperati

Cooperative ve
 Unassertive / Uncooperative
Asserti
ve
Trying to sidestep
Competing
or postpone
Collaborating
the conflict
“Satisfying neither one’s
Assertive

Compromisin
ness

Accommodati
Avoiding ng
Assertive
Un-

Un- Cooperative Cooperati

Cooperative ve
Asserti
ve Unassertive / Cooperative
Sacrificing
Competing your own
Collaborating
concerns to satisfy
The other person’s
Assertive

Compromisin
ness

(the oppositeg of Competing)

Accommodati
Avoiding ng
Assertive
Un-

Un- Cooperative Cooperati

Cooperative ve
Asserti
ve

Competing Collaborating
Assertive

Compromisin
ness

g
Assertive / Cooperative
Trying genuinelyAccommodati
to problem-
solve and tong
Avoiding
Assertive

Find a solution that

Un-

completely-satisfy
Un- Cooperative Cooperati
Cooperative ve
Asserti
ve

Competing Collaborating
Assertive

Compromisin
ness

g
Partially Assertive /
Partially Cooperative
Accommodati
LookingAvoidingfor an acceptable
ng
Assertive

settlement
Un-

That only satisfy both the

concerns
Un-
Cooperative
partially
Cooperative Cooperati
ve
 In your opinion
which mode is better
used & why?
Accommodati
Compromisin
Collaborating
Competing
Avoiding Accommodati
Compromisin
Collaborating
Competing
Avoiding
ng
g ng
g

V
s.
Most
Solving of
Problem is
politicians
the main
 Conflict handling modes
• What is distinctive about
collaboration is that people are
listening to each other’s views &
trying to incorporate them into
sound decisions.
• Collaborating is always possible
& people doesn’t need to
compete to always get their
needs met.
• They can be cooperative without
 Thomas–Kilmann Conflict
mode instrument (TKI)
• A psychological instrument
provided by CPP Organization.

• Aims to determine the

individual’s conflict mode.

• Consists of 30 pairs of
statements among each pair you
chose either A or B.
 Thomas–Kilmann Conflict
mode instrument (TKI)
• The results describes the 5
different modes & scale the
assessed by a score from 1 to 12
in each of the different modes.

• Then it compares you with a

norm group of 400 middle and
senior managers in different
business & government
 Measuring & Identifying
Conflict Styles
2. Interpersonal Relationships
Orientation behaviors:

• They are the behaviors that are

most likely to be exhibited through
out the interaction between
humans.

• Here we will discuss another very

useful psychological instrument
that describes these orientations
elaborately.
 FIRO-B
Fundamental Interpersonal
Relations Orientation
Behavior
 Theory
• Created by William Schutz, 1958
(psychologist)

• Commissioned by the US Navy.

• Designed to measure team

compatibility , especially under
 Why FIRO-B
• Increase your self understanding
to your own social needs &
orientations.

• FIRO-B Identifies:
Ø How you tend to behave towards
others.
Ø How you want them to behave around
you.
Ø How others perceive you & how you
 3 Dimensions

Inclusi Contr Affecti

on ol on
 Inclusion
About recognition, belonging,
participation, contact with others
& how you relate to groups.
 Control
Concerned with influence,
leadership, responsibility &
decision making.
 Affection
About closeness, warmth,
sensitivity, openness & how you
relate to others.
 Expres Want
• How sed
much do you • ed do you
How much
prefer to initiate prefer others to
this behavior? take this initiative?
• How do you • How much are you
2
actually behave in at the receiving
end of the 3
accordance to the
Area
three dimensions?
behaviors?
• How comfortable
• How comfortable you are having
you are engaging others directing
activities those behaviors to
associated to the 3 your, in accordance
 3 Dimensions in terms
Inclusi
on
2
of Contr
ol
Areas
Affecti
on
Expres
sed

Wanted
 For each area of
interpersonal need the
• Deficient : individual is not directly
trying to satisfy the need.
• Excessive : individual is trying
constantly to satisfy the need.
• Ideal : satisfying the need in a
moderate way.
 Survey

• Schutz had both the Expressed &

Wanted behaviors graded by a
scale from 0 to 9

• This scale describes the degree to

which an individual express or
want this behavior.
 9
8 H
7
6
5
4 M
3
2
1
L
0
 Sample Firo-B
measures result
 Shutz identified the
following types:
1- Inclusion types:

• The Undersocial (low e’I, low w’I).

• The Oversocial (high e’I, high w’I) .

• The Social (moderate e’I, moderate

w’I).
 Shutz identified the
following types:
2- Control types:

• The Abdicrat (low e’C, high w’C)

• The Autocrat (high e’C, low w’C)

• The Democrat (moderate e’C,

moderate w’C)
 Shutz identified the
following types:
3- Affection types:

• The Underpersonal (low e’A, low

w’A)

• The Overpersonal (high e’A, high

w’A)

• The Personal (moderate e’A ,

 FIRO-B Locator
charts
• By member of FIRO-B team;
psychologist Leo Ryan, 1977.

• Produced maps of the scores of

each area “Locator Charts”

• Assigned names for all the score

ranges using his clinical
interpretation of FIRO-B
Inclusion Control Affection

L R Pessi
one ebe mist

Low e’
Low w’
 Inclusion Control Affection

Now you Self Image

see confident of
Me, now Intima
you
Moderate e’
Low w’
 Inclusion Control Affection

Now you Mission Image

see Impossi of
Me, now ble Intima
you
High e’
Low w’
 Inclusion Control Affection

Mission Living up
The
Impossibl to
Conversation
e expectati
alist (Narcissistic
tendencies)

High e’
Moderate w’
 Inclusion Control Affection

Dependa
The
nt-
People The
Independ
Gatherer Optimistic
ent
Conflict
High e’
High w’
Inclusion Control Affection

hidden Let’s Disguised

inhibiti take Cautious
ons a break Lover

Moderate e’
High w’
Inclusion Control Affection

Inhibit Loyal Cautious

ed lieutenant Lover
Individ (Openly dependant
person)

Low e’
High w’
 Inclusion Control Affection

Cautious The Careful

Expectati Checker Moderat
ons ion
Low e’
Moderate w’
Inclusion Control Affection

Social The
Warm
Flexibi Match
individual
lity er
Moderate e’
Moderate w’
 FIRO-B
• Firo-B do not encourage inborn
typology.

• Believes that those scores in

themselves are due to learned
behavior & are not terminal.

• Scutz believes that those scores

can and do change.
 FIRO-B
• Those “clinical interpretation
names” is not generally used ;
again not to encourage typology
( scores are used ).
 Firo-B considered these
scores a reflection of
• At (high wanted) control area:
Ø Men considered as………………..
(dependant)
Ø Women considered as……………..
(tolerant)

• emphasis on the reflection of

the learned behavior on the
score.
Ø Women used to be dependant; now
 Exercise
(A) Control:
Imagine a business review where
the manager is High e’ , Low w’
(( mission impossible)).
& a subordinate/subordinates:
Ø Low e’ , High w’ ((Loyal lieutenant)).
Ø Low e’ , Low w’ (( The rebel)).
Ø Moderate e’ , High w’ ((Self
confident)).
In each situation, which of the
 Exercise
• (B) Inclusion:
How would a relation of friendship
be like between:
Low e’, High w’ ((inhibited individual))
&
High e’, Low w’ ((now you see me , now
you don’t)).
Low e’, High w’ ((inhibited individual))
Now repeat The same with
Affection as the dimension
 Exercise
• (B) Inclusion:
How would the social work
environment between 2 co-
workers be when they both exert
the following behavior:
Ø Low e’, Low w’ ((The loner)).
Ø High e’, moderate w’ ((The
conversationalist))
 Further development
• In the 1970’s Schutz revised the
Firo-B and made some
adjustments:
Ø Added some new instrument to
measure new aspects:
Element B: Behavior Element F:
Feelings
Element S: Self Element W:
Work relations.
Element C: Close relations Element P:
Parental relations
 Further development
• Element B: expanded the
definition of all the 3 dimensions
into new 6 scores. and the
dimension of “Affection” has
evolved into “Openness”
• All those new elements have
been known collectively as the
“Element of awareness”
• Firo-B Sold to CPP, consulting
psychologists press
 In your opinion,
what is the correlation
between
Firo-B & Mbti ?
 Correlation with Mbti
• In 1976 Firo-B was found to be
the most used instrument in
training.
• It’s popularity began to fade
with the introduction of Mbti.
• Now with the introduction of
Firo-Element B both are being
used together as they both
tackle two different perspectives
 In conclusion
• Interpersonal Conflict refers to
the manifestation of
incompatibility, disagreement, or
difference between two or more
interacting individuals.
• Understanding our most used
conflict mode, and our
interpersonal orientations
behaviors makes all the
difference in handling people.
 In conclusion
• Collaborating as a conflict
handling mode is always
attainable and insures total
focus on solving the problem in
hand.
• Interpersonal orientations
behaviors can and do change.
• Both TKI and Firo-B, are very
useful instruments to help you
Thank
You