Essay Example on Friendship Conflict: Resolving Disputes Before Damage is Done

Introduction

More often than not, people find themselves in conflict. They have to find a way and resolve the dispute before it can damage their relationship. The fact that conflicts are conventional means that one will find oneself in one without their knowledge. In this case study, the following is the selected scenario, where I played role A.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Scenario #2: Friendship situation

Role A: You have gone to a party with your friend (B). You have enjoyed talking with many people, you know. Since you are having a great time, you want to stay longer at the party.

Role B: You have come to a party with your friend (A), but A left you immediately and began talking to others. A knows people at the party; you do not. The one time you approached A, A walked away. You feel upset and unhappy at the party, and you want to leave, so you walk over to A.

Under the circumstances, my partner was playing role B, and at the very least, he was accommodating. On the other hand, my style was avoiding. Having gone to the party together and abandoned my partner, his stay at the party was a matter of being accommodative. He allowed me to interact with others and be away from him for the whole time. As such, that is putting up with something for the sake of the other party. My partner can tell you about my avoidance because he came up to me, and I ignored it. Avoidance is all about acting as of nothing happened. After the game, we correctly identified each other’s conflict style, which was a good thing.

Each of the conflict styles has its pros and cons. The accommodating style merits in that the emotions of the parties are protected. My partner’s accommodating nature means that I remain happy at the party without outbursts or confrontations. Another merit is that it focuses on building a strong relationship for the long term. There is a form of cooperation that develops when a party in a conflict is accommodating, especially in the short term. It is a good approach for friends. The major demerit of this style is that it can breed hostility. When my friend walked up to me, it was a show of hostility. If the issues are not resolved amicably, it could break the long term bond. It demands that parties resolve their conflict as soon as the matter of raising the conflict is put to rest.

The avoidance style is right in that it does not escalate the conflict in the short run. Avoiding a partner may mean that an ensuing verbal engagement is put on hold or eliminated for good. This style does not work well in the long term. Lack of commitment means that there is a withdrawal of parties from the relationship, and the partnership that existed may end acrimoniously. Therefore, it should only be used for short term gains.

Knowledge of style would have changed my approach. In my view, I would have desired a competing partner. A friend who would have confronted me when he came up to me at the party. A partner who fought for space and recognition at the party. I would have forced the play into such a direction. Competition blends well with accommodation. In this partnership, we both came across as less assertive. At times, it is good to be more asserting or to have one who dominates the show.

Further, I would have also played a different role. I would have been in role B, being the more competitive one. It feels great when people have to lower their egos and come down to a compromise position. When one is accommodating, and the other is avoiding, then there is no need for compromise. Everyone is at least not charged by the situation, and things are playing out naturally and comfortably.

When people find themselves in a similar style of conflict, so many things can play out. For instance, two people could be in the collaborating form. This is probably the most effective style in battle. The two partners will always find a way out because they can easily take other’s ideas and express themselves with clarity. In this style, everyone was a winner. For instance, at the party, collaboration would have meant that the person who knew friends at the party introduces the partner to new friends, and they would be both in interaction. It always has to be a win-win situation for both parties. The same cannot be said of people with a competing conflict style. Everyone is looking for a win and making the other one a loser. Personal interests are the principal focus in this case of competition. It ends in a breakdown of the relationship between the partners.

Collaborators and accommodators make great leaders and managers. However, they have to put in the right balance to ensure they are not always on the compromise. On the other hand, avoiders make good team members, the same as accommodators and collaborators. Those with the competing conflict style are the most difficult to deal with. They have a sense of entitlement that they carry to a team or in anything that they do. A combination of all these conflict styles in an organization ensures diversity, and everyone can relook at things from a different perspective as offered by a member of the team.

Conclusion

Different conflict styles are effective in their own right, and they are applicable in different situations. The persons involved must understand their partners well, and choose a style that complements that of their partner. The result must always be a position that one can comfortably hold. Most conflicts shall end with a compromise position, which may not necessarily be the best one for either party.