UV0416

t
Rev. May 15, 2018

os
Managing Conflict in Organizations

rP
Managers often behave as though serious interpersonal confrontations are the result of personality
defects. They label people who are frequently involved in conflicts “troublemakers” or “bad apples” and
attempt to transfer or dismiss them as a way of resolving conflict. While some individuals seem to have a
propensity for making trouble and appear to be cantankerous under even the best of circumstances, “sour
dispositions” actually account for a small minority of the organizational conflicts that typically emerge.

yo
This proposition is supported by research on performance appraisals. It has been shown that managers
generally attribute poor performance to personal deficiencies in workers, such as laziness, lack of skill, or lack
of motivation. However, when workers are asked the causes of their poor performance, they generally explain
it in terms of problems in their environment, such as insufficient supplies or uncooperative co-workers.1
While some face-saving is obviously involved here, this line of research suggests that managers need to guard
against the reflexive tendency to assume that bad behaviors imply bad people. In fact, aggressive or harsh
behaviors sometimes observed in interpersonal confrontations often reflect the frustrations of people who
op
have good intentions but are unskilled in handling intense emotional experiences.

The Causes of Conflict

An alternative to the personality-defect theory of conflict is a “multiple sources” model of conflict that
tC

proposes three fundamental causes of conflict in organizations—identity-related differences, role incompatibility, and
environmental stress.2

Identity-related differences

Individuals bring different personal backgrounds, experiences, and cultural values when they enter
organizations. Different socialization processes, levels of education, and so forth, shape their experiences and
values. As a result, their interpretations of events and their expectations about relationships with others in the
No

organization will vary considerably. Conflicts caused by incongruent personal values that stem from these social
identities are among the most difficult to resolve because they evoke values we hold deeply.

Such a conflict occurred in a major industrial company between a 63-year-old white American executive
vice president and a 35-year-old Chinese member of the corporate legal department, who was exiled in 1989
following Tiananmen Square. They disagreed vehemently over whether the company should accept a very

1 Robert L. Heneman, David B. Greenberger, and Chigozie Anonyuo, “Attributions and Exchanges: The Effects of Interpersonal Factors on the
Do

Diagnosis of Employee Performance,” Academy of Management Journal 32, no. 2 (1989): 466–476.
2 Based on the work of Louis R. Pondy, “Organizational Conflict: Concepts and Models,” Administrative Science Quarterly 12, no. 2 (1967): 295–320.

This technical note was prepared by Associate Professor Martin N. Davidson. Copyright  2001 by the University of Virginia Darden School
Foundation, Charlottesville, VA. All rights reserved. To order copies, send an email to sales@dardenbusinesspublishing.com. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without
the permission of the Darden School Foundation. Our goal is to publish materials of the highest quality, so please submit any errata to
editorial@dardenbusinesspublishing.com.

This document is authorized for educator review use only by Maria Faisal, Other (University not listed) until Feb 2022. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
Permissions@hbsp.harvard.edu or 617.783.7860
 Page 2 UV0416

t
os
attractive offer from the Chinese government to build a manufacturing facility outside of Beijing. The vice
president felt the company had a responsibility to its stockholders to pursue every legal opportunity to
increase profits. Moreover, though the human-rights issues in China troubled her, she believed that economic
engagement was the most effective way to bring pressure to bear on oppressive governments. In contrast, the
lawyer felt that collaborating with the Chinese government in any way was tantamount to condoning its

rP
morally repugnant disregard for human rights.

Note that in this example, both parties are expressing values flowing from their respective identities. The
vice president values success in her work and takes seriously her obligation to her stockholders and to the US
economic system. This is a kind of professionalism and conscientiousness that is encouraged in her culture.
Moreover, she is a product of a culture in which economic prosperity has repeatedly resolved social injustices
(e.g., lifting immigrant populations from poverty and discrimination to wealth and membership in the US
system of governance). Therefore, she would be deeply convinced that expanding into China was the right

yo
thing to do.

The lawyer, in contrast, has had the experience of living in a culture in which many of its members are
struggling to create personal freedom. She has had a direct and powerful experience of engaging in that
struggle. To be willing to do business with the oppressive Chinese government is not only to condone the
government’s behavior, but it also betrays the people with whom she fought to change that behavior, many
of whom gave their lives in the struggle.
op
Neither of these individuals is unambiguously right or wrong in her stance. What is noteworthy is that the
identity-related experience of each has placed them in a difficult conflict.

Role incompatibility

The complexity inherent in most organizations tends to produce conflict between members whose tasks
tC

are interdependent but whose roles are incompatible.3 This type of conflict is exemplified by the ubiquitous
goal conflicts between line and staff, production and sales, marketing, and R&D. Each unit has different
responsibilities in the organization, and as a result, each places different priorities on organizational goals (e.g.,
customer satisfaction, product quality, production efficiency, and compliance with government regulations). It
is also typical of firms whose multiple product lines compete for scarce resources.

During the early days at Apple Computer, the Apple II division accounted for a large part of the
company’s revenue. It viewed the newly created Macintosh division as an unwise speculative venture. The
No

natural rivalry was made worse when a champion of the Macintosh referred to the Apple II team as “the dull
and boring product division.” Since this type of conflict stems from the fundamental incompatibility of the
job responsibilities of the disputants, it can often be resolved only through the mediation of a common
superior.

Role incompatibility conflicts may overlap with those arising from identity differences. The personal
differences members bring to an organization generally remain dormant until they are triggered by an
organizational catalyst, like interdependent task responsibilities. And one reason members often perceive that
their assigned roles are incompatible is that they are operating from different bases of information. They
Do

communicate with different sets of people, are tied into different reporting systems, and receive instructions
from different bosses.

3 Robert L. Kahn, Donald M. Wolfe, Robert P. Quinn, J. Diedrick Snoek, and Robert A. Rosenthal, Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and

Ambiguity (New York: John Wiley, 1964).

This document is authorized for educator review use only by Maria Faisal, Other (University not listed) until Feb 2022. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
Permissions@hbsp.harvard.edu or 617.783.7860
 Page 3 UV0416

t
os
Environmental stress

Another major source of conflict is environmentally induced stress. Conflicts stemming from identity
differences and role incompatibilities are greatly exacerbated by a stressful environment. When an
organization is forced to operate on an austere budget, its members are more likely to become embroiled in

rP
disputes over domain claims and resource requests. Scarcity tends to lower trust, increase ethnocentrism, and
reduce participation in decision-making. These are ideal conditions for incubating interpersonal conflict.
When a large hospital announced a major downsizing, the threat to employees’ security was so severe that it
disrupted long-time, close working relationships. Work team effectiveness diminished, people met less
frequently at informal coffee breaks, and car pools disbanded because of the increased tension.

Uncertainty in the environment also fosters conflict. When individuals find it difficult to predict what is
going to happen to them from month to month, they become very anxious and prone to conflict. This type

yo
of “frustration conflict” often stems from rapid, repeated change. If task assignments, management
philosophy, accounting procedures, and lines of authority are changed frequently, members find it difficult to
cope with the resulting stress, and sharp, bitter conflicts can easily erupt over seemingly trivial problems. This
type of conflict is generally intense, but it dissipates quickly once a change becomes routinized, and
individuals’ stress levels are lowered. When a chemical manufacturing firm announced it was bringing a new
production facility online, suboptimal communication of the specifics of the project left employees
wondering and worrying about whom would be transferred to work in the new facility and how work shifts
op
would be assigned. People were concerned about the disruption of personal and family routines, and some
even considered leaving the company to avoid the turmoil of the transition. Also, employees were constantly
“jockeying” for position to get the most favorable assignments should they be transferred to the new facility.

Conflict Response Alternatives Figure 1. Two-dimensional model of conflict.

tC

Responses to interpersonal conflicts,

whatever their causes, tend to fall into Hi
 Competing Collaborating 
five categories: forcing, accommodating,
avoiding, compromising, and Di
collaborating. These responses can be str
ib
organized along two dimensions, as u tin
ASSERTIVENESS

shown in Figure 1. These five g

No

approaches to conflict reflect different

degrees of cooperativeness and
assertiveness. A cooperative response is  Compromising
intended to satisfy the needs of the
interacting person, whereas an assertive g
response focuses on the needs of the a tin
r
focal person. The cooperativeness teg
dimension reflects the importance of the In
relationship, whereas the assertiveness
Do

dimension reflects the importance of the

issue.  Avoiding Accommodating 
Lo COOPERATION Hi
Data source: Thomas L. Ruble and Kenneth W. Thomas, “Support for a Two-
Dimensional Model of Conflict Behavior,” Organizational Behavior & Human
Performance 16, no. 1 (1976): 142–155.

This document is authorized for educator review use only by Maria Faisal, Other (University not listed) until Feb 2022. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
Permissions@hbsp.harvard.edu or 617.783.7860
 Page 4 UV0416

t
os
The competing approach (assertive, uncooperative) is an attempt to satisfy one’s own needs at the expense of
the other individual’s. This can be done by using formal authority, physical threats, manipulation ploys, or by
ignoring the claims of the other party. When using a competing approach, one may use the authority of one’s
office (“I’m the boss, so we’ll do it my way”), one may intimidate, or one may use manipulation or feigned
ignorance to achieve one’s goals in the interaction. For example, a leader might appear to be democratic by

rP
proposing that conflicting proposals be referred to a committee for further investigation. However, the leader
ensures that the composition of the committee reflects her or his interests and preferences, so that what
appears to be a selection based on merit is effectively predetermined. The repeated use of this conflict-
management approach can breed hostility and resentment. While observers may intellectually admire
authoritarian or manipulative leaders because they appear to accomplish a great deal, their management styles
generally produce a backlash in the long run as people become unwilling to accept the emotional costs.

The accommodating approach (cooperative, unassertive) satisfies the other party’s concerns while neglecting

yo
one’s own. A common example of accommodation is the case of a board of directors of a failing firm that
neglects its interests and responsibilities in favor of accommodating the wishes of management.
Accommodation emphasizes preserving positive and friendly relations over protecting one’s personal rights
and privileges.

The avoiding approach (uncooperative, unassertive) neglects the interests of both parties by sidestepping the
conflict or postponing a solution. The manager who never gets around to delivering negative feedback and
op
appraisals to her subordinates exemplifies the avoidant approach to conflict. Really tough problems tend not
to be addressed, and this can cause frustration in relationships. Interestingly, in workgroups led by avoidant
managers, people sense a leadership vacuum and try to fill the void, often creating considerable confusion
and animosity in the process.

The compromising response is intermediate between assertiveness and cooperativeness. A compromise is an

attempt to obtain partial satisfaction for both parties, in the sense that both receive the proverbial “half loaf.”
tC

To accommodate this, both parties are asked to make sacrifices to obtain a common gain. This approach has
considerable practical appeal to managers, because by definition, each party gets some portion of what he or
she wants.

The collaborating approach, (cooperative, assertive) is an attempt to address fully the concerns of both
parties. It is often referred to as the “problem-solving” mode. In this mode, the intent is to find solutions to
the conflict that are satisfactory to both parties rather than to find fault or assign blame. In this way, both
No

parties can feel that they have “won.”

The diagonals in Figure 1 labeled “distributive” and “integrative” characterize approaches to conflict.
Distributive approaches occur when a person approaches the conflict as managing the proportion of
satisfaction of each person in the dispute—in essence, she or he approaches the conflict as a zero-sum game.
In contrast, integrative approaches seek to increase the pie, to work out “win-win” solutions. From this
perspective, you can think of collaboration as a “win-win” outcome; avoiding a “lose-lose” outcome; and the
compromising, accommodating, and forcing approaches as win-lose outcomes.
Do

Choosing the Right Response to a Conflict Situation

At first glance, it is tempting to assume a skillful manager would always approach conflict collaboratively.
After all, who wouldn’t always want win-win situations? However, conflict-relevant phrases like “let sleeping
dogs lie” and “win at all cost” emerge in our vernacular for good reason. Managing conflict skillfully means

This document is authorized for educator review use only by Maria Faisal, Other (University not listed) until Feb 2022. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
Permissions@hbsp.harvard.edu or 617.783.7860
 Page 5 UV0416

t
os
using the appropriate responses at the appropriate times. What constitutes the appropriate response depends
upon the situation as well as the people involved.

Choosing approaches that fit the situation best. Table 1 lists several dimensions of a conflict situation and
identifies the conditions under which each conflict approach could be used to greatest effect. These

rP
dimensions are extracted from reports by 28 chief executives who identified situations in which they felt that
each of the conflict approaches would be appropriate.

Table 1. Conditions that favor each of the five conflict approaches.

Perceived Time Pressure Management Attention to
Issue of Others’ Learning in the
Complexity Feeling Situation

yo
Collaborating High Low High High
Competing Low High Low Low
Compromising High High High Moderate
Accommodating Low Moderate High High
Avoiding Low Low High Low
op
Source: Created by author.

Perceived issue complexity is an assessment of how intricate the issues driving the conflict are. If the issues are
very complex, collaboration or compromising would seem more appropriate. When the issues are simpler,
competing, accommodating, and avoiding approaches can be more effective. For example, when a conflict
has identity-related factors as a cause, responding competitively or with avoidance can escalate the conflict.
tC

Identity-related factors are both deeply held and often complex, involving personality, culture, and history.
Such conflicts are better dealt with using integrative approaches such as compromise and collaboration.
When the issue is simpler, such as difference of opinion of where to position the furniture in the reception
lobby, the other approaches may work easily.

Time pressure can also constrain approaches to a conflict situation. Competing and compromising
approaches are more prevalent in situations in which time pressure is high and some course of action must be
No

decided. For example, chief executives identified emergency decisions (e.g., cost cutting) as situations in
which a conflict may need to be decided by fiat, a competitive approach. In contrast, when time pressure is
moderate to low, approaches such as collaboration or even avoidance may be more appropriate.
Collaboration requires consensus building and creativity and can take time. For avoidance to be a feasible
approach, the issues at hand must be less pressing. Otherwise, avoidance could be disastrous.

Attention to managing the other party’s feelings can also determine the best approach in a given situation.
When there is little care for how the other responds, competing approaches often ensue. However, whenever
there is concern for the feelings of the other party, any of the other four approaches may be appropriate. For
Do

example, avoidance can be useful as a means of suppressing angry or frustrating emotions and is often used
for just that reason. Accommodation works in similar ways, suppressing hostile feelings by giving the other
what she or he wants. Collaboration “cools out the mark” in a different way—by respecting the other’s
position and feelings and working to create a solution that would appease the other party. Collaboration is
also effective in working through feelings that have previously hampered positive relations between the
parties. In sum, all these examples represent high levels of attention to feelings in the conflict.

This document is authorized for educator review use only by Maria Faisal, Other (University not listed) until Feb 2022. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
Permissions@hbsp.harvard.edu or 617.783.7860
 Page 6 UV0416

t
os
Finally, when you want to learn from the conflict interaction, some approaches seem to be more
appropriate than others. Chief executives identify collaboration as the best way to learn in the midst of
conflict. Perspectives are shared and diverse approaches are coordinated, leading to high levels of learning.
Similarly, learning can occur in accommodating approaches because part of the stance in accommodation is
to listen to and learn from the other party. Accommodation can also create potential learning labs for the

rP
other, especially when the other party is a subordinate. By accommodating in this situation, you create an
opportunity to succeed or fail, and learning can come for the subordinate because they won, own, and are
committed to the decision. Learning tends to be minimal in competing and avoiding situations, an overall
pattern that is correlated with attention to and concern for the other party.

The Appendix lists several situations and their optimal conflict approaches.

yo
Other Considerations in Managing Conflict Effectively

Understand the cause of the conflict. Just as identifying and analyzing case facts is a critical first step of in
determining how to respond to a managerial situation, it is also critical to understand the cause of a conflict
situation before trying to manage it. Knowing that a person is angry not because he is “just a hostile person,”
but because he is trying to negotiate interdepartmental conflict helps the manager determine what the right
approach to conflict should be both for the individual and the organization.
op
Understand your preferred style of dealing with conflict. In the real world, people vary in the degree to which they
are comfortable in engaging conflict. Comfort levels are determined by personality, culture, past experience,
and a variety of other factors. Thus, a manager may not be able to turn on the collaborative switch so easily.
Researchers have developed a number of inventories specifically for the purpose of helping managers
determine what their preferred style of conflict management is.4 As is true with the Myers-Briggs inventory,
managers are not doomed to use only one approach. Rather, everyone can learn different approaches even if
tC

they are not initially the most comfortable.

No
Do

4 For example, popular measures include the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Inventory, or the Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid. Explore

websites such as http://www.teleometrics.com/smi02.htm to get a sense of what such tools might look like (accessed Sept. 7, 2001).

This document is authorized for educator review use only by Maria Faisal, Other (University not listed) until Feb 2022. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
Permissions@hbsp.harvard.edu or 617.783.7860
 Page 7 UV0416

t
os
Appendix
Managing Conflict in Organizations
Situations and Optimal Approaches

rP
Collaborating To find an integrative solution when both sets of concerns are too important to be
compromised
When your objective is to learn
To work through feelings that have interfered with a relationship
To merge insights from people with different perspectives
To gain commitment by incorporating concerns into a consensus

yo
Competing On important issues where unpopular actions need implementing—e.g., cost cutting,
enforcing unpopular rules, or discipline
When quick, decisive action is vital—e.g., in emergencies
Against people who take advantage of noncompetitive behavior

Compromising To achieve temporary settlements to complex issues

To arrive at expedient solutions under time pressure
op
When opponents with equal power are highly committed to mutually exclusive goals
As a backup when collaboration or competition is unsuccessful

Accommodating When issues are more important to others than they are to you—to satisfy others
and maintain cooperation
To allow subordinates to develop by learning from mistakes
When harmony and stability are especially important
tC

When you find you are wrong—to allow a better position to be heard, to learn, and
to show your reasonableness

Avoiding When an issue is trivial or more important issues are pressing

To let people cool down and regain perspective
When you perceive no chance of satisfying your concerns
When others can resolve the conflict more effectively
No

Source: Created by author.

Do

This document is authorized for educator review use only by Maria Faisal, Other (University not listed) until Feb 2022. Copying or posting is an infringement of copyright.
Permissions@hbsp.harvard.edu or 617.783.7860