Chapter 5 MANAGEMENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT

Meaning of conflict
Conflict is the process in which an effort is purposely made by A to offset the
effort of B by some form of blocking that will result in frustrating B in attaining
his or her goals or furthering his or interest.
Conflict occurs whenever disagreements exist in a social situation over issues of
substance or whenever emotional antagonisms create frictions between individuals
or groups. Managers and team leaders can spend considerable time dealing with
conflict, including conflicts in which the manager or leader is directly involved as
one of the principal actors. In other situations, the manager or leader may act as a
mediator, or third party, whose job it is to resolve conflicts between other people.
In all cases, a manager and team leader must be comfortable with the interpersonal
conflict. This includes being able to recognize situations that have the potential for
conflict and to deal with these situations in ways that will best serve the needs of
both the organization and the people involved.

In an organization, conflicts can occur on several levels- on an intrapersonal level,

in which an individual’s own goals, values and perceptions are incompatible.
Individuals also experience conflict with one another – interpersonal conflict.
Finally conflicts arise among groups – inter group conflict
CATEGORIES OF CONFLICT/theories of conflict
It is entirely appropriate to say that there has been “conflict” over the role of
conflict must be avoided – that it indicates a malfunctioning within the group. We
call this the TRADITIONA VIEW. Another school of thought, the HUMAN
RELATIONA VIEW, argues that conflict is a natural and inevitable outcome in
any group and that it need not be evil, but rather has the potential to be a positive
force in determining group performance. The third, and most recent, perspective
proposes not only that conflict can be a positive forcing in a group but explicitly
argues that some conflict is absolutely necessary for a group to perform effectively.
We label this third school the INTERACTIONIST APPROCH.
Types of Conflict
Functional Versus Dysfunctional Conflict
Functional conflict (constructive)- is conflicts that supports the goals of the group
and improves its performance. The potential benefits of functional conflict include
increased creativity and innovation, greater effort, increased cohesion, and reduced
tension. Dysfunctional conflict (destructive) – is conflicts that hinder group
performance. The disadvantages may include lost productivity, lower job
satisfaction, unnecessary or overpowering stress, and decreased concern for a

1
common goal. Dysfunctional conflict, or destructive conflict, works to the
individual’s, group’s, or organization’s disadvantage. It diverts energies, hurts
group cohesion, promotes interpersonal hostilities, and overall creates a negative
environment for workers. This occurs, for example, when two employees are
unable to work together because of interpersonal differences (a destructive
emotional conflict) or when the members of a committee fail to act because they
cannot agree on group goals (a destructive substantive conflict). Destructive
conflicts of these types can decrease work productivity and job satisfaction and
contribute to absenteeism and job turnover. Managers must be alert to destructive
conflicts and be quick to take action to prevent or eliminate them or at least
minimize their disadvantages.
Consequences of Conflict
Not all conflict is bad. In fact some types of conflict encourage new solutions to
problems and enhance the creativity in the organization. In these cases, managers
will want to encourage conflicts. Therefore, managers should stimulate functional
conflict and prevent or resolve dysfunctional conflict. In other words, as shown in
the table below, the consequences of conflict may be negative or positive.
Consequences of Conflict
CONSEQUENCES NEGATIVE
CONSEQUENCES
 Leads to new ideas  Diverts energy from work
 POSITIVE Stimulates creativity  Wastes resources
 Motivates change  Creates a negative climate
 Promotes organizational vitality  Breaks down group
cohesion
 Helps individuals and groups  threatens psychological
establish identities well-being
 Serves as a safety value to  Can increase hostility and
indicate problems aggressive behaviors
Causes of conflict
Causes or sources of organizational conflict can be many and varied. In addition to
interpersonal (which includes intra group) conflict, social psychologist have been
concerned about inter group conflicts for a number of years. Inter group behaviour
is even specifically in identified as follows: “intergroup behaviour workers
whenever individuals belonging to one group intact, collectively or individually
with another group or its members in terms of their reference group identification.”

2
Several antecedent conditions have been identified for explaining intergroup
conflict. This can be summarized as follows:
 Scarcity of resources (finance, equipment, facilities, etc)
 Different attitudes, values or perceptions
 Disagreements about needs, goals, priorities and interests
 Poor communication
 Poor or inadequate organizational structure
 Lack of teamwork
 Lack of clarity in roles and responsibilities
Descriptions of some of the most common organizational causes of conflict may
be:
1. Competition for resources: Most organizations today have very limited
resource. Groups within the organization via for budget funds, space, supplies,
personnel and support service.
2. Task interdependence: if two groups in the organizations depend on one
another in a mutual way or in one-way directions (as in a sequential
technological process) there tends to be more conflict than if groups or
independent of one another. The more diverse the objective, priorities and
personnel of the interdependent groups (for example, research and production),
the more conflict there tends to be.
3. Jurisdictional ambiguity: this may “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. Human resources
departments justifiably often feel they are treated inequitably in relation to
marketing, finance, and operation departments.
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT APPROACHES
a. Interpersonal conflict handling styles
Researchers have categorized five interpersonal styles of approaching the
other party in a conflict situation. Each approach can be placed in a two-
dimensional grid reflecting the person’s motivation to satisfy their own
interests and to satisfy the other person’s interests.

3
Dominating (forcing): High concern for self and low concern for others
encourages “I win, you lose” tactics. The other part’s needs are largely
ignored. This style is often called forcing because it relies on formal
authority to force compliance. Dominating is appropriate when an unpopular
solution must be implemented, the issue is minor, or a deadline is near. It is
inappropriate in an open and participative climate. Seeped is its primary
strength. The primary weakness is that the tactics provides a temporary fix
that sidesteps the underlying problem.
Dominating is appropriate:
 When quick, decisive action is vital (e.g., emergencies).
 On important issues where unpopular actions need implementing (e.g.,
cost cutting, enforcing unpopular rules, discipline).
 On issues vital to company welfare when you know you are right.
 Against people who take advantage of non-competitive behaviour.
Collaboration When each of the parties in conflict desires to satisfy fully
the concern of all parties, we have cooperation and the search for a mutually
beneficial outcome. In collaboration, the behaviour of the parties is aimed at
solving the problem and at clarifying the differences rather than
accommodation various points of view. The participants consider the full
range of alternatives; the similarities and differences in viewpoints become
more clearly focused; and the causes or differences become outwardly
evident. Because the solution sought is advantageous to all parties,
collaboration is often thought of as a win-win approach to resolving
conflicts. It is, for example, a tool used frequently by marriage counsellors.
Behavioural scientists, who value openness, trust, and spontaneity in
relationships, are also strong advocates of a collaborative approach to
resolving conflicts. The primary weakness of this style is that it is very time
consuming.
Collaboration is appropriate
 To find an integrative solution when both sets of concerns are too
important to be compromised.
 When your objective is to learn.
 To merge insights from people with different perspectives.
 To gain commitment by incorporating concerns into a consensus.
 To work through feelings that has interfered with a relationship.
Avoidance A party may recognize that a conflict exists but react by
withdrawing from or suppressing the conflict. Indifference or the desire to

4
evade overt demonstration of a disagreement can result in withdrawal: The
parties acknowledge physical separation, and each stakes out a territory that
is distinct from the other's. If withdrawal is not possible or desirous, the
parties may suppress, that is, withhold their differences. When group
members are required to interact because of the interdependence of their
tasks, suppression is a more probable outcome than withdrawal.
Avoidance is appropriate:
 When an issue is trivial, or more important issues are pressing.
 When you perceive no chance of satisfying your concerns.
 When potential disruption outweighs the benefits of resolution.
 To let people cool down and regain perspective.
 When gathering information supersedes immediate decisions.
 When others can resolve the conflict more effectively.
 When issues seem tangential or symptomatic of other issues.
Obliging (smoothing): “An obliging person neglects his or her own concern
to satisfy the concern of the other party.” This style, often called smoothing,
involves playing down differences while emphasizing commonalities.
Obliging may be an appropriate conflict handling strategy when it is possible
to eventually get something in return. But it is inappropriate for complex or
worsening problems. When husbands and wives have differences, it is not
uncommon for one to accommodate the other by placing a spouse's interest
above one's own. Its primary strength is that it encourages cooperation. Its
main weakness it’s a temporary fix that fails to confront the underlying
problem.
Obliging/accommodating is appropriate:
 When you find you are wrong – to allow a better position to be heard, to
learn, and to show your reasonableness.
 When issues are more important to others than to yourself - to satisfy
others and maintain cooperation.
 To build social credits for later issues.
 To minimize loss when you are outmatched and losing.
 When harmony and stability are especially important.
 To allow employees to develop by learning from mistakes.

Compromising: Compromise is a traditional method for resolving

intergroup conflicts. In compromising, there is not clear winner or loser.

5
Rather, there is a rationing of the object of the conflict or, where the object is
not divisible; one rewards the other by yielding something of substitute
value. The distinguishing characteristic of compromise, therefore, is the
requirement that each party give up something. Compromise can be used
very effectively when the goal sought (e.g., money) can be divided equitably.
If this is not possible, one group must give up something of value as a
concession. Compromising may also involve third-party interventions, as
well as well as total group are representative negotiating and voting.
Compromise involves adjustments and modifications with regard to the
territories, values, goals, and/or policies of the involved parties. For example,
a possible strategy for reducing conflict over how to reach an agreed-upon
goal might be to redefine the situation in terms of new means towards the
acceptable goals - a new bond rather than depleting existing funds.
Territories may also be redefined and made less exclusive in order to
diminish conflict.
Compromising is appropriate:
 When goals are important, but not worth the effort or potential disruption
of more assertive modes.
 When opponents with equal power are committed to mutually exclusive
goals.
 To achieve temporary settlements to complex issues.
 To arrive at expedient solutions under time pressure.
 As a backup when collaboration or competition is unsuccessful.
b. Structural approaches to conflict management
Conflict management also involves altering the underlying structural causes
of potential conflict. This can be achieved by:
 Emphasizing superordinate goals (appealing to common ground or
to common objectives held by conflicting parties that is more
important than their conflicting department or individual goals).
 Reducing differentiation (reduce differences that cause conflict. Can
be achieved through team rotation.)
 Improving communication and understanding (communication is
critical to effective conflict management).
 Reducing task interdependence (dividing resources so that each
party has exclusive part of it. For example, employees sharing same
parts of a job. Instead of one employee serving customers and the

6
 other operating the cash register, both employees can handle the
activities).
 Increasing resources (however, problems over costs).
 Hierarchical referral (using the chain of command for conflict
resolution. Problems are referred to more senior managers to
reconcile).
 Clarifying rules and procedures (remove ambiguous rules regarding
the allocation of scarce resources).
c. Resolving conflict through Negotiation or Third-Party Intervention
Although the conflict handling styles just discussed can be used for all types
of conflict, the model primarily targets interpersonal conflict. but what about
intergroup conflict that is increasingly common in today’s team-and project-
oriented organizations? And what about inter-organizational conflict often
encountered in today’s world of organizational alliances and partnerships?
Negotiation and third-party interventions can be helpful in these areas.

Third party intervention sometimes, when conflicting parties do not have

desire or ability to complete their Owen negotiation process, a third party
may have to intervene. Briefly, there are three types of third- party
interventions.
Consultation- this is the process where mandated representatives of group in
a conflict situation meet together in order to resolve their differences and to
reach agreement. It is a deliberate process, conducted by representatives of
groups, designed to reconcile differences and to reach agreements by
consensus. Negations often involve compromise-one group may win one of
their demands and give in on another. In workplaces Unions and
management representative usually sue negotiations to solve conflicts.
Political and community groups also often use this method.
Mediation- A trusted third party facilitates the negotiating process and
suggests alternatives. An increasing number of business organizations are
opting to resolve intra-organization disputes by mediation. Cost is one factor.
Mediation is far less costly than arbitration or litigation generally requires
significantly less time than does arbitration. Intra-organization disputes are
often emotionally charged. Mediations regularly referred to as the hostile and
most effective way to resolve intra- organization disputes.

7
Arbitration- Arbitration of disputes is somewhat different. The arbitrator is
delegated the authority to render a judgment or otherwise resolve the dispute.
In some business organization arbitration follows an unsuccessful mediation.
In other business organizations there may be no mediation effort, and intra-
organization disputes are resolved by relying solely upon arbitration
techniques.
Arbitration of intra-organization disputes is generally a more formal process
than mediation. The outcome of arbitration can be binding upon one or both
of the parties. Furthermore, there may be no opportunity to appeal an
arbitrator’s decision, including its merits. For these reasons as well as other
to be considered later, arbitration is often viewed as less attractive than is
mediation as means for resolving intra-organization disputes.