Conflict management

Conflict in organization

Conflict, as defined by Stoner (1982), is a disagreement between two or more organizational members or groups that arises from the need to share scarce resources, work activities, or from differences in status, goals, values, or perceptions.

According to Litterer (1973, p.245), conflict describes a situation in which individuals or groups disagree over either the means or the ends and strive to assert their viewpoints over others’ preferences.

Conflict is defined as clash between hostile or opposing parties or ideas.

Types of conflict

1. Organizational conflict: Formal organizations are designed as rational structures that seek to minimize the influence of emotions, feelings, and irrationality, considering these as human weaknesses. They aim to replace individual control with institutional control by implementing principles such as task specialization, which utilizes only a portion of a person’s capacity and abilities; the chain of command, which fosters dependence on superiors; and the span of control, which intensifies surveillance of subordinates and limits their autonomy. Consequently, this setup increases the need for coordination and leads to greater reliance on leaders. In such circumstances, subordinates often find themselves in conflicts, both with the formal organization itself and occasionally with each other. These conflicts can be structured along vertical or horizontal lines, further categorized as either intra-organizational or inter-organizational conflicts.

1.1. Intra-organizational: Conflicts within organizations can be categorized as either vertical or horizontal, and they may also manifest at the line and staff levels. Vertical conflict specifically pertains to conflicts occurring between different vertical levels within the organization, typically involving superiors and subordinates. Such conflicts often arise when superiors seek to exert control over subordinates, and subordinates may resist this control, leading superiors to tighten rules to secure commitment and control. The primary causes of vertical conflict include insufficient communication, differences in perception and attitudes, and conflicting interests among individuals holding varying positions within the organizational hierarchy.

Horizontal conflict occurs within an organization at the same hierarchical level and can manifest as either interdepartmental or interpersonal friction, often stemming from competition between different functional subsystems. On the other hand, line-staff conflicts result from clashes over the domain of activities, expertise, and authority. In organizational structures, functions are categorized into hierarchical (line authority) and non-hierarchical (staff or expertise) levels. The creation of high-status and low-status positions, with or without formal authority, can create a disparity between expected and actual authority, leading to resentment and frustration among all parties involved.

It is widely recognized that intra-organizational disputes can have significant adverse effects on an organization. These conflicts have the potential to reduce productivity, diminish morale, and undermine an organization’s objective of recruiting and retaining the most qualified and competent employees.

1.2. Inter-organizational conflict:  As described by Rao and Narayana (1988, p.215), shares similarities with conflicts that arise within an organization. The primary causes of inter-organizational conflict often include incompatible objectives, disputes over status, prestige, and financial matters.

On the other hand, interdepartmental conflict is closely linked to the level of interdependence between different departments, which necessitates collaboration, the establishment of work sequences, the shared use of facilities or services, and the requirement for consensus.

2. Role conflict: Another aspect of personal conflict within organizations relates to the multiple roles individuals assume. The acronym ROLES encompasses key elements in this context, including Responsibility, Opportunities, Lines of communication, Expectations, and Support.

Behavioral scientists often characterize an organization as a system comprising position roles. Each member of the organization is part of a role set, a group of individuals responsible for carrying out distinct tasks and fulfilling formally defined roles. These roles are shaped by external expectations from others within the role set and are also influenced by an individual’s own personality and expectations.

Role conflict is the result of divergent role expextations. It arises from role discrepancy, a gap between the role expectations and role performance. It can also arise from disagreements about the perceived role:  how the individual thinks he or she should behave to fulfill the expected role, and the enacted role: the way person actually  behaves in an organization. It can also arise when an individual is going through role transition  or facing role ambiguity –unclear about his/her duties and responsibilities.

3. Group conflict: whenever people form groups they tend to emphasize the things that make their group.” than” or “different from” other groups leading to conflict between groups. This can happen in any fields or workplace; which can sometimes change from healthy competition to destructive conflict. Even within one organization or team, conflict can arise from the individual differences or ambitions or from rivalry between subgroups or factions regarding the scarcity of freedom, position and resources

Inter-group conflict – is common where two groups have different goals and one group can only achieve its goal at the expense of another group.

Intra group conflict-occurs when a group faces a new problem when new values are imposed from outside or when person’s extra-group role conflicts with  intra group role.

Interpersonal conflict-occurs between two people who hold polarized point of view who are somewhat intolerant to ambiguities; who ignore delicate shade of differences; and who are quick to jump to conclusions.

Causes/Sources of conflict

Causes or sources of organizational conflict can be many and varied. Some of the reasons for arising conflict in organization are:

1. Goal differences: As Scott (1990) affirms, conflict primarily stems from differences in beliefs, values, attitudes, goals, priorities, methods, information, commitments, backgrounds, needs, interests and/or motives. Goal differences between groups create different perceptions and cause conflict. It is the major cause of intrapersonal, interpersonal, inter-group conflicts.
2. Scarcity of resources: resource symbolizes power, Quite often, resources allocation is the crux of interpersonal, intergroup, inter-organization conflict. Limited resources (finance, equipment, facilities etc.) that must be allocated to meet goals of two different departments, or groups of people might create win-lose completion among their groups. In their anxiety to achieve goals, individuals/ groups try to cut out a bigger slice out of pie, and such competition creates conflict (Rao and Narayana, 1998. along with unfair allocation of resources, unjust reward system may lead to disappointment and frustration to individuals.
3. Lack of teamwork: in case of group interdependence, when one group must complete its activities and work before another group can begin the work on the project, conflict can easily occur. When the previous group delays the work or puts a poor quality of work it blocks the goal realization of the next group.
4. Ambiguity in role and responsibilities: role is a set of expected behaviors that are associated with a given position. Role conflict arise from disagreements about the perceived role: how the individual thinks he/she should behave to fulfill the expected role and the enacted role: the way person actually behaves in an organization. “Role conflict is the result of divergent role expectation. It exists when the expectations of a job are mutually different or opposite and individual cannot meet one expectation without rejecting the other” as Rao and Narayana, (1988, p.405) assert. The greater the number of positions within a work force, the more common are disagreements about excepted role behavior.
5. Power disequilibrium: although each employee in an organization has power to move certain others, employees differ in the strength and extent of their interpersonal influence. “Organization power balance is constantly shifting in the organization because of inevitable structural or functional change that benefits some employees and disadvantages other” Gillies (1994, p.482) affirms. Power is the relationship: nobody gives the power unless one takes it, and nobody can take the power unless one gives it. (Mc Gregor, 1966). The attempt to seize the power or to prevent the power loss are likely to provoke conflict Gillies asserts (1993, p.482).
6. Perceptual difference: Varied attitudes, interests, values or experience that people bring into the organization with them result in difference of perception of the same situations or realities; which may lead to the development of interpersonal conflict.  The perceptual difference in the values and norms between individual and groups can lead to disagreement about their status in the organization which might lead to conflict situation. Jacobsen-Web (1985,p.16) affirms this view saying, “The differing perception of two parties in conflict may result because they do not possess the same facts, they perceive the problem from different viewpoints or they disagree about their respective roles and powers”.
7. Poor communication: inadequate or unclear communication, which holds back the important information about the job of other individuals or group, can create conflict by creating unreasonable interpersonal or inter unit demands.
8. Resource allocation: quite often, resource allocation is the crux of interpersonal, intergroup, interorganization conflict, as it symbolizes power. In their anxiety to achieve goals, groups try to cut out a bigger slice out of common pool, and such competition creates conflict (Lele & Mahajan, 1984). The unfair allocation of resources and unjust reward system may lead to disappointment to individuals.
9. Personality clash: as Rao and Narayana (1988, p 407) claim, “Some people have difficulty in getting along with each other. This has nothing to with their job requirements or formal interaction”. It is purely psychological problem that arise with intolerance to each other.
10. Poor or inadequate organizational structure: when the line of authority and job responsibilities of the units and the workers are not well defined and the role of staff authority is not clearly communicated to people, there will be chances of disagreement about “who does what”. This may lead to of inter-organizational, inter-group and interpersonal conflicts. As Marriner-Tomey (1988) asserts, organizational conflict occurs structurally, i.e, in dealing with policies, rules and procedures while providing services or goods, in relation to accepted norms of behavior and communication and personnel management.
11. Leadership problem: an inconsistent, too-strong or uniformed leadership, at any level in the organization, could be the cause of conflict itself. Such leaders do not understand the jobs of their subordinates; and have the tendency of avoiding conflict or “passing the buck” with little follow-through on decisions. As a result, employees see the same continued issues in the workplace.

Stages of conflict

Each conflict situation is dynamic  and changes over time, which follows a cycle. According to Pondy (1967), conflict is made up of a sequence of interlocking conflict episodes:

1. Latent state: this is the stage where potential for conflict condition predicts the conflict behavior. In latent stage, a competitive situation could easily change over into conflict situation. In order words,  in this stage, people are aware of the reasons that can lead to conflict situation.

2. Perceived conflict: In this stage there is cognitive awareness of a stressful situation which may or may not be discussed. Conflict can be perceived even when antecedent condition do not exist. This occurs with parties misunderstanding of each other’s true positions. Conflict can be perceived when individuals have a limited knowledge of the facts, or do not know about others opinions and values. Such a conflict can be resolved by improving communication between the parties.

3. Felt conflict: triggered by an incident, suddenly conflict become real and open. Even though people perceive there is a basis for conflict, it will not arise unless it is personalized and internalized (felt). During the stage of felt conflict, affective state such as stress, tension, anxiety, anger, frustration and hostility are present.

4. Manifest stage: the manifest stage is the overt behavior resulting from the antecedent, perceived and felt conflict that leads to open confrontation. It can be constructive or destructive to problem solving. Unfortunately, withdrawal, obeying to rules and orders to  the letters (apathy), open aggression and sabotage are some of the unconstructive behaviors learnt unconsciously; which will reduce the organization’s effectiveness.

5. Conflict aftermath: it is a situation where a particular problem may have been resolved but the potential for conflict still exists. The aftermath of conflict may either be positive or negative for  the organization depending upon how the conflict is resolved. If genuinely resolved, it can lead to enduring harmonious cooperative relationship conducive to organizational development, and if suppressed or not resolved it could lead to serious and volatile situations in the organization. In fact the potential may be even greater than before. If one person or group perceives itself as being involved in a win- lose situation.

Reaction to conflict

When interpersonal conflict arises, and a person is confronted with a dispute, they are likely to adopt a form of behavior known as a defense mechanism. Numerous psychological mechanisms exist for coping with one’s behavioral reactions to conflict.

Repression is identified as the act of pushing the stressful situation into subconscious level, but it is not truly forgotten. Such defense mechanism contributes to psych-somatic reactions, for example, depression, cardiovascular diseases and gastric disorders.

Aggression is attacking, assaulting or taking an offensive behavior against the offending party like openly accusing other for his actions, spreading rumors, speaking in derogatory manner about the situation that is not favored.

Resignation is giving up with a strong belief that there is no use trying. This mechanism of defense, however, will not bring job satisfaction among workers.

Compromising is coming into terms with the values and beliefs of other parties and internalizing them to enhance one’s self esteem. This illustrates saying that “if you cannot beat them, join them”. This situation is described as a no- win no-loss situation, because no party gains or loses everything it wanted.

Sublimation is one of the most constructive psychological mechanisms whereby unacceptable feelings are repressed and channeled into socially acceptable activities.

Functional and dysfunctional conflict

Functional conflict, also known as constructive conflict, refers to conflicts that are beneficial or advantageous for an organization or group.

Effects of functional conflict:

Increased creativity and innovation: Functional conflict encourages different viewpoints and ideas to be brought to the table. This diversity of thought can lead to creative problem-solving and innovative solutions.

Better decision-making: When individuals engage in constructive debate and share diverse perspectives, it often results in more well-rounded and informed decisions. This can lead to improved choices and outcomes.

Enhanced team cohesion: Conflict that is managed constructively can actually strengthen relationships within a team. Open and respectful communication can build trust and foster collaboration.

Increased employee engagement: Functional conflict can stimulate individuals to become more engaged in their work. The challenge of resolving conflicts and working through disagreements can motivate people to excel.

Continuous improvement: When conflicts are addressed and resolved effectively, they can lead to process improvements and organizational learning. This can contribute to long-term growth and success.

Dysfunctional conflict, also known as destructive conflict, refers to conflicts that are harmful or counterproductive to an organization or group.

Effects of dysfunctional conflict

Reduced productivity: Dysfunctional conflicts can be a major distraction, causing employees to focus on personal disputes rather than their work tasks. This results in decreased productivity.

Negative emotional Impact: Dysfunctional conflicts often lead to negative emotions such as anger, frustration, and stress. These emotions can affect employee morale and well-being.

Poor communication: Dysfunctional conflicts can hinder effective communication within a group. People may withhold information or engage in defensive communication, leading to misunderstandings and breakdowns in collaboration.

Erosion of trust: Trust is crucial in any organization. Dysfunctional conflicts can erode trust among team members, making it difficult for them to work together effectively.

Employee turnover: Prolonged or unresolved dysfunctional conflicts can lead to high employee turnover rates. Individuals may choose to leave the organization to escape a toxic work environment.

Legal and reputational risks: In extreme cases, dysfunctional conflicts can escalate and lead to legal actions, damage to an organization’s reputation, or even physical confrontations.

Modes of conflict resolution

Conflict may be harmful as well as useful to an organization. Each of these modes has its own characteristics and is suitable for different situations. Here’s an overview of each mode:

Avoidance: This mode involves ignoring or sidestepping conflicts. Individuals using avoidance tend to minimize the issue, delay addressing it, or simply withdraw from the situation. It is typically chosen when the conflict is minor, emotions are high, or there is a lack of urgency. While avoidance can provide temporary relief from conflict, it often results in unresolved issues and may lead to further problems in the long run.

Competitive: The competitive mode is characterized by a high level of assertiveness and a low level of cooperativeness. In this approach, one party seeks to win the conflict, prioritize their own interests, and dominate the other party. It is appropriate in situations where quick decisions are needed, and one party’s goals must take precedence over the other’s.

Accommodation: The accommodation involves a high level of cooperativeness and a low level of assertiveness. In this mode, one party willingly yields to the other’s interests and concerns, prioritizing harmony and the relationship over their own goals. It is often used when the relationship is more important than the specific issue at hand or when there is a desire to build goodwill.

Compromise: The compromise aims to find a middle ground that partially satisfies the interests of all parties involved. It balances moderate assertiveness and moderate cooperativeness. Parties using this mode seek to make concessions and negotiate to reach an agreement that provides some benefits to each side. It is appropriate when both parties are willing to give up some of their goals to reach a mutually acceptable solution.

Collaboration: Collaboration represents a high level of both assertiveness and cooperativeness. In this mode, parties work together to understand each other’s concerns and needs thoroughly. They aim to find creative, integrative solutions that meet the interests of all parties, resulting in a “win-win” outcome. Collaboration is often used when preserving relationships and achieving the best possible solution are important.

Confrontation: The confrontation mode involves addressing the conflict directly and assertively. Parties using this mode are open about their concerns and engage in a candid and often intense discussion to resolve the conflict. Confrontation can be appropriate when there is a pressing need to address a significant issue, clarify misunderstandings, or when other modes have been ineffective.

Approaches of conflict management

Filey (1975) has identified three basic strategies or approaches that individuals can use in the resolution of interpersonal, intergroup or organizational conflicts.

1. Lose- Lose Approach
2. Win- Lose Approach
3. Win- Win Approach

Lose-Lose Approach

In this approach conflict becomes personal rather than problem-centered. In this approach neither party wins. Parties direct their energy toward total victory for themselves and total defeat for others. To compromise taking a middle ground in dispute to resolve the conflict is most common approach in this strategy. Another approach is to pay off one of the parties in dispute for accomplishing disagreeable tasks, which may take the form of bribe. In all of these approaches, however both parties lose “ no win“ situation.

Win- Lose Approach

The approach is power oriented and associate with physical aggressions and punishment to gain control over others. Here the conflicts are personalized and each party sees the issue from her/his viewpoint rather than as a problem that needs a solution and strives for total victory. In other words, it is a competitive or adversarial approach where the focus is on securing one’s own goals, often without regard for the concerns or well-being of the other party. One party’s gain in another party’s loss. In this strategy someone always loses, which may cause them to be bitter and revengeful.

Win- Win Approach

In contract to lose- lose and win-lose strategies, this approach focuses on goals rather than on persons. By using collaborative technique, it emphasizes on consensus and take an integrative approach to decision making. Since the consensus process demands focus on the problem; on the collection of facts; on the acceptance of useful aspects of conflicts; and on the avoidance of self-centered behavior, the group decision is often better than the best individuals decision.

Sources: Singh, L,. (2010). Leading and Managing in Health (5th extended ed.). Dhapasi, Kathmandu: Mr. J. B. Singh

Download ppt: Click here