Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Intergroup Conflict
Intergroup Conflict
Intergroup Conflict
1.0 Introduction
In literature review, the first part is to discuss about the intergroup conflicts. Next, will
be the factors and consequences of the conflict. Previous research study on the effect
of intergroup conflict has demonstrated the importance of perception of the intergroup
conflict. In recent years, a new generation of research study has advanced the
understanding of intergroup relations (Wrangham, 1999; Boesch & Boesch-
Achermann, 2000; Mitani, 2002).
Besides that, a recent meta-analysis provided marked evidence for the benefits of
intergroup contact, especially when the contact situation maximizes most or all of its
optimal conditions (Pettigrew & Tropp, 1998). More ever, nowadays there is no study
that has systematically examined whether the intergroup conflict increases
enforcement of cooperation (Fehr & Fischbacher 2003).
Intergroup conflict requires actively setting up the in-group interests against the out-
group interests (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In the case of intergroup conflict, the presence
of an out-group directly challenges the value of belonging to an in-group, in-group
members experience a threat to the value of their group, prompting them to protect
their social identity and defend the value of the group (Branscombe et al, 2003).
Previous research findings also demonstrates that when in-group members are faced
with a threat to their value, they will engage in more intergroup conflict and in-group
favouritism in order to change the intergroup situation and thus maintain their positive
social identities (Ouwerkerk et al, 2000; Scheepers et al, 1998).
1
The more extensive the negative contacts such as disagreements, fights, losing group
efforts, unpleasant intergroup interaction from out-group, the more the in-group is
likely to be perceived as a threat (Stephan, Boniecki, 1985). When two groups are
perceived to be different, it may lead to feelings of threat (Stephan & Boniecki, 1985).
For example, some view conflict as purely consisting of disagreements or opinion
differences (Moore, 1998), some see it as interfering or obstructing behavior (Alper et
al, 2000) and others view it as some combination of the above and a mixture of
negative emotions like anxiety, jealousy, frustration and anger (Jehn, 1994; Bodtker &
Jameson, 2001). At the same times, intergroup conflicts in intense to drawn out and
costly to those involved.
Hellriege and Slocum (2007) stated that intergroup conflict within organizations can
occur horizontally across groups, departments or divisions while vertically between
different levels of the organization such as between top management and first-level
employees. Horizontal conflicts often occur between manufacturing and marketing or
internal auditors and the other business functions. Furthermore, Chuang, Church and
Zikic (2004) also stated that conflict occurs when group members perceived
discrepancies, incompatible wishes or desires among them. The early research study
on conflict tends to view intergroup conflict as having detrimental effects on group or
organizational functioning.
2
2.0 Consequences of Intergroup Conflict
When intergroup conflict occurs, individuals and managers must identify the causes
of the conflict, examine the results of the conflict and manage the conflicts based on
the information gathered (Belisle & Daniel, 1998). Most organizations would prefer
to have different groups work well together because the alternative is unpleasant.
However, there was a common question about what really happens within an
organization when it is in conflict with other groups. CIPD's "Managing Conflict at
Work" survey (October 2004: 1190 participants) suggests that dealing with conflict is
taking up increasingly more time. One thing known very clearly is that conflict
changes group member’s perceptions of each other (Roccas & Schwartz, 2001). As
conflicts emerge among the groups, cooperative relationships are replaced by a win-
lose mentality in which victory becomes more important than solving the problem that
may have caused the conflict in the first place (Hellriege & Slocum, 2007).
In a recent meta-analysis results, De Dreu & Weingart concluded that conflict could
still have positive consequences under certain conditions such as when the groups
trust each other and called for future research to identify those (Simons & Peterson,
2000).
When intergroup conflict emerges, changes also occur in group members perception,
one own group tends to look increasingly, perhaps unrealistically positive and
weaknesses may be denied. The perception of other groups and their accomplishment
are likely to grow increasingly negative and become distorted (Stephen M. Shortell &
Arnold D. Kaluzny, 2004). The belief that conflict is negative consequences is agreed
by March and Simon (1967), they defined conflict as a breakdown of the mechanism
of decision making and consider as a malfunction of a system. Maltz and Kohli
(2000) concluded that intergroup conflict can be negative consequences and “frustrate
initiatives” in other groups.
3
2.1 Positive Consequences of Intergroup Conflict
2.1.1 Improvement
4
2.1.2 Cohesiveness
When a group sees a threat from an outside group, they may pull together and become
highly cohesive. It is not unusual for such group to develop friendships inside that far
outlast their military service (Steve M. Jex, 2002). This “common enemy” effect also
occurs in organizations enhance the members of the group band together when faces
with an outside threat. Increased intergroup cooperation and cohesion through this
may be detrimental to the group as a whole (Blake & Mouton, 1960; Bornstein &
Ben-Yossef, 1994; Kinzel & Fisher, 1993; Stein, 1976; Tajfel, 1969). Tajfel (1969) has
also posited that for a group to form and for cohesion to intensify some satisfaction
must be provided by the group to each member’s social identity. It has been found that
group’s cohesion increases rapidly during intergroup conflict problem-solving
activities (Blake & Mouton, 1960; Bornstein & Ben-Yossef, 1994; Kinzel & Fisher,
1993; Stein, 1976).
5
activity, sometimes just to reduce the conflict and its concurrent displeasure, at other
time conflict give a zest to certain activities.
2.2 Negative Consequences of Intergroup Conflict
Under high levels of intergroup conflict, groups develop attitudes toward each other
that are characterized by distrust, rigidity, a focus only on self-interest, failure to listen
(Hellriegel & Slocum, 2007). The potential for conflict destroy the relations of
humankind, and that potential is a force for health and growth as well as for
destruction and barbarism (Burns, 1998). Intergroup conflict may lead to feelings of
frustration, dissatisfaction, hostility, tension, and possibly aggression (Blake &
Mouton, 1960; Kabanoff, 1985; Struch & Schwartz, 1989; Tajfel, 1982).
When there is conflict happen among the groups, costs to implement the task will
increase (time, money) devoted to dealing with the intergroup conflict (L.J.Jones,
1997). Intergroup conflict has a largely unrecognized but major financial impact on
an organization that can be measured in wasted time, bad decisions and health costs
(McGraw-Hill, 2001). For example, intergroup conflicts often create project delays
that can result in missed market opportunities. The cost of intergroup conflict is
composed of the following such as direct costs, productivity cost, continuity cost and
emotional cost (Berrett-Koehier, 1998).
6
2.2.2 Decreased Morale
Group member morale is an important factor in any group (Gemmill and Oakley,
1992; Schwartz, 1990). For example, high morale can result in the achievement of
group goals along with increased productivity, whereas low morale can result in high
stress levels, active resistance, absenteeism, poor professional behavior and
performance (Andersson and Bateman, 1997; Castledine, 1997; Denney, 2003; Ford
et al., 2003; Gilmore et al., 1996). Intergroup conflict definitely will decrease or
reduce the morale of the members thus will also lead to a decrease in grievances and
an increase in absenteeism. A lack of morale can potentially cause pressure and
anxiety, in either task performance or work group interaction, which results in both
lowered morale and impaired efficiency (Gresov et al. (1989).
Conflicts among the groups will lead to complaint and blaming each other. Initially a
dispute among one or more groups, without resolution, may cause an uncomfortable
working environment, characterized by gossip and rumor, an awkward atmosphere
and non-cooperation among the group members. This is now a conflict situation. The
passing of blame becomes a formal complaint; employees are increasingly non-
productive as all their energy is directed towards the conflict. Without management
intervention the conflict with complaints and blaming among the groups can readily
approach crisis point. There may be strong clashes, highly emotional outbursts, shock
resignations, verbal abuse, even threats of physical violence (Nicholls, 2003).
7
2.2.4 Lack of Cooperation
8
3.0 Factors of Intergroup Conflict
The notion of psychological distance was introduced by Lewin (1951) and was
recently revived within construal level theory (Trope and Liberman, 2003).
Psychological distance does not imply dislike (Swift, 2000) but it does make
individuals feel less “at ease” with others they perceive to be different. Also the
higher the level of psychological distance the greater the “effort” required to
understand and effectively communicate with the other party and hence form a close
working relationship (Conway & Swift, 2000).
There are several variables that are included in psychological distance such as
differences in education, values and attitudes, ethical and moral positions, status,
management style, working practices, decision-making processes, tolerance for risk
and language (Fisher et al, 1997). Therefore, language misunderstandings can impair
communication therefore even if the volume of communication is extensive. Besides
that, psychological distance was also define in terms of how similar leaders were in
the time they took to make a decision, their tolerance for risk, the extent to which they
9
focus on technology, differences in their decision-making styles and whether they
believed there was always a “right” answer. High psychological distance may
therefore be associated with less effective and higher intergroup conflict (Fisher,
1997). (Fisher et al, 1997).
Psychological distance is one of the main factors that will lead to intergroup conflict
and thereafter conflict impairs organizational performance (R.Bennett & S.Savani,
2003). Lorsch and Lawrence (1965) noted that members among the groups are
broadly different in their orientation and preferences, short versus long orientation and
tolerance for ambiguity. As a result if these differences, members of one group may
have difficulty understanding the goals, solutions and trade-off of the other group.
This lack of understanding is therefore likely to lead to conflict the the groups.
10
resolved as soon as possible (Stone, 1995).
Leadership style is another factor of intergroup conflict. While many variables affect
team success, the influence of the leader is especially important (Rober J. Trent,
2007). Leadership is studied in the context of criteria such as of individual
characteristics and situational factors each of which may also affect group
performance and lead to conflict among the groups (DeShon et al, 1984). Leaders
often ignore these challenges. Although it may be more responsible or even ethical for
leaders to think about other groups as well as their own (Burns, 1978; Rost, 1991), it
is more common to find insular styles of leadership that encourage boundaries among
the groups and discourage understanding of outside groups (Kellerman, 2004).
Although followers are often critical of poor leadership within their own group
(Pittinsky, Rosenthal, Bacon, Montoya, & Zhu, 2006), they are not typically
concerned about their leaders being ingroup-focused and ineffective at promoting
positive relations with other groups. Indeed, followers often actively prefer leaders
who favor the ingroup (Duck & Fielding, 1999, 2003; Platow, Hoar, Reid, Harley, &
Morrison, 1997; Platow, O'Connell, Shave, & Hanning, 1995). Johnson and Huwe
(2002) stated that conflict among the groups was caused by the leader’s functionality
and the overall quality of the relationship. They explained that it can have an
immediate impact on major conflict among the groups while it can escalate to the
point that a working relationship becomes unmanageable and disintegrates. Next,
leaders may have the same defensive motivations as followers and because of their
leadership position, may move their group to conflict with another group.
11
Classic research by sociologists and psychologists has identified a general tension
between internal group cohesion (i.e., the extent to which members of a group are
bound together; Forsyth, 2006) and external conflict in social systems (e.g., Markides
& Cohn, 1982). Leaders often add fuel to the fire. History shows that there is often,
though not always, an “ingroup or outgroup leadership trade-off” (Pittinsky, 2005).
3.4 Goals
Goals also cause intergroup conflict. Goal incompatibility exists when the goals of
two or more groups are in direct opposition that is one group accomplishes its goals at
the direct expense of another group’s achieving its goals (Steve M. Jex, 2002).
According to Realistic Conflict Theory, conflict is due to the presence of incompatible
goals among the groups (Brown, 1986; Esses, Jackson, & Armstrong, 1998; Irvin &
Baker, 1995; Kelly & Kelly, 1994).
Locke & Latham’s (1990) states that goals of the group are in competition with others
group in an organisation, inter-group competition may arise. In striving to win,
interracial group need each other to achieve their goal. Attainment of common goals
must be an interdependent effort without intergroup competition (Bettencourt, 1992).
Prejudice reduction through contact requires an active, goal-oriented effort. Conflict
occurs when parties exercise power in the pursuit of valued goals or objectives and
obstruct the progress of other parties (Wagner & Hollenbeck, 2005).
12
3.5 Status and Power Differences
Last, but not least, status and power differences is also one of the factors of intergroup
conflict. When two groups are perceived to differ in status and power, it may lead to
feelings of threat (Stephan & Boniecki, 2001). Unequal power in intergroup
relationships occurs when parties who share a common condition induced by actions
of a high-power group form an association as a way to improve their status (Alderfer,
1977).
These sources of intergroup conflict are not dependent on particular groups or the
specific setting where the relationships occur. Most of the research supports this
contention, although equal status is difficult to define and has been used in different
ways (Cagle, 1993; Riordan, 1998). Intergroup conflict increased with relative status
in laboratory groups but decreased in field research with real groups. The meta-
analytic results of Mullen (2002) clarify these disparities.
13
4.0 Conclusion
Dimensions of Intergroup Conflict
Psychological distance
14
occurred. By understanding the factors of the intergroup conflict towards their
organization performance, organization may be able to understand the importance of
the management of the intergroup conflict.
Researchers found that power and status is the factor when two or more groups are
perceived to differ in or compete for status and power, it may lead to feeling of threat
and negative feelings. In addition, goal is another influential factor to the
consequences of intergroup conflict. Goal incompatibility exists which the goals of
two or more groups are in direct opposition that is one group accomplishes its goals at
the direct expense of another group’s achieving its goals. The other factors like
psychological distance, communication openness and leadership style also contribute
to the negative consequences of intergroup conflict.
As a conclusion, the future studies of this field can add in more factors of conflict and
others consequences of intergroup conflict. Groups can reduce the conflict when more
factors and consequences been identified.
15
5.0 References
Ayoko, O.B., Ha¨rtel, C.E.J. and Callan, V. (2001). ‘‘Disentangling the complexity of
Bell, B.S. and Kozlowski, S.W.J. (2002). “A typology of virtual teams: implications for
14-49.
Bennett, R., & Savani, S. (2003). Managing conflict between marketing and other
pp. 239-50.
16
Chuang, Church and Zikic (2004). “Journal of Organizational culture, groupdiversity
psychic distance”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 11/12, pp. 1391-
413.
De Dreu, C.K.W. and Van de Vliert, E. (Eds) (1997). Using Conflict in Organizations,
Sage, London.
Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.L., Isen, A.M., Rust, M., & Guerra, P. (1998). Positive affect,
C.A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (pp. 337± 366).
Fisher, R., Maltz, E., & Jaworski, B. (1997). Enhancing communication between
Giuseppe Labianca; Daniel J Brass; Barbara Gray Academy of Management Journal; Feb
Hackman, J.R. and Morris, C.G. (1975). “Group task, group interaction process, and
Hall, A.T., Blass, F.R., Ferris, G.R. and Massengale, (2004). “Leader reputation and
17
Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 15, pp. 515-36.
James A. Cram and Richard K. MacWilliams (2000). The cost of conflict in the
Kahn, K.B. and Mentzer, J.T. (1998). “Marketing’s integration with other departments”,
Katz, D. and Kahn, R.L. (1966), The Social Psychology in Organisations, Wiley, New
York, NY.
Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1967). Organization and Environment: Managing
Lorsch, J.W. and Lawrence, P.R. (1965). “Organizing for product innovation”, Harvard
Maltz, E. and Kohli, A.K. (2000). “Reducing marketing’s conflict with other functions:
Prunier,G. (1995). The Rwanda crisis (1959± 1994): History of a genocide. London:
Hurst.
Ran Kivetz and Yifat Kivetz (2004). Reconciling Mood Congruency and Mood
18
http://www.columbia.edu/~rk566/research/Reconciling_Mood_Psychological_Di
stance.pdf
Rempel, J.K., Holmes, J.G. and Zanna, M.D. (1985). “Trust in close relationships”,
Shaw, V. and Shaw, C.T. (1998). “Conflict between engineers and marketers”, Industrial
Simons, T., Pelled, L.H. and Smith, K.A. (1999). “Making use of difference: diversity,
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W.G.
Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp.
http://homepages.uel.ac.uk/D.Ridley/PY303/ConflictTAPEFinalVersion2a.pdf.
http://www.mediate.com/articles/belak1.cfm
19
Trent, R.J. and Monczka, R.M. (1994). “Effective cross-functional sourcing teams:
Wall, J.A. and Callister, R.R. (1995). “Conflict and its management”, Journal of
20