NATURAL PART OF LIFE
Conflict is a natural part of human life. It exists in all relationships, groups, culture, and every level of social structure. Although conflict is often uncomfortable and energy-consuming, it can be a positive force for change and bring an otherwise stagnant organization or relationship our of dormancy and into new life and vitality. Conflict is a challenge to people at both an individual and group level and can cause growth. It can also be destructive if it is not faced and dealt with in a constructive manner. It can lead to violence or even war.
CONFLICT AS TRANSFORMATION
Social conflict transforms - for better or for worse. It changes communication patterns, perceptions of self, others and the issues in question, often causing problems with self-identity and self esteem. As a result of conflict, people often become inflexible and rigid in their perceptions of others, labeling them as the enemy or worse.
On the other hand, social conflict can be routed be constructive if people use its energy to create new or better relationships, and to bring about needed systemic change. Conflict can be transformed to bring about greater social justice, equality, and mercy. John Paul Lederach says that peacemaking "...is the construction of global community involving the tasks of changing oppressive systems, sharing resources fairly, and promoting nonviolent resolution of conflict between peoples ."
On the other hand, social conflict can be routed be constructive if people use its energy to create new or better relationships, and to bring about needed systemic change. Conflict can be transformed to bring about greater social justice, equality, and mercy. John Paul Lederach says that peacemaking "...is the construction of global community involving the tasks of changing oppressive systems, sharing resources fairly, and promoting nonviolent resolution of conflict between peoples ."
CONFLICT's DIMENSIONS
Conflict is defined as perception, feeling, and action. It exists if at least one person believes or perceives that it exists and engages another in the conflict process whether the other shares the perception or not. "Conflict is an emotional reaction to a situation or interaction that signals disagreement of some kind. The emotions felt might be fear, sadness, bitterness, anger, or hopelessness..." Unless conflict is externalized as action, it remains merely as an internal tension. It must be expressed or articulated and can involve an attempt to make something happen at someone else's expense or it can be conciliatory, but the purpose is to get one's needs met. Another important point Mayer makes is that the feelings associated with conflict frequently diminish as people increase their awareness of the existence and nature of the dispute
IS CONFLICT RESOLUTION ALWAYS DESIRABLE ?
Conflict resolution can be a positive and constructive social force. But it also be used to avoid dealing with basic underlying problems and needs. At the base of many conflicts is an injustice. If conflict is resolved solely for the sake of harmony and at the expense of justice, the anger, resentment, and frustration that fuels it can magnify and erupt into violence or other harmful manifestations. Premature reduction of confrontation may diminish volatility and bring about temporary comfort to persons involved, but in the long run, it can destroy the fabric of community and society.
1. INTRAPERSONAL CONFLICT.
2. INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT.
3. DEPARTMENTAL CONFLICT.
INTRAPERSONAL CONFLICT:- Intrapersonal conflict is internal to the in-dividual (though its effects can profoundly influence organizational functioning) and is perhaps the most difficult form of conflict to analyze and manage. Intrapersonal conflict is basically a conflict between two incompatible tendencies. It arises when a stimulus evokes two different and incompatible tendencies and the individual is required to discriminate between these tendencies. In such a situation it is common for individuals to experience frustrations and to allow their conflict situation to be expressed in a range of behavioural strategies ranging from apathy and boredom to absenteeism, excessive drinking or destructive behaviour.
If such behavioural consequences are to be avoided, then it is essential to diagnose individual perception and utilize some techniques that would reduce anxiety-eliciting stimuli and increase consonance between individual behaviour and organizational requirements.
INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT:- Interpersonal conflict emphasizes the inter- action of human factors in an organization. Here we are concerned with these factors as they appear in a dyadic relationship. We can broadly suggest two classes of factors as conflict sources. These are:
1.PERSONAL. Individuals are not identical, constant or consistent. When two individuals are brought together and kept together, each with his own qualities, needs and skills, a conflict may ensue if their attributes are not meshed together in a coordinated way. Interaction between individuals with different attitudes, values and needs can produce conflict behaviour
and affect organizational performance.
2.FUNCTIONAL. Individuals in organizations have roles which are expected sets of behaviour associated with their position. In theory, individuals are not expected to engage in any discretionary behaviour. Such specification would be consistent with organizational preferences for consistency and predictability.
In practice, however, role specifications tend to be ambiguous and incomplete, and in their interaction with others, some individuals often feel dissatisfied with their role or position, or they may feel that their aspirations for higher positions are being frustrated. Inter-personal conflict can be accounted for, to a great extent, in terms of the incumbents' roles and their expectations in particular situations.
3. DEPARTMENTAL CONFLICT:- The third major cause of organizational conflict is structural. Organizations are designed around product lines, regions or technical specialities. These activities are assigned to departments that often have mutually exclusive structured interests and goals and that interact within a framework of scarce resources and task dependence. When resources are relatively fixed and when one department's gain is at the expense of another, conflict should be expected.
If two sub-units in an organizational system have differentiated goals and are functionally interdependent, conditions exist for conflict. Interdependence produces the need for collaboration, but it also presents occasions for conflict. Other contextual factors which affect the interaction structure between departments and create the conditions for interdepartmental
CONFLICT INCLUDE : different attitudes between line and staff units, organizational size (directly related to level of conflict) and standardization (inversely related to conflict), physical or communicational barriers between departments, unequal access to authority, rewards or organizational resources and ambiguity or uncertainty in assigning tasks or rewards.
INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT:- Interpersonal conflict emphasizes the inter- action of human factors in an organization. Here we are concerned with these factors as they appear in a dyadic relationship. We can broadly suggest two classes of factors as conflict sources. These are:
1.PERSONAL. Individuals are not identical, constant or consistent. When two individuals are brought together and kept together, each with his own qualities, needs and skills, a conflict may ensue if their attributes are not meshed together in a coordinated way. Interaction between individuals with different attitudes, values and needs can produce conflict behaviour
and affect organizational performance.
2.FUNCTIONAL. Individuals in organizations have roles which are expected sets of behaviour associated with their position. In theory, individuals are not expected to engage in any discretionary behaviour. Such specification would be consistent with organizational preferences for consistency and predictability.
In practice, however, role specifications tend to be ambiguous and incomplete, and in their interaction with others, some individuals often feel dissatisfied with their role or position, or they may feel that their aspirations for higher positions are being frustrated. Inter-personal conflict can be accounted for, to a great extent, in terms of the incumbents' roles and their expectations in particular situations.
3. DEPARTMENTAL CONFLICT:- The third major cause of organizational conflict is structural. Organizations are designed around product lines, regions or technical specialities. These activities are assigned to departments that often have mutually exclusive structured interests and goals and that interact within a framework of scarce resources and task dependence. When resources are relatively fixed and when one department's gain is at the expense of another, conflict should be expected.
If two sub-units in an organizational system have differentiated goals and are functionally interdependent, conditions exist for conflict. Interdependence produces the need for collaboration, but it also presents occasions for conflict. Other contextual factors which affect the interaction structure between departments and create the conditions for interdepartmental
CONFLICT INCLUDE : different attitudes between line and staff units, organizational size (directly related to level of conflict) and standardization (inversely related to conflict), physical or communicational barriers between departments, unequal access to authority, rewards or organizational resources and ambiguity or uncertainty in assigning tasks or rewards.
CAUSES
STRUCTURAL FACTORS (How the conflict is set up)
• Authority Relationships (The boss and employees beneath him/her)
• Common Resources (Sharing the same secretary)
• Goal Differences (One person wants production to rise and others want communication to rise)
• Interdependence (A company as a whole can't operate w/o other departments)
• Jurisdictional Ambiguities (Who can discipline whom)
• Specialization (The experts in fields)
• Status Inconsistencies
PERSONAL FACTORS
• Communication barriers
• Conflict management style
• Cultural differences
• Emotions
• Perception
• Personalities
• Skills and abilities
• Values and Ethics
The assertion that "the conflict is emotionally defined and driven," and "does not exist in the absence of emotion" is challenged by Economics, for example, "the science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses."[citation needed] In this context, scarcity means that available resources are insufficient to satisfy all wants and needs. The subject of conflict as a purely rational, strategic decision is specifically addressed by Game Theory, a branch of Economics.
Where applicable, there are many components to the emotions that are intertwined with conflict.
There is a behavioral, physiological, cognitive component.
• BEHAVIROL - The way emotional experience gets expressed which can be verbal or non-verbal and intentional or un-intentional.
There is a behavioral, physiological, cognitive component.
• BEHAVIROL - The way emotional experience gets expressed which can be verbal or non-verbal and intentional or un-intentional.
• PHYSIOLOGICAL- The bodily experience of emotion. The way emotions make us feel in comparison to our identity.
• COGNITIVE- The idea that we "assess or appraise" an event to reveal its relevancy to ourselves.
These three components collectively advise that "the meanings of emotional experience and expression are determined by cultural values, beliefs, and practices."
• CULTURAL VALUES- culture tells people who are a part of it, "Which emotions ought to be expressed in particular situations" and "what emotions are to be felt."
• PHYSICAL- This escalation results from "anger or frustration."
• VERBAL- This escalation results from "negative perceptions of the annoyer's character."
• CULTURAL VALUES- culture tells people who are a part of it, "Which emotions ought to be expressed in particular situations" and "what emotions are to be felt."
• PHYSICAL- This escalation results from "anger or frustration."
• VERBAL- This escalation results from "negative perceptions of the annoyer's character."
There are several principles of conflict and emotion.
1. Conflict is emotionally defined-conflict involves emotion because something "triggers" it. The conflict is with the parties involved and how they decide to resolve it — "events that trigger conflict are events that elicit emotion."
1. Conflict is emotionally defined-conflict involves emotion because something "triggers" it. The conflict is with the parties involved and how they decide to resolve it — "events that trigger conflict are events that elicit emotion."
2. Conflict is emotionally valence — emotion levels during conflict can be intense or less intense. The "intensity" levels "may be indicative of the importance and meaning of the conflict issues for each" party.
3. Conflict Invokes a moral stance — when an event occurs it can be interpreted as moral or immoral. The judging of this morality "influences one's orientation to the conflict, relationship to the parties involved, and the conflict issues".
4. Conflict is identity based — Emotions and Identity are a part of conflict. When a person knows their values, beliefs, and morals they are able to determine whether the conflict is personal, relevant, and moral. "Identity related conflicts are potentially more destructive."
5. Conflict is relational — "conflict is relational in the sense that emotional communication
conveys relational definitions that impact conflict." "Key relational elements are power and social status."
Emotions are acceptable in the workplace as long as they can be controlled and utilized for productive organizational outcomes.
Ways of addressing conflict
FIVE BASIC WAYS OF ADDRESSING CONFLICT ARE:
• ACCOMODATION – surrender one's own needs and wishes to accommodate the other party.
• AVOIDANCE – avoid or postpone conflict by ignoring it, changing the subject, etc. Avoidance can be useful as a temporary measure to buy time or as an expedient means of dealing with very minor, non-recurring conflicts. In more severe cases, conflict avoidance can involve severing a relationship or leaving a group.[3]
• COLLABORATION – work together to find a mutually beneficial solution. While the Thomas Kilman grid views collaboration as the only win-win solution to conflict, collaboration can also be time-intensive and inappropriate when there is not enough trust, respect or communication among participants for collaboration to occur.
• COMPROMISE – find a middle ground in which each party is partially satisfied.
• COMPETITION – assert one's viewpoint at the potential expense of another. It can be useful when achieving one's objectives outweighs one's concern for the relationship.
• ACCOMODATION – surrender one's own needs and wishes to accommodate the other party.
• AVOIDANCE – avoid or postpone conflict by ignoring it, changing the subject, etc. Avoidance can be useful as a temporary measure to buy time or as an expedient means of dealing with very minor, non-recurring conflicts. In more severe cases, conflict avoidance can involve severing a relationship or leaving a group.[3]
• COLLABORATION – work together to find a mutually beneficial solution. While the Thomas Kilman grid views collaboration as the only win-win solution to conflict, collaboration can also be time-intensive and inappropriate when there is not enough trust, respect or communication among participants for collaboration to occur.
• COMPROMISE – find a middle ground in which each party is partially satisfied.
• COMPETITION – assert one's viewpoint at the potential expense of another. It can be useful when achieving one's objectives outweighs one's concern for the relationship.
CONFLICT IN ORGANIZATIONS
GOOD or BAD
There is an old Chinese curse which states, "I curse you--may I you live in an important age." Indeed, we do live in an important age, saturated with many forms and intensities of conflict. While conflicts of value are slow to erupt between individuals and institutions in a stable society, they are prevalent in times of rapid change. In our age of dynamic change it is imperative that the manager understand the source of; and various strategies for dealing with, conflict which inevitably occurs in organizations. Typical of this conflict is the breakdown of communication between management and labor; between a commander and his troops; or between a secretary and her supervisor. Even more common, perhaps, is the overt and often hostile dysfunctional competition that erupts between work centers, peers, or social groups vying for scarce resources or attention.
In our discovery of conflict, it is possible to become obsessed and preoccupied with its prevalence in society. This concern may veil the much more important acts of cooperation and harmony that characterize normal organizational and society life; like that which we expect and usually find, for example, between maintenance and operations in an Air Force wing. However, as a basis for our discussion, we must agree that conflict is a major organizational reality. As managers it is essential that we become capable of managing conflict in an environment of individual and group differences.
So, what do we mean by "conflict"? The term is widely used to describe important differences between individual humans or groups of humans. In its major sense it applies to warfare between nations. If existing differences are not somehow adequately handled, the involved individuals or groups are unable to come together in understanding and cooperation. However, not all conflict is bad. Differences which result in initiative and creativity are stimulating for those involved, and such conflict is essential for progress.
In our discovery of conflict, it is possible to become obsessed and preoccupied with its prevalence in society. This concern may veil the much more important acts of cooperation and harmony that characterize normal organizational and society life; like that which we expect and usually find, for example, between maintenance and operations in an Air Force wing. However, as a basis for our discussion, we must agree that conflict is a major organizational reality. As managers it is essential that we become capable of managing conflict in an environment of individual and group differences.
So, what do we mean by "conflict"? The term is widely used to describe important differences between individual humans or groups of humans. In its major sense it applies to warfare between nations. If existing differences are not somehow adequately handled, the involved individuals or groups are unable to come together in understanding and cooperation. However, not all conflict is bad. Differences which result in initiative and creativity are stimulating for those involved, and such conflict is essential for progress.
TWO VIEWS OF CONFLICT
(1). TRADITIONAL VIEW :Comfilict is bad and should be avoided
(2). CONTEMPORARY VIEW : Conflict is neither inherently bad nor good but is inevitable and structurally induced
1.Nations, organizations, and groups are made up of individual human beings. Each human has through life experiences developed a set of values and evolved a set of behavioral rules. These values and rules are sufficiently alike in a given society (more so in a given segment of a society) to allow justice, morals, and ethics to exist and create general agreement about what is right and what is wrong. But, the value-rule set for each individual is a unique set not fully shared by other humans. These differences in value-rule sets are most likely the basic causes of conflict. An airman, for instance, might be incensed over what he considers a wrong since the base commander has denied him and his family BX check-cashing privileges because a bad check resulted from a pay record error. However, the base commander, bothered by numerous bad check experiences through the BX, may feel it wrong not to punish such occurrences.
2.Another major conflict cause is the - motivation of the separate individuals. Each is motivated by a peculiarly unique degree of satisfactions in a set of needs. It is quite likely that in a given group situation the individuals concerned will be aiming their personal efforts at slightly different objectives; such objectives may be similar enough to permit cooperative effort but sufficiently different to create some conflict. A common example might be the "hot line," employed by many commanders as a means of staying in touch with the troops. This opportunity to short-circuit supervisory channels often antagonizes intermediate managers, who may learn of a problem only when the commander confronts them with it. Then, too, it is possible for all to be motivated to behave toward the same goal accomplishment but to feel that that goal, when attained, will not be great enough for all to share adequately in the reward. Conflict may then exist as each strives to attain his place in the sun.
3.A third major cause of conflict—and one more obvious to us--The differing idealogic and philosophic bases we possess. These relate to a great extent to the value-rule set but are sufficiently different to warrant recognition as possible conflict causes. What we use as a base for our ideals and our concepts becomes a great importance to us, and we do not want that base challenged or questioned by others. An example is the old-timer's reluctance to change from a thus-far successful technique even though evidence indicates that a change would be beneficial. When we perceive attack on our ideals from another, we respond with energy and, often, heat. Note the actions of some militant minority groups and you observe idealogic/philosophic conflict reactions at work.
EFFECTS OF CONFLICT
Conflict has both positive and negative effects. It can be positive when it encourages creativity, new looks at o1d conditions, the clarification of points of view, and the development of human capabilities to handle interpersonal differences. All of us have experienced a surge of creativity when we permit the ideas of others to trigger our imagination, as for example in a brainstorming session. Conflict can be negative when it creates resistance to change, establishes turmoil in organization or interpersonal relations, fosters distrust, builds a feeling of defeat, or widens the chasm of misunderstanding. Such might be the situation today in American society relative to school busing.
Unfortunately, the term "conflict" has only the connotation of "bad" for many people; so much so that they think principally in terms of suppression, giving little or no attention to its more positive side. One author emphasizes this by stating: "It seems entirely likely that many, if not most, organizations need more conflict, not less."1 Another states: "The absence of conflict may indicate autocracy, uniformity, stagnation, and mental fixity; the presence of conflict may be indicative of democracy, diversity, growth, and self-actualization."2 Some social critics relate the military to the former by their references to the military mind in which they equate absolute and unquestioning obedience with normal military functioning.
Conflict should be considered, conceptually, as neither bad nor good, wrong nor right. The meaning of conflict is established by its participants since it is people who attach value definition to it. The ultimate results of a conflict situation are determined by the feelings, beliefs, and values of those persons involved. People are the real determinants of the meaning of conflict. If we forget this and treat conflict as though it had some natural quality (good/bad, right/wrong), we overlook the roles of the participants and probably lose the ultimate capability of stimulating conflict.
We are human, though, and it is almost impossible for us to divorce ourselves of feelings, beliefs, and values. We create, or get involved in, conflict, and we possess predispositions as to how it ought to be addressed or handled. We tend to have a strong behavioral leaning, a set pattern, for our participation, and this emerges as a major factor in setting the nature of conflict. We can note this predisposition for a set pattern of behavior in our tendency to want to apply equal penalties or identical punishment regardless of the cause of an infraction of rules.
We can say, then, that conflict is a state of unresolved difference between two individuals, an individual and a group, or two groups. The difference can be real or imaginary. Regardless, it is a difference and will cause some form of conflict if the involved parties are in contact with each other. The conflict exists until the difference is resolved. The important aspect is how the individual accepts and responds to it; how he seeks to control or stimulate the dynamic conflict situation. In this age of specialization and sophisticated technology, we can readily find power imbalances in organizations. This often results in conflict. In technically oriented organizations (e.g., military aviation, major communicative networks, and science-based units), the managers rarely are able to be experts in all the disciplines or specialties they control. These managers find themselves greatly dependent on technical experts who work for them. Differences arise because of differing knowledge bases and perceptions. Note the hard feelings and accompanying resentment we often experience when a boss, removed from the situation, nitpicks a piece of correspondence we have prepared. Unmanaged, these differences can have negative results. But this need not be if we carefully select mature and adaptable managers who can understand the high degree of informal (expert) authority held by subordinates who have technical competence.
Unfortunately, the term "conflict" has only the connotation of "bad" for many people; so much so that they think principally in terms of suppression, giving little or no attention to its more positive side. One author emphasizes this by stating: "It seems entirely likely that many, if not most, organizations need more conflict, not less."1 Another states: "The absence of conflict may indicate autocracy, uniformity, stagnation, and mental fixity; the presence of conflict may be indicative of democracy, diversity, growth, and self-actualization."2 Some social critics relate the military to the former by their references to the military mind in which they equate absolute and unquestioning obedience with normal military functioning.
Conflict should be considered, conceptually, as neither bad nor good, wrong nor right. The meaning of conflict is established by its participants since it is people who attach value definition to it. The ultimate results of a conflict situation are determined by the feelings, beliefs, and values of those persons involved. People are the real determinants of the meaning of conflict. If we forget this and treat conflict as though it had some natural quality (good/bad, right/wrong), we overlook the roles of the participants and probably lose the ultimate capability of stimulating conflict.
We are human, though, and it is almost impossible for us to divorce ourselves of feelings, beliefs, and values. We create, or get involved in, conflict, and we possess predispositions as to how it ought to be addressed or handled. We tend to have a strong behavioral leaning, a set pattern, for our participation, and this emerges as a major factor in setting the nature of conflict. We can note this predisposition for a set pattern of behavior in our tendency to want to apply equal penalties or identical punishment regardless of the cause of an infraction of rules.
We can say, then, that conflict is a state of unresolved difference between two individuals, an individual and a group, or two groups. The difference can be real or imaginary. Regardless, it is a difference and will cause some form of conflict if the involved parties are in contact with each other. The conflict exists until the difference is resolved. The important aspect is how the individual accepts and responds to it; how he seeks to control or stimulate the dynamic conflict situation. In this age of specialization and sophisticated technology, we can readily find power imbalances in organizations. This often results in conflict. In technically oriented organizations (e.g., military aviation, major communicative networks, and science-based units), the managers rarely are able to be experts in all the disciplines or specialties they control. These managers find themselves greatly dependent on technical experts who work for them. Differences arise because of differing knowledge bases and perceptions. Note the hard feelings and accompanying resentment we often experience when a boss, removed from the situation, nitpicks a piece of correspondence we have prepared. Unmanaged, these differences can have negative results. But this need not be if we carefully select mature and adaptable managers who can understand the high degree of informal (expert) authority held by subordinates who have technical competence.
THE NEED TO MANAGE CONFLICT
We must expect conflict to occur in our organizations. We should be disappointed if it does not because conflict exists only within the context of interdependence. There can be no conflict when there is no awareness of another meaning, role, or value than our own. Thus, conflict is a relationship between segments of an interrelated system: persons, a group, an organization, a community, a nation. There can be no conflict if those involved sense no differences. However, in the environment of interpersonal relationship there will always be difference, and conflict will be the norm not the exception.
We need to manage conflict in order to obtain profitable return from it. Managing conflict requires that we consider not only the required guidance and control to keep conflict at an acceptable--yet not too high--level but also the activity to encourage proper conflict when the level is too low. Who would want to lead an organization without the energy and force accompanying the conflict of creativity and initiative?
1.TRADITIONAL -The traditionalist, following our social teaching believes that all conflicts are destructive and management’s role is to get their out of the organization. The traditionalist, therefore, believes conflict should be eliminatedWe need to manage conflict in order to obtain profitable return from it. Managing conflict requires that we consider not only the required guidance and control to keep conflict at an acceptable--yet not too high--level but also the activity to encourage proper conflict when the level is too low. Who would want to lead an organization without the energy and force accompanying the conflict of creativity and initiative?
There are THREE BASIC MANAGERIAL ATTITUDES toward conflict
2. BEHAVIROL- The bahavioralist seeks to rationalize the existence of conflict and at accurately perceives conflict as inevitable in complex organizations or relationships. Thus, the behavioralist "accepts" it.
3. INTERACTIONIST. -The interactionist views conflict as absolutely necessary, encourages opposition, defines management of conflict to include stimulation as well as resolution and considers the management of conflict as a major responsibility of all administrators. The interactionist view is accept and encourage conflict. This article uses the interactionist approach
THE PERSON and THE ORGANIZATION
Conflicts occur when the needs and goals of the individual are not in harmony with the needs and goals of the organization. Chris Argyris, in his discussion of man versus the organization, indicates it highly conceivable that the traditional goals and structure of organizations may be in conflict with the needs and goal a developing personality.4 This may be readily seen in the efficient and omnipotent bureaucracy that places emphasis on hierarchy, specialization of work, established norms of conduct, and explicit rules, often forgetting or overlooking the individual and his unique qualities. Traditionally, personal values tend to be hostile toward organizations, big government, big business, bureaucracy, and, in spite of its purely defensive posture in our country, the military. Again, conflict can arise when interdependency exists. Employees become dependent on organizations to give their lives direction and meaning. Such dependency allows them to escape the burdens of personal responsibility. Whereas we praise individualism in workers, the organization often requires that the individual be treated impersonally. We see this in "distant" management, in which the people sense an absence of concern for their individuality and personal needs. Efficiency requirements of the organization also act as sources of conflict because they regularly demand that the goals and needs of the organization be given higher priority than the rights of the individual. We, therefore, yield to the proposition that conflict between the organization and personal values is normal and a fact of life. We strongly recommend that Argyris's book be high on the manager’s list of developmental study because managers seem always to be torn between the two competing desires of doing what is best for the organization or what is best for the individual. It is a rough decision spot to be in.
Managing this inherent conflict between individual needs and organizational needs demands a high degree of self-awareness on the part of the manager. What am I willing to do in the balancing of these needs? How much can I accommodate comfortably to the need satisfaction of other humans in my organization? How much faith do I really have in the motivational drives of my subordinates? What really is my role in this unit? What canI do, or what will I allow myself to do, to integrate the needs of the individual with the needs of the organization? In this circumstance that now faces me, which is more important: the individual or the group? No one can preanswer these questions, nor can anyone answer them effectively for another person. Yet the active manager has to answer them as he strives to control conflict.
SOURCES OF CONFLICT
If a manager is to manage conflict, he must understand its source. We can establish three basic sources as semantic, role, and values.
1. Semantic:- sources are those stemming from some failure in communication. Traditionally, semantics has to do with the meaning of words, but here that is just one phase of its role. We use semantics to point out a major source of conflict as the failure of two individuals to share fully the meaning of a communicative attempt. The causes for the failure may be technical problems in the communication process (static, filters, barriers, and the like), or they may be actual differences in perception and understanding. The result is an absence of agreement: conflict.
2. Role:- sources are those that rise out of the varying perceptions of people about the expected behaviors of themselves and others. Many of these come from the status and position levels in organizations. Others come from the structures and processes devised by management to organize work, channel effort, and coordinate activity. Role conflicts are probably no more frequent or more rare than semantic or value conflicts. They might, indeed, be so closely related as to be absorbed in those two sources. Role sources may be evidenced in those situations in which boss and subordinate seem to be butting heads because each perceives the role of the other in a reference frame different from observable behavior.
3.Value:- sources have their foundations in the individualistic value sets of people. These value sets readily contribute to differences between people because they are different. They cause each of us at times to respond or behave in an unexpected manner because we are behaving as dictated by a value set not fully shared by our associates; hence, a sense on their part of a difference between us. An example may be the conflicting values held by Air Force people as to what constitutes acceptable hair length.
individual reactions to conflict
Since conflict may be positively or negatively evaluated, there may be a range of reactions to it. These reactions might go from high expectation and pleasure to absolute rejection. In a very broad sense, the individual in a conflict situation has only two options open: sign up or ship out. But the choice is too dramatic, and it is rare when the situational factors permit only this form of response. Usually, there is a pad of acceptance which insulates the individual from absolute or harsh decisions. Massie and Douglas identify this as the zone of indifference. As a normal event, the individual constantly checks to see whether his personal goals are consistent with the goals of social groups to which he belongs. He continues to function in groups which generally support his goals even though there might be day-to-day conflicts between them. This, then, is the zone of indifference, and the means of accommodation which we all use in our normal functioning in society. The incongruity of the individual's and the group's goals is not sufficient to cause his voluntary severing of the relationship. A high zone of indifference permits loyalty to a group in spite of many differences between personal and group goals. This is our norm because it is rare when we agree fully with our group; even in the family group, perhaps our closest association, we have frequent even though minor disagreements as to goals. A narrow or low zone of indifference offers little such tolerance. In conflict events, the person with a low zone of indifference may opt to ship out.
Rejection of the conflict situation may result in shipping out, resignation which may be temporary or permanent. The response might be as mild as taking a few days of respite, thus the therapeutic value of leave, vacation, and recreation. Perhaps, in certain organizations, it would be a sabbatical or volunteering for special duty in a new environment. Then, too, it can be total severance with the goal of a fresh start in a different organization. Or, it might be using the personnel system to find a clean start through internal transfer to another subelement of the organization.
Acceptance of the conflict situation might be manifested in a surge of initiative, a flow of creativity, or a push for productivity. These efforts might result from stimulation of perceived differences, or they might be the observable behavior representing a strong desire for promotion and, thus, escape from the conflict. The net effect may well be good for both the organization and the person.
There is also the individual who reacts to conflict by avoidance. He may choose to be a lamb who hides his needs and saves them for an opportune time when he has a definite advantage over his opponent. He may choose the silent treatment with the idea that it takes two to fight. The opposite is the individual who chooses to meet conflict head on. The lamb-like approach is thought to be the more dangerous. All too often, in the final analysis, the lamb becomes the lion. As soon as the opponent falls or is in critical need of help, he gets pounced on and destroyed by the tension and aggression building up so long within the lamb. Thus, the lamb-like approach may in reality be the dangerous hidden bomb for the group.
A host of other forms of reaction might be described. One is resignation on the job in which the individual comes to work but with apathy, reduced loyalty, and decreased involvement. We probably all know such a person. We refer to them as retired on active duty (ROAD) and find them in the civilian as well as the government worlds. Another might be rationalization or the creation of a wall of reasons for his situation, none of which assigns any responsibility to him. Scapegoating, projection of his feeling on others, is also common. This is seen in the blaming of others as justification for his own failures or inadequacies. This is experienced in the base level activities, for instance, when we sometimes hear the work group say, "We could have . . . if only . . . had done its job!" Yet another might be fantasizing with escape through daydreaming or mind wandering. Other forms might be aggressiveness, regression to less mature forms of behavior, or on-the-job indifference in which he literally says, "To hell with this outfit!" How many people are there, we wonder, who feel that work is just something you get paid for, not something in which you find pleasure and fulfillment? Could this be a result of conflict management.
THREE WAYS TO DEAL WITH CONFLICT IN ORGANIZATIONS
Conflict will occur in any long-term relationship. Conflict happens in personal, professional, family, and social relationships. Expect it.
Frequently, conflict damages and destroys relationships. Sometimes the damage is irreparable. Conflict does not have to be destructive. It can also be a stimulus for change, for improvement, and for creativity.
Most organizations don’t handle internal conflict very well. Organizations use three basic approaches to deal with conflict in the workplace. Sadly, the two most common approaches do not work. Let’s examine the three approaches:
1. AVOIDING CONFLICT. This approach is based upon the belief that conflict is bad or that it is a sign of a dysfunctional group. Organizations that use this approach may try to create structures to prevent conflict. Avoidance is often a sign of denial that conflict exists. Nonaction is a prime strategy for conflict avoiders. In the worst case, the avoiders don’t even recognize the symptoms that conflict is occurring. Consequently, conflicts smolder and fester until they erupt or explode.
Avoiding conflict doesn’t work. Few people problems go away on their own. You resolve most interpersonal problems only by consciously addressing them. The more serious the problem, the less likely it will go away without conscious intervention.
2. SUPPRESSING CONFLICT. This approach is based upon the belief that you can squelch or eliminate conflict. A common suppression strategy is to lay down the law, to set strict limits, to require people to work together, or to force them to cooperate. Another suppression strategy is to stall resolution by having meetings or creating administrative procedures to address the conflict. A third strategy is to try to resolve the conflict secretly—to work behind the scenes—so you resolve the conflict without anyone knowing it existed.
A common mistake is believing that having a meeting or just getting the disputing parties together will resolve the conflict. It doesn’t. When handled poorly, getting the disputants together makes matters worse.
Another mistake is believing that the conflict is merely a personality clash. Managers sometimes lament that if they just had good employees all the conflict in their organization would disappear. This is usually not true. Often organizational systems cause conflicts despite the people working within those systems. This is why replacing the people doesn’t solve the conflict. Yet, the manager continues to complain about how hard it is to find good workers who can cooperate with each other these days.
Suppressing conflict doesn’t work. You cannot dictate peace or force cooperation. Suppression may drive the conflict underground, so on the surface everything looks merry. Subterranean feuding can destroy your organization.
3. TURNING CONFLICT INTO POSITIVE OUTCOMES. The third approach for handling conflict in organizations is to see the positive side of conflict. One way to do this is to view conflict as feedback. Conflict is information about your relationship or about what is going on. It tells you that something isn’t working or that some people believe they are not getting their needs met. Conflict is a signal that you may want to do things differently or to think about things differently. Conflict provides you an opportunity to be creative and to change something affecting your relationships.
Learning from conflict is the only approach that works. The key to learning from conflict is asking the right questions, and then searching together for the answers. Important questions for using conflict as feedback include:
• What can we learn from this?
Frequently, conflict damages and destroys relationships. Sometimes the damage is irreparable. Conflict does not have to be destructive. It can also be a stimulus for change, for improvement, and for creativity.
Most organizations don’t handle internal conflict very well. Organizations use three basic approaches to deal with conflict in the workplace. Sadly, the two most common approaches do not work. Let’s examine the three approaches:
1. AVOIDING CONFLICT. This approach is based upon the belief that conflict is bad or that it is a sign of a dysfunctional group. Organizations that use this approach may try to create structures to prevent conflict. Avoidance is often a sign of denial that conflict exists. Nonaction is a prime strategy for conflict avoiders. In the worst case, the avoiders don’t even recognize the symptoms that conflict is occurring. Consequently, conflicts smolder and fester until they erupt or explode.
Avoiding conflict doesn’t work. Few people problems go away on their own. You resolve most interpersonal problems only by consciously addressing them. The more serious the problem, the less likely it will go away without conscious intervention.
2. SUPPRESSING CONFLICT. This approach is based upon the belief that you can squelch or eliminate conflict. A common suppression strategy is to lay down the law, to set strict limits, to require people to work together, or to force them to cooperate. Another suppression strategy is to stall resolution by having meetings or creating administrative procedures to address the conflict. A third strategy is to try to resolve the conflict secretly—to work behind the scenes—so you resolve the conflict without anyone knowing it existed.
A common mistake is believing that having a meeting or just getting the disputing parties together will resolve the conflict. It doesn’t. When handled poorly, getting the disputants together makes matters worse.
Another mistake is believing that the conflict is merely a personality clash. Managers sometimes lament that if they just had good employees all the conflict in their organization would disappear. This is usually not true. Often organizational systems cause conflicts despite the people working within those systems. This is why replacing the people doesn’t solve the conflict. Yet, the manager continues to complain about how hard it is to find good workers who can cooperate with each other these days.
Suppressing conflict doesn’t work. You cannot dictate peace or force cooperation. Suppression may drive the conflict underground, so on the surface everything looks merry. Subterranean feuding can destroy your organization.
3. TURNING CONFLICT INTO POSITIVE OUTCOMES. The third approach for handling conflict in organizations is to see the positive side of conflict. One way to do this is to view conflict as feedback. Conflict is information about your relationship or about what is going on. It tells you that something isn’t working or that some people believe they are not getting their needs met. Conflict is a signal that you may want to do things differently or to think about things differently. Conflict provides you an opportunity to be creative and to change something affecting your relationships.
Learning from conflict is the only approach that works. The key to learning from conflict is asking the right questions, and then searching together for the answers. Important questions for using conflict as feedback include:
• What can we learn from this?
• How can we use this conflict to improve our relationship?
• How can we work together to do this better?
• What perceptions or misperceptions are driving this conflict?
• How do the perceptions of the disputants differ?
• What are the real issues of the conflict and what are superficial issues?
If you want to reduce the conflict in your organization, you must transform the conflict into positive outcomes by learning from the conflict and addressing the real issues involved in the dispute. Avoiding or suppressing conflict do not work and may make matters worse.
Comparison of Japnese and American view on Conflict
DIFFERENCES IN STRATEGIC CHOICE :
Comparison of Japnese and American view on Conflict
DIFFERENCES IN STRATEGIC CHOICE :
o U.S: competitive conflict resolution
o Japan: cooperative conflict resolution
Managing Intergroup Conflict Through Organizational Coordination
The U.S. Japan
Explicit rules Implicit norms
Hierarchical Horizontal
Planning Relation-building
Command Consensus
Liaison Job rotation
Task forces Cross-functional teams
Specialization Integration
Managing Intergroup Conflict Through Elimination of its Causes
(1). Overcoming goal incompatibility
Commonly used methods
• Eliminate win-lose situation
• Reward organizational effectiveness
• Create a common enemy
• Expansion of resources
American focus: dividing values and goals
• Explicit division and clarification of responsibilities: job descriptions
• Formal hierarchical control
• Intrapreneurship: interfirm competition
Japanese focus: integrating values and goals
• Shared values
• Superordinate goals
• Norms of loyalty and identification
• Informal consensus building
(2) Overcoming structural interdependence
American focus: breaking interdependence
• Maintaining inventories and buffers
• Creating alternative suppliers
• Creating independent control units
• Partitioning tasks into autonomous units
Japanese focus: deepening interdependence
• Eliminating inventories and buffers
• Creating multiple interlinkages
• Eliminating independent control units
• Integrating tasks into interdependent units
(3). Overcoming differences in perceptions
Commonly used methods
• Seek and maintain common knowledge
• Increased communication
• Problem solving meetings
American focus: objective measurement
• Systematic collection of objective data
• Systematic and objective measurement of group and individual performance
• Independence of the above functions
Japanese focus: inter-subjective understanding
• Socialization
• Job-rotation
• Quality circle and consensus building
• Eliminating independent control and measurement units
Conclusion
• Group conflict is neither good nor bad but is inevitable and structural induced
• Group conflict has functional and dysfunctional consequences depending on the amount of conflict and the way conflict is managed
• The most important causes of group conflict include structural interdependence, differences in
values, goals, perceptions, and organizing principles
• Common conflict resolution strategies include dominating, avoiding, obliging, compromising, and integrating.
• Americans tend to use dominating, obliging, and compromising strategies, while Japanese tend to use avoiding, obliging, and integrating strategies
• The American way of managing conflict includes: division of responsibility, reduction of interdependence, and formal information and control system.
• The Japanese way of managing conflict includes: shared values, multiple interlinkages, integration, teamwork, and empowerment.
• There is a diffusion of the Japanese way of managing group conflict to the U.S.
