CONFLICT
HACETTEPE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND ADMINISTRATIVE
SCIENCES
BUS 420
NEGOTIATION PROCESS
Prof. Dr. Azize ERGENELİ
CONFLICT PROCESS & CONFLICT HANDLING
Submitted By;
Tuğba DEMİRTAŞ-20211841
Levent DOĞANCI-20211869
Duygu ÖZDEMİR-20312364
28.02.2007
DEFINITION OF CONFLICT
Conflict is a process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affects, something that the first party cares about.
In other words conflict is a disagreement through which the parties involved perceive a threat to their needs, interests or concerns .
Conflict can be substantive or emotional. Substantive conflict is any disagreement over goals, resources, rewards, policies, procedures, and job assignments. Emotional conflict results from feelings of anger, distrust, dislike, dislike, fear and resentment, as well as relationship problems.
A conflict exists when two people wish to carry out acts which are mutually inconsistent. They may both want to do the same thing, such as eat the same apple, or they may want to do different things where the different things are mutually incompatible, such as when they both want to stay together but one wants to go to the cinema and the other to stay at home. A conflict is resolved when some mutually compatible set of actions is worked out.
The definition of conflict can be extended from individuals to groups (such as states or nations), and more than two parties can be involved in the conflict.
Within this simple definition there are several important understandings that emerge:
Disagreement - Generally, we are aware there is some level of difference in the positions of the two (or more) parties involved in the conflict. But the true disagreement versus the perceived disagreement may be quite different from one another. In fact, conflict tends to be accompanied by significant levels of misunderstanding that exaggerate the perceived disagreement considerably. If we can understand the true areas of disagreement, this will help us solve the right problems and manage the true needs of the parties.
Parties involved - There are often disparities in our sense of who is involved in the conflict. Sometimes, people are surprised to learn they are a party to the conflict, while other times we are shocked to learn we are not included in the disagreement. On many occasions, people who are seen as part of the social system (e.g., work team, family, and company) are influenced to participate in the dispute, whether they would personally define the situation in that way or not. People very readily "take sides" based upon current perceptions of the issues, past issues and relationships, roles within the organization, and other factors. The parties involved can become an elusive concept to define.
Perceived threat - People respond to the perceived threat, rather than the true threat, facing them. Thus, while perception doesn't become reality per se, people's behaviors, feelings and ongoing responses become modified by that evolving sense of the threat they confront. If we can work to understand the true threat (issues) and develop strategies (solutions) that manage it (agreement), we are acting constructively to manage the conflict.
1
Needs, interests or concerns - There is a tendency to narrowly define "the problem" as one of substance, task, and near-term viability. However, workplace conflicts tend to be far more complex than that, for they involve ongoing relationships with complex, emotional components. Simply stated, there are always procedural needs and psychological needs to be addressed within the conflict, in addition to the substantive needs that are generally presented.
And the durability of the interests and concerns of the parties transcends the immediate presenting situation. Any efforts to resolve conflicts effectively must take these points into account.
Although conflict is a normal part of organization life, providing numerous opportunities for growth through improved understanding and insight, there is a tendency to view conflict as a negative experience caused by abnormally difficult circumstances. Disputants tend to perceive limited options and finite resources available in seeking solutions, rather than multiple possibilities that may exist 'outside the box' in which we are problem-solving.
A few points are worth before proceeding:
▪ A conflict is more than a mere disagreement - it is a situation in which people perceive a threat (physical, emotional, power, status, etc.) to their well-being. As such, it is a meaningful experience in people's lives, not to be shrugged off by a mere, "it will pass…"
▪ Participants in conflicts tend to respond on the basis of their perceptions of the situation, rather than an objective review of it. As such, people filter their perceptions (and reactions) through their values, culture, beliefs, information, experience, gender, and other variables. Conflict responses are both filled with ideas and feelings that can be very strong and powerful guides to our sense of possible solutions.
▪ As in any problem, conflicts contain substantive, procedural, and psychological dimensions to be negotiated. In order to best understand the threat perceived by those engaged in a conflict, we need to consider all of these dimensions.
▪ Conflicts are normal experiences within the work environment. They are also, to a large degree, predictable and expectable situations that naturally arise as we go about managing complex and stressful projects in which we are significantly invested. As such, if we develop procedures for identifying conflicts likely to arise, as well as systems through which we can constructively manage conflicts, we may be able to discover new opportunities to transform conflict into a productive learning experience.
▪ Creative problem-solving strategies are essential to positive approaches to conflict management. We need to transform the situation from one in which it is 'my way or the highway' into one in which we entertain new possibilities that have been otherwise elusive.
As noted in our basic definition of conflict, conflict is a disagreement through which the parties involved perceive a threat to their needs, interests or concerns. One key element of this definition is the idea that each party may have a different perception of any given situation.
We can anticipate having such differences due to a number of factors that create "perceptual filters" that influence our responses to the situation:
2
♦Culture, race, and ethnicity
: Our varying cultural backgrounds influence us to hold certain beliefs about the social structure of our world, as well as the role of conflict in that experience. We may have learned to value substantive, procedural and psychological needs differently as a result, thus influencing our willingness to engage in various modes of negotiation and efforts to manage the conflict.
♦Gender and sexuality:
Men and women often perceive situations somewhat differently, based on both their experiences in the world (which relates to power and privilege, as do race and ethnicity) and socialization patterns that reinforce the importance of relationships vs. task, substance vs. process, immediacy vs. long-term outcomes. As a result, men and women will often approach conflictive situations with differing mindsets about the desired outcomes from his situation, as well as the set of possible solutions that may exist.
Many women managers prefer to totally avoid confrontation and conflict. Other people spend their time in noninfluential roles rather than become involved in power struggles and conflicts. In contrast, men have been thought to overemphasize power and its rewards. Many enjoy one-upmanship even when it is unnecessary or counterproductive.
Many women managers tend to resist taking charge in conflict situations, even when assertive behavior is entirely appropriate. Others actually give away their power or turn to others for help rather than confront the situation themselves. Female socialization may be the cause, since girls are often conditioned to seek help from others rather than be selfreliant.
♦Knowledge (general and situational):
Parties respond to given conflicts on the basis of the knowledge they may have about the issue at hand. This includes situation-specific knowledge (i.e., "Do I understand what is going on here?") and general knowledge (i.e.,
"Have I experienced this type of situation before?" or "Have I studied about similar situations before?"). Such information can influence the person's willingness to engage in efforts to manage the conflict, either reinforcing confidence to deal with the dilemma or undermining one's willingness to flexibly consider alternatives.
♦Impressions of the Messenger:
If the person sharing the message - the messenger - is perceived to be a threat (powerful, scary, unknown, etc.), this can influence our responses to the overall situation being experienced. For example, if a big scary-looking guy is approaching me rapidly, yelling "Get out of the way!" I may respond differently than if a diminutive, calm person would express the same message to me. As well, if I knew either one of them previously, I might respond differently based upon that prior sense of their credibility: I am more inclined to listen with respect to someone I view more credible than if the message comes from someone who lacks credibility and integrity in my mind.
♦Previous experiences: Some of us have had profound, significant life experiences that continue to influence our perceptions of current situations. These experiences may have left us fearful, lacking trust, and reluctant to take risks. On the other hand, previous experiences may have left us confident, willing to take chances and experience the unknown. Either way, we must acknowledge the role of previous experiences as elements of our perceptual filter in the current dilemma.
3
These factors (along with others) conspire to form the perceptual filters through which we experience conflict. As a result, our reactions to the threat and dilemma posed by conflict should be anticipated to include varying understandings of the situation. This also means that we can anticipate that in many conflicts there will be significant misunderstanding of each other's perceptions, needs and feelings. These challenges contribute to our emerging sense, during conflict, that the situation is overwhelming and unsolvable. As such, they become critical sources of potential understanding, insight and possibility.
CONFLICT AWARENESS MODEL
There are many different types of conflict experienced by communities all around the World.
The four categories into which most conflicts will fall:
When we say snow, many different words might come to mind some positive, some negative. When we say conflict, most often the words that come to mind are all negative. No wonder managers perceive conflict to be a significant problem at work. If properly managed, conflict can actually be a significant opportunity in the work place. It can be a wake-up call that something is wrong. It can be a signpost for a new solution to an old problem. It can be an opportunity for learning and reconciliation. Exploring the positive side of conflict begins with being aware of the different types of conflict you may encounter at work.
When people have conflicts, they are generally responding with antagonistic behavior to perceived or real differences in interests. In fact, conflict management is the act of resolving differences in interests, thus removing the reason(s) for the antagonistic behavior.
1- Open conflict
Open conflict occurs people have different interests which they demonstrate with antagonistic behaviors. This conflict is very visible and has deep roots, sometimes over several generations. Both the causes and the effects need to be addressed.
2- Latent conflict
When people have different interests, but do not respond with antagonistic behavior. This is conflict below the surface. It might need to be brought out into the open before it can be effectively addressed.
3-False Conflict
False conflict occurs people have common interests, but antagonistic behavior. This has shallow or no roots. It may be due to misunderstanding of goals, which can be addressed by improved communication and the conscious effort of opposing groups to understand each other’s needs and opinions.
4- No conflict
No conflict occurs people have common interests and compatible behavior. Any peaceful community is likely to face conflict sometimes, although communities in this category are good at resolving conflict before it develops.
4
Communities experiencing surface or latent conflict are those where the disagreement can quickly turn into open conflict. Open conflict can cause more physical, social, psychological and environmental damage than the other types. It affects people who are not involved in the conflict as well as those who are.
Objective Condition
Conflict No Conflict
Conflict Open Conflict False Conflict
No Conflict Latent Conflict No Conflict
Source : http://www.gms.state.ga.us/pdf/sp_news/news0297.pdf
CONFLICT TREE
Trainer likened conflict to a tree with three main parts or elements: Roots, Trunk and Branches:
The roots are the structural or causal factors. Although they are the invisible contents of the tree, the roots are the anchor and source of life for the tree. Examples of root causes are injustice, poverty, economic deprivation, ignorance, ethnic prejudice and intolerance, corruption, poor governance both at state and chieftaincy levels. Just as all roots left in a soil do not necessarily produce a tree, roots of conflicts only provide potentials for conflict. Other contributing factors like good soil, a gardener, etc. will be needed to produce the Conflict
Tree.
5
The Trunk is the largest visible content of the tree. It is where all of the roots have converged. It is difficult to distinguish the link of the trunk to a particular string of the roots.
The trunk gives onlookers some clue about the name and nature of the tree. However, the tendency to associate conflict only to the visible core problem can be deceptive since this is just a converged expression of many roots with particular differences. As a convergence of the roots, the trunk comprises dimensions of the conflict. Depending on who is analyzing the conflict and from what vantage point the analyst who is conducting the study may emphasize a particular dimension of the conflict over the others.
The Branches, leaves and fruits are the multitude of smaller conflicts or dimensions of the conflict emerging out of the trunk. They are some times referred to as effects of the conflict. For example, conflicts between excombatants and their communities, the rise in prostitution, family conflicts emerging out of long years of separation, chieftaincy disputes as a result of two or more chiefs being appointed by the different authority who occupied the communities during the civil war, land disputes as a result of lands being sold by different socalled owners during the civil war, etc are all branches from the Conflict Tree in Sierra Leone.
Over an extended period of time the effects or fruits of a particular conflict can fall into the fertile soil, germinate and develop another tree separate from the original tree. Once this has happen one may need to address problems associated with the new tree outside of the earlier one. Sometimes the old tree is even dead and gone but the new tree grows in strength.
This is one complexity of conflicts.
DIFFERENT VIEWS OF CONFLICT
Conflict is normally defined in terms of ‘incompatibility’ and ‘frustration’. Gordon’s (1991) definition outlines conflict as; “the result of incompatible potential relationships. The process begins when one party perceives that another party has impeded, or will frustrate, one or more of its concerns.” The definition is suitably broad so that it will be flexible enough to encompass all types of conflict. As with all elements of organizational behavior, conflict, and its position within organizations, has gone through a myriad of theories relating to the suitable course of action to quell its negative effects. However, there have been three main theories that have stood the test of time relating to conflict within the organization.
1. Traditional View
:
The view survived from the 1930’s into the 1940’s. This theory claims that all forms of conflict holds negative effects for an organization and that it is brought about by a lack of communication between the staff. It claims that conflict could be avoided by focusing on the causes of the conflict and by attempting to correct these elements.
As with most traditional theories this method is widely disputed but its acceptance is still relatively strong within some organizations. The view that all conflict is bad certainly offers a simple approach to looking at the behavior of people who create conflict. Since all conflict is to be avoided, we need merely direct our attention to the causes of conflict and correct these malfunctioning in order to improve group and organizational performance. Although research studies now provide strong evidence to dispute that this approach to conflict reduction results in high group performance, many of people still evaluate conflict situations utilizing this outmoded standard. So, too, do may senior executives and boards of directors.
6
2. Human Relations View
: The view is become popular from the 1940’s up to the
1970’s. This view encompasses some of the more positive aspects of conflict. The theory recognizes that conflict is an inevitable outcome of any organization and that there may be intrinsic positive value by determining group performance. The human relations position argued that conflict was a natural occurrence in all groups and organizations. Since conflict was inevitable, the human relations school advocated acceptance of conflict. Proponents rationalized its existence: It can not be eliminated, and there are even times when conflict may benefit a group’s performance.
3. The Interactionist View:
The theory that is generally accepted today is the
Interactionist view. This theory actively encourages certain types of conflict within the organization on the grounds that a completely cooperative, harmonious group of ‘yes-men’ may lead the organization into a static, non-responsive entity, which is unable to deal with change and advances in the market. From this, it is suggested that managers with the organization should maintain a level of controlled conflict within the organization which may keep the organization active, creative and capable of dealing with adversity in their environment. However, the theory does not suggest that all conflict is good either. “To say all conflict is good or bad is inappropriate and naïve. Whether a conflict is good or bad depends on the type of conflict”.
FUNCTIONAL VS. DISFUNCTIONAL CONFLICT
The ‘good’ or ‘bad’ conflicts are due to the functional and dysfunctional conflict. At this point it is useful to differentiate between the two forms. These are relatively new concepts that integrate with the Interactionist view of conflict.
Functional conflict supports the goals of a group and its presence within the organization actually improves performance. Outcomes of functional conflict;
When properly managed, conflict can have beneficial consequences.
Motivate individual to do better and to work harder. Ones abilities and talents come to the forefront in a conflict situation
Satisfy certain psychological needs like dominance, aggression, esteem and ego, and thereby provide an opportunity for the constructive use and release of aggressive urges
Provide creative, constructive and innovative ideas
Add variety to ones organizational live
Provide diagnostic information that can generate cues for better organization and management to prevent occurrence of similar problems
Facilitate an understanding of the problem, people and interrelationships between people, better co-ordination among individuals and departments, in addition to strengthening intra group relationships
7
Dysfunctional conflict , by comparison, acts as a barrier to the performance of the group and frustrates the objectives of the organization.
Conflicts affect individual and organizational performance. Resolving conflicts consumes a considerable amount of managerial time and energy which could more productively spent in the absence of conflicts
In a conflict situation people may promote their self-interests or personal gains at the cost of others in the organization
Intense conflicts over a prolonged period affect individuals emotionally and physically and give rise to psychosomatic disorders.
Time spent on conflicts, if costly, could mean considerable amount of money wasted
Conflicts may lead to work sabotage, employee morale problems, and decline in the market share of product / services and consequent loss of productivity.
Organization – related individual consequences:
Absenteeism
Job dissatisfaction
Apathy or indifference to work
Job stress and burnout
Disloyalty
Work sabotage
Employee turnover
Increased resistance to change
Decreased information sharing
Although the definitions are clear and precise, it can be difficult to see the dividing line between the two types. One possible way of differentiating them would be to relate the conflict to group performance. The conflict should be viewed in terms of the group, rather than the impact on individuals. This is what determines the functionality of the conflict.
There are three types of conflict that differentiate functional from dysfunctional conflict. They are;
Task conflict relates to the content and goals of the work.
Relationship conflict focuses on interpersonal relationship.
8
Process conflict relates to how the work gets done.
Studies demonstrate that relationship conflicts are almost always dysfunctional. The reason is it appears that the friction and interpersonal hostilities inherent in relationship conflicts increase personality clashes and decrease mutual understanding, thereby hindering the completion of organizational tasks. On the other hand low levels of process conflict and low to moderate levels of task conflict are functional. For process conflict to be productive, it must be kept low. Intense arguments about who should do what become dysfunctional when they create uncertainty about task roles increase the time to complete tasks, and lead to members working at cross purposes. A low to moderate level of task conflict consistently demonstrates a positive affect on group performance because it stimulates discussion of ideas that help groups perform better.
CONFLICT AND UNIT PERFORMANCE
Source: Stephen P. Robbins – Organizational Behavior – Eleventh Edition
9
The graph shows that in point A; there is low level of conflict and also low level of unit performance. In point C it seems that there is a high level of conflict and again low level of unit performance. Both of them show that there is a dysfunctional of conflict due to the interactionist view. In other side point B shows the moderate level of conflict and high level of unit performance. The point shows the functionality due to the view.
Here one critical point about the interactionist view is that functionality or dysfunctionality may change due to the perception of the people in the situation as mentioned before conflict is a perceived one. For example; owner in an organization can say that this conflict is functional for me because it increase the total performance and also my profit. On the other side employees in the organization see the same conflict as a dysfunctional one.
Because may be they feel unhappy, not motivated or think that their performance falls as conflict occurs. Of course bigger fish will eat the smaller one and what the owners say become the true one. So we can say that this theory disregard the employees in the organization and only think about the total performance not individuals.
TYPES OF CONFLICT
Conflict comes in several forms. They are:
INTERNAL:
The conflict a person has with themselves. Moral dilemmas, overcoming trauma, and psychological problems. This conflict is not with other characters, though it can affect other characters in the story.
PERSONAL:
The conflict is between the person and his closest people. His family, his lover, his close friends. It’s about inter-personal relations between individuals.
SOCIAL:
The conflict is between the parent and the child, between the doctor and the patient, between the Hero and society. When you’re dealing with larger issues than just interpersonal relationships, this is the conflict of choice.
ELEMENTAL:
The conflict between man and the environment, between the hero and a force of nature. It could be anything from a giant meteor heading toward earth or a pack of rabid Chihuahuas.
SOURCES OF CONFLICT
Early reviews in the field of conflict resolution identified a large number of schemes for describing sources or types of conflict (Fink, 1968; Mack & Snyder, 1958). One of the early theorists on conflict, Daniel Katz (1965), created a typology that distinguishes three main sources of conflict: economic, value, and power.
1. Economic conflict
involves competing motives to attain scarce resources. Each party wants to get the most that it can, and the behavior and emotions of each party is directed toward maximizing its gain. Union and management conflict often has as one of its sources relating to the incompatible goals of how to slice up the
“Economic pie.”
10
2. Value conflict
involves incompatibility in ways of life, ideologies – the preferences, principles and practices that people believe in. International conflict (e.g., the Cold War) often has a strong value component, wherein each side asserts the rightness and superiority of its way of life and its political-economic system.
3. Power conflict
occurs when each party wishes to maintain or maximize the amount of influence that it exerts in the relationship and the social setting. It is impossible for one party to be stronger without the other being weaker, at least in terms of direct influence over each other. Thus, a power struggle ensues which usually ends in a victory and defeat, or in a
“stand-off” with a continuing state of tension. Power conflicts can occur between individuals, between groups or between nations, whenever one or both parties choose to take a power approach to the relationship. Power also enters into all conflict since the parties are attempting to control each other.
It must be noted that most conflicts are not of a pure type, but involve a mixture of sources. For example, union-management conflict typically involves economic competition, but may also take the form of a power struggle and often involves different ideologies or political values. The more sources that are involved, the more intense and intractable the conflict usually is.
Another important source of conflict is ineffective communication. Miscommunication and misunderstanding can create conflict even where there are no basic incompatibilities. In addition, parties may have different perceptions as to what are the facts in a situation, and until they share information and clarify their perceptions, resolution is impossible. Selfcenteredness, selective perception, emotional bias, prejudices, etc., are all forces that lead us to perceive situations very differently from the other party. Lack of skill in communicating what we really mean in a clear and respectful fashion often results in confusion, hurt and anger, all of which simply feed the conflict process. Whether the conflict has objective sources or is due only to perceptual or communication problems, it is experienced as very real by the parties involved.
FORMS OF CONFLICT
It has been identified that there are two types of conflict in the organization, but it is interesting to note what forms of conflict occur between individuals, groups and departments of the organization, and whether these affect performance. There are three forms of conflict relations identified within the organization.
Individual Conflict
This type of conflict can be applicable to both managers and subordinates. It relates to conflict of orders that an individual may receive. This is called ‘Role conflict’. The individual is faced with two conflicting orders such that compliance to one would make it difficult to comply with the other. Individuals in this situation may feel divided loyalties to those initiating the orders and may suffer a reprimand for the orders not complied with.
11
Interpersonal Conflict
Interpersonal conflict occurs when two people have incompatible needs, goals, or approaches in their relationship. Communication breakdown is often an important source of interpersonal conflict and learning communication skills is valuable in preventing and resolving such difficulties. At the same time, very real differences occur between people that cannot be resolved by any amount of improved communication. “Personality conflict” refers to very strong differences in motives, values or styles in dealing with people that are not resolvable.
For example, if both parties in a relationship have a high need for power and both want to be dominant in the relationship, there is no way for both to be satisfied, and a power struggle ensues. Common tactics used in interpersonal power struggles include the exaggerated use of rewards and punishments, deception and evasion, threats and emotional blackmail, and flattery or ingratiation. Unresolved power conflict usually recycles and escalates to the point of relationship breakdown and termination.
Sources of Interpersonal Conflict
Organizational change: People hold differing views over the direction to go, the routes to take and their likely success, the resources to be used, and the probable outcomes. With the pace of technological, political, and social change increasing and the marketplace hurtling toward a global economy, organizational changes will be ever-present.
Personality clashes: The concept of individual differences is fundamental to organizational behavior. Not everyone thinks feels, looks, or acts alike. Some people simply ‘rub us the wrong way,’ and we can not necessarily explain why. Although personality differences can cause conflict, they are also rich resource for creative problem solving. Employees need to accept, respect, and learn how to use these differences when arise.
Different sets of values: People also hold different beliefs and adhere to different value systems. Their philosophies may diverge, or their ethical values may lead them in different directions. The resulting disputes can be difficult to resolve, since they are less objective than disagreements over alternative products, inventory levels, or promotional campaigns.
Threats to status: Status or the social rank of a person in a group is very important to many individuals. When one’s status in threatened, face saving becomes a powerful driving force as a person struggles to maintain a desired image. Conflict may arise between the defensive person and whoever created a threat to status.
Contrasting perceptions: People perceive things differently as a result of their prior experiences and expectations. Since their perceptions are very real to them (and they feel that these perceptions must be equally apparent to other), they sometimes fail to realize that others may hold contrasting perceptions of the same object or event. Conflict may arise unless employees learn to see things as others see them and help others do the same.
Lack of trust: Every continuing relationship requires some degree of trust—the capacity to depend on each other’s word and actions. Trust opens up boundaries, provides opportunities in which to act, and enriches the entire social fabric of an organization. It takes time to build, but it can be destroyed in an instant. When someone has a real or perceived reason not to trust another, the potential for conflict rises.
12
Intergroup Organizational Conflicts
This form of conflict occurs between the departments of the organization and is potentially the most damaging to performance. This is of primary focus in organizational conflict today as managing intergroup conflict is essential if firms are to manage change in their environment effectively. If Intergroup conflicts are the most important to control, then if is useful to assess its causes within the organization. There are four main reasons for intergroup conflict. Dessler (1998) outlines these in further detail.
Sources of Intergroup Conflict
Interdependencies and shared resources: Within an organization there are set resources that departments must compete for to initiate and complete projects and to improve and expand their areas. As a result, departments who are in competition for these scarce resources may come into conflict as they attempt to put forward there own requirements over other departments. Personalities, hiding of information and ‘office politics’ may come into play, which may fuel negative conflict. Dessler (1998) believes however that if managed properly, then this type of obstacle may become and incentive for collaboration. If this is to be the case, fairness and free flow of information is a necessity.
Intergroup differences in goals, values or perceptions: Different departments obviously have different objectives to that of other departments, and these objectives are often the source of conflict. Each department is attempting to satisfy their own demands, but these demands may be in direct conflict with the demands of other departments, e.g. the R&D department will have conflicting objectives to that of the Accounts department. The greater the difference between departments, the greater the potential for conflict.
Authority imbalances: Conflict may also arise between departments relating to authority. It may occur when one department must accept instructions from another department. The department in receipt of these instructions may believe this is unacceptable due to their level of performance.
Ambiguity: Conflict can also arise where there is ambiguity regarding where credit or blame can be assigned and when responsibilities of the departments are not clearly defined. This type of conflict may result in ‘finger pointing’ between departments as they attempt to lay the blame on other departments, or defend their level of involvement with a project. It is clamed that all of these forms of conflict can be controlled with positive effects, but this may not always be possible. Although the four forms involve different characters, conflict itself can be divided up into five different stages. SAQ 1 What is the most important type of conflict identified within the organization and what are the main reasons for this type of conflict?
13
IDENTIFYING LEVELS OF CONFLICT
Speed LEAS has identified five levels of conflict which he designates both with numbers and titles in order of ascending difficulty. They are: I. Problems to Solve; II. Disagreement; III.
Contest; IV.Fight/Flight; and V. Intractable.
Level I, Problems to Solve
In the first level of conflict we are not talking about a “problem of communication” or misunderstanding where the parties, because they have interpreted something incorrectly, are feeling uncomfortable. In Level One, he is describing real conflict; that is, disagreement.
Actual differences exist, people understand one another, and they have conflicting goals, values, needs, action plans, or information.
At this level the parties to the conflict are likely to feel uncomfortable in the presence of one another. There may be some short-lived anger or intentional or non-conscious denial of hostile feelings. The feelings of the participants, however, are not the key indication of the level of conflict. Anger may flare at any level. At Level One the anger will be short-lived and quickly controlled. Anger which is sustained is an indicator of higher levels of conflict
(especially III and IV). The two key identifying characteristics of each level of conflict are the parties’ objectives and their use of language.
At Level One conflict the objective of the key actors is to fix the problem—to use rational methods to determine what is wrong. At Level One the parties will be problem oriented and not person oriented. They will be quick to move to rational problem solving techniques and will be optimistic about working through the difficulties if they just confront the difficulty (not the person) and work it through. Usually people at Level One believe that collaborative methods are available to them and will choose to engage the conflict in a way that is open with regard to full sharing of information and participation on the part of everyone involved (everyone, that is, who is at Level One).
The language of the people at this level of conflict is clear, specific, oriented to the here and now, not loaded with innuendo, clear of blame, and, to use a Berne category, in the
“adult.” Persons at Level One are likely to invite others to describe what it is they want, or what the difficulty is, and are likely to contribute, as fully as necessary, descriptive and specific information about what is happening or not happening that is creating the problem.
Level II, Disagreement
The second level of conflict which he calls disagreement is more difficult than Level One, but we still have not yet reached the stage of win/lose conflict. In Level One the parties were concerned about solving problems. In Level Two their objectives changed to being less concerned with the problem to solve than they are with protecting themselves.
At Level Two a new item of concern has entered the picture: myself. While I certainly would like to solve the problem, I don’t want to get hurt in the process nor do I want to be besmirched in any way. In short: I want to come out looking good. At Level Two a new element of shrewdness and calculation enters into the conflict arena. The various parties will probably find themselves calling on friends to discuss the problem and ask for advice; perhaps
14
one will begin to plan strategies for how to deal with the conflict when it is next expressed in a meeting or relationship.
What happens in terms of language at Level Two is that there is a shift from being specific to being general in one’s descriptions of the problem. The parties to the conflict will stop naming the individuals with whom they are having difficulty and will begin to allude to
“some people”; each will be more protective of the self and of others. Instead of describing who is doing or not doing what, the participants will report that there is no trust, or “we have a communication problem,” or “we need more openness,” or “people should act more like
Christians around here.” Behind each of these generalizations is likely to be found a specific, factual happening, but those involved in the conflict are distancing themselves from their reality and each other by generalizing about it.
At Level Two they have not become hostile, just cautious, and this caution could well keep people from getting close enough to each other to work through their differences. There are other behaviors which also seem to be characteristic of the Level Two conflict. For example, the parties will be cautious about sharing all that they know about the difficulties they are experiencing; they especially will tend to withhold data that might enhance the other
(especially at the expense of the one sharing the data). At Level Two compromise is a common strategy talked about for dealing with the differences. This may not be an appropriate or possible strategy, but nevertheless, compromise ideas begin to emerge at this level and are difficult to revive at Levels Three and Four. Hostile humor also is apart of Level
Two conflict.
Level III, Contest
Note that it is not until one is through two levels of conflict before win/lose dynamics are encountered. In other words, win/lose is a fairly high level of conflict, but short of the hostilities and agonies of fight/flight dynamics. It is a pity that much of the literature on conflict (some of which he has written himself) is unable to help the person in conflict recognize that win/lose is tough, but still short of fight/flight dynamics which are destructive of organizational tissue and individual integrity. As the name suggests, the objectives of the parties in Level Three have shifted from self-protection to winning.
At this point, what is important is not hurting or getting rid of one’s opponent (in fact, many at Level Three are stimulated and exhilarated by a worthy opponent and are disappointed when the opposition folds quickly or does not put up an interesting challenge).
The objectives of the Level Three protagonist are usually more complex than those of Levels
One and Two.
Usually there is more than one problem to “fix.” Often parties are beginning to emerge where problems begin to cluster in issues As these problems begin to cluster we now begin to talk of women’s issues, and groups begin to take sides, forming factions which take positions they believe are consistent with the interests of those in their constituency. These emerging factions are looking for victories, for evidences that their group is in the ascendancy, that they have more power or control than the other or others. In other words, the win/lose dynamic is in effect.
15
With regard to the language used by the parties at Level Three, we see a dramatic difference from that used at Level One and Two. At Level Three distortion becomes a serious problem. Whether the person actually perceives the world in a distorted way, or only describes it in a distorted way, is a chicken and egg problem beyond the scope of this paper.
He has chosen several key distortions which occur at Level Three as well as Four and Five: magnification, dichotomization, over-generalization, and assumption or arbitrary inference.
Magnification is the tendency to see oneself as more benevolent than one actually is, and the other as more evil than he or she actually is.
Dichotomization is the tendency to divide everything and everybody into neat dual, but separate, packages: us versus them, right and wrong, stay or leave, fight or flee, etc. When one is dichotomizing, it is almost impossible to see shades between extremes or to find more than two alternatives when making choices.
In Level Two there is a tendency to see specific behavior as an example of a category of events or attitudes (trust, friendly, communication, etc.); in Level Three generalization takes on an out of control and/or pernicious quality: “You always,” “He never,” “Everybody.”
Assumption. At Level Three the contestants delude themselves to believe that they are excellent mind readers, students of their oppositions’ subtlest motives. Somehow the idea of
“winning” seems contradictory to inviting the other to try to work out a solution or resolution to the problem or issues, and the parties therefore each hang back waiting for the other to show “weakness” by admitting there is a problem and asking for steps toward ending the tension. Personal attacks are endemic at this level and are often mixed up with problem identification. In informal settings the parties are uncomfortable with each other and not likely to continue conversations beyond what is required by social probity. Further, at Level Three, the parties find themselves being torn between attempting to use rational argument and appealing to emotions. Emotional appeals (e.g., “How could you go against us when we are so much for you”) usually have little or no impact on either neutral audiences or partial contestants, but they seem to increase as a part of this level of conflict.
Level IV, Fight, Flight
At Level Four the objectives of the parties to a conflict change from winning to hurting and/or getting rid of the other. In fact, the parties do not believe that the other can or will change.
Therefore, they believe that the only option open totem is the elimination of the other from their environment. Here the objectives have shifted significantly. No longer is the good of the organization a central concern of the parties, but the good of a sub-group within it (which can either be a minority or a majority group). Being right and punishment become the predominant themes of the conflict. It is at this level that factions become solidified, and there are clear lines demarking who is in and who is not in each of the camps. Strong leaders emerge, and the members of the factions are willing to conform to the wishes of the leaders and the will of the group. Sub-group cohesiveness becomes more important than the health of the total organization. Not only do the membership lines of factions solidify, but also the language around the issues begins to solidify into an ideology. Members of the factions begin to talk about principles more than the issues; they refer to eternal verities such as truth, freedom, and justice; and they speak of rights that seem to stand alone and cannot be contradicted in conflict with anything else: property rights, right to life, right to bear arms, etc.
These principles are used to sanctify the Level four combatant and make it possible for her or
16
him to be less concerned with the ethics of means and to believe with Saul Alinsky, “If the ends don’t justify the means, what does?”
The reason that he has designated Level four conflict as fight/flight is that it brings out the most primitive survival responses in both defendants and proponents. There seems to be no middle ground between running or attacking—and the attacks are on persons who the attacker cannot differentiate from the ideas proposed or defended. Other behaviors that are common to this level of conflict include: a detachment of the parties from one another so that they are not aware of the pain they are causing the other, and a kind of unforgiving, cold, selfrighteousness. The parties at this level will attempt to enlist outsiders in their cause— outsiders who will join with them (not outsiders who are neutral and will help manage the conflict); outsiders who will help them punish or get rid of the “bad people.” Further, when the parties are in the same room, they will not speak to one another, nor will they be seen together (except on unfriendly and hostile terms).
Level V, Intractable
He has chosen to title this level of conflict with a word which means unmanageable. Level five conflicts are not within the control of the participants to manage; they are conflict run amok. Where the objective of the participants in Level four conflict was to punish or get the other out of the organization of which the participant is a member, in Level five the objective of each of the parties is to destroy the other. The opposition is seen not only as dysfunctional in the organization of which he or she is now a member, but to be harmful to society at large, and he or she must therefore be removed.
At Level Five the parties usually perceive themselves to be a part of an eternal cause, fighting for universal principles. Since the ends are all-important, they believe they are compelled to continue to fight. They cannot stop. Indeed, the costs of withdrawal (to society, to truth, to God) are seen to be greater than the costs of defeating the others; therefore, continuing the fight is the only choice; one cannot choose to stop fighting.
THE CONFLICT PROCESS
The conflict process can be seen as comprising five stages: potential opposition of incompatibility, cognition and personalization, intentions, behavior, and outcomes. The process is diagrammed in table.
17
The Conflict Process (Robbins, 1998)
STAGE I: POTENTIAL OPPOSITION OR INCOMPATIBILTY
The potential oppositions or incompatibility relates to the conditions necessary for conflicts to arise. Communication, or rather the lack of it, is seen as one of the major obstacles, serving as an opposing force, which creates a level of misunderstanding. The structure of the organization is also viewed as a possible opposition block as conflicts evolve between departments. Personal variables are probably the most likely to cause conflict on and individual bases, as there are invariably clashes in personality types within an organization.
The first step in the conflict process is the presence of conditions that create opportunities for conflict to arise. They need not lead directly to conflict, but one of these conditions is necessary if conflict is to arise. For simplicity’s sake, these conditions (which also may be looked at as causes or sources of conflict) have been condensed into three general categories: communication, structure, and personal variables.
Communication: A review of the research suggests that differing word connotations, jargon, insufficient exchange of information, and noise in the communication channel are all barriers to communication and potential antecedent conditions to conflict. Evidence demonstrates that semantic difficulties arise as a result of differences in training, selective perception, and inadequate information about others. Research has further demonstrated a surprising finding:
The potential for conflict increases when either too little or too much communication takes place. Apparently, an increase in communication is functional up to a point, where upon it is possible to over communicate, with a resultant increase in the potential for conflict. Too much information as well as too little can lay the foundation for conflict. Furthermore, the channel chosen for communicating can have an influence on stimulating opposition. The filtering process that occurs as information is passed among members and the divergence of communications from formal or previously established channels offer potential opportunities for conflict to arise.
Structure: Research indicates that size and specialization act as forces to stimulate conflict.
The larger the group and the more specialized its activities, the greater the likelihood of conflict. Tenure and conflict have been found to be inversely related. The potential for conflict tends to be greatest when group members are younger and when turnover is high.
The greater the ambiguity in precisely defining where responsibility for actions lies, the greater the potential for conflict to emerge. Such jurisdictional ambiguities increase intergroup fighting for control of resources and territory. Groups within organizations have diverse goals. For instance, purchasing is concerned with the timely acquisition of inputs at low prices, marketing’s goals concentrate on disposing of outputs and increasing revenues, quality control’s attention is focused on improving quality and ensuring that the organization’s products meet standards, and production units seek efficiency of operations by maintaining a steady production flow. This diversity of goals among groups is a major source of conflict.
There is some indication that a close style of leadership—tight and continuous observation with general control of other’s behaviors—increases conflict potential, but the evidence is not particularly strong. Too much reliance on participation may also stimulate conflict. Research tends to confirm that participation may also stimulate conflict. Research tends to confirm that
18
participation encourages the promotion of differences. Reward systems, too, are found to create conflict when one member’s gain is at another’s expense. Finally, if a group is dependent on another group (in contrast to the two being mutually independent) or if interdependence allows one group to gain at another’s expense, opposing forces are stimulated.
Personal Variables: Personal variables include the individual value systems that each value systems that each person has and the personality characteristics that account for individual idiosyncrasies and differences. The evidence indicates that certain personality types -- for example, individuals who highly authoritarian and dogmatic, and who demonstrate low esteem—lead to potential conflict. Most important, and probably the most overlooked variable in the study of social conflict, is differing value systems. Value differences, for example, are the best explanation of such diverse issues as prejudice, disagreements over one’s contribution to the group and the reward one deserves.
STAGE II: COGNITION AND PERSONALIZATION
This relates to the personalization of the conflict. In this phase, the potential for conflict becomes actualized. Perceived conflict relates to the individual or group actually seeing the conflict arise and affect them. It creates the awareness of the problem. A ‘felt conflict’ arises when individuals become emotionally charged due to the conflict, creating hostility with the opposing party. It is in this phase that the conflict is defined and each party envisions what they believe to be the solution.
If the conditions cited in Stage 1 negatively affect something that one party cares about, then the potential for opposition or incompatibility becomes actualized in the second stage.
The antecedent conditions can only lead to conflict when one or more of the parties are affected by, and aware of, the conflict.
As we noted in our definition of conflict, perception is required. Therefore, one or more of the parties must be aware of the existence of the antecedent conditions. However, because a conflict is perceived dose not mean that it is personalized. In other words, ‘A may be aware that B and A are in serious disagreement… but it may not make A tense or anxious , and it may have no effect whatsoever on A’s affection toward B. It is at the felt level, when individuals become emotionally involved, that parties experience anxiety, tension, frustration, or hostility.
We must keep in mind two points. First, Stage 2 is important because it’s where conflict issues tend to be defined. This is the place in the process where the parties decide what the conflict is about. And, in turn, this ‘sense making’ is critical because the way a conflict is defined goes a long way toward establishing the sort of outcomes that might settle it. The second point is that emotions play a major role in shaping perceptions. For example, negative interpretations of the other party’s behavior. In contrast, positive feelings have been found to increase the tendency to see potential relationships among the elements of a problem, to take a broader view of the situation, and to develop more innovative solutions.
19
STAGE III: INTENTIONS
Intentions intervene between people’s perceptions and emotions and their overt behavior.
These intentions are decisions to act in a given way. Using two dimensions-cooperativeness
(the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy the other party’s interests) and assertiveness
(the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns)-five conflict handling intentions can be identified. The schedule below shows the position of each conflict handling intention on the cooperativeness and assertiveness dimensions.
Assertive
Unassertive
Competing
Avoiding
Collaborating
Compromising
Accommodating
Uncooperative Cooperative
Competing: When one party seeks to satisfy his or her own interests, regardless of the impact on the other parties to the conflict, he or she is competing. This means overpowering other groups in the conflict and promoting the concerns of one’s own group at the expense of the other group. One way to accomplish this aim is by resorting to authority to satisfy the concerns of one’s own group. Thus, the head of a group of a group of account executives may appeal to the director of advertising to protect the group’s turf from the intrusions by other account execs.
Collaborating: This strategy attempts to satisfy the concerns of all groups of all groups by working through differences and seeking solutions so that everyone gains as a result. A marketing department and a manufacturing department that meets on a regular basis to plan mutually acceptable production schedules are collaborating.
Avoiding: This approach requires staying neutral at all costs or refusing to take an active role in conflict resolution procedures. The finance department that sticks its head in the sand and hopes that dissension about budgetary allocations will blow over is exhibiting avoidance.
Accommodating : This allows other groups to satisfy their own concerns at the expense of one’s own group. Differences are smoothed over to maintain superficial harmony. A purchasing department that fails to meet budgetary guidelines because it deliberately overspends on raw materials to satisfy the demands of production groups is trying to use accommodation to cope with the conflict.
Compromising : It is in the mid-range of both cooperativeness and assertiveness. This approach seeks partial satisfaction of all groups through exchange and sacrifice, settling for acceptable rather than optimal resolution. Contract bargaining between union representatives and management involves significant compromise by both sides.
20
When Different Styles of Intentions Should Be Applied
Style
Competing
Accommodating
Application
When quick, decisive action is required; to cope with crises. On important issues where unpopular solutions must be implemented, such as cost cutting or employee discipline.
On issues vital to organizational welfare when your group is certain that its position is correct.
Against groups who take advantage of noncompetitive behavior.
When your group is wrong and wants both show reasonableness and to encourage the expression of a more appropriate view. When issues are more important to groups other than yours, to satisfy others and maintain cooperation.
To build credits or bank favors for later issues. To minimize losses when your group is outmatched and losing. When harmony and stability are especially important.
Avoiding
Collaborating
When a conflict is trivial or more important conflicts are pressing.
When there is no chance that your group will satisfy its own needs.
When the costs of potential disruption outweigh the benefits of resolution.
To let groups cool down and gain perspective.
When others can resolve the conflict more effectively.
To find an integrative solution when conflicting concerns are too important to be compromised.
When the most important objective is to learn.
To gain commitment through the development of consensus.
To work through conflicting feelings in individuals and between groups.
When group concerns are important but not worth the disruption of more
Compromising assertive styles.
When equally powerful groups are committed to pursuing mutually exclusive concerns.
To achieve temporary or transitional settlements.
To arrive at expedient resolutions under time pressure.
As a backup when neither competing nor problem-solving styles are successful
Source: Adapted from John A. Wagner, III and John R. Hollenbeck, “Management of Organizational Behavior”,
2 nd edition (1995), p. 470.
As indicated in the table above, the appropriateness of each of the five approaches depends on the situation surrounding the conflict and often, the time pressure for a negotiated settlement.
STAGE IV: BEHAVIOR
When most people think of a conflict situation, they tend to focus on that stage. Why?
Because this is where conflict becomes visible. The behavior stage includes the statements, actions, a reactions made by the conflicting parties.
These conflict behaviors are usually overt attempts to implement each party’s intentions. But these behaviors have a stimulus quality that is separate from intentions. As a result of miscalculations or unskilled enactments, overt behaviors sometimes deviate from original intentions. In that stage, it is very apparent to non-involved parties a problem exist.
21
Although it is still possible to successfully resolve conflict at this stage, it is far better to deal with it at an earlier stage.
Every conflict situation leaves a conflict aftermath that affects the way both groups perceive and act upon subsequent conflicts. Generally the earlier conflicts can be resolved, the more likely the aftermath will facilitate positive future interactions.
STAGE V: OUTCOMES
The action-reaction interplay between the conflicting parties result in consequences. These outcomes may be functional in that the conflict results in an improvement in the group’s performance, or dysfunctional in that it hinders group performance.
Functional conflict: A functional conflict is a confrontation between groups that enhances and benefits the organization’s performance. For example, two departments in a hospital may be in conflict over the most efficient and adaptive method of delivering health care to lowincome rural families. Two departments agree on the goal but not on the means to achieve it.
Whatever the outcome, the low-income rural families probably will end up with better medical care once the conflict is settled. Without this type of conflict in organizations, there would be little commitment to change, and most groups would become stagnant. Functional conflict can lead to increased awareness of problems that need to be addressed, result in broader and more productive searches for solutions, and generally facilitate positive change, adaptation, and innovation.
Dysfunctional conflict: A dysfunctional conflict is any confrontation or interaction between groups that harms the organization or hinders the achievement of organizational goals.
Management must seek to eliminate dysfunctional conflict.
Beneficial conflicts can often turn into harmful ones. In most cases, the point at which functional conflict becomes dysfunctional is impossible to identify precisely. The same level of stress and conflict that creates a healthy and positive movement toward goals in one group may prove extremely disruptive and dysfunctional in another group. A group’s tolerance for stress and conflict can also depend on the type of organization it serves. Auto manufacturers, professional sports teams, and crisis organizations such as police and fire departments would have different points where functional conflict becomes dysfunctional than would organizations such as universities, research and development firms, and motion-picture production firms.
Conflict can be considered as functional or dysfunctional depending on its effects on the organizational performance. Conflict also affects relationships within and between groups in several ways. We will look first at changes that typically occur within conflicting groups and then at the changes that occur in the relations between such groups.
Changes Within Groups : Within groups engaged in conflict, changes of four types are often observed. First, external threats such as conflict bring about increased group cohesiveness . As a result, groups engaged in conflict become more attractive and important to their own members. Increased cohesiveness suggests that conformity to group norms becomes more important. This may take the form of blind acceptance of dysfunctional solutions to the conflict. This is referred to as the emphasis on loyalty . Ongoing conflict also stimulates an emphasis on task performance . All efforts within each conflicting groups are directed towards
22
meeting the challenge posed by other groups, and concerns about individual satisfaction lose importance. A sense of urgency surrounds task performance; defeating the enemy becomes uppermost, and there is much less goofing off. In addition, when a group is in conflict, otherwise reluctant members will often submit to autocratic leadership to manage crisis, perceiving participative decision making as slow and weak. A group in such circumstances is also likely to place much more emphasis on standardized procedures and centralized control.
Changes Between Groups : In addition to these four changes within groups, four changes often occur in relations between conflicting groups. Hostility often surfaces in the form of hardened “ we-they attitudes ”. Each group sees itself as virtuous and other groups as enemies.
During conflicts, the perceptions of each group’s members become distorted. Group members develop stronger opinions of the importance of their unit. The marketing group in a business organization may think, “without us selling the product, there would be no money to pay anyone else’s salary.” The production group, meanwhile, will say, “if we don’t make the product, there is nothing to sell.” The final change between groups is decreased communication. This can be extremely dysfunctional. The decision-making process can be disrupted, and the customers or others whom the organization serves can be affected.
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
It is said that a conflict is ‘managed’ within an organization when the conflict does not interfere in a negative manner with the relationships or the performance of the organization.
Conflict management is not an easy task, as leaders not only have to manage the conflict and reach a solution, but they also have to manage emotions as well. This can prove very difficult, especially if the parties believe the conflict is based on a matter of principle, and therefore they are unwilling to negotiate with emotions running high. A principle is often said to be either upheld, or integrity is lost.
One objective of conflict management is to get both parties to understand the differing positions but still believe in their own, or, as is more generally known, agree to disagree.
Once this point has been reached the process can move along from arguing to problem solving. Conflict management also integrates the stimulation of conflict in a positive manner, preventing stale attitudes to engulf the organization.
Strategic decision making is of fundamental importance to an organization. Leaders and employees alike must have a vision of where the organization needs to be heading so that they can identify tangible goals for the organization. The conflict arises however when the strategies to implement these goals are implemented. According to Gordon (1991),
“
Conflict management is the process of removing cognitive barriers to agreement.
Agreement does not mean the conflict has gone away, it means that people are committed to a course of action that serves some of their interests .”
Power is also an important element in conflict management. It is useful to anticipate how the use of power will create a conflict relationship. This type of activity provides enormous advantages in the ability to achieve desired levels of control with minimal dysfunctional side effects.
23
There are numerous forms of conflict management, each one suited to different situations, individuals and organizations. As theories have progressed relating to conflict management, a useful approach has been devised in relation to conflict management. This strategy may lead the way for today’s more progressive and detailed forms of conflict management. The guidelines are as follows,
Determine how important the issue is to all people involved.
Determine if all people involved are willing and able to discuss the issue in a positive manner.
Select a private place where the issue can be discussed confidently by everyone
involved.
Make sure that both sides understand that they are responsible for both the problem and the solution.
Solicit open comments from both sides. Let them express their concerns, feelings, ideas, and thoughts, but in a non-accusatory manner.
Guide participants toward a clear and specific definition of the problem.
of different perspectives and discuss any and all solutions proposed.
Evaluate the costs verses the gains (cost-benefit analysis) of all proposed solutions and discuss them openly. Choose the best solution.
participants to express their opinions as how the process may be improved.
Conflict management is also about creating conflict in the right environment.
Traditionally, many people got to the top of the organizational ladder because they were conflict evaders, but now companies are specifically creating systems within the organization that actively encourages conflict and criticism. Companies such as Hewlett Packard and IBM encourage a free flow of information within their organization, be that information a criticism or otherwise. A third party council is provided for any disputes that may arise. This form of conflict management has been proven successful, stimulating new ideas and allowing for continuous improvement in the organization. However, for this system to work it requires proper leadership, support from top management and employees who feel secure enough in their capabilities to encourage criticism. It is generally accepted that communication lies at the crux of most conflict. The conflict can have either functional or dysfunctional effects within the organization. In some cases, creating positive effects from a serious negative conflict can be difficult if not impossible, but it is compulsory that the conflict be contained to diminish the possible negative effects on performance. Early communication with both parties is essential, in an attempt to convince the parties that there are opportunities for negotiation.
Also, setting down guidelines and non-acceptance of blame allocation are important. But the most important factor in conflict management is trust. It is essential that the third party be trusted by both sides. Trust can be maintained by keeping promises made to both parties.
Trust is very difficult to win, and very easy to lose. Conflict can never be managed by someone who cannot be trusted.
Since managers must live with conflict, they must confront the problem of managing it. In this section we will examine several different approaches to managing conflict.
24
Conflict Resolution
If the management see or foresee the dysfunctional consequences of the conflict persistent in the organization, the conflict should be resolved.
Conflict requires interdependence. Thus it is possible to manage or resolve conflict by restructuring the connections that tie the conflicting groups together. One way to do so is to develop superordinate goals, identifying and pursuing a set of performance targets that conflicting groups can achieve only by working together. Sharing a common goal requires the groups to look beyond their differences and learn how to cooperate with each other. The second way is to expand the supply of critical resources. This method removes a major source of conflict between groups that draw from the same supply. When this method is successful, it decreases the amount of interdependence between groups who now compete less for available resources. A third way is manage conflict is to clarify existing relationships and make the political clarification position of each group readily apparent. If it is feasible, this political clarification affects interdependence between groups by strengthening the groups’ understanding of how and why they are connected and reducing the political indeterminism that must exist for conflict to occur. A fourth approach is to modify existing structural relationships , and includes two mechanisms called decoupling mechanisms of slack resources and self-contained task. Slack resources help to decouple otherwise interconnected groups by creating buffers that lessen the ability of one group to affect the activities of another. Suppose one group assembles telephone handsets, and another group connects finished handsets to telephone bodies to form fully assembled units. The two groups are sequentially interdependent because the second group’s ability to perform its work is contingent on the first group’s ability to complete it task. Work in the second group comes to a halt if the handset-assembly group stops producing. If, however, we create a buffer inventory- a supply of finished handsets-that the second group can draw on when the handset-assembly group is not producing anything, we have at least temporarily decoupled the two work groups.
In contrast, the creation of self-contained tasks involves combining the work of two or more interdependent groups and assigning this work to several independent work groups.
Typically such self-contained groups are staffed by employees drawn from each of the original interdependent groups. For example, engineering and drafting groups might have problems coordinating engineering specifications and the drawings produced by the drafting group. These two groups might be regrouped into several independent engineering-drafting groups. Each one can produce product specifications and drawings without outside assistance.
After this regrouping, the original two groups would no longer exist. Key interdependencies that lie outside the original groups are contained within redesigned groups and can be managed without crossing group boundaries or involving outside managers.
The final method of conflict resolution can be to use power . The presence of a strong
CEO is important in managing organizational conflict. Indeed, the relative power of the CEO, the board of directors, and other top managers is important in understanding how and why organizations change and restructure themselves and why this benefits some people and subunits more than others. To understand how and why organizational conflict is resolved in favor of different subunits and stakeholders, we need to look closely at the issue of power.
25
What is power, and what is its role in organizational conflict? According to most researchers, organizational power is the mechanism through which conflict gets resolved. It can be defined as the ability of one person or group to overcome resistance by others to achieve a desired objective or result. More specifically, organizational power is the ability of
A to cause B to do something that B would not otherwise have done. Thus, when power is used is used to resolve conflict, the element of coercion exists. Actors with power can bring about outcomes they desire over the opposition of other actors.
The possession of power is an important determinant of the kind of decisions that resolve a conflict-for example, decisions concerning the allocation of resources or the assignment of responsibility between managers and subunits. When decisions are made through bargaining between organizational coalitions, the relative power of various coalitions to influence decision making is what determines how conflicts gets resolved and which subunits benefit from the decision making process.
Thus conflict and power are intimately related. Conflict is caused by the existence of different individuals or groups that need to cooperate to achieve organizational objectives but must compete for organizational resources and have different individual or group goals and priorities. When a situation arises that causes these groups to compete for resources, conflict emerges.
The explosion of space shuttle Challenger can be given as an example for the dysfunctional outcome of centralized power at top management together with low power distance. The engineers said “It should not take off at such a cold weather!” But the management did not hear their voices. Because the organizational culture did not allow the engineers to go further from their immediate managers. Management was so blind that they just considered to confirm the NASA’s identity as “the elite organization that could do no wrong”. The result was seven astronauts dead and three billion loss of capital. In fact, if the management was not afraid of sharing their power with engineers and participate them in the decision making process, the astronauts would be alive now and continue their studies at
NASA.
Conflict Stimulation
Sometimes groups become too complacent because everything operates smoothly. In this case the management might benefit from stimulating conflict. Lack of any disagreement can lead to suboptimum performance, including inferior decision making. Also, lack of conflict leads to the acceptance of status quo and discourages innovation.
A variety of research supports this conclusion. In one study, experimental and control groups were formed to solve a problem. The experimental groups had a member, a confederate of the researcher, whose job was to challenge the majority view of the groups he or she had been planted in as the group attempted to solve the problem. The control groups had no such member. In every case, the experimental groups outperformed the control groups.
While lack of conflict may prove beneficial in the short run, it can lead to situations where one group holds tremendous influence over another. There can be a number of benefits from increasing conflict levels. Some conflict is probably necessary to stimulate the critical evaluation of organizational policies and processes and to lay the ground work for change.
26
Four possible strategies to stimulate conflict are discussed below. A technique widely used to “bring back to life” a stagnant organization or subunit of an organization is to hire or transfer in individuals whose attitudes, values, and backgrounds differ from those of the group’s present members. Many college faculties consciously seek new members with different backgrounds and often discourage the hiring of graduates of their own programs.
This is to ensure a diversity of viewpoints on the faculty. Sears, Roebuck is an example of an organization that could have benefited by stimulating conflict through bringing in outsiders.
For decades, Sears was the nation’s leading retailing organization. It became complacent in its belief that it was invulnerable. In 1980, it became apparent Sears had lulled itself to sleep.
Wal-Mart and Kmart overtook Sears, and numerous other retailers were moving up fast. An examination of Sears’ organization chart would have revealed that senior management were all long-time employees, the majority of whom had been at Sears for over a quarter of a century. They were very similar in values and management style. While the nature of retailing was undergoing rapid change, they were trying to maintain status quo.
The second conflict stimulation technique is to alter the organizations structure .
Changing the structure of the organization cannot only help resolve conflict, it is also excellent for creating conflict. For example, a school of business typically has several departments. One, named the Department of Business Administration, includes all of the faculty members who teach courses in management, marketing, finance, production management, and so forth. Accordingly, the department is rather large, with 32 members under one department chair, who reports to the dean. A new dean recently has been hired, and he is considering dividing the business administration unit into several separate departments, each with five or six members and a chairperson. The reasoning is that reorganizing in this manner will create competition among the groups for resources, students, faculty, and so forth, where none existed before because there was only one group. The third method is to stimulate competition . Many managers utilize various techniques to stimulate competition among groups. The use of a variety of incentives, such as rewards and bonuses for outstanding performance, often stimulates competition. If properly utilized, such incentives can help maintain a healthy atmosphere of competition that may result in a functional level of conflict.
It is important to note that competition and conflict are not the same. Both are forms of interaction, but competition is a struggle between individuals, or groups of individuals, who are not necessarily in contact and communication; while conflict is a contest in which contact is an indispensable condition. Competition, unqualified and uncontrolled, and in the great impersonal life-struggle of man with his kind and with all animate nature, is unconscious.
Conflict is always conscious, indeed, it evokes the deepest emotions and strongest passions and enlists the greatest concentration of attention and of effort. Both competition and conflict are forms of struggle. Competition, however, is continuous and impersonal, conflict is intermittent and personal. Competition usually brings out the best in people, as they strive to be top in their field, whether in sport, community affairs, politics or work. In fact, fair and friendly competition often leads to new sporting achievements, scientific inventions or outstanding effort in solving a community problem. When competition becomes unfriendly or bitter, though, conflict can begin - and this can bring out the worst in people. Competition takes the form of conflict or rivalry only when it becomes conscious, when competitors identify one another as rivals or as enemies. In general, one may say competition becomes conscious and personal in conflict. In the process of transition competitors are transformed into rivals and enemies. In its higher forms, however, conflict becomes impersonal--a struggle to establish and maintain rules of justice and a moral order.
27
And the final conflict stimulation technique is programmed conflict . Increasingly, organizations are turning to programmed conflict to increase creativity and innovation, and to improve decision making. Programmed conflict is conflict that is deliberately and systematically created even when no real differences appear to exist. It is “conflict that raises different opinions regardless of the personal feelings of the managers.” One popular form of programmed conflict is devil’s advocacy . In devil’s advocacy, some one or some group is assigned the role of critic with the job of uncovering all possible problems with a particular proposal. The role of the devil’s advocate is to ensure that opposing views are presented and taken into consideration before any sort of final decision is made.
28
REFERENCES
Coffey, Robert E., Cook, Curtis W. and Hunsaker, Philip L., Management & Organizational
Behavior(1994)
Fisher, Ron(1977), Sources of Conflict and Methods of Conflict Resolution, International
Peace and Conflict Resolution School of International Service The American University
Ivancevich, John M. and Matteson, Michael T.(1999), Organizational Behavior and
Management(5 th
edition), McGraw-Hill, Singapore
Jones, Gareth R.(2004), Organizational Theory, Design, and Change(4 th edition), Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River
Judge, Timothy A. and Robbins, Stephen P, Organizational Behavior(12 th
edition), Prentice
Hall
Luthans, Fred(1992), Organizational Behavior(6 th
edition), McGraw-Hill, Singapore
Leas, Speed(1984), “Conflict in the Parish: How Bad Is It?”, Word & World, 4:2, 182
Robbins, Stephen P., Organizational Behavior(10 th
edition), Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River
Wagner, John A. and Hollenbeck, John R.(1995), Management of Organizational
Behavior(2 nd
edition), Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs https://www.ohrd.wisc.edu/onlinetraining/resolution/aboutwhatisit.htm#whatisconflict http://www.unimuenster.de/Politikwissenschaft/Doppeldiplom/docs/1)%20Conflict%20defini tion.doc
http://www.etu.org.za/toolbox/docs/building/conflict.html
http://www.manage.gov.in/managelib/faculty/jaya.htm
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN006644.pdf
http://www.hereticpress.com/Dogstar/Psychology/Conflict/Chapter1.html
http://www.gms.state.ga.us/pdf/sp_news/news0297.pdf
29
