Leadership

Compete, Accommodate, or Avoid: Tips for MSPs to Respond to Conflict

By Jordan Gilels, MBA, CPMSM, CPCS; Anne Roberts, Esq., CPMSM, CPCS; Brijen J. Shah, MD, AGAF

It is important to have some insight into your conflict-handling style to most effectively manage various types of conflicts. One method we found to be an effective tool is the Thomas-Kilman Index (TKI), which assesses how we as individuals react during conflicts.

As we all know, conflicts are colorful and varied but often can be divided into two buckets: internal and external. Internal conflicts come from within our own teams. They are often the result of miscommunication, inconsistent training, materials, processes, or data. External conflicts, on the other hand, are those coming from outside our departments and often include some component of customer service (or lack thereof), mismanaged expectations, or lack of education about credentialing processes.

To resolve internal conflicts, we must focus on communication, collaboration, engagement, and consistency within our teams. For internal team members, it’s vital to listen to their issues and pain points before working collaboratively to resolve them. Resolution of external conflicts often involves listening as well as getting to know our stakeholders’ positions. Once identified, we can work to improve education, set expectations, and enhance communication, thus improving customer service overall.

Position vs. Interest

In a conflict, position is what is wanted, and interest is why it’s wanted. In healthcare, we often share interests, but our positions may be different. For example, the Department of Medicine wants 10 people who haven’t submitted applications to start tomorrow because they are short staffed, which is impacting patient care. Our interest in this case is the same: ensuring patient care coverage needs are met. But our positions are different. The clinical department’s position is the sense of urgency and an immediate need. On the other hand, the MSPs’ position is ensuring regulatory requirements are met (bylaws, policies, accreditation standards, etc.), and that there is sufficient time to screen the applicants to ensure they are qualified and competent for the privileges requested. It also becomes a balance of: Are we able to compromise? Do they really need all 10 to start at the same time? Certainly this is a familiar situation to many; however, understanding the concept of position and interest helps bring conflict into perspective and informs our response.

To find your natural conflict style, a questionnaire is completed to score assertiveness; the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy their own needs and cooperativeness; and the extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy the other person’s needs. Levels of assertiveness and cooperativeness will define the five methods of dealing with conflict in the TKI.   

While you may have a dominant conflict-handling mode, everyone is capable of learning and using them all as needed. Review information on all five styles:

Competing is assertive and uncooperative. This conflict handling style is useful in situations when a quick or decisive action is needed or when unpopular processes need to be implemented. Those who are too frequently using this style often fail to ask for feedback and, as such, are often surrounded by “yes” people. 

Accommodating is unassertive and cooperative. This conflict-handling style is useful in situations when it is most important to keep peace or when the issue at hand is more important to the other side. The pitfall of overusing this style is someone who is accommodating can be taken advantage of and can be undisciplined. 

Avoiding is unassertive and uncooperative. This conflict-handling style is useful in situations where the issue is not urgent or when perhaps one party is simply not ready to make a decision.  The pitfall of this style is an avoidant can lose their voice while issues fester.

Collaborating is assertive and cooperative. This conflict-handling style is useful in situations where the group needs to work through hard feelings interfering with progress and when it is important to obtain buy-in from others. Collaborators take a lot of time getting everyone’s buy-in, resulting in diffused responsibility. 

Compromising is intermediate assertive and cooperative. This conflict-handling style is useful in situations where the issues are of moderate importance, where power is equal on both sides, and for temporary solutions for complex issues. Those who compromise can lose sight of the big picture and can cause cynicism due to playing all sides.

In sum, it is no secret that various conflicts occur in our daily work. In order to manage them effectively, knowing your conflict style — as well as the conflict style of those involved — can help lead to resolution. Often times, particularly for those in a leadership role, it is important to use different styles depending on the situation.