Running Head: Fostering and Organizational Conflict Resolution.
1
Fostering and organizational conflict resolution and their effects on effects on resolution
strategies in organizational settings and managing conflict appropriately and effectively
Gloria Camarena-Flores
Andrew Paddyfoote
Michael A Cotton
Bellevue University
Authors Note
This paper was created for Bellevue class MSM 510 - Foundations of Management Processes by
students Gloria Camarena-Flores, Andrew Paddyfoote, and Michael Cotton for week 4 January
30th 2012.
Running Head: Fostering and Organizational Conflict Resolution.
2
Abstract
This paper includes an empirical research gained from Fostering and Organizational Conflict
resolution studies. An analysis gained from several researches such as defining conflict, the four
manifestations of conflict, conflict process and resolutions, and resolution techniques. Included
in this paper are the research results of three dimensions of conflict issues and their effects on
resolution strategies in organizational settings and managing conflict appropriately and
effectively. A description of what the results mean, and how they can be applicable and
beneficial to managers in the workplace.
Running Head: Fostering and Organizational Conflict Resolution.
3
The workplace is a perfect target for conflict. People are consistently engaging in daily working
activities and situations that involve many people coming from different genders, beliefs,
backgrounds and orientations. It is common that conflict will occur some time or another.
Without these interactions it would be almost impossible for conflict to occur. People should
always have the right to express how they are feeling, and more especially at the workplace;
even though sometimes conflict will arise. Also, sometimes, conflicts can bring solutions that
are beneficial to organizations. When this happens to an individual or a group it can bring
motivation, because it motivates higher interaction between individuals and even innovations.
On the other hand, if mishandled, conflict also may only be inclined to a negative set by growing
in individuals’ higher levels of frustration, outrage, and personal and professional
dissatisfactions.
It’s important to be able to recognize the reasons that started the conflict and
how to find solutions to successfully enable individuals to confront and stop the problem from
getting out of control. Conflict is manifested in four stages: Intrapersonal Conflict,
Interpersonal Conflict, Intragroup Conflict and Intergroup Conflict.
Intrapersonal Conflict happens when an individual struggles to identify his/her values
and wants. Interpersonal Conflict arises when two or more people demonstrate different values,
goals and beliefs. Intragroup Conflict occurs when conflict arises within group members.
Intergroup Conflict happens when two or more people are not pursuing and share the same
needs.
There are numerous ways to manage conflict; such as social accounts or by treating
employees as independent individuals. Treating employees as independent individuals and
enable them to contribute to the growth of an organization rather than treating them dependent
individuals. The traditional way that management deals with their subordinates is called the
Running Head: Fostering and Organizational Conflict Resolution.
4
command and control method. This organizational managerial method leads to employees to feel
dissatisfaction, detachment and higher levels of stress. This is because it prevents employees
from feeling as if they have a part in the decision making process. This article advocates
delegating the decision making process to the subordinates thus creating a win-win situation for
both management and employees. Providing the employees with more challenging tasks, as well
as involving them more in the decision making process, makes for happier workers who feel
more satisfied (Fave, 2001).
We can also mange conflict through social explanations. When we identify social
explanation and what role it has to manage conflict we can begin to conduct ourselves in a
manner where we will encourage dialogue among our team. We must first understand that
(Sitkin & Bies, 1974) a social account is an explanation attempting to influence a person's
perception of: (a) responsibility for an incident or action, (b) motives for an action, or (c) the
unfavorability of an incident or action. Whether conflict occurs and, if so, it’s dynamic depends
on the use and effectiveness of social accounts by the parties involved.
Once we have identified what it is and how we can manage conflict we can then foster
work environment where we will provide explanations to eliminate assumptions made by team
members (Sitkin and Bies. 1974). Explanations can foster coordinated actions by articulating a
common focus and by generally increasing employees' positive responses and willingness to
cooperate. For example, employee reactions may not reflect the motivations of the executive
(Martin, Sitkin, & Boehm, 1985) or the degree to which the destinies of the firm and the
employee are intertwined (Martin, Feldman, Hatch, & Sitkin, 1983). Explanations that
emphasize shared values and beliefs can positively influence event interpretations and can
therefore lead to more positive feelings, increased cooperation in implementing the decision, and
Running Head: Fostering and Organizational Conflict Resolution.
5
increased ability to adhere to a policy's intent because of a clearer understanding of shared
organizational interests (Sitkin and Bies. 1974).
Unresolved conflict within a group will affect morale and in the interim have a negative
impact on the organizations ability to accomplish goals. A situation can evolve into conflict
depending on the parties’ conceptualization of the situation (Thomas 1976). For example, are
individuals’ feelings as if they were manipulated as a result of selfishness? The one example that
was given assuming the decision is detrimental to one party, the other party is more likely to get
angry when the decision is perceived as intentionally detrimental rather than unintentional, and
perpetrated for socially unacceptable rather than socially acceptable reasons (Averill, 1982).
Moreover, such feelings of anger are more likely to elicit an aggressive response on the part of
the affected party (Ferguson & Rule, 1983), which may induce or escalate conflict. In other
words, how the parties involved perceive a dispute in psychological terms is a critical factor
explaining conflict.
(Sitkin and Bies. 1974) identified and referenced three categories of explanations that
were studied by researchers which includes mitigating responsibility, or altering perceptions of
causality for an incident or action... First is mitigating accounts which imply that the situation
left the party no other choice in making the decision or taking the action. When there are shared
explanations that show that the situation is justifiable a reduction of blame and conflict will
occur. Mitigating accounts in motion; in a business simulation study, Shapiro (1991) found that
subjects who were deceived by their "business venture" partner expressed fewer feelings of
injustice, disapproval, and punitiveness when they received a mitigating account rather than an
explanation which suggested intentional deceit.
Running Head: Fostering and Organizational Conflict Resolution.
6
The second category of explanation is exonerating motives, or legitimating the action
through appeal to higher-order norms and values. The goal of exonerating motives is to place the
actions within a broader normative framework through which even negative results can be
understood as being derived from legitimate motives (Eisenberg, 1984; Sitkin & Roth, 1993). In
a study on aggression, Nesdale, Rule, and McAra (1975) examined the effects of information
which suggests that an aggressive action was due to a good motive or a bad motive. After
witnessing the action, the subjects were informed that the harm-doer had either a good or bad
motive for his actions. Nesdale et al. (1975) found that subjects were more likely to approve of
the harmful action when an explanation of the harm-doer's action suggested a good motive for
the action.
The third and final category of explanations is reframing outcomes, or altering
perceptions about the consequences of the incident or action. (Sitkin and Beis, 1974) explains
that one of the primary mechanisms for altering perceptions about outcomes is through the use of
reframing accounts, which attempts to "explain" consequences by suggesting how that outcome
can best be put into an appropriate context for interpretation.
There are two basic types of reframing accounts: social and temporal. First, social
comparison information (Festinger, 1954) provides the basis for explanations that refers to others
who have received even less favorable outcomes. This approach minimizes conflict by
suggesting that the party's outcome was, if not relatively good, at least not as bad as initially
thought. (Sitkin and Bies. 1974), Second, through shifts in temporal orientation, today's bad
news can be recast in terms of encouraging trends. For example, by pointing out that budgets in
earlier years were far less generous, one can reframe a tight budget allocation as "less tight" than
might otherwise be expected.
Running Head: Fostering and Organizational Conflict Resolution.
7
Similarly, by pointing out the next year's budget is likely to be better, one can emphasize
the generally positive trend within which the current outcome should be viewed, and, thus, can
enhance perceptions of fairness, create a more favorable view of the current state, and reduce
levels of anger and resentment (Bies, 1982).
The factors that influence the effectiveness of social accounts are the message and
communicator characteristics. (Sitkin and Beis. 1974) Two message-communicator
characteristics of a social account that have been found to explain its effectiveness are the
perceived adequacy of the explanation and the perceived sincerity of the account-giver. The
content of the excuse can influence its perceived adequacy. (Bies et al. 1988) found different
types of mitigating accounts for budget request refusals were communicated by bosses to
subordinates, but not all accounts were perceived as "equal" by subordinates. Excuses that
focused on company norms, budget constraints, or formal company policy were perceived as
significantly more adequate than accounts that focused on the subordinate's own behavior, upper
management, and the political environment.
Shapiro (1991) also found that the content of accounts influenced the perceived adequacy
of explanations for deceit. Accounts that focused on unintentional causes for deceit were
perceived as more adequate than explanations suggesting more intentionality in the actions of the
deceiving party. Several studies suggest that the perceived sincerity or honesty of the account
giver is another important factor influencing the effectiveness of social accounts in conflict
situations (Bies, 1989).
There are numerous benefits of social accounts; within the work environment it is
imperative that we unify our team to accomplish our organization strategic imperatives. Leaders
within organizations must consider the benefits of social accounts. (Sitkin and Bies. 1974) one
Running Head: Fostering and Organizational Conflict Resolution.
8
benefit of providing explanations is that it can help coordinate the "action premises" used by the
organization's members, thus leading to a higher level of cost-free coordination between
organizational units. This becomes especially useful when activities cannot be monitored (as is
often the case for professional employees) or when cultural congruence is a key control
mechanism (Ouchi, 1980; Wilkins & Ouchi, 1983).
The detrimental effects of social accounting in that there is a danger of overuse because it
is too easy to use, escalating expectations- managers will find it difficult to create a surprise that
generates positive emotions, constrained problem solving where the unexpected result of
explanations is that they can provide an illusion of care and completeness in decision making,
demotivation the reduction in search activity that can result from the use of explanations is not
merely cognitive in orientation, it is a motivational issue as well, and the seduction of easy
excuses The use of social accounts can pose a potential moral dilemma for the parties to a
conflict. Even when social accounts are rooted in situational facts, the skillful construction of an
ambiguous or multifaceted explanation can easily be used to intentionally deceive or mislead,
creating a "false peace" (Nord & Doherty, in press).
The group agrees with the study that management or team leaders play a key role in
communication and early conflict resolution. It is important to start the project off with clearly
defined task and timelines, and then follow up with meetings to make sure there is no confusion
or un-resolved conflicts. Open communication can minimize the risk of relationship and process
conflict, therefore allowing the group to focus on the task at hand.
Dynamic Nature of conflict
Running Head: Fostering and Organizational Conflict Resolution.
9
Another research article the group selected is the dynamic nature of conflict: A
longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. This journal article helps follow
the above article while focusing on conflict within a group project or task and how it impacts the
performance of the team and when conflict is dealt with for teams that perform well, as well as
teams that do poorly and when they deal with conflict. It is crucial for employees to know when
to deal with conflicts successfully to allow for the team to perform well. If the team deals with
the conflict at the correct time the team can focus on, individual and team task, meet milestone
dates, etc.
Conflict is awareness on the part of the parties involved of discrepancies, incompatible
wishes, or irreconcilable desires (Boulding, 1963). Many people and organizations view conflict
as a negative, or something to be avoided. Yet conflict, differences, or disagreements are a
natural result of people working together and can be turned to positive if dealt with properly.
Also, without conflict, teams can become complacent and not perform at optimum levels.
Conflict can also be positive in that it can bring added knowledge and creativity and allow others
to think outside the box.
Team Based Structures
In response to growing demand for efficiency and flexibility, organizations are shifting to
team based structures (cf. Boyett & Conn, 1991). Many times in projects teams of people with
different ideas, and personality types, can result in ideas being stifled, resulting in conformity,
and encourage others on the team to expect a free ride. As groups of people with different
personalities, skills, positions, etc. work on projects there is bound to be conflict. Where and
when this conflict occurs can determine if the project performs well. This study is a longitudinal
Running Head: Fostering and Organizational Conflict Resolution.
10
study which focuses on group performance and where teams perform well and a particular
pattern of conflict. This journal article seems to represent the working world of conflict well as
many times we are working in a group to complete work task and projects as a team and not just
at an individual level.
Types of conflict
There are different types of conflict and Jehn & Mannix categorized these different types
of conflict into three different types – relationship, task, and process conflict (Jehn & Mannix,
2001). Relationship conflict is a personal issue such as not liking someone on the team, or group.
An Example of relationship conflict is conflicts about personal taste, political preferences,
values, religion, and interpersonal style. Task Conflict is a difference in interpretation of the task
and the viewpoints and opinions to those members of the group. Examples of task conflict are
conflicts about the distribution of resources, policies and procedures, and interpretation of facts.
Process conflict is a difference in interpretation in the issues of duty and resource allocation.
Examples of process conflict are conflicts with who is in charge, responsibility for specific task,
and how resources where distributed.
The paper mentions that most of the past research reviewed above focuses only on static
levels of conflict, ignoring the different patterns of conflict that might occur over time (Jehn &
Mannix, 2001). This papers study is to study and identify patterns of group conflict over time,
their antecedents, and the links to specific patterns to group performance (Jehn & Mannix, 2001).
Groups and conflict
Running Head: Fostering and Organizational Conflict Resolution.
11
For the group conflict to process conflict over time throughout the project theorists and
researchers say that successful task forces need to start with a clear and agreeable direction,
agreed to by the team. A leader should be appointed to the team and the team needs to engage in
meetings, to focus on the task at hand and to plan the milestones. This should be encouraged by
the management and team leaders to the group to allow and support for open communication and
for the teams to understand that conflict is not necessarily a bad thing. The work task should be
identified, accepted, and clearly defined and understood by the team as well as all the
responsibilities and deadlines decided upon by the team and should be done early on in the
project.
Different Hypothesis
Questions by the team members should also be encouraged early on by the leader or
manager to clearly identify and clarify needed task, responsibility, and deadline expectations. In
final the team will need to discuss and create a solid and defined implementation plan by
breaking out the tasks to clearly define each task, durations, with responsibility and an associated
timeline for each. The above proposes (Hypothesis 1) that high-performing groups see the
highest level of conflict at the beginning and end then the lower-performing groups. Hypothesis
1 also states that the high-performing groups see less conflict in the middle that the lower-level
performing groups.

Hypothesis 2 states that high-performing groups have a low level of relationship conflict
throughout the entire project or through all phases of the project.

Hypothesis 3 states that team those high-performing teams have a higher task conflict in
the middle of the project or task than at the beginning or end.
Running Head: Fostering and Organizational Conflict Resolution.

12
Hypothesis 4a basically states that group members who are friends, worked together
before, have acceptable patterns of conflict. Hypothesis 4b basically states that group
members who are friends, worked together before, have acceptable patterns of conflict as
they have positive conflicts. With open communication, and a respect for each person,
and low levels of competition.
Study overview
The 10,000 foot description of the study used three-person groups who performed similar
task over a college semester. The study consisted of 153 students at three U.S business schools
taught by the same professor. The school had comparable entrance requirements, with t-test
showing no significant differences. The three schools did have differences in the length of the
semesters with one being 10-weeks, 12-weeks, and the final being 14-weeks. The project
accounted for over 50% of the student’s grades with the students having task such as problem
identification, information and analysis, etc. The students met weekly to their groups and filled
out individual questionnaires and group worksheets.
Study Findings
The findings reinforced the view that conflict must be examined as a dynamic process,
rather than as a static event, echoing conflict theorists (Coser, 1970; Deutsh, 1969). The results
of the study showed that for high-performing groups to perform well the midpoint is a crucial
time for the groups to engage and resolve any conflicts on task, goals, etc. Low-performing
groups however showed a dip during the middle of the project and had a high level of high
conflict toward the end of the project. This would tend to show the group did not have clearly
Running Head: Fostering and Organizational Conflict Resolution.
13
defined task, milestone dates, etc. The low-performing group also showed relationship conflict
which likely impacted the tasks (Jehn & Mannix, 2001).
The study showed that the high-performing group had all types of conflict; however these
were all lower with the exception of task of conflict during the middle, than with the lowperforming groups.
Jehn & Mannix propose that to develop high-performing groups, managers must encourage open
discussion norms, high levels of respect, among members, and a cohesive and supportive team
environment (Jehn & Mannix, 2001). This should be done in the early stages of the project.
Open communication within the group, leaders who can promote constructive debates around the
task, all dealt with at the midpoint of the project minimize the risk of relationship and process
conflict. This would seem to be common for those of us that do many projects, however this
research shows that teams that were high performing did not have relationship and process
conflict, and focused early on with any conflicts.
Journal Limitations
This study had some limitations that should mention such as the students only focused on
one problem solving task when many times projects have multiple task and problems to solve
throughout a projects run. Also this study did not have feedback from clients, only the instructor.
Many projects need customer feedback to make sure to meet customer expectations. And finally
causality and the effects over time were not captured. The findings for this journal appear to be
true with real world projects. Task that are not clearly detailed, timelines covered and questions
answered early on can result in projects have conflict later after task should have been done,
Running Head: Fostering and Organizational Conflict Resolution.
14
create confusions, etc. While low-performing groups waited until the last minute to handle
problems or question.
Groups: response to study
The group agrees with the study that management or team leaders play a key role in
communication and early conflict resolution. It is important to start the project off with clearly
defined task and timelines, and then follow up with meetings to make sure there is no confusion
or un-resolved conflicts. Open communication can minimize the risk of relationship and process
conflict, therefore allowing the group to focus on the task at hand.
Running Head: Fostering and Organizational Conflict Resolution.
15
References
Averill, J. R. Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1982.
Bies, R. J. The Delivery of Bad News in Organizations: A Social Information Perspective. Paper
presented at the National Academy of Management Meeting, New York, NY, 1982.
Bies, R. J. Managing conflict before it happens: The role of accounts. In M. A. Rahim (Ed.),
Managing conflict: An interdisciplinary approach. New York: Praeger, 1989, pp. 83-91.
Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. Voice and justification: Their influence on procedural fairness
judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 1988, 31, 676-685.
Bies, R. J., Shapiro, D. L., & Cummings, L. L. Causal accounts and managing organizational
conflict: Is it enough to say it's my fault? Communication Research, 1988, 14, 381-399.
Boyett, J. H., & Conn, H. P. (1991). Workplace 2000: The revolution reshaping American
business. New York: Dutton.
Coser, L. (1970). Cowilntinuities in the study of social con-flict. New York: Free Press.
Eisenberg, E. M. Ambiguity as strategy in organizational communication. Communication
Monographs, 1984, 51, 227-242.
Fave, D. A. (2001, December). Flow and optimal experience. Presentation to an ESRC work and
well-being seminar, Manchester Metropolitan University.
, T. J., & Rule, B. G. An attributional perspective on anger and aggression. In R. G. Festinger, L.
A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 1954, 1, 117-149.
Martin, J. Sitkin, S.B. & Boehm, M. Founders and the elusiveness of a cultural legacy. In P.
Frost, L. Moore, M. Louis, C. Lundberg, and J. Martin (Eds.), Organizational Culture. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage, 1985, pp. 99-124.
Running Head: Fostering and Organizational Conflict Resolution.
16
Martin, J., Feldman, M. S., Hatch, M. J., & Sitkin, S. B. The uniqueness paradox in
organizational stories. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1983, 28(3), 438-453.
Nesdale, A. R., Rule, B. G., & McAra, M. Moral judgments of aggression: Personal and
situational determinants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1975, 5, 339-349.
Sheppard, and R. J. Bies (Eds.), Research in negotiation in organizations (Vol. 4). Greenwich
CT: JAI, In Press.
Ouchi, W. G. Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1980, 25,
129-141.
Sitkin, S. B., & Bies, R. J. (1993). Social accounts in conflict situations: Using
explanations to manage conflict. Human Relations, 46(3), 349-349.
Shapiro, D. L. The effects of explanations on negative reactions to deceit. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 1991, 36, 614-630.
Thomas, K. W. Conflict and conflict management. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of
industrial and organizational psychology, Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976, pp. 889-935.
Wilkins, A. L., & Ouchi, W. G. Efficient cultures: Exploring the relationship between culture
and organizational performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1983, 28(3), 468481.