Conflict is actual or perceived opposition of needs, values and interests.

A conflict can be
internal (within oneself) to individuals. Conflict as a concept can help explain many aspects of
social life such as social disagreement, conflicts of interests, and fights between individuals,
groups, or organizations. In political terms, "conflict" can refer to wars, revolutions or other
struggles, which may involve the use of force as in the term armed conflict. Without proper social
arrangement or resolution, conflicts in social settings can result in stress or tensions among
stakeholders. When an interpersonal conflict does occur, its effect is often broader than two
individuals involved, and can affect many associate individuals and relationships, in more or less
adverse, and sometimes even way.

Conflict as taught for graduate and professional work in conflict resolution (which can be win-win,
where both parties get what they want, win-lose where one party gets what they want, or lose-
lose where both parties don't get what they want) commonly has the definition: "when two or
more parties, with perceived incompatible goals, seek to undermine each other's goal-seeking
capability".

A clash of interests, values, actions or directions often sparks a conflict. Conflicts refer to the
existence of that clash. Psychologically, a conflict exists when the reduction of one motivating
stimulus involves an increase in another, so that a new adjustment is demanded. The word is
applicable from the instant that the clash occurs. Even when we say that there is a potential
conflict we are implying that there is already a conflict of direction even though a clash may not
yet have occurred.

Conflict can be good, bad or ugly and it can be managed in good, bad and ugly ways.
This free article explains the various methods and what's good and bad about
different kinds of conflicts.

Organizational Conflict - The Good, The Bad & The Ugly

In my work with public sector managers and supervisors, the issue that generates the most
emotion, and frustrated comments, is conflict within the organization. We generally do not
look at conflict as opportunity -- we tend to think about conflict as unpleasant, counter-
productive and time-consuming.

Conflict that occurs in organizations need not be destructive, provided the energy associated
with conflict is harnessed and directed towards problem-solving and organizational
improvement. However, managing conflict effectively requires that all parties understand the
nature of conflict in the workplace.
In this first part of our organizational conflict series, we are going to discuss several views of
conflict. In later issues of The Public Sector Manager we will return to the topic with
more specific tips on how organizational conflict can be directed to achieve positive ends.

Two Views: The Good, The Bad

There are two ways of looking at organizational conflict. Each of these ways is linked to a
different set of assumptions about the purpose and function of organizations.

The Bad

The dysfunctional view of organizational conflict is imbedded in the notion that organizations
are created to achieve goals by creating structures that perfectly define job
responsibilities, authorities, and other job functions. Like a clockwork watch, each "cog"
knows where it fits, knows what it must do and knows how it relates to other parts. This
traditional view of organizations values orderliness, stability and the repression of any conflict
that occurs. Using the timepiece analogy we can see the sense in this. What would happen to
time-telling if the gears in our traditional watches decided to become less traditional, and re-
define their roles in the system?

To the "traditional" organizational thinker, conflict implies that the organization is not designed
or structured correctly or adequately. Common remedies would be to further
elaborate job descriptions, authorities and responsibilities, increase the use of central power
(discipline), separate conflicting members, etc.

This view of organizations and conflict causes problems. Unfortunately, most of us, consciously
or unconsciously, value some of the characteristics of this "orderly" environment. Problems
arise when we do not realize that this way of looking at organizations and conflict only fits
organizations that work in routine ways where innovation and change are
virtually eliminated. Virtually all government organizations work within a very disorderly
context -- one characterized by constant change and a need for constant adaptation. Trying
to "structure away" conflict and disagreement in a dynamic environment requires tremendous
amounts of energy, and will also suppress any positive outcomes that may come from
disagreement, such as improved decision-making and innovation.

The Good

The functional view of organizational conflict sees conflict as a productive force, one that can
stimulate members of the organization to increase their knowledge and skills, and their
contribution to organizational innovation and productivity. Unlike the position mentioned
above, this more modern approach considers that the keys to organization success lie not in
structure, clarity and orderliness, but in creativity, responsiveness and adaptability. The
successful organization, then, NEEDS conflict so that diverging views can be put on the table,
and new ways of doing things can be created.
The functional view of conflict also suggests that conflict provides people with feedback about
how things are going. Even "personality conflicts" carry information to the manager
about what is not working in an organization, affording the opportunity to improve.

If you subscribe to a flexible vision of effective organizations, and recognize that each conflict
situation provides opportunity to improve, you then shift your view of conflict. Rather than
trying to eliminate conflict, or suppress its symptoms, your task becomes managing conflict so
that it enhances people and organizations, rather than destroying people and organizations.

So, the task is to manage conflict, and avoid what we call "the ugly"....where conflict is
allowed to eat away at team cohesiveness and productivity.

The Ugly

We have the good (conflict is positive), the bad (conflict is to be avoided), and now we need to
address the ugly. Ugly occurs where the manager (and perhaps employees) attempt to
eliminate or suppress conflict in situations where it is impossible to do so. You know you have
ugly in your organization when:

• many conflicts run for years

• people have given up on resolving and addressing conflict problems
• there is a good deal of private bitching and complaining but little attempt to fix the
problem
• staff show little interest in working to common goals, but spend more time and energy
on protecting themselves

When we get "ugly" occurring in organizations, there is a tendency to look to the manager or
formal leader as being responsible for the mess. In fact, that is how most employees would
look at the situation. It is true that managers and supervisors play critical roles in
determining how conflict is handled in the organization, but it is also true that the avoidance
of ugliness must be a shared responsibility. Management and employees must work together
in a cooperative way to reduce the ugliness, and increase the likelihood that conflict can be
channeled into an effective force for change.

Ugly Strategies

In future articles we will look at what you can do to proactively manage conflict to increase the
probability that positive outcomes occur. Right now, let's look at some common strategies
that result in the increase of ugly conflict.

Most of the ugly strategies used by managers, employees, and organizations as a whole are
based on the repression of conflict in one way or another. We need to point that, in general,
you want to avoid these approaches like the plague.

Ugly #1: Nonaction

The most common repressive management strategy is nonaction -- doing nothing. Now,
sometimes, doing nothing is a smart thing to do, provided the decision to do nothing is well
thought out and based on an analysis of the situation. Most of the time, people "do nothing"
about conflict situations for other reasons, such as fear of bringing conflict into view, or
discomfort with anger.

Unfortunately, doing nothing generally results in conflict escalating, and sets a tone for the
organization..."we don't have conflict here". Everyone knows you have conflict, and if you
seem oblivious, you also seem dense and out of touch.

Ugly #2: Administrative Orbiting

Administrative orbiting means keeping appeals for change or redress always "under
consideration". While nonaction suggests obliviousness since it doesn't even acknowledge the
problem, orbiting acknowledges the problem, but avoids dealing with it. The manager who
uses orbiting will say things like "We are dealing with the problem", but the problem never
gets addressed. Common stalls include: collecting more data, documenting performance,
cancelling meetings, etc.

Ugly #3: Secrecy

A common means of avoiding conflict (or repressing it) is to be secretive. This can be done by
employees and managers. The notion is that if nobody knows what you are doing, there can
be little conflict. If you think about this for a moment, you will realize its absurdity. By being
secretive you may delay conflict and confrontation, but when it does surface it will have far
more negative emotions attached to it than would have been the case if things were more
open.

Ugly #4: Law and Order

The final "ugly strategy". Normally this strategy is used by managers who mistakenly think
that they can order people to not be in conflict. Using regulations, and power, the person
using the approach "leans on" people to repress the outward manifestations of conflict.

Of course, this doesn't make conflict go away, it just sends it scuttling to the underground,
where it will grow and increase its destructive power.

Conclusion

The notion that conflict should be avoided is one of the major contributors to the growth of
destructive conflict in the workplace. The "bad" view of conflict is associated with a vision of
organizational effectiveness that is no longer valid (and perhaps never was). Conflict can be
directed and managed so that it causes both people and organizations to grow, innovate and
improve. However, this requires that conflict not be repressed, since attempts to repress are
more likely to generate very ugly situations. Common repression strategies to be avoided
are: nonaction, administrative orbiting, secrecy and law and order

Conflict Prevention In The Workplace - Using

Cooperative Communication

Just like cholesterol there's good conflict and bad conflict.

If you can prevent the bad, unnecessary conflict, you
can save huge amounts of time, and pain associated
with the "bad" stuff!?

Good conflict is about issues. Bad needless conflict is more emotional,

time consuming and difficult.
Conflict about issues goes like this. You want to go bowling. I want to go to a movie.
We have an issue, and a decision to be made. We can work that out. No real
problem here.

Bad conflict is about clashes of style and communication. It goes like this. You want
to go bowling. I say "Why do we always have to do what YOU want?"

What I've done is created a completely different conflict that isn't about where we
go, and I've probably offended you. We are no longer dealing with the same issue.
Now we're dealing with hurt feelings. And that's trouble!

I've created a completely unnecessary conflict because I've

used confrontational language. What if I said this instead: "How about if we go
to a movie tonight, and then tomorrow we'll go bowling" Now we're back to
dealing with the good, easy conflict, because I used cooperative language, which,
incidentally, pushes us to a solution, rather than emotional banging at each other.

So, what's our point here?

In the workplace there's surely enough issue based conflict to keep us all quite busy.
We don't need more. We don't need more unnecessary conflict that could be
prevented by the simple use of proper positive language.

No, it's not about bowling. It's often about working with each other and dealing with
who does what, when, priorities and all of the other elements of working together.

Here's the key. Deal with issue oriented conflict as it occurs. Good people can
figure that out provided they don't poison the relationships with bad conflict using
confrontational language. And work to eliminate the bad conflict.

Get Less Conflict by Altering How You Communicate - Conflict

Prevention In The Workplace - The Book
This quick read book (about 100 pages), explains the difference between cooperative
and confrontational communication, and tells you how to change your language to
avoid these unnecessary "personality conflicts". People can take these specific
conflict prevention techniques and use them IMMEDIATELY. You can do it and you'll
be amazed at how quickly you can eliminate unnecessary, wasteful, destructive, and
time consuming conflict.

Origins
After having worked with thousands of people helping them deal with difficult and
angry solutions, I (Robert Bacal) turned to the issue of prevention. I noticed that
people who are involved in little conflict actually communicate differently than those
who seem to be involved in a lot of conflict situations, and that these differences
occur at work and in personal relationships. In short, there are people who are
almost completely conflict free AND, they are not avoiding conflict or ignoring it.
They stop escalation, and prevent conflict.

This book teaches you how small modifications in how you communicate will affect
the degree to which you actually contribute to conflict situations. If you change your
communication ability, you can significantly reduce conflict around you.

The Author: Robert Bacal has spent the last 10 years teaching people how to defuse
conflict. With this innovative book, he turns his attention to getting at some of the
roots of conflict. He is also the author of The Complete Idiot's Guide To Dealing With
Difficult Employees, available at your local bookstore (sorry, now out of print).

Book Features: While this book has its roots in psychology and psycholinguistics, it
is written in a style anyone can understand, with lots of examples. It explains what
you need to stop saying, and how to replace conflict provoking language. It is also
short. You needn't spend days wading through complex explanations. This book is
about 100 tightly written, lean pages.

Table of Contents

Conflict In Organizations - An Overview

• The Inevitability of Conflict

• Good Organizational Conflict
• Ugly Conflict
• Contributors to Ugly Conflict In The Workplace
• Summary
• Key Points

Cooperative VS Conflict Provoking Communication

• Cooperative Vs. Conflict-Provoking Communication

• The Essential Difference: Cooperative Communication
• The Psychology Beneath Cooperation & Confrontation
• What Angers People Or Primes The Conflict Pump
• Lack of Listening/Understanding
• “Less Than” Communication
• Communicating Mistrust
 • Violations of Conversation Rules
• Blatant Generalizations
• Power/Status-Based Communication
• Other Sources

A Brief Conflict-Provoking Communication Self-Assessment

Specific Conflict-Provoking Behaviors

• Person Centered Comments & Criticism

• Past Centered Comments
• Guilt-Induction Attempts
• Blaming Comments
• Inappropriate Reassurance and Positive Thinking
• Unsolicited Advice/Commands
• Lengthy Attempts At Persuasion
• Defensiveness-Causing Questions
• Extended Attempts To Win
• Mistrust Statements
• Overstatements and Over-generalizations
• Infallibility Comments (and qualification comments)
• Histrionic Behavior (Over dramatization)
• Use Of Hot Phrases and Words
• Words or phrases that suggest disinterest
• Phrases that blame or imply blame or suggest ignorance
• Absolute words
• Phrases that suggest helplessness (brush-offs)
• Phrases that have a threatening undertone
• Phrases that challenge or dare
• Use of Code Words and Innuendo
• Passive-Aggressive Behavior

Replacing Conflict Provoking Communication With Cooperative

In this chapter we teach you what to say INSTEAD of the "fightin words" so you can
focus on solving the issue and not on hurting feelings or emotionalizing the
disagreement (if any) Specific phrases you can modify or use as is.

Communication General Cooperative Communication Strategies

• Active Or Reflective Listening

• Empathy Responses
• Assertive Behavior
• Responsiveness
• Steps In The Responsiveness Process
• The Responsive Team Member’s Creed
• Key points: Responsiveness Checklist

Organization, Team, and Management Involvement In Conflict Prevention -

Effective Teams
 • Establishing Guidelines, Norms, and Processes
• How Do You Make Rules & Guidelines A Reality?
• The Role of Those In Formal Authority

Exploring Conflict: Good and Bad

By Manes Pierre, Ph.D.
Last edited: Thursday, August 04, 2005
Posted: Thursday, August 04, 2005
Conflict is often inevitable. However, conflict can be good or bad. The reader will
choose for himself or herself how to deal with layers of conflicts.
Exploring Conflict: Good and Bad

Conflict is a mutual misunderstanding between two or more individuals, two or more entities, or
two or more partners. It derives from the fact that the sending and receiving of messages
between two individuals, entities or partners are not always clear.
In Levels of Analysis: In Search of Generalizable Knowledge, Rubin and Levinger refer to conflict
as a competition for scarce resources, differences in values or beliefs, or the parties’ differing
definitions of their relationship. I have come to reflect on the term, scarce resources, it seems that
conflict results when the needs of two or more people are not met due to scarce resources. In
addition, it appears the difference in values or beliefs makes conflict more inevitable since the
people who have possession of some resources may find the idea of sharing those resources an
unattainable objective. There are also the differing definitions of relationship that bring about an
element of conflict. Rubin and Levinger’s analysis of the above dimension of conflict reflects the
fundamental definition of conflict.
As I explored the many aspects of conflict, I concentrated my focus mostly on the difference
between interpersonal and intrapersonal conflicts. I found the escalation and the de-escalation
process of conflict to have been a very important tool to assist conflicting parties, be it
interpersonal or intrapersonal. I also looked at some other sub-definitions of some aspects of
conflict. For instance, one calls latent conflict, a conflict that exists when it is not expressed
(hidden). By contrast, manifest conflict, is conflict out in the open. In essence, this type of conflict
inevitably requires an escalating type of conflict. The advantage of this type of conflict is that it
usually results in some type of quicker resolution.
I have come to realize that since conflict is inevitable, it is indispensable for someone to know
how to deal effectively with such a human imperfection? Some of the examples for developing
win/win solutions are, finding ways to remove obstacles, redefining a win, rebalancing a loss and
providing a long-term perspective.
One of the aspects of being human is the interdependence effect. That interdependence effect, in
turn, often creates conflict. The question that people often ask is, “Is conflict good or bad?” The
answer is conflict can be both good and bad. The choice is yours. You can choose to make the
most out of a conflict or you can choose to be paralyzed by it.
 Conflict: Manage It
or Manage Our
Response to It?
by Rick Brenner

Conflict, especially unnecessarily hostile conflict, can reduce productivity. But conflict isn't
actually good or bad, in itself — what matters is how we respond to it. Here are 12 guidelines
for responding to hostile conflict.

am often asked to do work on "conflict management." This is probably a very good thing,
because it might mean that organizations are becoming aware that conflict skills need
improvement. Conflict, especially unnecessarily hostile conflict, can reduce productivity. If
work conflict goes home with you, it can cause sickness, it can harm your family, your
friendships, the people you love. So improving conflict skills is something we want to do,
something that will not only improve productivity and the quality of our work, but will improve
the quality of our lives.

I've long been puzzled about this idea of "conflict management." Getting better at dealing with
conflict is a good thing, that's true, but I'm not sure that conflict management is a goal I want
for myself. Conflict isn't actually good or bad, in itself — what matters is how we deal with it.
If we deal with conflict in ways that produce high blood pressure, anger, hostility, hatred,
disgust, unethical behavior, and so on, then it's bad. If we deal with conflict in ways that
produce honest debate, healthy competition, clarification, testing of ideas, better results,
innovation, and so on, then it's good. Conflict itself isn't bad or good — how we deal with it is.

So, is it conflict we want to manage, or is it our response to conflict that we want to manage?
I think it's the latter. I'm very doubtful that it's evendesirable to manage conflict. For example,
if I'm working in your organization, and I propose a really nutty idea that I'm very certain will
work, and I advocate it, and I'm committed to it, and nearly everyone in my work group sees
that it's a nutty idea, there will be some conflict. And there isn't much that management or
anyone else can do about it. The change that leads to resolution must come from me, because
I'm in charge of what I think and feel — my boss isn't. How I get to a more constructive
viewpoint is perhaps a question for me and the people around me to work on, but in the end,
I'm the one who will move me, and I can only move if I want to move. No one outside me can
manage the conflict, because no one outside me can manage how I feel about the issue.

We can't manage conflict. We can only choose our personal response to conflict, and let us
hope we choose wisely.

One set of choices we make relates to how we air our differences. When a conflict moves to a
stage in which feelings become increasingly hostile, our responses to the conflict threaten our
sense of peace and happiness. This in itself is bad enough, but productivity can suffer too. To
deal with this problem, it's important to have ways of discussing the conflict itself.

Research by psychologist Howard J. Markman and colleagues at the University of Denver's

Center for Marital and Family Studies led to development of some ground rules for discussing
emotionally charged issues in the marital context. A report appeared in an article in The
Boston Globe in 1990. I've adapted their guidelines to the workplace context, and added a few
of my own. When conflict results in intense hostility in your organization, you can use these
guidelines to help the participants to move back to dialog.

Here they are:

• Choose a good time of the day

• Choose a good day of the week
• Make an appointment
• Stay focused
• Take turns
• Avoid blaming
• Use "I" statements
• Avoid analogies
• Validate
• Notice your breathing
• Take a break
• Deal with obstacles

Choose a good time of the day

Managing your response to conflict starts with a choice of timing. Avoid late afternoons (or the
end of a shift). One or both of you could be fatigued or irritable, which could affect the
outcome of the dialog.

Choose a good day of the week

A second dimension of your choice of timing is the day of the week. Avoid the end of the
workweek. If for some reason you can't reach a comfortable stopping place in one
conversation, you don't want to carry it home to stew on during the days off.

Make an appointment
Your choice to respect your partner in conflict is also part of managing your response to the
conflict. When you want to discuss an issue, say, "I want to talk about <whatever the issue
is>. Is this a good time?". Your colleague has the right to refuse to talk at that time, but it's
that person's responsibility to find another time to talk within a reasonable time, say one
business day.

Stay focused
Choosing an appropriate environment for your talk is another part of your response to conflict.
Find a quiet place. Talk face to face, with no distractions-no visitors, no phone calls, no
checking email, no music.

Take turns
One of you can begin being the speaker and the other the listener. You can reverse roles in
the course of the discussion. The speaker should not be interrupted. If you need to, use a
talking stick. And if you find yourselves getting angry-remember, we all feel angry once in a
while-take turns being angry. Try this rule: only one person can be angry at any one time.

Avoid blaming
Blaming your colleague just encourages a defensive response. Blaming a third party who isn't
present can be a way of avoiding the issue between the two of you.
Use "I" statements
Talk from your own point of view, using "I" statements (I think, I feel, …), rather than "You"
statements (You say, You think, …). This makes it more difficult to blame. No "fake" I
statements: "I feel like you're an idiot."

Avoid analogies
Talk straight. Avoid analogies, figures of speech, and especiallymetaphors. For example, say "I
felt angry" rather than "I felt like murdering you." Analogies and figures of speech are loaded,
which is what makes them so rich and colorful. The trouble is, they're loaded with different
things for different people, so you can't be sure that your partner in conflict is understanding
what you're saying in the way you mean it.

Validate
Every few minutes, the listener should summarize what the speaker has said to show that the
message is getting through. There's a big difference between simply understanding what
someone is saying and agreeing or disagreeing with it. You can understand why your
colleague feels or thinks a certain way without agreeing with those thoughts or feelings.

Notice your breathing

To manage your response to conflict, it helps if you can be aware of your state of mind. When
a discussion isn't going well, your breathing may become shallow or rapid. Controlling your
breathing is a way of staying calm.

Take a break
If you sense that you're unable to give yourself or your conflict partner the respect you each
deserve, give yourself permission to take a break. Call time out if you need to, but agree to
pick up the discussion at a specific time within one business day. This allows both of you to
leave the discussion without incurring resentment or anger.

Deal with obstacles

If your colleagues are unwilling to talk about an issue, ask them to discuss the reason why.
Often the reluctance is about fear that a discussion will erupt into hostility. Assure them that
this won't happen, and don't let it. Top

Is response to conflict a problem for your organization? Could you benefit from some expertise
in dealing with conflict? Through consulting, workshops or coaching, I can help your people
learn to deal with conflict and their responses to conflict. I offer a Technical Conflict
Workshop especially designed for people who work in technical environments.