The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1044-4068.htm

IJCMA
24,1 Process, people, and conflict
management in organizations
A viewpoint based on Weber’s formal and
90 substantive rationality
Michael A. Gross, Raymond Hogler and Christine A. Henle
Department of Management, Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
Colorado, USA

Abstract
Purpose – In this viewpoint, the authors argue that the predominant method of analyzing conflict
management focuses too heavily on the managerial interests in administrative efficiency and
productivity rather than on the needs of individuals and organizations. The aim of this paper is to
employ Weber’s analysis of conflict systems, specifically the distinction between formal and
substantive rationality, to support the authors’ view.
Design/methodology/approach – This is a viewpoint, where content is dependent on the author’s
opinion and interpretation.
Findings – Conflict management based on Weber’s theories of formal and substantive rationality
will benefit organizations and society by promoting a more positive perception of corporate behavior.
Research limitations/implications – Future research could examine the relationship between
organizational justice and the more global concepts of formality and rationality. Similarly, future
research on justice may be expanded by through the notion and perception of legitimacy by members
of the organization. How employees accept a system as fair and just has potential import for future
justice research.
Practical implications – The combination of formal and substantive rationality offers a practical,
and meaningful, way of dealing with conflict from a personal orientation as well as an organizational
one. It orients conflict resolution toward people rather than productivity concerns. It further
safeguards organizational interests by minimizing litigation, negative publicity, and other adverse
effects of conflict.
Originality/value – Weber theorized that formal rationality requires organizations to develop clear,
objective, and universal procedures in order to carry out administrative routines. Substantive
rationality, in contrast, acknowledges that specific cases may demand particularized decision-making
focusing on individual cases. The paper draws on the procedural justice literature to show how these
procedures can be implemented in a fair manner.
Keywords Conflict management, Bureaucracy and formal rationality, Substantive rationality,
Procedural justice, Interactional justice, Conflict, Justice
Paper type Viewpoint

For several decades, contemporary approaches to managing conflict in organizations

International Journal of Conflict
Management
Vol. 24 No. 1, 2013
pp. 90-103
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1044-4068
DOI 10.1108/10444061311296152
have been influenced by Blake and Mouton’s (1964) Managerial Grid. This model
features a scheme of dual interests, which balances the concern for production against
a concern for people. The model has evolved to include several variations, such as
Deutch’s (1973) theory of competition and cooperation and more recent research that
examines task conflict and relationship conflict in groups (Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1995;
Jehn et al., 1999; Pelled et al., 1999). Despite an effort to distinguish themselves from
Blake and Mouton’s basic structure, most studies import the dual concern perspective Conflict
along with its bias toward managerial concerns. As a result, the prevailing perspective management in
in conflict management relies on the implicit assumption that employee interests
should be subordinated to the demands of production and authority. When organizations
bureaucratic requirements clash with the subjective and personalized needs of
employees, the conflict management model tilts in favor of efficiency.
This essay suggests a different approach to managing organizational conflict. 91
Following Weber and others, we start from the principle that business organizations
are best understood as a bureaucracy, or an administrative apparatus designed to
achieve control in organizations (e.g. Clawson, 1980; Pitt and Weiss, 1986).
Bureaucracy’s salient characteristics are methods for maintaining relations of power,
improving productivity, and generating increased profits. To achieve their objectives,
organizations require a system of ensuring that employees provide labor consistent
with managerial demands. Consequently, an organizational imperative is to extract
labor power from labor potential through managerial processes (Braverman, 1974).
While conflict may have some relation to the organization’s productive capacities, the
impacts of conflict are more visible in terms of legal liability, adverse publicity, and social
outcomes that negatively affect the firm. Thus, our viewpoint argues that conflict
management should focus only on the concern for people while disregarding the concern
for productivity. We believe that this perspective will minimize many of the negative
external consequences of conflict and promote a positive view of the organization. The
practical foundation for such a strategy is to understand conflict management as a means
of adjusting bureaucratic rules for highly contingent situations arising in individual cases.
That is, organizational policies satisfy the demand for clear rules and procedures, and the
management of exceptions satisfies the needs of a given employee. This ensures that
employees will perceive the system as fair and deserving of their support and loyalty. In
dealing with conflict, consequently, our proposal does not require or invite an explicit
analysis of managerial concerns focusing on production and efficiency.
Meta-theoretical assumptions of our viewpoint stem from Weber’s view of
bureaucracy.
In his attempts to reconcile conceptions of authority, legitimacy, and bureaucracy,
Weber concluded that bureaucracy is driven by types of rational action that are, at
bottom, incompatible with one another. The same principle played an important role in
Weber’s understanding of legal regimes. He explained that formal rules of law
constituted an apparatus for determining justice within defined parameters. Those
rules are objective, impersonal, and generalized and arrive at decisions based on
information presented through defined procedures. As a result, “the formal rationality
of the law guarantees only the formal rights of the interested parties” (Bendix, 1960,
p. 399). However, the outcomes of formal rationality may lead to instances of injustice
because it does not allow exceptions to the rules for unique and deserving
circumstances. To avoid the unjust application of impartial rules, Weber articulated
the notion of “substantive rationality.” Substantive rationality allows for individual
cases that may require discretion and exception.
This viewpoint develops as follows. We begin with the notion that conflict
management should emphasize interpersonal outcomes only without addressing
managerial concerns. In our view, the objectives of conflict management should shift
from efficiency and productivity to effectiveness and legitimacy. We propose an
IJCMA approach to managing conflict that is based on Weber’s insights and show how those
24,1 ideas can be built into an effective technique for creating trust, concern, and empathy
in the structure of an organization. Our view aims to remove any concern for
productivity from the management of conflict. Instead, important goals such as
organizational justice and legitimacy are promoted. Justice arises from the presence of
ascertainable, universal, and determinate rules, while legitimacy is grounded on
92 employees’ willingness to accept the system as fair and just in its application, which
allows exceptions to rules as the need arises.

Conflict management without management

Bureaucracy is an essential tool for establishing control within a hierarchy and
generating systems though which control is exercised and maintained. Those systems
depend on rational processes that aim for improved productivity and efficiency,
exemplified in the first instance by “scientific management” (Braverman, 1974).
Because bureaucracy is essential to organizational outcomes, the tilt toward
managerial interests and prerogatives is evident in classical management theories,
human relations schools, decision-making theorists and social systems scholars
(Burrell and Morgan, 1979). Scholars from organizational communication and critical
theory have made the argument that, given the importance of those goals, it is hardly
surprising that such a perspective has dominated conflict management research
(Buzzanell, 1994; Deetz and Kersten, 1983; Nicotera, 1993; Putnam, 1990; Smircich,
1983). Putnam (1983) argues that with a desire to improve organizational effectiveness,
researchers have become preoccupied with managerial problems and with executive
views of organizational life.
Dual concern perspectives for managing conflict fit precisely into the landscape of
control and instrumental action. For example, the Blake and Mouton model advocates a
“collaborative” approach to conflict, but Blake and Mouton do not realistically propose
that management collaborate with employees; rather they suggest that management
engage in a collaborative “style” that is primarily advantageous for themselves (Lewicki
et al., 1992). Thus, a “style” which is meant to appear as if both sides have interests that
can be met, is more often likely to have an outcome in which only one side is met, and
that side is management’s. A dual concern approach often does not include the
perspective of the employee’s interests in conflict outcomes in practice because the
assumption is that conflict will be managed with respect to its consequences rather than
its causes, an assumption which is often associated with normative models of conflict
(Lewicki et al., 1992). This point suggests that management primarily considers the
consequences of conflict, and makes decisions and/or policy on the potentiality of those
consequences, rather than considering the source(s) of conflict within the organizational
bureaucracy. Thus, while in theory dual concern models aim to address both efficiency
(concern for production) and effectiveness (concern for people), it is primarily managerial
concerns that are met in practice and typically not the concern for people.
Research by Williams (1994) reflects three deleterious effects of a preoccupation
with managerial problems and maintaining a managerial advantage as played out
through dual concern models for managing conflict. First, such a bias for managerial
concerns has a narrowing effect on controlling choice; and therefore, organizations
avoid making optimal decisions about their daily conflict interactions. A narrowing of
choice occurs when potential solutions are reduced to a dichotomy like “my way or the
highway”, “up or out”, “agree with management or else”. By controlling choice, Conflict
organizations establish a framework to blame the challenger in the conflict process management in
(Baron, 1993). If the challenger does not choose what management wants, then
management can blame the challenger for making the wrong choice. This strategy was organizations
used to notable effect in the recent labor-management dispute in Wisconsin, where
Governor Scott Walker depicted public workers as unwilling to accept responsibility
for creating the state’s budget deficit, although employees indicated their willingness 93
to make financial concessions if Walker conceded on other issues (Davey and
Greenhouse, 2011).
Second, a preoccupation with managerial problems and maintaining a managerial
advantage is not consistent with an interpersonal ethical perspective. Williams (1994)
demonstrates that without an ethical perspective in daily conflict interactions,
organizational aggression can become the norm for action. Insisting on managerial
advantage contributes to such behaviors as deceit, non-commitment, abandonment,
and disrespect on the part of the organization toward the employee. The resulting
outcome of the behavior is mistrust, fear-oriented behavior, and a divesting of faith and
commitment to the organization by the employees (Baron, 1993). The implication for
conflict management is that when conflict occurs, employees do not believe that they
will be listened to, understood, acknowledged, or that their conflict episode will be
addressed. In short, employees believe that the cards are stacked against them, and
resistance to the exercise of authority is futile.
Third, a preoccupation with managerial problems and interests generates
competitiveness within the framework of conflict management. Such a perspective
sets up competition among employees where one must win and the other must lose,
which results in a zero-sum situation. Zero-sum situations foster anethic of competitive
individualism, which divides individuals into “winners” or “losers” (Bardwick, 1981;
Buzzanell and Goldzwig, 1991; Kohn, 1992). In a competitive environment there is a
need to excel over others, to stand out against the performance of others, and to
distinguish ones self by seeing others fail. Success then requires that someone else
must fail or lose. The negative consequences are distrust, lower self-esteem, neglected
family and friendship relationships, and health problems, which often accompany a
competitive ethic (Buzzanell, 1994).
Dual concern perspectives for managing conflict perpetuate a bureaucratic
orientation which defines conflict styles as being “either” concerned for results, “or”
concerned for relationships much like the “win/lose” continuum of a zero-sum
situation. Moreover, a competitive model inhibits the formation of self-development
and learning because its reliance on extrinsic rewards is a means of signaling success
(Buzzanell, 1994). When studying workplace aggression, researchers identify such
conditions as factors contributing to the escalation of workplace conflict, and a
preoccupation with managerial problems and maintaining a managerial advantage is a
significant contributor to such escalation (Baron, 1993; Helge et al., 2002; Williams,
1994). Where conflict resolution deals exclusively with the interests of employees,
employees will respond positively to managerial efforts.

Process as formal rationality

To operationalize our proposed approach to conflict, we elaborate Weber’s ideas in an
organizational context. Formal Rationality is a direct outgrowth of Weber’s idea of
IJCMA bureaucracy and refers to an administrative system overseen by individuals exercising
24,1 power delegated by some authority, such as the managers hired by a firm’s board of
directors (Bendix, 1960). The managers in turn delegate authority to their subordinates
and institute administrative routines that are impersonal, capable of universal
application, and do not vary by situation. Analyzing the sociology of law, Weber
emphasized the progressive rationality of legal processes. Formal rationalism depends
94 on fixed “rules of the game” which determine outcomes that are consistent with
procedural constraints. As noted earlier, Bendix (1960, p. 399) explains that “the formal
rationality of the law guarantees only the formal rights of the interested parties,” and
as a consequence, “fortuitous circumstances may produce substantive injustice under a
formally rational system of law.”
The purpose of formal rationality, and its connection with bureaucracy, lies in its
disinterested application to every case. The literature on procedural justice offers
insights into how formal rationality can be implemented in organizational settings. Like
formal rationality, procedural justice addresses the process leading to the determination
of outcomes (Thibaut and Walker, 1978). Consistency is inherent to procedural justice
and formal rationality in that fixed rules and processes dictate an individual’s treatment.
Leventhal (1980) developed a set of rules that can be used to determine whether
procedural justice exists, and which have been empirically supported (e.g. Colquitt, 2001).
Specifically, organizations can ensure that procedures will be perceived as fair, and thus
establish formal rationality (Leventhal, 1980), by ensuring that:
.
procedures are consistently applied across people and over time;
.
decision makers suppress their biases and implement procedures in a neutral
manner;
.
procedures are based on accurate information;
.
appeal mechanisms are available to correct negative outcomes;
.
all those affected by the procedures are allowed to voice their opinions regarding
the procedures; and
.
procedures follow commonly accepted ethical standards.

Formal rationality is articulated in the organization’s rules and policies. Behavioral

precepts guide an employee’s activities in the workplace and provide a basis for
enforcing compliance with the organization’s goals. Some rules, such as proscriptions
against the use of company equipment for personal purposes, affect productivity. A
timely example is the use of internet resources on company time when the use benefits
only the employee. Other rules, such as dress codes or grooming requirements, may
have no direct link with efficiency, but they are related to the company’s image or to
employees’ perceptions of each other. The penalties for an infraction can be specified in
detail so that employees know what is expected, what consequences follow from
violation, and how offenses will be prosecuted. Little is left to personal discretion, and
as a result, the process is impersonal, impartial, and indifferent to the identity of the
offender.

Limitations of formal rationality for managing conflict

Although formal rationality is a suitable starting point for managing conflict in an
organization, it must be supplemented by a second dimension, which focuses on
persons as individuals and cases as singular. Formal rationality fails to address the Conflict
interpersonal dynamics of organizations and the exercise of managerial discretion in management in
particular situations. In his assessment of workplace aggression, Williams (1994)
argues that conflict management is a necessary component in the implementation of organizations
organizational processes dealing with people. He concludes that aggression arises
because of the absence of certain key components in the developmental process of
people and organizational systems, and those components are necessarily incorporated 95
into abstract systems. Williams’ first component is the ability of people and
organizations to effectively create bonds that foster collaboration and inclusiveness.
This means that an organization’s nurturing of the employee enhances the employee’s
ability to be flexible with changes in organizational life. Failure to nurture thwarts the
organization’s efforts to develop employees’ commitment to the organization, and a
failure to bond creates an unhealthy and unnatural tendency to become self-oriented
and unable to participate in the process of sharing and collaborating.
Another component missing from formal rationality is the value of inclusiveness in
the process of growth and understanding related to the desired outcomes of
organizations. Ideally, the organization provides an inclusive environment, which
signals that the organization respects diversity and collaboration as means for
achieving its goals. Along with inclusiveness, Williams balances the need for
individuality with the work ethic of team performance. Cognitive dissonance can occur
when an individual’s needs conflict with team performance. The dissonance results
from tension between an individual’s contribution, the team’s performance, and ways
in which the organization rewards the individual effort or the team’s action. Issues of
control, power, and authority are often linked with individual differences. Williams
(1994) suggests that a focus on individual differences fosters aggression when the
desired outcome is to defeat an opponent, superior, or subordinate in a conflict episode,
and strategies of interaction are oriented toward winning an issue rather than
collaboration.
Williams’s final point is to emphasize the distinction between means aimed
exclusively at an organizational end as opposed to articulating means as a critical
dynamic toward achieving an appropriate and just end. This distinction lies at the core
of ethical management and organizational life. Conflict management and formal
rationality may too often focus on the processor the organization, not on the underlying
problem. When evaluating organizational results, organizations must realize that
success goes beyond the completion of a project (Williams, 1994). As a result, formal
rationality is an insufficient method of managing conflict.

Substantive rationality, the person, and the case

The second dimension of Weber’s analysis of legal domination is also essential to
our viewpoint. Weber insisted that substantive rationality, or the accommodation of
rules to individual circumstances, was needed to support the legal system. The
distinction between “legality” and “legitimacy” has been generalized to explain the
stability of government itself. In an essay on political theorist Carl Schmitt, Posner
and Vermeule (2011, p. 2) observe that “Schmitt’s distinction between legality and
legitimacy, we suggest, rests on the unimpeachable insight that constitutional rules
amount to nothing more than ‘parchment barriers’ unless supported by the
equilibrium political strategies of officials, citizens, political parties and other
IJCMA actors.” That is, the desire for formality must accommodate the equally important
24,1 correlative that process is legitimate only so long as it rests on the consent of those
subject to its dictates.
Substantive rationality is counter-bureaucratic, encompassing alternative practices
and aspirations based on articulated values such as participation and ethical concerns
(Bendix, 1960). It deals with personal dimensions of a particularized case, rather than
96 an objective set of principles which are characteristic of formalism (Weber, 1968). The
concept of substantive rationality permits the exercise of organizational discretion in
individualized situations. Consequently, managerial judgment may be applied to
achieve modes of justice that elude a formalistic approach. Exceptional cases can
warrant exceptions to the formally rational set of rules based on considerations of
empathy, compassion, and equity. An example of substantive rationality would be
recognizing an exception to the employer’s policy against drug use if the employee
presents a certificate establishing that he or she uses the drug legally for medicinal
purposes. According to a recent news article, medical marijuana is protected in 14
states in the US, and, as one legal expert observed, it “puts employers in a very difficult
situation”(Mascia, 2010, p. A14).
To begin with, substantive rationality depends for its effectiveness on the
communications deployed in conflict situations. Researchers have identified a type of
organizational justice that examines the fairness of interpersonal communication and
how it influences an organizational member’s sensitivity to the quality of treatment he
or she receives during the enactment of organizational procedures (Bies and Moag,
1986; Bies and Shapiro, 1986; Colquitt and Greenberg, 2003; Sheppard and Lewicki,
1987). Among the criteria used for evaluating this form of justice are truthfulness,
respect, interrogation, and justification. Truthfulness involves dimensions of deception
and candidness. It requires dealings with others that include forthrightness and
accuracy of communication. Respect refers to communication that maintains the
identity or face of both parties as opposed to discourteous or attacking communication.
Propriety addresses improper and prejudicial questions or statements that are
perceived as a violation of policy or require information that constitutes or leads to
discrimination as protected by equal employment opportunity laws. Finally,
justification is an explanation of the decision-making in a given case; the principle is
that that “fairness requires decisions be justified so that the action might be
understood and found acceptable” (Bies and Moag, 1986, p. 50).
A concern for interaction highlights the relational features of conflict, as parties in
disagreement are likely to be working together in the future; and therefore, each party
is likely to be sensitive to the “truth-value of communication” (Bies and Moag, 1986,
p. 48). Truth-value of communication is essential where organizational members
expect that they will be dealt with candidly and treated fairly. Such treatment can be
associated with positive levels of satisfaction in subsequent interactions; and therefore,
it fosters goodwill and a sense of inclusion among organizational members. Each of
these four criteria conceptually corresponds with assessing relational goals in conflict
where the question of “Who we are in relationship to each other during interaction?”
addresses how each party wants to be treated by the other and the amount of
interdependence and mutual influence they have with each other (Wilmot and Hocker,
2007). Relational goals often escalate parties in conflict into polarized states because
such goals remain tacit and unspoken. The criteria of interactional justice provides a
framework for understanding how each party translates the same event into her or his Conflict
own relational meaning as conflicts and disagreements are often interpreted differently management in
by each party. Relational goals “are at the heart of all conflict interactions”(Wilmot and
Hocker, 2007, p. 68), and a necessary part of substantive rationality. organizations
A second aspect of substantive rationality emerges from the interactional features
of conflict management. This factor broadly involves outcomes that are consistent with
basic notions of fairness and equity. Applying this guideline to a given case requires 97
the exercise of discretion and subjectivity carried out in such a manner that it is
perceived as a legitimate use of authority rather than a legalistic one. To give an
example used in a study of disciplinary cases (Klass and Dell’Omo, 1997, p. 974):
[. . .]it was stated that the employee removed material from the company trash bin. Although
company rules prohibit theft, they do not specify whether removing material from the trash
should be considered theft. Because the case raises fundamental questions about both
morality and fairness, it is possible that individual differences (e.g. personal values)
dominated the effect associated with organizational constraints, thus resulting in
non-significant effects.
As the authors point out, the rule is that theft of property is punishable by discharge,
but concerns of morality and fairness prevailed in the case resulting in an exception to
the rule.
A similar approach is used in the field of labor arbitration, where an extensive body
of doctrine provides authority for arbitrators to set aside or reduce disciplinary
penalties imposed by management. After reviewing numerous awards, the authors of
the leading treatise on arbitration summarize the principle as follows (Elkouri and
Elkouri, 1997, pp. 911-12):
Finally, it should be recognized that while arbitrators do not lightly interfere with
management’s decisions in discharge and disciplinary matters, this by no means suggests
that they fail to act firmly when management’s decisions are found to be unjust or
unreasonable under all the circumstances.
Accordingly, arbitrators rely on a form of subjective rationality to make up part of
the inquiry into “just cause” for discipline. Even though no general principle can be
articulated as a formal standard, the well-known arbitrator Harry Platt proposed
that a decision maker must “safeguard the interests of the discharged employee by
making reasonably sure that the causes for discharge were just and equitable and
such as would appeal to reasonable and fair-minded persons as warranting
discharge” (Elkouri and Elkouri, 1997, p. 911). The underlying assumption of
substantive rationality is therefore that it can be reasonably explained to anyone in
terms of fairness and equity.
To briefly reiterate, we have pointed out the limitations of the Blake and Mouton
two-factor grid, which leads to an emphasis on productivity in conflict management
rather than on dealing with people. Our perspective incorporating Weber’s ideas of
formal and substantive rationality offers a better way of treating employees in an
organization. We next develop the justification for creating a conflict system within an
organization, followed by a discussion of some of the implications of our ideas for
practice and research.
IJCMA The role of conflict management systems in contemporary organizations
24,1 There are several lines of argument that might be raised against our interpretation of
Weber’s work and its contemporary application. Those arguments can be summarized
as follows:
.
conceptions of organizations as rational bureaucracies are outdated in
contemporary organizations;
98 .
research does not support the claim that the goal of dual concern perspectives is
to promote only efficiency and organizational outcomes at the expense of a
concern for employees; and
.
such perspectives are not biased toward a preoccupation with managerial
problems and maintaining a managerial advantage.

A large body of evidence suggests otherwise. A recent and highly publicized example
involves the attempt by Wisconsin’s governor and state legislature to overturn
long-established workers’ rights by the exercise of political power rather than
negotiation. Indeed, employment relationships are becoming more contractual, fragile
and short-lived (Cappelli, 2008) during a time of economic crisis, high unemployment
rates and widespread corruption. Conflict is foundational in such organizational
contexts because it is built into the very structure and modes of operating (Kolb and
Silbey, 1990). Division of labor, the delegation of authority, the requirements for task
interdependence and sharing a resource pool, all cause conflict in organizations and are
contemporary features of organizations.
Such dilemmas create the conditions for stigmatized reputations, negative
perceptions, an erosion of trust and goodwill and increased aggression for
organizations both nationally and worldwide. For example, in the US, the cost of
conflict and aggression in the workplace has been calculated at $35.4 billion annually
(di Martino, 2003), which includes, but is not limited to, lost work time and legal
expenses associated with lawsuits focusing on organizations’ mistreatment of their
employees (Baron, 1993; Williams, 1994). For Fortune 1000 firms, activities such as
resolving conflicts among employees, may account for as much as 13 percent of their
executives’ time, or nearly seven weeks per-year, per-executive, with annual costs
estimated at more than $6 million per-company, for absenteeism, lost productivity, and
turnover (Pearson and Porath, 2005). Those expenses represent a significant drain on
resources.
Globally, firms suffer a similar impact on human resources and social systems.
More than half of the health sector personnel surveyed from developing and
transitional countries had experienced at least one incident of conflict and aggression
per year (WHO, 2002). According to di Martino (2003), in France acts of conflict and
aggression have been on the increase against public transport staff with over 2,000
attacks reported on the personnel of the Régie Autonome des Transports Parisiens, and
in Japan, a bullying hotline established by the Tokyo Managers’ Union received more
than 1,700 requests for consultation in a 60 day period. In the UK, workplace conflict
and aggression is the single biggest risk employers face, costing them $7 billion a year,
with incident rates that are reported to be bordering on epidemic proportions
(European Intelligence Wire, 2003). Face-to face interviews with 21,500 workers across
the 16 European Union member states found that 1,290 employees are exposed to
conflict and aggression in the workplace with an additional 2,000 employees reporting
that they were exposed to intimidation and bullying (Helge et al., 2002). In summary, Conflict
conflict has negative effects on the performance and efficiency of organizations in the management in
form of increased sick leave, absenteeism and turnover as well as lower quality of
service, productivity, motivation, and professional satisfaction (di Martino, 2003). organizations
Our viewpoint of managing conflict based on formal and substantive rationality
provides several important benefits to organizations by underscoring the deleterious
consequences of competition, cause-effect linear thinking, and separation/autonomy 99
associated with a preoccupation with managerial problems and maintaining a
managerial advantage. As a first step, we center on process and justice interactions for
managing interpersonal conflict, which will therefore elevate divergent voices
otherwise marginalized by a preoccupation with managerial problems and
maintaining a managerial advantage. With its concern for interpersonal dealings,
substantive rationality addresses key realities of conflict in the workplace by focusing
on the relational aspects of conflict. Our approach embraces cooperation as a value
consistent with corporate challenges to utilize diversity (Buzzanell, 1994) and to create
more inclusive, caring and compassionate organizations. Such a perspective allows for
individuals to understand themselves in relationship to others within specific
organizational contexts, settings, and themes.
Second, our approach permits a focus on the revaluation of issues, positions,
language, and practices that suppress conflict. These suggestions are consistent with
Pearce and Cronen’s (1980) arguments that modern organizations need threat-reducing
strategies, integrative decision-making, group-problem solving, and non-defensive
techniques for managing conflict. Unlike previous perspectives of conflict
management, a substantive rationality approach provides a framework for viewing
organizational life as an interconnected and mutually dependent group that considers
others’ needs, and engages in conflict dialogues to enhance cooperative ventures
(Wachtel, 1983). In a community employing the assumptions of our viewpoint, an
individual’s worth is determined by the quality of his or her relationships with others,
and by the drive toward real interpersonal relationships and caring for others by
helping individuals to understand how to recognize, frame, and promote cooperative
organizing processes in specific situations (Buzzanell, 1994). The notion of choice is
incorporated and valued within interpersonal conflicts and provides a context for
social support.
Finally, substantive rationality represents what Smircich (1983) calls a major shift
in emphasis from managing and controlling to interpreting and knowing. Because of
its change in emphasis, the adoption of our framework for dealing with interpersonal
conflict allows managers to clarify various realities in an organizational setting and to
remove distortion in their understanding of what is going on, in order to contribute to
the more informed practice of organizations (Smircich, 1983). This can be accomplished
by using conflict as a means by which organizational members make sense of their
situation. Thus, our approach to managing conflict can foster interactions that jointly
produce reality by co-creating meanings that establish “what is” for understanding and
managing disagreements. Further, a substantive rationality approach to interpersonal
conflict in an organization represents what Deetz and Kersten (1983) describe as a
pluralistic view that aims to uncover forces that constrain the process of organizing the
activities of members at all levels of the organization.
IJCMA Implications for practice and research
24,1 Our analysis shows that organizations increasingly require systems of conflict
management to properly administer disciplinary action, minimize adverse personnel
consequences, avoid litigation, and provide at least rudimentary organizational justice.
The structure of our argument rests on two interlinking concepts. The first is that
organizations necessarily require some level of bureaucracy in order to function, and
100 conflict management meets that requirement through objective, well-defined
procedures that produce hierarchical modes of decision-making culminating in a
final and definitive result. For that reason, indeterminate forms of resolution, such as
mediation and third-party negotiation, fail to satisfy the underlying objective of formal
rationality. Participants in the conflict process are entitled to an authoritative
resolution of their case as set forth in the process itself. Lack of finality aggravates the
individual’s feeling of powerlessness and frustration.
The second concept inherent in effective conflict management is the exercise of
reasoned, justifiable, and legitimate discretion. Weber conceded that substantive
rationality formed the essential counterweight to formalism and aimed to provide
justice in exceptional situations. As noted above, arbitral doctrine has long recognized
that the notion of “cause” for discipline is tempered by elements of fairness and
reasonableness. When those elements come into play, they are effective to the extent
they can be persuasively articulated to a degree that others will regard the final
outcome as a legitimate one. The idea is embedded in the fabric of our legal system
itself, as illustrated by a recent case in which a12-year-old boy allegedly “committed
premeditated murder and assault by shooting and killing his parents, then shooting
and stabbing a younger brother and attacking a younger sister with a knife” (Bunch,
2011, p. 1). If charged and convicted as an adult, he will be sentenced to life in prison,
but treated as a juvenile, he would be confined in a treatment facility until age 21. In
either case, the final decision will depend on substantive rationality.
The practical appeal of our viewpoint is further illustrated in the policies adopted by
such large organizations as the Anheuser-Busch Corporation. In a detailed study of the
company’s conflict management system, Bales and Plowman (2008, p. 2) describe the
procedures for resolving a dispute, ending in a final and binding decision by an outside
arbitrator. Their analysis includes interviews with company officials, reviews of
awards, and the effects of those awards on future prospects of litigation. The authors
conclude “that it is possible for an employment dispute resolution program
culminating in binding arbitration simultaneously to serve (1) the employer’s goal of
containing employment litigation costs, (2) the employee’s goal of access to a fair forum
for resolving employment disputes, and (3) both parties’ goal of promoting the
non-adversarial resolution of employment disputes.” If leading firms successfully
incorporate justice principles into human resources policies, it signals that such
policies achieve the desired effect. A future research agenda in this area could examine
the relationship between studies of organizational justice and the more global concepts
of formality and rationality. Thus, for example, are any of the components of justice
associated with subjective rationality or are employee perceptions in this area distinct
from justice studies? Similarly, future research on justice may be expanded by through
the notion and perception of legitimacy by members of the organization. As stated
earlier in the paper legitimacy is grounded on employees’ willingness to accept the
system as fair and just in its application, which allows exceptions to rules as the need
arises. How employees accept a system as fair and just have potential import for future Conflict
justice research. management in
organizations
Conclusion
Our viewpoint offers a perspective of conflict management drawn from Weber’s ideas
of formal and substantive rationality. Employees care about fair treatment in 101
organizations and about fair outcomes in individual cases. Formal rationality offers an
objective and impersonal system of administering rules necessary to achieve
managerial objectives. Those rules also benefit employees who are assured of
procedural safeguards in the application of disciplinary sanctions. The system protects
against discriminatory, arbitrary decisions that will affect the employee’s job.
At the same time, employees are also assured that if a legitimate case is made for an
exception to the formal process, then individualized treatment will be made to ensure
that substantive justice is available. Substantive rationality requires principles of
application, which are also rigorous and can be satisfactorily explained. Justice
systems in general confront the dilemma of objective rules and individual
circumstances. In organizations, the same principles should benefit employees when
the situation warrants. The combination of formal and substantive rationality offers a
practical, and meaningful, way of dealing with conflict from a personal orientation as
well as an organizational one.

References
Amason, A. (1996), “Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on
strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 39, pp. 123-48.
Bales, R. and Plowman, J. (2008), “Compulsory arbitration as part of a broader employment
dispute resolution process: the Anheuser-Busch example”, Hofstra Journal of Labor and
Employment Law, Vol. 26, pp. 1-33.
Bardwick, J. (1981), “An administrator’s viewpoint: the interaction of sex and power”, in Forisha,
B.L. and Goldman, B.H. (Eds), Outsiders on the Inside: Women & Organizations, Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 105-21.
Baron, A.S. (1993), Violence in the Workplace: A Prevention and Management Guide for
Businesses, Pathfinder Publishing, Ventura, CA.
Bendix, R. (1960), Max Weber: An Intellectual Portrait, Anchor Books Doubleday, Garden City,
NY.
Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.S. (1986), “Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness”,
in Lewicki, R.J., Sheppard, B.H. and Bazerman, M.H. (Eds), Research on Negotiation in
Organizations, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 43-55.
Bies, R.J. and Shapiro, D.L. (1986), “Interactional fairness judgments: the influence of causal
accounts”, Social Justice Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 199-218.
Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1964), The Managerial-Grid, Gulf, Houston, TX.
Braverman, H. (1974), Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth
Century, Monthly Review Press, New York, NY.
Bunch, J. (2011), “Judge releases details in case of Burlington boy accused of killing parents”,
available at: www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_17614773 (accessed March 25, 2011).
IJCMA Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979), Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis,
Heinemann, London.
24,1
Buzzanell, P.M. (1994), “Gaining a voice: feminist organizational communication theorizing”,
Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 7, pp. 339-83.
Buzzanell, P.M. and Goldzwig, S.R. (1991), “Linear and nonlinear career models: metaphors,
paradigms, and ideologies”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 4, pp. 466-505.
102 Capelli, P. (2008), Talent on Demand: Managing Talent in an Age of Uncertainty, Harvard
Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Clawson, D. (1980), Bureaucracy and the Labor Process: The Transformation of US Industry
1860-1920, Monthly Review Press, New York, NY.
Colquitt, J.A. (2001), “On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a
measure”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 386-400.
Colquitt, J.A. and Greenberg, J. (2003), “Organizational justice: a fair assessment of the state of
the literature”, in Greenberg, J. (Ed.), Organizational Behavior: The State of the Science,
Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 165-210.
Davey, M. and Greenhouse, S. (2011), “Wisconsin may take an ax to state workers’ benefits and
their unions”, The New York Times, February 12, p. A11.
Deetz, S.A. and Kersten, A. (1983), “Critical models of interpretive research”, in Putnam, L.L. and
Pacanowsky, M.E. (Eds), Communication and Organizations: An Interpretive Approach,
Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 147-72.
Deutsch, M. (1973), The Resolution of Conflict: Constructive and Destructive Processes, Yale
University Press, New Haven, CT.
di Martino, V. (2003), “Workplace violence in the health sector”, International Labor
Organization, Geneva, available at: www.ilo.org (accessed 1 November 2010).
Elkouri, F. and Elkouri, E. (1997), How Arbitration Works, 5th ed., BNA Books, Washington, DC.
European Intelligence Wire (2003), “Workplace violence is the biggest risk for UK firms”,
Financial Times, available at: www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-10178006.html (accessed 1
November 2010).
Helge, H., Sparks, K. and Cooper, C.L. (2002), “The cost of violence/stress at work and the benefits
of a violence/stress free working environment”, report commissioned by the International
Labor Organization (ILO), Geneva, available at: http://lex.unict.it/eurolabor/
documentazione/oil/rapport/cost_violence_stress.pdf (accessed 1 November 2010).
Jehn, K. (1995), “A multi-method examination of the benefits and detriments of intra-group
conflict”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40, pp. 256-82.
Jehn, K., Northcraft, G. and Neale, M. (1999), “Why differences make a difference: a field study of
diversity, conflict, and performance in work groups”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 44, pp. 741-63.
Klass, B. and Dell’Omo, G. (1997), “Managerial use of dismissal: organizational-level
determinants”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 50, pp. 927-53.
Kohn, A. (1992), No Contest: The Case Against Competition, rev. ed., Houghton Mifflin, Boston,
MA.
Kolb, D.M. and Silbey, S.S. (1990), “Enhancing the capacity of organizations to deal with
disputes”, Negotiation Journal, Vol. 6, pp. 297-304.
Leventhal, G. (1980), “What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of
fairness in social relationships”, in Gergen, K., Greenberg, M. and Willis, R. (Eds), Social
Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 27-55.
Lewicki, R.J., Weiss, S.E. and Lewin, D. (1992), “Models of conflict, negotiation and third party Conflict
intervention: a review and synthesis”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13,
pp. 209-52. management in
Mascia, J. (2010), “Medical use of marijuana costs some a job”, New York Times, p. A14. organizations
Nicotera, A.M. (1993), “Beyond two dimensions: a grounded theory model of conflict-handling
behavior”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 6, pp. 282-306.
Pearce, W.B. and Cronen, V.E. (1980), Communication, Action, and Meaning: The Creation of 103
Social Realities, Praeger, New York, NY.
Pearson, C. and Porath, C. (2005), “On the nature, consequences and remedies of workplace
incivility: no time for ‘nice’? Think again”, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 7-18.
Pelled, L., Eisenhardt, K.M. and Xin, K.P. (1999), “Exploring black box: an analysis of work group
diversity, conflict, and performance”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 44, pp. 1-28.
Pitt, D. and Weiss, T. (1986), The Nature of United Nations Bureaucracies, Westview Press,
Boulder, CO.
Posner, E. and Vermeule, A. (2011), “Demystifying Schmitt”, Harvard Law School Public Law
and Legal Theory Research Series Paper, pp. 10-47.
Putnam, L.L. (1983), “The interpretive perspective: an alternative to functionalism”, in Putnam, L.L.
and Pacanowsky, M.E. (Eds), Communication and Organizations: An Interpretive
Approach, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 31-54.
Putnam, L.L. (1990), “Feminist theories, dispute processes, and organizational communication”,
paper presented at the Arizona State University Conference on Organizational
Communication: Perspectives for the 90s, Tempe, AZ, April.
Sheppard, B.H. and Lewicki, R.J. (1987), “Toward general principles of managerial fairness”,
Social Justice Research, Vol. 1, pp. 161-76.
Smircich, L. (1983), “Implications for management theory”, in Putnam, L.L. and Pacanowsky,
M.E. (Eds), Communication and Organizations: An Interpretive Approach, Sage, Newbury
Park, CA, pp. 221-42.
Thibaut, J. and Walker, L. (1978), “A theory of procedure”, California Law Review, Vol. 26,
pp. 1271-8.
Wachtel, P.L. (1983), The Poverty of Affluence: A Psychological Portrait of The American Way of
Life, Free Press, New York, NY.
Weber, M. (1968), Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology, Bedminster Press,
New York, NY.
Williams, L.C. (1994), Organizational Violence: Creating a Prescription for Change, Quorum
Books, Westport, CT.
Wilmot, W.W. and Hocker, J.L. (2007), Interpersonal Conflict, 7th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY.
WHO (2002), “New research shows workplace violence threatens health services”, available at:
www.who.int (accessed 1 November 2010).

Corresponding author
Michael A. Gross can be contacted at: Michael.gross@business.colostate.edu

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints