CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

Conflict may emerge between different organisations, within organisations, or between

organisations and their social and political environments.

DEFINITION OF CONFLICT

Conflict can be defined in many ways and can be considered as an expression of hostility, negative

attitudes, aggression, rivalry and misunderstanding. Conflict is a disagreement between

individuals. It can vary from a mild disagreement to a win-or-lose, emotion-packed, confrontation

(Kirchoff and Adams, 1982). According to Joe Kelly, “Conflict is defined as opposition or dispute

between persons, groups or ideas”. According to Follett, “Conflict is the appearance of difference,

difference of opinions, of interests”. A conflict is a serious disagreement or argument between two

or more persons.

Another definition of conflict would be It is “a process of social interaction involving a struggle

over claims to resources, power and status, beliefs, and other preferences and desires. The aims of

the parties in conflict may extend from simply attempting to gain acceptance of a preference, or

securing a resource advantage, to the extremes of injuring or eliminating opponents. (Bisno, 1988,

pp. 13 – 14; see also Coser, 1968, p. 232).

Hocker and Wilmot (2001) defined conflict as an expressed struggle between interdependent

parties over goals which they perceive as incompatible or resources which they perceive to be

insufficient. Let us examine the ingredients in their definition. We can therefore, define conflict

generally as "A process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively

affected or is about to negatively affect something that the first party cares about".
A conflict situation exists when there are: at least two parties involved who are interdependent,

who are experiencing strong emotions, who seemingly hold incompatible outcomes or beliefs, and

at least one of the parties recognize the incompatibility and perceives this to be problematic.

In conflict, parties perceive themselves to have incompatible outcomes. The word outcome in this

context refers to what an individual wants: their preferred solution or position. Underlying these

positions are interests, the reasons why an individual wants to achieve a specific outcome in the

first place. Interests are an individual’s perceptions and feelings about what is desirable or useful.

Interests are central to an individual’s behavior and are rooted in human needs and beliefs

Firstly, conflict must be expressed. If two members of a group dislike each other or disagree with

each other’s viewpoints but never show those sentiments, there is no conflict. Secondly, conflict

takes place between or among parties who are interdependent—that is, who need each other to

accomplish something. If they can get what they want without each other, they may differ in how

they do so, but they will not come into conflict.

Finally, conflict involves clashes over what people want or over the means for them to achieve it.

Party A wants X, whereas party B wants Y. If either they can’t both have what they want at all, or

they can’t each have what they want to the degree that they would prefer to, conflict will arise.

Thus, conflict refers to any situation in which there are incompatible Goals, Cognitions, or

Emotions within or between individuals or groups that lead to opposition or antagonistic

interaction. Conflict is largely a perceived phenomenon. It is our perception of the situation that

determines if a conflict exists.

Moreover, it should not be taken as the opposite of order. However, there is orderliness in conflict

yet it can be disorderly. No two persons in the world are same or different. Therefore, no two
persons can feel or think alike. The difference between thinking of different people causes conflict.

The parties in conflict believe they have incompatible goals, and their aim is to neutralize, gain

advantage over, injure or destroy one another. Conflict is the root of personal and social change.

Hence, the organizations have conflict because of its ever changing environment. Conflict prevents

stagnation. It stimulates interest and curiosity.

Although conflicts may end up in destruction and even death, conflicts may also result in increased

effectiveness, enhanced relationships, and further goal attainment. Indeed, in human terms conflict

is one of the “engines of evolution” that allows us to learn, progress, and grow. Our goal is not to

attempt to do away with conflict but rather to skillfully manage conflict to further its constructive

potential.

Thus, conflict may actually be either functional or dysfunctional. Whereas dysfunctional conflict

is destructive and leads to decreased productivity, functional conflict may actually encourage

greater work effort and help task performance. Borisoff and Victor (1998) point out, "We have

come to recognize and to acknowledge the benefits dealing with conflict affords. Because of our

differences, we communicate, we are challenged, and we are driven to find creative solutions to

problems."

Conflict management, then, is the employment of strategies to correct these perceived differences

in a positive manner. For many decades, managers had been taught to view conflict as a negative

force. However, conflict may be either healthy or unhealthy.

Principles / Characteristics of Conflict

Wilmot (1991) offer us several principles on conflict that have been adapted here for our

discussion:

 Conflict is universal.

 Conflict is associated with incompatible goals.

 Conflict is associated with scarce resources.

 Conflict is associated with interference.

 Conflict is not a sign of a poor relationship.

 Conflict cannot be avoided.

 Conflict cannot always be resolved.

 Conflict is not always bad

Symptoms of Conflict Situations in Organisations

Tensions. (Pressure)

No desire (wish) to communicate.

Work not done properly.

Disastrous (severely) meetings.

Anger occurs quickly and easily

Failing productivity.

Slipping morale.
 Absenteeism.

Accidents.

Escalating costs. (increase)

Slamming doors.(loud noise)

Shouting.

Bad times

The employee (or employees) involved display no desire to communicate.

Bad tempers are evident.

Productivity is falling.

Morale is slipping.

One or more of those involved frequently calls in sick.

Accidents and errors become more frequent.

Disagreements become more pronounced (shouting, slamming doors, etc.)

TYPES OF CONFLICT

There are two types of conflict:

1. Functional conflict.

2. Dysfunctional conflict.

Functional conflict: These conflicts support the goals of the group and improve its performance.

These are constructive form of conflict.

conflict.

Conflict can be classified based on causes:

1. Task conflict: It is the conflict over content and goals of work. Low and moderate levels of

task conflict consistently has a positive effect on the group performance because it results a

discussion of ideas that help the group to perform better. Hence low and moderate levels of task

conflicts are functional conflicts.

2. Relationship conflict: It is conflict over interpersonal relationship. Relationship conflicts

increases dashes and decreases mutual understanding. This reduces organizational performance.

Hence it is a dysfunctional conflict.

3. Process conflict: Conflict over how to get work done is called process conflict. Low levels of

process conflict are functional. Too much argument about how to do a work will only increase the

time taken to do the task.

LEVELS OF CONFLICT

Conflict occurs among different classes of people and produces different kinds of results. We will

consider only four types of conflicts that are based on where the conflict happens and two types of

conflicts based on the kind of effect the conflicts produce. The four levels of conflict are

intrapersonal (within an individual), interpersonal (between individuals), intragroup (within a

group), intergroup (between groups).

Intrapersonal Conflict
This occurs within a person as he takes a decision on the use of time, choice of partner, moral

issues, goals etc. Intrapersonal Conflict, which occurs within an individual, often involves some

form of goal conflict or cognitive conflict. Goal conflict exists for individuals when their behaviour

will result in outcomes that are mutually exclusive or have compatible elements (both positive and

negative outcomes).

This is capable of producing anxiety and tension within the person going through this kind of

conflict. Intrapersonal conflict arises within a person, such as when you are uncertain about what

is expected or wanted, or you feel you are inadequate for the task. Intrapersonal conflict can arise

due to differences in roles.

A manager may want to oversee a subordinate's work, believing this oversight is necessary for the

job. On the other hand, the subordinate may consider such extensive oversight to be

micromanagement or evidence of a lack of trust. Role conflict, another type of intrapersonal

conflict, includes having two different job descriptions that seem mutually exclusive. This type of

conflict can arise if you're the head of one team and a member of another team.

A third type of intrapersonal conflict involves role ambiguity. Perhaps you've been given the task

of finding a trainer for a company's business writing training program. You may feel unsure about

what kind of person to hire: a well-known but expensive trainer or a local, unknown, but low-

priced trainer. If you haven't received guidelines about what is expected, you may be wrestling

with several options.

Interpersonal Conflict

Interpersonal conflict involves two or more individuals rather than one individual. This conflict

occurs between two or more individuals. It may result from differences in opinion, motives and
actions. This kind of conflict is what is seen when two people are having disagreement among

themselves. Interpersonal conflicts are actual or perceived incompatibility of goals between two

or more people or entities is termed as interpersonal conflict. In practice, if incompatibility exists

either disputant need not realize it. It means a conflict may be latent in the sense that either of the

parties do not recognize it. Incompatibility need not be actual/real. In other words, a conflict may

be false in the sense that there may not be real incompatibility.

Interpersonal conflict also describes a disagreement between two people or among individuals,

such as coworkers, a manager, and an employee, or CEOs and their staff. For example, in 2006,

the CEO of Airbus S.A.S., Christian Streiff, resigned because of his conflict with the board of

directors over issues such as how to restructure the company. This example may reflect a well-

known trend among CEOs. According to one estimate, 31.9 percent of CEOs resigned from their

jobs because they had a conflict with the board of directors. CEOs of competing companies may

also have public conflicts.

In 1997, Michael Dell was asked what he would do about Apple Computer, "What would I do? I'd

shut it down and give the money back to shareholders." Ten years later, Steve Jobs, the CEO of

Apple Inc., indicated he clearly held a grudge as he shot back at Dell in an e-mail to his employees,

"Team, it turned out Michael Dell wasn't perfect in predicting the future. Based on today's stock

market close, Apple is worth more than Dell."

In part, their long-time disagreement stems from their differences. Interpersonal conflict often

arises due to competition, as the Dell/Apple example shows, or due to personality or values

differences. For example, one person's style may be to "go with the gut" on decisions, while

another person wants to make decisions based on facts. These differences will lead to conflict if

the individuals reach different conclusions. Many companies suffer due to interpersonal conflicts.
Keeping conflicts centered around ideas rather than individual differences is important in avoiding

a conflict escalation.

Two managers competing for the same promotion, two executives maneuvering for a larger share

of corporate capital examples of conflict between individuals are legion and quite familiar.

3). Intragroup conflict

This may occur between individuals within a group. This is similar to interpersonal conflicts except

that it occurs within a particular group. This kind of conflict can be seen when for example two

members of the choir are having disagreement about something which has to do with the choir.

Merging two groups can lead to friction between the groups, especially if there are scarce resources

to be divided among the group members. For example, in what has been called "the most difficult

and hard-fought labour issue in an airline merger," Canadian Air and Air Canada pilots were

locked into years of personal and legal conflict when the two airlines' seniority lists were combined

following the merger.

Seniority is a valuable and scarce resource for pilots because it helps determine who flies the

newest and biggest planes, who receives the best flight routes, and who is paid the most. In

response to the loss of seniority, former Canadian Air pilots picketed at shareholder meetings,

threatened to call in sick, and had ongoing conflicts with pilots from Air Canada. The conflicts

with pilots continue to this day. The history of past conflicts among organizations and employees

makes new deals challenging.

A group experiencing intragroup conflict, may eventually resolve it, allowing the group to reach a

consensus. Alternatively, the group may not resolve the conflict, and the group discussion may

end in disagreement among the members. A study of a large number of groups engaged in business
and governmental decision-making, tried to identify some the conditions that lead to (1) the

successful resolution of conflict (consensus or (2) the failure to resolve conflict (disagreement).

This study showed that conflict within groups is not a simple, single phenomenon. Instead,

intragroup conflict seems to fall into two distinct categories: (1) substantive conflict and (2)

affective conflict.

4). Intergroup Conflict

Intergroup conflict describes disagreement between different groups, such as different departments

or divisions in a company, between union and management, or among companies, such as

companies that supply the same customer. It can also be described as a conflict that occurs between

groups of people such as solidarity groups, activity groups and church denominations. This kind

of conflict occurs when for example members of the Choir are in disagreement with members of

the Ushering team or one country at war with another country. Types of groups may include

different departments or divisions in a company, an employee union and management, or

competing companies that supply the same customers. Departments may conflict over budget

allocations; unions and management may disagree over work rules; suppliers may conflict with

each other on the quality of parts.

An organization is a collection of individuals and groups. As the situation and requirements

demand, the individuals form various groups. The success of the organization as a whole depends

upon the harmonial relations among all interdependent groups, even though some intergroup

conflicts in organizations is inevitable. The idea is to study intergroup behaviours within an

organization so that any conflict can be recognized and dealt with by the management.
Types of Inter-group Organisational Conflict

Intergroup conflict occurs at different organisational levels. Thus, four types of inter-group

organizational conflict exist: (1) vertical conflict (2) horizontal conflict (3) line-staff conflict and

(4) role conflict. Although these types of conflict can overlap, especially with role conflict, each

has distinctive characteristics.

Vertical Conflict: Vertical conflict refers to any conflict between levels in an organization;

superior-subordinate conflict is one example. Vertical conflicts usually arise because superiors

attempt to control subordinates and subordinates.

Horizontal Conflict: Horizontal Conflict refers to conflict between employees or departments as

the same hierarchical level in an organization.

Line-Staff Conflict: Most organizations have staff departments to assist the line departments.

The line-staff relationship frequently involves conflict. Staff managers and line managers typically

have different personal characteristics. Staff employees tend to have a higher level of education,

come from different backgrounds, and are younger than line employees. These different personal

characteristics are frequently associated with different values and beliefs, and the surfacing of

these different values tends to create conflict.

Role Conflict: A role is the cluster of activities that others expect individuals to perform in their

position. A role frequently involves conflict.

Why conflicts arise / Causes of Conflict

In most organizations, conflicts increase as employees assert their demands for an increased share

in organizational rewards, such as position, acknowledgment, appreciation, monetary benefits and

such as government, unions and other coercive groups which may impose restrictions on

managerial activities. Conflicts emanate from more than one source, and so their true origin may

be hard to identify.

Sources of Conflict

According to both Daft and Terry, several factors may create organizational conflict. They are as

follows:

1. Scarce Resources. Resources may include money, supplies, people, or information. Often,

organizational units are in competition for scarce or declining resources. This creates a

situation where conflict is inevitable.

2. Jurisdictional Ambiguities. Conflicts may also surface when job boundaries and task

responsibilities are unclear. Individuals may disagree about who has the responsibility for

tasks and resources.

3. Personality Clashes. A personality conflict emerges when two people simply do not get

along or do not view things similarly. Personality tensions are caused by differences in

personality, attitudes, values, and beliefs.

4. Power and Status Differences. Power and status conflict may occur when one individual

has questionable influence over another. People might engage in conflict to increase their

power or status in an organization.

5. Goal Differences. Conflict may occur because people are pursuing different goals. Goal

conflicts in individual work units are a natural part of any organization.

differences in speaking styles, writing styles, and nonverbal communication styles. These

stylistic differences frequently distort the communication process. Faulty communication

leads to misperceptions and misunderstandings that can lead to long-standing conflict.

Additional barriers to communication may emerge from the cross-gender and cross-

cultural differences of participants. Such fundamental differences may affect both the ways

in which the parties express themselves and how they are likely to interpret the

communication they receive. These distortions, in turn, frequently result in mis-reading by

the parties involved. Moreover, it is common for the parties involved to be oblivious to

these false impressions. The resultant misunderstandings subsequently lead the parties

involved to believe that a conflict based on misunderstood behavior exists when, in fact,

no conflict actually does exist. Miller and Steinberg call this misreading "pseudo-conflict,"

that is, perceived conflict rather than actual conflict. Much of what managers take to be an

actual conflict is the product of such pseudo-conflict.

Consequences of Conflict

Conflict per se is neutral, neither good nor bad. It can have positive as well as negative

consequences for the parties involved and for the larger social system of which the disputing

parties are members.

Positive Results of Conflict

On the positive side, conflict can bring opportunity, drama, development, and growth to

individuals, groups, and organizations, resulting in increased cohesion and trust. It can lead, as
well, to more effective personal and organizational performance. Positive consequences for

individuals involved in conflict can include:

1. Reconciliation of the interests of the disputing parties: Most conflicts can end with at least

some satisfaction of the legitimate interests of the parties involved, usually through some

integrative agreement of mutual benefit. Rarely do conflicts have to end in clear-cut win/lose

outcomes.

2. A sharpened sense of identity and solidarity: As individuals engage in conflict, their sense o

who they are as persons, with unique needs tends to be sharpened. As they differentiate themselves

from one another, they uncover ways in which they are similar and different. The similarities

enhance rapport and a sense of solidarity, the difference help to sharpen a sense of identity.

3. Interaction: Conflict tends to promote interaction at an interpersonal level and create a new

system of which all parties are instantly a part. As one party change, all the other parties must then

change to restore the equilibrium.

4. Internal change: As disputing parties experience conflict and engage in dialogue with others

of differing needs and beliefs, they are confronted with the prospect of making adjustments in their

positions. The pressure to explore new ideas and feelings can challenge an individual to move

from rigidity to flexibility, with consequent internal change.

5. Clarifying the real problem: Conflicts often emerge around different solutions to a particular

problem shared by the disputing parties. As dialogue is conducted and the parties begin to explore

the interests underlying the contrary positions, the real problem can be identified and addressed.

Positive consequences for group

consequences for all group members that are parties to the dispute. Some of them include:

1. Increased trust: As individuals enter into any experience with one another in group setting,

trust is low, resulting in defending behaviors on the part of group members. In conflict situations

this tendency is exacerbated, since the disputing parties perceive the possibility of their failing and

being hurt. As individuals share their thoughts and feelings with one another in the group, trust

builds, freeing energy previously spent in defending.

2. Incensed productivity and results: As conflict is exposed and the parties involved express

their thoughts and feelings, the group can be healed of some of the negative feelings that tend to

prevail in conflict situations. As the group is freed of diverting emotions and discovers new

solutions, its productivity can increase.

3. Group unity: Conflict fosters a sense of group unity and identity as disputing parties reconcile

individual differences. Without conflict, groups become stagnant and uncreative

Negative consequences of conflict

Often the positive benefits of conflict are overshadowed by harmful consequences that result when

disputing parties attempt to achieve their goals at the expense of others. Such forcing exchanges

often bring about an escalation of the conflict that is difficult to reverse. When forcing methods

are used, any of the following negative consequences can follow:

1. Minor differences can escalate into major conflicts involving actions imposed by a power

person or group on another, resulting in greater loss to the system as a whole.

difficulty in managing the situation.

3. Specifics can give way to global concerns, which often cause the person to be equated with

and confused with the issue at stake or the entire relationship between the disputing parties to be

called into question.

4. The intention can shift from getting a specific interest satisfied to beating the other parties at

all costs.

5. The number of parties can increase, making it even more difficulty to de-escalate the conflict

Theory of conflict management (Evolution of Conflict)

The Traditional View

The traditional theory is based on the assumption that conflicts are bad, are caused by trouble

makers, and should be subdued. The early approach to conflict management was based on the

assumption that all conflict was bad and would always be counterproductive to organizational

goals. In early times, conflict was considered bad. Conflict management, therefore, was

synonymous with conflict avoidance. It was viewed negatively. It was related to violence,

destruction and harm and therefore it was to be avoided. It was considered as an outcome (result)

of poor communication, lack of trust, openness between people and failure of managers to satisfy

the needs of employees. Since all conflicts were to be avoided, the causes of conflict was studied

and corrected to improve organization performance.

This left the people experiencing the conflict with essentially only one outcome: a win-lose

scenario. In such cases, the loser would feel slighted and this, in turn, would lead to renewed
belligerence. Therefore, most managers viewed conflict as something they must eliminate from

their organization. This avoidance approach to conflict management was prevalent during the latter

part of the nineteenth century and continued until the mid-1940s.

Nevertheless, conflict avoidance is not a satisfactory strategy for dealing with most conflict.

Conflict avoidance usually leaves those people who are being avoided feeling as if they are being

neglected. Also, conflict avoidance usually fails to reconcile the perceived differences that

originally caused the conflict. As a result, the original basis for the conflict continues unabated,

held in check only temporarily until another confrontation arises to set the same unresolved

tensions into motion again. Therefore, conflict avoidance strategies are not especially useful in the

long run.

Human Relations View

Contemporary theory recognizes that conflicts between human beings are unavoidable. They

emerge as a natural result of change and can be beneficial to the organization, if managed

efficiently. According to this view, conflict is a natural occurrence in all groups and organizations.

Since it was believed that conflict was avoidable, the human relation school proposed acceptance

of conflict. It believed that conflicts cannot be eliminated and there are even times when conflict

may benefit a group's performance.

The human relations view of conflict management dominated from the late 1940s through the mid-

1970s. This viewpoint argued that conflict was a natural and inevitable occurrence in any

organizational setting. Because conflict was considered unavoidable, the human relations approach

recommended acceptance of conflict. In other words, conflict cannot be eliminated and may even
benefit the organization. It was during this time period that the term "conflict management" was

introduced, according to Nurmi and Darling.

Interactionist / Contemporary View

Since the mid-1970s, a new position on organizational conflict has emerged. This theoretical

perspective is the interactionist approach. This viewpoint espouses not only accepting conflict, but

also encouraging it. This view encourages conflict. It believes that a harmonious, peaceful and co-

operative group is prone to becoming static, and does not provide changes and innovations. It

encourages group leaders to maintain a level of conflict - to keep the group self-monitoring and

creative.

Thus, Current Theory of Conflict (Kirchoff and Adams, 1982) considers innovation as a

mechanism for bringing together various ideas and viewpoints into a new and different fusion. An

atmosphere of tension, and hence conflict, is thus essential in any organization committed to

developing or working with new ideas.

Theorists are of the opinion that a conflict-free, harmonious, and cooperative organization tends

to become stagnant and non-responsive to market change and advancement. Therefore, it is

necessary for managers to interject a minimum level of conflict to maintain an optimal level of

organizational performance. For example, Shelton and Darling suggest conflict is a necessary

condition for both individual and organizational progression. They encourage managers to

"embrace conflict and use it for continuous transformation."