Based on what you’ve read in Chapter 9, would you want to have an organization that is free of conflict? Why or why not?
HAPTER 9 Conflict Management Processes AFTER READING THIS CHAPTER, YOU SHOULD … • Be able to define organizational conflict and explain its stages and the various levels at which it might occur in the organization. • Be able to recognize various conflict styles, identify their effectiveness, and appreciate ways in which a styles approach might fall short in analyzing organizational conflict. • Know about the role of third parties in conflict negotiation, especially the processes of mediation and arbitration. • Understand how personal, relational, organizational, and cultural factors influence the conflict process. • Appreciate the need for an alternative approach to conflict, such as the approach suggested by feminist theorists and practitioners. A manager and an employee of a consulting firm disagree about how to best organize a report for a client. Two coworkers at a fast-food restaurant find themselves in a heated discussion about who is going to be stuck working the weekend shift. Representatives of a school district and a teachers union sit down to hammer out the details of a labor agreement. An automobile company’s manufacturing division strongly opposes a set of design changes proposed by research and development. All these scenarios are examples of a pervasive part of organizational life—conflict. Conflict can be both destructive and productive. It can destroy work relationships or create the impetus for needed organizational change. Through communication, organizational members create and work through conflicts in ways that can be either functional or dysfunctional. In this chapter, we explore the role of conflict in organizational life. First, we conceptualize the issue by defining conflict and then discuss levels of conflict and phases in the conflict process. Following this, we look at communicative processes for managing conflict by considering individual conflict styles, the processes of negotiation and bargaining, and the role of third parties in settling organizational disputes. We then look at personal, relational, and organizational influences on the conflict management process. Finally, we consider a feminist view of conflict and negotiation that shifts our attention from exchange models to a focus on dialogue and community. CONCEPTUALIZING THE CONFLICT PROCESS Defining Conflict What exactly is conflict? Although definitions abound in both academia and everyday life, Putnam and Poole (1987) have developed a definition that is useful in highlighting several critical components of conflict in the organizational arena. They define conflict as “the interaction of interdependent people who perceive opposition of goals, aims, and values, and who see the other party as potentially interfering with the realization of these goals” (p. 552). This definition highlights three general characteristics that we might think of as the three I’s of conflict: incompatible goals, interdependence, and interaction. The notion of incompatible goals is central to most definitions of conflict and can involve a plethora of issues in the organizational setting. For example, many organizational conflicts stem from contradictory ideas about the distribution of organizational resources. Management and labor negotiate about the distribution of payroll and benefits or the top executive team argues about what capital investments to make in the coming fiscal year. Incompatibility can also disrupt organizational procedures. For example, two social workers might disagree on the best way to conduct home visits for prospective foster families. Or conflict might stem from different value orientations. For instance, in mergers and acquisitions, conflict often arises if the culture of the acquiring company is based on values different from those of the acquired company. In short, the basis of organizational conflict lies in the perception of incompatibility regarding a variety of organizational issues. However, incompatibility is not a sufficient condition for organizational conflict to result. It is only when the behaviors of the organizational members are interdependent that conflict arises. Consider a situation in which one manager supports participative decision making, while another believes in an authoritative management style. This incompatibility can exist harmoniously until interdependencies develop between the two managers. For example, if the two managers are asked to work together on a project or if their subordinates begin to compare notes about bosses, a conflict could well ensue. However, until behaviors are interdependently entwined, incompatibility need not result in conflict. Finally, our definition of conflict highlights the role of interaction in organizational conflict. That is, conflict involves the expression of incompatibility, not the mere existence of incompatibility. This idea highlights the importance of communication in the study of conflict. As Putnam and Poole (1987) argue: Communication constitutes the essence of conflict in that it undergirds the formation of opposing issues, frames perceptions of the felt conflict, translates emotions and perceptions into conflict behaviors, and sets the stage for future conflicts. Thus communication is instrumental in every aspect of conflict, including conflict avoidance or suppression, the open expression of opposition, and the evolution of issues, (p. 552) Thus, it is through communication that conflict is instantiated and through communication that conflict is dealt with in productive and constructive—or sometimes unproductive and destructive—ways. Levels of Organizational Conflict In the examples we’ve already noted, it’s clear that organizational conflict can take place at a variety of levels. By far the most research attention has been paid to the interpersonal level of conflict, the level at which individual members of the organization perceive goal incompatibility. However, conflict can also be present in the form of intergroup conflict and interorganizational conflict. Intergroup conflict considers aggregates of people within an organization (e.g., work teams, departments) as parties in the conflict. As an illustration, two divisions fighting over scarce fiscal resources are involved in intergroup conflict. Not surprisingly, intergroup conflict can become complicated when members of a single group hold varying views about the conflict. For example, in labor negotiations, dissension often occurs among members of the union or members of the management team regarding how the conflict should be resolved. Furthermore, in our increasingly globalized world, work groups from a single organization in different nations might have radically different ideas about work values and procedures. Interorganizational conflict involves disputes between two or more organizations. This kind of conflict can involve competition in the marketplace, perhaps between two stores competing for the same market share or two firms trying to get the same consulting contract. The more interesting interorganizational conflicts, however, may be those among organizations that are working together, perhaps in joint operating agreements or community consortiums. This level of conflict, then, emphasizes the role of “boundary spanners”—individuals on the edges of organizations who have significant interorganizational contact. For boundary spanners, interorganizational conflict is particularly stressful because they are asked to understand the needs of both organizational insiders and the outsiders with whom the negotiation takes place (Adams, 1980). Phases of Organizational Conflict Individuals in organizations do not move suddenly from peaceful coexistence to conflict-ridden relationships. Rather, people move through phases as conflicts develop and subside. Pondy (1967) has suggested five phases that characterize organizational conflict. A summary of these is presented in Table 9.1. As Table 9.1 indicates, organizational conflict can go through several phases before it becomes manifest in communicative interaction. The first phase, latent conflict, involves a situation in which the conditions are ripe for conflict because interdependence and possible incompatibility exist between the parties. The second phase, perceived conflict, occurs when one or more of the parties believes that incompatibilities and interdependence exist. It is possible, of course, to have latent conflict without perceived conflict. For example, two coworkers might have different ideas about the best way to organize a report, but this difference of opinion might not be an issue for either of them. It is also possible to have perceived conflict without latent conflict. This situation would exist, for instance, if a manager and a subordinate believed they had different standards about working from home but actually had the same values. Table 9.1 Phases of Organizational Conflict Phase Description Latent conflict Grounds for conflict exist because parties are interacting in interdependent relationships in which incompatible goals are possible. Perceived conflict One or more parties perceive that their situation is characterized by incompatibility and interdependence. Felt conflict Parties begin to personalize perceived conflict by focusing on the conflict issue and planning conflict management strategies. Manifest conflict Conflict is enacted through communication. Interaction might involve cycles of escalation and de-escalation as various strategies are used. Conflict aftermath Conflict episode has both short-term and long-term effects on the individuals, their relationship, and the organization. Based on Pondy, L. R. (1967). Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 296–320. During the third phase of conflict—felt conflict—the parties begin to formulate strategies about how to deal with the conflict and consider outcomes that would and would not be acceptable. These strategies and goals are enacted in communication during the manifest conflict phase. (Much of the rest of this chapter expands on what goes on during this conflict phase.) Finally, the last phase discussed by Pondy—conflict aftermath—emphasizes that conflicts can have both short-term and long-term consequences. Even after a conflict is settled, it can change the nature of the individuals, their relationship, and their functioning within the organization. MANAGING ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT We have now developed a conceptualization of conflict by defining it and noting its characteristic phases and the levels at which it can materialize. In this section, we look at theory and research about how organizational members attempt to manage conflict. We use the term conflict management rather than conflict resolution because of the point made previously about the ongoing nature of conflict and because of the complexity of most conflict situations. In discussing conflict management, we first turn to research on the various strategies that individuals use when involved in interpersonal conflict. We then discuss the process of negotiation in managing conflict and examine the role that third parties can play in helping individuals cope with organizational conflicts. Finally, we consider ways in which a feminist view of conflict might provide new directions for conflict research and organizational practice. Conflict Styles Description In Chapter 3, we talked about the Managerial/Leadership Grid developed by Blake and Mouton (1964), who proposed that a manager’s leadership style can be characterized in terms of the level of concern shown for productivity and the level of concern shown for people. For example, a manager displaying a high concern for people and a low concern for productivity was characterized as having a “country club” style of management. Theorists studying organizational conflict have used the basic structure of the Managerial/Leadership Grid as a way of exploring the styles and strategies people use when involved in interpersonal conflict. Indeed, the Managerial/Leadership Grid has been described as the “conceptual grandparent” of conflict style research (Nicotera, Rodriguez, Hall & Jackson, 1995). The analysis of conflict styles was most completely developed by Thomas (1976). In adapting the Managerial/Leadership Grid for conflict situations, Thomas reconceptualized the two dimensions as concern for self and concern for others. He then identified five conflict styles that would fall at various points on this conflict grid. The conflict grid and resulting styles are presented in Figure 9.1. These conflict styles can be illustrated by considering a specific conflict situation. Imagine that your boss has come to you with “some good news and some bad news.” The good news is that the public relations firm you work for has a chance to attract an important new client. The bad news is that either you or your coworker Wilma will have to spend a healthy portion of the weekend preparing the proposal. Your boss has told you and Wilma to work it out and have a draft of the proposal ready to go on Monday morning. Neither you nor Wilma really wants to work on Saturday, but the work must get done. According to the conflict grid in Figure 9.1, you could approach this conflict in five distinct ways. Figure 9.1 Conflict Management Styles First, you could simply decide to not talk with Wilma about the problem because you know that the issue will not be easy to resolve. This strategy—avoidance—shows little concern for either your own needs or Wilma’s. Not surprisingly, this strategy is rarely effective. Two other strategies emphasize one person’s needs at the expense of the other person’s needs. For example, by accommodating, you could simply volunteer to work on Saturday because you know Wilma wants the day off, and you want to make her happy. This strategy, though, does nothing to satisfy your own needs. Or you could pit your will against Wilma’s, insisting that she must work because you cannot. This strategy— competition—might get you what you want, but Wilma’s needs will be sacrificed in the process. A fourth strategy—compromise—could involve each of you working for four hours on Saturday. Although this strategy seems ideal in some ways, it means that neither you nor Wilma will be able to follow through on your weekend plans because each of you has to work on Saturday, albeit for a shorter period of time. Finally, you might sit down with Wilma and collaborate to reach a solution that could benefit both of you. For example, you might find that you both have Thursday and Friday evenings free, and by working together, you can write the proposal without relinquishing weekend plans. Critique of Conflict Styles Construct The styles framework suggests that individuals approach organizational conflict in regular and predictable ways. For example, Wood and Bell (2007) found that personality factors, such as agreeableness and extraversion, are predictive of an individual’s conflict style preference, and Holmes and Marra (2004) found that effective leaders will choose styles that match the needs of the situation. However, this framework has generated considerable debate about how organizational conflict should be best studied. Knapp, Putnam, and Davis (1988) identified four factors that limit the usefulness of the “grid” approach to organizational conflict. These factors are presented in Table 9.2. The first criticism presented in Table 9.2 involves the extent to which a grid approach reflects the complex interactive nature of organizational conflict. By arguing that individuals possess particular conflict styles, the grid approach downplays the extent to which individuals change their tactics during interaction with others in conflict situations. For example, an individual might begin by attempting to collaborate but, having little success, might then force a solution on the other party. The second criticism presented in Table 9.2 addresses the two-dimensional nature of the conflict grid. Knapp and associates (1988) argue that issues other than concern for self and concern for others might influence a conflict interaction. For example, individuals might be worried about the political implications of communication or the impact of conflict resolution on the organization as a whole. Third, these scholars believe that research on conflict styles has downplayed the important roles that nonverbal and nonrational communication might play in conflict management. Finally, they contend that by concentrating on individual conflict style, the role of the organizational setting is ignored. An individual might deal very differently with conflict in a highly mechanistic company than in a more democratic and loosely structured one. Table 9.2 Criticisms of the Conflict Styles Approach Critique The conflict styles approach treats the individual communicator as the sole 1 benchmark for conceptualizing conflict and for determining how it will develop. Critique The conflict styles approach relies too narrowly on two- dimensional theoretical 2 models that may not be internally congruent, exhaustive, or representative of conflict-handling modes in organizations. Critique The conflict styles approach limits communication to verbal behaviors, especially 3 those that are rational and uncomplicated, mutually exclusive across different styles, and static and unchanging. Critique The conflict styles approach treats the organization as being in the distant 4 background rather than in the center stage of conflict activity. Based on Knapp, M. L., Putnam, L. L. & Davis, L. J. (1988). Measuring interpersonal conflict in organizations: Where do we go from here? Management Communication Quarterly, 1, 414–429. New Directions In recent years, communications scholars have looked beyond general issues of style in considering interpersonal conflict and have begun to pay more attention to details about message style and the perceptions of individuals in the conflict episode. For example, Jameson (2004) explored how individuals in conflict can satisfy a variety of organizational- and individual-level needs through politeness strategies in conflict interaction, and Meiners and Miller (2004) found that the level of formality in conflict interaction influenced the extent to which individuals were direct, detailed in their needs, and willing to make concessions. Gross, Guerrero, and Alberts (2004) considered perceptions of conflict management and found that people viewed controlling strategies as inappropriate when used by others and as highly effective when used by themselves. A more comprehensive body of research has been developed primarily by Jeffrey Kassing and Johny Garner. This work considers a specific kind of conflict—that which occurs when an employee has a disagreement with the organization or supervisor and chooses to voice that disagreement through dissent. Research investigating this specific form of conflict has considered strategies and message types employees use when expressing dissent (Garner, 2009b; Kassing, 2002), the factors that influence the likelihood of speaking up through processes of dissent (Kassing & Armstrong, 2002), the goals that dictate particular expressions of organizational influence (Garner, 2009a), the effectiveness of various dissent messages (Garner, 2012), and the extent to which employees might choose to circumvent their immediate supervisor to express dissent at a higher organizational level (Kassing, 2007). Garner (2013) has summarized much of this work in a practical set of recommendations including the need to express ideas to someone who can make a difference, the importance of package dissent with a solution, and the persuasiveness of direct factual appeals in dissent situations.
The post Healthy Workplace Conflict first appeared on Scholarpill.
