CONFLICT

Conflict can be regarded as a reality of management and organizational behaviour and can be
related to power and politics. Conflict can be seen as a behaviour intended to obstruct the
achievement of some other person’s goals. Conflict is based on the incompatibility of goals
and arises from opposing behaviours. It can be viewed at the individual, group or organizational
level. Conflict exists in all situations where individuals and groups are in disagreement with
each other for whatever reason. This potential therefore exists everywhere, where two or more
people are gathered together – a world without differences is inconceivable
Common definitions of conflict tend to be associated with negative features and situations
which give rise to inefficiency, ineffectiveness or dysfunctional consequences. The traditional
view of conflict is that it is bad for organizations. Conflict is perceived as disruptive and
unnatural and represents deviant behaviour which should be controlled and changed. Clearly,
extreme cases of conflict in organizations can have very upsetting, or even tragic, consequences
for some people and have adverse effects on organizational performance. Conflict situations
can give rise to excessive emotional or physical stress.
Conflict is not necessarily a bad thing, however. Properly managed it can arguably have
potentially positive outcomes.it can an energising and vitalizing force in groups and in the
organization. Conflict can be seen as a constructive force and in certain circumstances it can
be welcomed or even encouraged. For example, it can be seen as an aid to incremental
improvement in organizational design and functioning and to the decision-making process.
Conflict can be an agent for evolution, and for internal and external change. Properly identified
and handled, it can help to minimise the destructive influences of the win-lose situations.
Conflict may be defined as a process in which one party perceives that another party has taken
or will take actions that are incompatible with one’s own interests. Conflicts occur quite
commonly in organizations. In fact, it is estimated that about 20 percent of managers’ time is
spent in dealing with conflict and its effects.
According to Kilman and Thomas, conflict can be defined “as the condition of objective
incompatibility between values and goals, as the behaviour of deliberately interfering with
another’s goal-achievement, and emotionally in terms of hostility.”
Traditional Vs Modern Views on Conflict
The early approach to conflict assumed that all conflict was bad. Conflict was viewed
negatively. Traditionally, the approach to conflict was simple, and it regarded conflict as such,
it was a must to avoid conflict in view of its harmful and malfunctional nature. The traditional
view was consistent with the attitudes that prevailed about group behaviour in the 1930s and
1940s. conflict was seen as a dysfunctional outcome resulting from poor communication, a
lack of openness and trust between people, and the failure of managers to be responsive to the
needs and aspirations of their employees.
Traditional approach
Traditional approach was based on the following assumptions:
▪ Conflict by definition is avoidable
▪ Conflict is caused by trouble makers, boat rockers and prima donnas
 ▪ Legalistic forms of authority such as going through channels & sticking to the book are
emphasized
▪ Scape-goats are accepted as inevitable, and part and parcel in any moderately successful
or unsuccessful project

Management traditionally relied on formal authority and classical organizational restructuring

to solve their conflict problems. Individual managers often become hypocritical in order to
avoid conflicts from above or below. They develop blind spots to the existence of conflicts,
create deliberate delaying tactics to avoid conflicts, and revert to the extensive use of defence
mechanisms as cosmetic solutions to the conflict.
The human relations view of conflict is based on the belief that conflict is a natural and
inevitable outcome in all group and organizations, and that it has both functional and
dysfunctional consequences. This human relations viewpoint dominated conflict theory from
the late 1940s through the mid-1970s.
Since 1970’s, a new philosophy of conflict which Robbins called Interactionists view began to
be advanced. The interactionalist philosophy understands conflict a necessary, to be
encouraged and required to be managed. The underlying belief is that conflict is not inly a
healthy sign in a group but that it is absolutely necessary for a group to perform effectively.
Modern Approach
Modern approach has the following assumptions:
▪ Conflict is inevitable
▪ Conflict is determined by structural factors such as the physical shape of a building, the
design of a career structure, or the nature of a class system
▪ Conflict is integral to the nature of change
▪ A minimal level of conflict is optimal.

The modern view does not assert that all conflicts are desirable. Whether a conflict is good or
bad depends on the type of conflict. Specially, it is necessary to differentiate between functional
and dysfunctional conflicts.
A good manager doesn’t try to eliminate conflict; he tries to keep it from wasting the energies
of his people..if you’re the boss and your people fight you openly when they think you are
wrong – that’s healthy. If your people fight each other openly in your presence for what they
believe in – that’s healthy. But keep all the conflict eyeball to eyeball.
Functional Versus Undesirable Conflicts
Functional conflict is constructive, whereas dysfunctional conflict is destructive. The criterion
for determining the functionality or dysfunctionality of conflict is its impact on performance
of group.
Conflict that supports the goals of the group and improves its performance is functional
conflict. On the contrary, conflict that hinders group performance is dysfunctional conflict.
Group performance, and not individual’s perception, determines functionality of conflicts.
Individual’s lack of appreciation for conflict usually stems from unpleasant experiences.
However, conflict if it is functional, can prove to be rewarding in organizational life. Kreps
and Thronton identified seven potential benefits of conflict that people normally do not
consider.
1. Conflict can act as a smoke detector or a warning light for relational partners, groups,
or organizations; helping to identify larger underlying problems that should be
addressed. Where there is smoke (conflict), there is fire (underlying problems).
2. Conflict can act as a safety valve, releasing tension and anger in individuals, dyads,
groups and organizations, rather than allowing these tensions to build-up and eventually
be expressed in destructive, volatile and dangerous ways.
3. Conflict can encourage interaction and involvement among organizational members in
discussing issues of concern to the dyad, group, or organization. Conflict is a provoking,
exciting, involving form of interaction that can serve to draw people out of their shells
and encourage communication. Such communication enables effective organizing to
occur.
4. Conflict can promote creativity and creative behaviour by organizational members. In
communication situations, people are motivated to seek solutions to the problems,
causing reduced conflict to reduce pressure. Conflict can provide an incentive to
 address problematic issues that might otherwise not attract attention until they grew to
calamitous proportions.
5. Conflict can promote problem solving, since conflicts are intense, pressure-filled
communication situations, people are motivated to seek solutions to the problems,
causing reduced conflict to reduce pressure. Conflict can provide an incentive to
address problematic issues that might otherwise not attract attention until they grew to
calamitous proportions.
6. Conflict can promote the sharing of relevant information amongst organizational
members by encouraging the individuals to voice their desperate ideas and by
increasing the amount of relevant information that is available.
7. Conflict can test under fire the strength of organizational members’ ideas and their
potential solutions to problems by arguing the relative strengths and weaknesses of
proposed ideas and solutions. If an idea survives the test of conflict, it achieves a level
of inert-subjective reliability (of agreement generated) among individuals and is likely
to be a good idea.
Thus, it can be seen that conflict is useful and desirable in the system, as healthy tensions prove
helpful in bringing about constructive change. Conflict usually clears the air since people give
vent to their accumulated ill-feelings and tensions. Inter-group conflict also serves as a power-
equalizer between two contending parties. All this suggests that conflict can be productive.
However, there are certain negative consequences of conflict too. Dunn describes destructive
outcomes of interpersonal conflict as defensiveness, anger, hostility, hurt feelings, alienation
and weakened relationships. These destructive outcomes of conflict tend to be emphasized
more than positive outcomes.
Conflicts usually give rise to a climate of mistrust and suspicion. Losers feel defeated,
demeaned and become vindictive. Atmosphere stifles growth, and resentment or antagonism
prevails. Lot of psychological energy gets drained off and people develop stress on their mind.
When stress and tensions continue to mount up, normal workflow is disrupted. Communication
in the group gets retarded, group cohesiveness gets reduced and infighting among group
members increases.at the extreme conflict can bring group functioning to a halt and potentially
threaten group survival.
Types of conflict
All conflict is not alike. There are three major types of conflict commonly occurring in
organizations. These are as follows:
• Substantive conflict: it is not unusual for people to have different viewpoints and
opinions with respect to a decision they are making with others. This variety of conflict
is known as substantive conflict. In most cases, substantive conflict can be very
beneficial to helping groups make effective decisions because it forces the various sides
to articulate their ideas clearly.
• Affective conflict: when people experience clashes of personalities or interpersonal
tension of some sort, the frustration and anger that result are signs of affective conflict.
It is not unusual for affective conflict to result whenever people from different
backgrounds are put together to perform tasks. Until they learn to accept one another,
affective conflict is likely, resulting in disruption of group performance. After all,
people who do not see the world in the same manner are likely to clash, and when they
do, their joint performance tends to suffer.
• Process conflict: in many work groups controversies arise about how they are going to
operate – that is, how various duties and resources will be allocated and with whom
various responsibilities reside. This is known as process conflict. Generally, the more
process conflict exists, the more group performance will suffer.
Conflict due to Frustration
Frustration occurs when a motivated drive is blocked before a person reaches a desired
goal. The barrier may be either overt (outward, or physical) or covert (inward, or mental-
sociopsychological). The frustration model can be useful in the analysis of not only
behaviour in general but also specific aspects of on-the-job behaviour. Theft of company
property and even violence on the job may be a form of aggressive outcome to job
frustration. For example, a summary article on violence in the workplace noted that even
though on-the-job killings have dropped over the last 15 years, this is because of fewer
homicides in places like taxis and convenience stores. Workplace homicides by
“associates” – current and former co-workers, customers and clients – are actually on the
upswing since 1997. In addition, employee crimes, as a form of displaced aggression (eg
fictitious sales transactions, illegal kickbacks and theft of official equipment and retail
items meant for sales to customers), is also on the rise.
There is increasing concern and research on aggression and violence in the workplace.
Although self-reported incidences of workplace aggression are a reaction to frustration,
there is research evidence that individual differences (eg. Trait anger, attribution style,
negative affectivity, attitudes towards revenge, self-control, and previous exposure to
aggressive culture) account for this aggression, but so do situational factors such as
interactional justice and/or abusive supervision.
In addition to aggression and violence, the withdrawal reaction to frustration may be a
major explanation for the “motivational problem” of employees. They maybe “apathetic”
or have “retired on the job” because they are frustrated, not because they have no
motivation. Many employees motives have been blocked by dead-end jobs, high degrees
of job specialization or supervisors who put up barriers. The fixation reaction to frustration
may be used to explain irritational bureaucratic behaviour. (the rules become the end in
themselves and the frustrated employee pathetically adapts to the barriers). Compromise
can help explain mid-career changes (frustrated employees cannot achieve motivated goals
on the job, so they seek fulfilment outside the job). These reactions to frustration often cost
the organization a great deal because of the dysfunctions associated with aggression,
withdrawal and fixation. In the case of compromise, the employee’s motivation is forced
outside the organization.

Goal Conflict
Another common cause of conflict for an individual is a goal that has both positive and
negative features, or two or more competing goals. Whereas in frustration motives are
blocked before the goal is reached, in goal conflict two or more motives block one another.
For ease of analysis, three separate types of goal conflict are generally identified.
1. Approach-approach conflict where the individual is motivated to approach two or
more positive but mutually exclusive goals
2. Approach-avoidance conflict where the individual is motivated to approach a goal
and at the same time is motivated to avoid it. The single goal contains both positive
and negative characteristics for the individual.
3. Avoidance-avoidance conflict, where the individual is motivated to avoid two or
more negative but mutually exclusive goals.
For example, managers engaged in long term planning typically are very confident of
a goal (a strategic Plan) they have developed for the future. Yet, as the time gets near
to commit resources and implement the plan, the negative consequences seem to appear
much greater than they did in the developing stage. Manager sin such a situation may
reach a point where approach equals avoidance. The result is a great deal of internal
conflict and stress, which may cause indecision, physical reactions or even depression.
Role Conflict and Ambiguity
Role is defined as a position that has expectations evolving from established norms. People
living in contemporary society assume a succession of roles throughout their lives. A
typical sequence of social roles would be that of child, son or daughter, teenager, college
student, boyfriend or girlfriend, spouse, parent and grandparent. Each of these roles has
recognized expectations that are acted out like a role in a play.
Roles such as software developer, clerk, team leader, salesperson, engineer, system analyst,
department head, vice president and chairman of the board often carry conflicting demands
and expectations. There is recent research evidence that such conflict can have negative
impact on the well being and performance of the person.
There are three major types of role conflict. One type is the conflict between the person and
the role. There may be conflict between the person’s personality and the expectations of
the ole. For example, a production worker and member of the union is appointed to head
control of workers and it goes against this individual’s personality to be hard-nosed, but
that is what the head of production expects. A second type is intrarole conflict created by
contradictory expectations about how a given role should be played. Should the new team
leader be autocratic or democratic in dealing with team members? Finally inter-role conflict
results from the differing requirements of two or more roles that must be performed at the
same time. Work roles and non work roles are often in such a conflict.
Interactive Conflict
Besides the intraindividual aspects of conflict that are closely related to stress, the
interactive aspects of conflict are also an important dynamic of organizational behaviour.
This interactive conflict can result at the interpersonal and intergroup level, in an
organization.
Interpersonal Conflict
Those who have interpersonal conflict most often attribute the cause to a personality
problem or defect in the other party., for example, research from attribution theory on the
so-called fundamental attribution error suggests that people attribute others’ behaviour to
personal factors such as intelligence, ability, motivation, attitudes or personality. There are
four major types of inter-personal conflict:
1. Personal Differences: everyone has a unique background because of his or her
upbringing, culture and family traditions and socialization process. Because no one
has the same family background, education and values, the difference can be a
major source of conflict. Disagreements stemming from the difference “often
become highly emotional and take on moral overtones. A disagreement about who
is factually correct easily turns into a bitter argument over who is morally right,”
2. Information Deficiency: this source of conflict results from communication
breakdown in the organization. It may be that the two people in conflict are using
different information or that one or both have misinformation. Unlike personal
difference, this source of conflict is not emotionally charged and once corrected
there is little resentment.
 3. Role incompatibility: this type of interpersonal conflict draws from both
intraindividual role conflict and inert group conflict. Specifically in today’s
horizontal organizations, managers have functions and tasks that are highly
interdependent. However, the individual roles of these managers ay be
incompatible. For example, the production manager and the sales manager have
interdependent functions; one supports the other. However,. A major role of the
production manager is to cut costs, and one way to do this is to keep inventories
low. The sales manager, on the other hand, ahs a dominant role of increasing
revenues through increased sales. The sales manager may make delivery promises
to customers that are incompatible with the low inventory levels maintained by
production. The resulting conflict from role incompatibility may have to be resolved
by higher level management or systems development through advanced information
technology.
4. Environmental stress: these types of conflict can be amplified by a stressful
environment. In environments characterized by scare or shrinking resources,
downsizing competitive pressure or high degree of uncertainty, conflict of all kinds
will be more probable. For example, when a major pet-food manufacturing facility
announced one-third of its managers would have to support a new third shift, the
feared disruption of personal and family routines prompted many managers to think
of sending out their resumes.
Intergroup Behaviour and Conflict
Intergroup behaviour occurs when individuals belonging to one group interact,
collectively or individually with another group o its members in terms of their reference
group identification. Intergroup conflict can happen because:
1. Competition for resources. Most organizations today have very limited
resources. Groups within the organization vie for budget funds, space, supplies,
personnel and support services.
2. Task interdependence. If two groups in the organization depend on one
another in a mutual way or even a one-way direction (as in a sequential
technological process). There tends to be more conflicts if groups are
independent of one another. The more diverse their objectives, priorities and
personnel of the interdependent groups, the more conflict tends to be there.
3. Jurisdictional ambiguity. This may involve “turf” problems or overlapping
responsibilities. For example, conflict might occur when one group attempts to
assume more control or take credit for desirable activities or give up its part and
any responsibility for undesirable activities.
4. Status struggles. This conflict occurs when one group attempts to improve its
status and another group views this as a threat to its place in the status hierarchy.
One group may also feel it is being inequitably treated in comparison with
another group of equal status in terms of rewards, job assignments, working
conditions, privileges or status symbols.
Causes of Conflict
• Grudges: all too often, conflict is caused when people who have lost face in dealing
with someone attempt to “get even” with that person by planning some form of
 revenge. Employees involved in this kind of activity are not only going out of their
way to harm one of their co-workers, but by holding a grudge, they are also wasting
energy that could be devoted to more productive organizational endeavours.
• Malevolent attributions: why did someone do something that hurt us? To the extent
that we believe that the harm we suffer is due to an individual’s malevolent motives
(eg.. the desire to hurt us), conflict is inevitable. However, whenever we believe
that we suffered harm because of factors outside someone’s control (eg. Accident)
conflict is less likely to occur. (this is an example of the attribution process). This
causes problems in cases in which we falsely attribute the harm we suffer to
another’s negative intent when, in reality, the cause was externally based.
• Destructive criticism: communicating negative feedback in organization sis
inevitable. All too often, however, this process arouses unnecessary conflict. The
problem is that some people make the mistake of using destructive criticism – that
is negative feedback that angers the recipient rather than helps this person do a
better job. The most effective managers attempt to avoid conflict by using
constructive criticism instead. For some important comparisons between these two
forms of criticism see the table
Constructive criticism Destructive criticism

Considerate – protects the recipient’s self Inconsiderate – harsh, sarcastic, biting

esteem
Does not contain threats Contains threats
Timely – occurs as soon as possible after Not timely – occurs after an
substandard performance inappropriate delay
Does not attribute poor performance to Attributes poor performance to internal
internal causes causes (eg. lack of effort, motivation,
ability)
Specific – focuses on aspects of General – as sweeping condemnation of
performance that are inadequate performance.
Focuses on performance - not recipient Focuses on recipient – his or her personal
characteristics – instead of performance
Motivated by desire to help the recipient Motivated by anger, desire to seek
improve dominance over recipient, desire for
revenge
Offers specific useful suggestions for Offers no useful suggestions for
improvement improvement

• Distrust: the more strongly people suspect that some other individual or group is
out to get them, the more likely they are to have a relationship with that person or
group that is riddled with conflict. In general, companies that are considered great
places to work are characterized by high levels of trust between people at all levels.
• Competition over scare resources: because organizations never have unlimited
resources (such as space, money, equipment or personnel), it is inevitable that
conflict will arise over the distribution of those resources. This occurs in large part
because of a self-serving tendency in people’s perceptions - that is, people tend to
overestimate their own contributions to their organizations. Believing that we made
 greater contributions leads us to feel more deserving of resources than others.
Inevitably, conflict results when others do not see it this way.

Five Stages of Conflict Episode

Pondy points out that conflict can be more readily understood if it is considered as a dynamic
process. Process essentially indicates a series of events or a sequence of episodes. Five stages
of a conflict episode are identified as follows:
1. Latent Conflict (conditions)
2. Perceived Conflict (cognition)
3. Felt Conflict (affect)
4. Manifest Conflict (behaviour)
5. Conflict aftermath (conditions

Latent Conflict: Conflict episode begins with latent conflict. Important sources of
organizational conflict include communication problems. Organizational structural problems
such as competition for scarce resources, drives for autonomy in the organizational setting,
divergence of sub-unit goals, competition for organizational positions and even role conflict.
Communication can lead to noise if there is noise present in the communication channel. In the
event of presence of noise, the desired message cannot reach the receiver of the message. There
will be a distortion in the message and what is sent as a real message will not be received by
the receiver. this will be the antecedent condition for a conflict regarding communication. One
research finding says that too little or too much communication results in latent conflict. The
logic offered is that too little communication creates a distance between persons, whereas too
much communication gives more opportunity for conflict. Another potential condition for
latent conflict could be pure lack of match between personalities. It may be due to difference
in the value systems of the two individuals. Even otherwise there could be a mismatch which
cannot be explained; for example, the so called differences in the chemistry of the individuals.
Latent conflict provides the necessary antecedent conditions for conflict ion organizations.
Latent conflict, is thus, the stage in which factors exist in the situation which could become
potential conflict inducing forces.

Perceived conflict: Conflict may sometimes be perceived when no conditions of latent conflict
exist, and latent conflict conditions may be present in a relationship without any of the
participants perceiving the conflict. Perceived conflict results due to the parties
misunderstanding of each other’s true position. Perceived conflict involves awareness by one
or more parties of the existence of conditions that create opportunities for conflict to arise.

Manifest Conflict: this is the actual conflict behaviour which takes various forms like open
aggression, physical and verbal violence, sabotage, apathy, withdrawal and so on. Parties
engage in behaviour which evoke responses from each other. Conflict resolution techniques:
The various ways to respond to conflict are collaborating, compromising, competing and
accommodating.

Conflict Aftermath: the aftermath of a conflict may be either positive or negative for the
organization, depending upon how the conflict was resolved. If the conflict is genuinely
resolved to the satisfaction of all participants, it can lead to a more cooperative relationship
among the participants. On the other hand, if the conflict is merely suppressed, but not resolved,
the latent conditions of conflict may be aggravated and explode in more serious form. This may
result in dissolving relationships. This legacy of a conflict episode is called Conflict Aftermath.
Consequences of conflict
Conflict can be a major source of stress. However, stress marks only the beginning of a chain
of reactions that can have harmful effects.
The negative reactions, besides being quiet, also are problematic in that they trigger negative
emotions that divert people’s attention from the task at hand. For example, people who are
focused on getting even with a co-worker and making that person look bad in front of others
are unlikely to be attending to the most important aspects of their jobs. In particular,
communication between individuals or teams may be affected so adversely that any
coordination of effort between them is compromised. Not surprisingly, such lowered
coordination of effort tends to lead to decrements in organizational functioning that can have
costly effects in organizational performance. Unfortunately, this is all too common.
Organizational conflict- especially if it gets out of hand- is stressful, unpleasant, distracting,
interferes with communication, and can damage long term relationships and organizational
performance. That’s quite a list – and it suggests that conflict is a serious issue, one that every
manager and every organization should take seriously. However, it is very important to note
that, despite what often is said about conflict, it also can have positive effects on behaviour in
organizations.
How to manage conflicts effectively

Although conflict is inevitable in the workplace, there are steps that managers can take to
avoid negative consequences that result
 • Agree on a process for addressing conflict before conflict arises. This way, when a
conflict needs to be addressed, everyone knows how it is going to be handled.

• Make sure everyone knows his or her specific areas of responsibility, authority and
accountability. Clarifying these matters avoids potential conflicts when people either
ignore their responsibilities or overstep their authority.

• Recognize conflicts stemming from faulty organizational systems, such as a pay

system that rewards one department at the expense of another. In such cases, work to
change the system rather than training employees

• Acknowledge the emotional reactions to conflict. Conflicts will not go away until
people’s hurt feelings are addressed.

• Consider how to avoid problems rather than assign blame for them. Questions such
as “why did you do that?” only make things worse. It is more helpful to ask, “how
can we make things better?”

• Conflicts will not go away by making believe they don’t exist; doing so will only
make them worse. Avoid the temptation not to speak to the other party but instead,
discuss your misunderstandings thoroughly.

Strategies for managing conflict

Although a certain amount of organizational conflict may be seen as inevitable, there are a
number of ways in which management can attempt to avoid the harmful effects of conflict. The
strategies adopted will vary according to the nature and sources of conflict outlined above.
• Clarification of goals and objectives: the clarification and continual refinement of
goals and objectives, role definitions and performance standards will help to avoid
misunderstandings and conflict. Focusing attention on superordinate goals, that are
shared by the parties in conflict, may help to defuse hostility and lead to more
cooperative behaviour.
• Resource distribution: although it may not be possible for managers to increase their
allocated share of resources, they may be able to use imagination and initiative to help
overcome conflict situations – for example, making special case to higher management,
greater flexibility to transfer funds between budget headings; delay staff appointments
in one area to provide more money for another area.
• Human resource management policies and procedures: careful and detailed attention
to just and equitable HRM policies and procedures may help to reduce areas of conflict.
Examples are: job analysis, recruitment and selection, job evaluation, systems of
rewards and punishment; appeals, grievance and disciplinary procedures; arbitration
and mediation; recognition of trade unions and their officials.
• Non-monetary rewards: were financial resources are limited, it may be possible to pay
greater attention to non-monetary rewards. Examples are job design; more interesting,
challenging or responsible work; increased delegation or empowerment; flexible
working hours; attendance at courses and conferences; increased delegation and
empowerment; unofficial perks or more relaxed working conditions.
 • Development of interpersonal/group process skills: this may help to encourage a better
understanding of one’s own behaviour, the other person’s point of view,
communication processes and problem solving. It may also encourage people to work
through conflict situations in a constructive manner.
• Group activities: attention to the composition of groups and to factors which affect
group cohesiveness may reduce dysfunctional conflict. Overlapping group membership
with linking-pin’ process, and the careful selection of project teams or task forces for
problems affecting more than one group, may also be beneficial.
• Leadership and management: a more participative and supportive style of leadership
and managerial behaviour is likely to assist in conflict management – for example,
showing an attitude of respect and trust; encouraging personal self-development,
creating a work environment on which staff can work cooperatively together. A
participative approach to leadership and management may also help to create greater
employee commitment.
• Organizational processes: conflict situations may be reduced by attention to such
features as: the nature of the authority structure; work organization; patterns of
communication and sharing information; democratic functioning if the organization;
unnecessary adherence to bureaucratic procedures and official rules and regulations
• Socio-technical approach: viewing the organization as a socio-technical system, in
which psychological and social factors are developed in keeping with structural and
technical requirements, will help reducing dysfunctional conflict.
Conflict Handling Modes and Tactics
Frost and Wilmot identify four primary tactics that people employ based on the intensity of
their response to conflict.
1. Avoidance excludes active struggle. People practicing this tactic sometimes refuse to
talk or simply walk away. The avoidance of conflict in initial states is common in
organizations in which the benefits of conflict are not recognized. Changing the
subject of discussion is a commonplace avoidance tactic.
2. Escalation can include such tactics as labelling, increasing the intensity of the struggle
and yelling or violence. It can also include a purposeful expansion of the issue beyond
its legitimate limits. Coalition formation can cause escalation.
3. Reduction is a conflict handling tactic designed to lessen the intensity of conflict.
Again if one’s perspective is that conflict can be healthy and creative for a group,
,reduction is not always a n effective technique because issues and needs have to
surface before the problem can be understood and resolved.
4. Maintenance keeps the tension generated by the conflict at a level that is manageable
to each of the combatants. Maintenance tactics are designed to equalize the power of
the participants or to gain symmetry.
Each of the four tactics discussed above is appropriate in some situations an inappropriate
in other. Often individuals become accustomed to using one primary conflict strategy and
develop entrenched, hard to change propensities towards conflict.
Conflict Management
In the management of conflict the styles of those involved in a conflict (either as individuals
or as groups., especially group leaders) plays a critical role. Some, styles may promote a
search for solutions, whereas others may lead to a deadlock. Conflict management styles
are related to the theory or approach used to understand conflicts.
Several approached to conflict management have been proposed. Two pf these are quite
well known: one by Likert and Likert and the other by Blake et. Al. using the famous grid
model of Blake and Mouton, which has proposed five styles of conflict management,
showing different degrees of concern for two dimensions, personal growth and the
relationship.
Pruitt makes a distinction between pressure tactics and exchange-oriented tactics. He has
suggested the following exchange-oriented tactics:
1. Make a unilateral concession together with the clear communication that no further
concession will be forthcoming until the adversary concedes. This sometimes starts
a sequence of alternative concessions.
2. Propose an exchange of concessions. This is an obvious approach but often involves
considerable risk because it is tantamount to making a unilateral concession.
3. Informally signal and show willingness to make a later concession if the adversary
makes one now.
4. Seek a private, informal conference with the adversary or his or her representative
which it may be possible to talk more freely and frankly about compromise than in
formal negotiation meetings.
5. Propose that a mediator be brought in to help find a mutually acceptable exchange
of concessions.

The mode of conflict is primarily determined by the perceptions of conflicting

parties. As Blake et al. suggest, if conflict is seen as inevitable and a solution is not
possible, a situation of helplessness may lead either to a resignation top fate ot a
power struggle. However, the outcome will depend mainly upon the perception of
the out-group (the ‘other group’, as contrasted with ‘our group.’)
There are two main dimensions to the perceptions pf the out-group. It may be
perceived as always opposed to the interest of the in-group and as being belligerent
(in which case, in a certain sense the conflict is seen as inevitable) oit it may be
perceived as having its own interests but also as being interested in peace (then the
conflict will be perceived as a fact of life but not as inevitable). Similarly, the out-
group may be perceived as unreasonable resulting in lack of hope of any solution)
or as open to reason (with a resultant hope of a solution to the problem). The general
orientation od a group may be an avoidance orientation or an approach orientation.
The avoidance orientation is significant in determining the effectiveness of
managerial behaviour. Avoidance is characterized by a tendency to deny,
rationalize or avoid the problem; to displace anger or aggression; or to use
emotional appeals. The approach dimension us characterised by making efforts to
 find solutions by one’s own efforts to with the help of others. This comes close to
what Blake et.al. call active-passive mode.

Collaborating: working with the other party to

Competing: Pursuing one’s own concerns at the
expense of the other party, using ability to
argue, status, economic sanctions etc.
• Standing up for your rights
• Defending a position which you believe
is correct
• Simply try to win
find some solution which fully satisfies the
concerns of both parties, eg.
• Exploring disagreements to learn from
each other
• Concluding to resolve a condition
which would otherwise lead to
competition over resources
• Contributing and finding a creative
solution to an interpersonal problem

Compromising: finding an expedient mutually

Assertiveness

acceptable solution, partially satisfying both

parties

• “Splitting the difference”

• “Exchanging concessions”

Avoiding: Not pursuing one’s own concerns or Accommodating: Neglecting one’s own
those of the other party. Not addressing the concerns to satisfy those of the other party.
conflict. Eg: Eg:

• Diplomatically side-stepping an issue • Selfless generosity or charity

• Postponing an issue until a better time • Accepting an instruction when one
• Withdrawing from a threatening would prefer not to
situation • Yielding to another’s point of view

Cooperativeness
Conflict Management Styles
Combing the two aspects, perception of the out-group, and the avoidance and approach
dimension, we get eight styles or modes of conflict management.
Avoidance Modes
Avoidance modes (or styles) of conflict management aim at avoiding or postponing conflicts
in a variety of ways. There are four avoidance styles:
1. Resignation
The extreme avoidance mode is fatalistic regarding conflicts, with a sense of helplessness.
Conflict is seen as a part of reality, arising out of the unreasonable stand of an out-group,
usually seen as hostile.
Another form of resignation is to ignore the conflict. This may even take the form of denying
the unpleasant situation in the hop that the conflict will get resolved by itself in due course .
2. Withdrawal
Another form of avoidance is to get away form the conflict situation. This may take several
forms. The attempt to get away from the conflict may be because the out-group is being seem
as belligerent but still open to reason.
One way to get away from conflicts is to avoid situations of potential conflict. This may be
dome by not leaving any opportunity for the two groups to work together.
A second way may be to withdraw from a conflict when it takes place. The withdrawal may
be from the situation to from the relationship with the out-group. For example, when two
potential product groups are involved ion getting a market share and they find themselves in
conflict with each other, one may decide to withdraw from marketing that product, or may
like to withdraw from collaborative work with the out-group.
Physical separation may be a third way to withdraw, this would include a separate location
and separation of all hitherto common arrangements. When two people in a department fight
al; the time, the management may decide to transfer one of them to another section, thus
ending the conflict by withdrawing one party from the scene of conflict.
Fourth form of withdrawal maybe to define the boundaries of the interaction with the out-
group and make arrangement to limit these.
3. Defusion
The main objective of the defusion mode of conflict resolution is to buy time for dealing with
the conflict. It may take several forms. When people feel that several emotional issues are
involved in a conflict and that emotions are running too string, they may decide to let the
participants ‘cool down’ before taking up the real issues for resolution. Emotional overtimes
can be defused in several ways.
One way to defuse strong emotions in a conflict is to hope that, with the passage of time, the
emotions will settle down and the group swill be ready to deal with the real issues.
Another form of defusion is to appeal to the good sense of both groups, to the sentiment that
both are part of a larger group and have common interest , interdependence, mutuality etc.
such appeals may help to defuse a conflict fraught with emotions.
A third way to defuse a situation is to develop a temporary arrangement of interaction
through a third group. This is like creating a buffer to absorb excess of emotions.
4. Appeasement
The main objective of appeasement is to buy temporary peace. When a group in conflict with
out-group finds the conflict embarrassing and disturbing it may agree to some of the demands
of the out-group, not because it is convinced about them but because it wants to postpone the
conflict. It therefor provides some concession in the hop that the out-group will be satisfied,
and the conflict will be over. Appeasement has the same dynamics as payment in a case of
blackmail. The out-group gets the message that the group is weak and incapable of confronting
the issues. As a result of appeasement, not only does the conflict remain unresolved but the
demands of the out-group increase, its posturing gets stiffer and the situation deteriorates
further.
Approach Modes
Approach modes (or styles) may take more aggressive or understanding forms by using positive
steps to confront conflicts and find solutions. There are four approach modes or styles.
1. Confrontation
When the in-group perceives the out-group to be both opposed to its interests and unreasonable,
the mode of confrontation is adopted. Confrontation is fighting out a issue to get a solution in
one’s favour. It is often adopted by trade unions and management. It may lead to what Blake
et.al call the “win-lose’ trap.
2. Compromise
If the out-group is seen as being interested in peace (and hence as reasonable), an attempt may
be made to seek a compromise. This may be done by bargaining. Compromise is often used in
conflicts between managements and inions. If the management is interested in fulfilling certain
export orders the y may agree to increase incentives for a particular period and the union may
agree to work for longer hours for that time.
3. Arbitration
If the out-group is perceived as being belligerent and not interested in peace, and yet not totally
unreasonable, arbitration by a third party may be sought to assess the situation objectively and
give an ‘award’ acceptable to both the parties. Usually the conflict remains unresolved – it is
only postponed for a time. In many management unions conflicts, arbitration by the labour
commissioner is sought.
4. Negotiation
The most satisfactory solution can emerge only when both groups jointly confront the problem
and explore alternative solutions. This mode is called negotiation.
 Means of Reconciling Workplace conflict

The operational approaches for managing conflict at the workplace, used by organizations
normally take the following form:
• Developing rules, procedures and precedents to minimize the emergence of conflict and
then, when it does occur, to minimize its undesirable effects.
• Ensuring that communications are effective in minimizing conflict; bad
communications may cause conflict or magnify minor disputes to dangerous
proportions.
• Separation of sources of potential conflict which may be done geographically,
structurally or psychologically (for example, through the creation of psychological
distance between functions and ranks)
• Arbitration machinery may be made available as a strategy of last resort
• Confrontation may be used to try and bring all participants together in an attempt to
face them with the consequences of their action.
• Benign neglect: this is the application of the dictum that ‘a problem deferred is a
problem half solved.’ This can normally only be used as a temporary measure while
more information is being gathered or a more structured approach is being formulated.
• The use of industrial relations operations for the containment and management of
conflict, including consultation, participation, collective bargaining and negotiating
structures.
Other means of resolving workplace conflict are:
• Negotiation
• Conciliation
• Mediation
• Arbitration
Negotiation: When conflicts arise between individuals, groups or even entire organizations,
the most common way to resolve them is to work together to find a solution that is acceptable
to all parties involved. This process is known as bargaining (negotiation). Formally we may
define bargaining as the process in which two or more parties in dispute with each other
exchange offers, counteroffers and concessions in an attempt to find a mutually acceptable
agreement.
Obviously, bargaining does not work when the parties rigidly adhere to their positions without
budging – that is, when they “stick to their guns.” For bargaining to be effective, the parties
involved must be willing to make adjustments, they must believe that they have found an
acceptable outcome – one that allows them to claim victory in the negotiation process. For
bargaining to be most effective in reducing conflict, this must be the case for all sides. That is,
outcomes must be found for all sides that allow them to believe that they have “won” the
negotiation process-results knows as win-win solutions. In win-win solutions, everybody
benefits, precisely as the name implies.
Conciliation: this is the means whereby employers and employees seek to reach mutually
acceptable settlements of their disputes, usually by placing he matter in hand with a neutral and
independent third party. Conciliators examine all sides of the case. They analyse areas of
agreement and areas of dispute and present these back to the parties involved. They identify
areas where agreement can be made in order to try to effect a reconciliation between the parties.
Mediation: the process of mediation involves having a neutral third party (the mediator) work
together with both sides to reach a settlement. Typically, mediators meet with each side
together and separately, attempting to find a common ground that will satisfy everyone.
Mediators do not consider who is wrong and who is right but set the stage for finding resolution.
They have no formal power and cannot impose agreements. Instead, they seek to clarify the
issues involved and to promote communication between the parties.
Sometimes mediators offer specific recommendations for compromise or integrative
agreements. These are solutions that involve taking many different factors into account. In
other cases, they merely guide the parties toward developing such solutions themselves. Their
role is primarily that of a facilitator-that is, someone who helps the two sides toward agreements
that each will find acceptable. Because it requires voluntary compliance by the disputing
parties, mediation is sometimes ineffective. Indeed, when mediation process fails, it simply
underscores the depth of the differences between the two sides.
The benefit of the mediation and conciliation approach lies in the ability of the third party
involved to see the dispute from the detached point of view and to find ways around the
behavioural and operational blockages that inevitably exist.
Arbitration: for mediation to work the two sides must be willing to communicate with each
other. When this does not happen, alternate dispute resolution may take the form of arbitration.
This is a process in which a third party (the arbitrator) has the power to impose, or at least to
recommend, the terms of an agreement between two parties. Four types of arbitration are most
common:
• Binding arbitration: the two sides agree in advance to accept the terms set by the
arbitrator, whatever they may be.
• Voluntary arbitration: the two sides retain the freedom to reject the recommended
agreement
• Conventional arbitration: the arbitrator can offer any package of terms he or she wishes
• Final-offer arbitration: the arbitrator chooses between final offers made by the disputing
parties themselves.
 Mediation

(Recommend terms of agreement

between disputing parties)

Disputing Party Conflict Disputing Party

“B”
“A”

Arbitration

(Impose terms of agreement between

disputing parties)

References:
1. Behaviour in Organizations. Jerald Greenberg. 10th Edition. PHI
2. Management and Organizational Behaviour. Laurie J Mullins. 7th Edition. Pearson
Education.
3. Organizational Behaviour Text & Cases. Avinash K Chitale, Rajendra Prasad
Mohanty, Nishith Rajaram Dubey. PHI
4. Organizational Behaviour. Performance management in practice. Richard Pettinger.
Routledge.
5. Organizational behaviour. An evidence based approach. Fred Luthans. McGraw Hill
7th Edition
6. Udai Pareek’s Understanding Organizational Behaviour. Revised & Updated by
Sushama Khanna. 3rd Edition. Oxford Higher Education.