CHAPTER FIVE
MANAGEMENT OF ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT
5.1 Definition and Nature of Conflict
Conflict in organizations is inevitable as far as people work together. The word „conflict is defined
here as: the behavior of an individual or group which purposely sets out to block or inhibit another
individual or group from achieving its goals. Conflict is processes that begin when one party
perceives that another party has negatively affected or is about to negatively affect something that
the first party cares about. Conflict may be the pursuit by two different persons or goals that are
incompatible, so that gains by one person must come about at the expense of the other.
Conflict has a number of dimensions. These dimensions are public (overt, visible, and authorized),
or private (covert, hidden, and unauthorized), formal or informal, rational (premeditated or logical)
or non-rational (spontaneous, impulsive, and emotional). The likelihood of conflict increases when
parties interact, view their differences as incompatible, and see Conflict as a constructive way of
resolving disagreements. Perceptions play a major role in conflicts.
Conflict can easily occur in multinational or multicultural situations, since basic differences in
language, Norms, personal styles and other cultural characteristics hinder effective communication
and set the stage for conflict. Cross-cultural sensitivity and understanding are key ingredients for
minimizing dysfunctional Conflict.
5.2. Types of conflict
Conflict may be classified on the basis of its sources; its consequence and it may also be classified
on the basis of organizational levels (individual, group, etc.) at which it may originate.
1. According to Sources of Conflict
The classification of conflict is often made on the basis of the antecedent conditions that lead to
conflict. Conflict may originate from a number of sources, such as tasks, values, goals, and so on.
It has been found appropriate to classify conflict on the basis of these sources for proper
understanding of its nature and implications. Following is a brief description of this classification.
Page 1
I. Affective Conflict: This occurs when two interacting social entities, while trying to solve a
problem together, become aware that their feelings and emotions regarding some or all the issues
are incompatible.
II. Substantive Conflict: This occurs when two or more organizational members disagree on their
task or content issues.
III. Conflict of Interest: This is defined as an inconsistency between two parties in their
preferences for the allocation of a scarce resource. This type of conflict occurs “when each party,
sharing the same understanding of the situation, prefers a different and somewhat incompat ible
solution to a problem involving either a distribution of scarce resources between them or a decision
to share the work of solving it.
IV. Conflict of Values: This occurs when two social entities differ in their values or ideologies on
certain issue.
V. Goal Conflict: This occurs when a preferred outcome or an end -state of two social entities is
inconsistent.
2. According to level
Organizational conflict may be classified as intra-organizational (i.e., conflict within an
organization) orinter-organizational (i.e., conflict between two or more organizations). Intra-
organizational conflict may also be classified on the basis of levels (individual, group, etc.) at
which it occurs. On this basis intra-organizational conflict may be classified as intrapersonal,
interpersonal, intra-group, and intergroup. These four types of conflict may be described as
follows:
I. Intra-personal conflict: occurs within an individual and usually involves some form of goal,
cognitive, role conflict.
Types of intrapersonal conflict
There are three types of intrapersonal conflict. Following is a discussion of these three types:
A. Approach–approach conflict means that an individual must choose between two or more
alternatives, each of which is expected to have a positive outcome (e.g., a choice between two jobs
that appear to be equally attractive).
B. Avoidance–avoidance conflict means that an individual must choose between two or more
alternatives, each of which is expected to have a negative outcome (e.g., relatively low pay or
extensive out-of-town traveling).
Page 2
C. Approach–avoidance conflict means that an individual must decide whether to do something
that is expected to have both positive and negative outcomes (e.g., accepting an offer of a good
job in a bad location).
II. Inter-personal conflict: occurs between two individuals or between an individual and a group.
It is among individuals such as coworkers, a manager and an employee, or CEOs and their staff.
III. Intra-group conflict: is the conflicts that occur between group members. There can be
conditions where individuals within groups find themselves in conflict with groups in
organizations. For instance, when an individual violates group norms, when subordinates
collectively disagree with a course of action the boss wants to take
IV. Inter-group conflict: occurs between two or more groups in an organization - work groups,
social groups, etc. Example: line and staff conflict or a conflict between working teams.
3. According to Consequences of Conflict
Conflict outcomes may be either functional, in that the conflict results in an improvement in the
group’s performance, or dysfunctional, in that it hinders group performance.
A. Functional outcomes
It is hard to visualize a situation where open or violent aggression could be functional. However,
there are a number of instances where it is possible to envision how moderate levels of conflict
could improve the effectiveness of a group. Generally, conflict is constructive when it:
✓ Stimulates creativity and innovation,
✓ improves the quality of decisions,
✓ encourages interest among group members,
✓ provides the medium through which problems can aired and tensions released,
✓ Fosters environment of self-evaluation and change.
B. Dysfunctional outcomes
The destructive consequence of conflict on a group or organization’s performance is generally well
known. Uncontrolled opposition breeds discontent, which acts to dissolve commonalities, and
eventually leads to the destruction of the group.
Among the more undesirable consequence are:
✓ Reduction in group cohesiveness
✓ Delay in decision making which need to be done urgently
✓ Hostility and aggression development,
✓ Increase employee turnover,
✓ Decrease employee satisfaction,
Page 3
✓ Increases inefficiencies of work units.
To conclude, the two extremes of conflict (too little and too much) are dysfunctional whereas the
optimum level of conflict is functional. Therefore, managers should strive to maintain optimum
level of conflict in their organizations. Evidence indicates that the type of group activity is
significant factor determining functionality.
5.3. Nature of conflict in an organization
Every organization has its objective. It is further broken down as departmental objectives, group
goals and lastly individual goals. When individual interacts with another individual there is
perceptual and communication problems that causes misunderstanding and leads to individual
conflict situation. It is also true of groups. Group conflicts indicate the way of inter-group behavior
in an organization.
Having recognized that conflict is an important social concept, we can then look into the special
case of organizational conflict. Conflict is certainly one of the major organizational phenomena.
organization theories “that do not admit conflict provide poor guidance in dealing with problems
of organizational efficiency, stability, governance, and change, for conflict within and between
organizations is intimately related as either symptom, cause, or effect, to each of these problems”.
Organizational conflict as it stands now is considered legitimate and inevitable and a positive
indicator of effective organizational management. It is now recognized that conflict within certain
limits is essential to productivity. Conflict can be functional to the extent to which it results in the
creative solution to problems or the effective attainment of subsystem or organizational objectives
that otherwise would not have been possible.
5.3.1 Perspectives on conflict
It is entirely appropriate to say that there has been conflict over the role of conflict in groups and
organizations. One school of thought has argued that conflict must be avoided, that it indicates a
malfunction within the group. We call this the traditional view. Another school of thought, the
human relations view, argues that conflict is a natural and inevitable outcome in any group. It need
not be evil, but rather has the potential to be a positive force in determining group performance.
The third, and most recent, perspective proposes not only that conflict can be a positive force in a
group, but explicitly argues that some conflict is absolutely necessary for a group to perform
effectively. We label this third school the interactionist view. Let's take a closer look at each of
these views.
1. The Traditional/Unitarist View
Page 4
The early approach to conflict assumed that conflict was bad. Conflict was viewed negatively, and
it was used synonymously with terms such as violence, destruction, and irrationality in order to
reinforce its negative connotation. Conflict, then, was to be avoided.
The traditional view was consistent with the attitudes that prevailed about group behavior in the
1930s and 1940s. from findings provided by studies such as those done at Hawthorne, it was argued
that conflict was a dysfunctional out-come resulting from poor communication, a lack of openness
and trust between people, and the failure of managers to be responsive to the needs and aspirations
of their employees.
The view that all conflict is bad certainly offers a simple approach to looking at the behavior of
people who create conflict. Since all conflict is to be avoided, we need merely direct our attention
to the causes of conflict and correct these mal-functioning's in order to improve group and
organizational performance. Although studies now provide string evidence to dispute that this
approach to conflict reduction results in high group performance, most of us still evaluate conflict
situations on the basis of this outmoded standard.
2. The Human Relations/Pluralist View
The human relations position argued that conflict was a natural occurrence in all groups and
organizations. Since conflict was inevitable, the human relations school advocated acceptance of
conflict. They rationalized its existence: It cannot be eliminated , and there are even times when
conflict may benefit a group's performance. The human relations view dominated conflict theory
from the late 1940s through the mid-1970s.
3. The Interactionist/ Radicalist View
The current view toward conflict is the interactionist perspective. Whereas the human relations
approach accepted conflict, the interactionist approach encourages conflict on the grounds that a
harmonious, peaceful, tranquil, and cooperative group is likely to become static, apathetic, and
nonresponsive to needs for change and innovation. The major contribution of the interactionist
approach, therefore, is encouraging group leaders to maintain an ongoing minimal level of conflict
enough to keep the group alive, self-critical, and creative.
5.4 Cause of Conflict in Organizations
Causes or sources of organizational conflict can be many and varied.
Descriptions of some of the most common organizational causes of conflict may be:
1. Competition for resources: Most organizations today have very limited resource. Groups
within the organization via for budget funds, space, supplies, personnel and support service will
conflict.
Page 5
2. Task interdependence: if two groups in the organizations depend on one another in a mutual
way or in one-way directions (as in a sequential technological process) there tends to be more
conflict than if groups or independent of one another. The more diverse the objective, priorities
and personnel of the interdependent groups (for example, research and production), the more
conflict there tends to be.
3. Jurisdictional ambiguity: this may “turf” problems or overlapping responsibilities. For
example, conflict might occur when one group attempts to assume more control or take credit for
desirable activities, or give up its part and any responsibility for undesirable activities.
4. Status struggles: this conflict occurs when one group attempts to improve its status and another
group views this as a threat to its place in the status hierarchy. One group may also feel it is being
inequitably treated in comparison with another group of equal status in terms of rewards, job
assignments, working conditions, privileges, or status symbols. Human resources departments
justifiably often feel they are treated inequitably in relation to marketing, finance, and operation
departments.
5. Organizational Change: Conflicts may arise due to differing views on the directions to take in
the wake of new developments in the dynamic environment. These new developments take place
in technological, political, economic, and social Areas. These new developments, in turn, af fect
the organization. Therefore, conflicts may develop among people When there are diverse opinions
about how to face and move along with the dynamic environment.
6. Personality Clashes: People do not think, feel, look or act alike. Though the reasons could be
difficult to explain, many a time People find others rubbing them the wrong way
7. Differences in Value Sets: There are different sets of values and beliefs for different people,
which may sometimes contradict each Other. Such disputes may be difficult to resolve due to the
lack of objectivity in them.
8. Perceptual Differences: It is quite natural that people perceive things in different ways, but it
is also true that they fail to appreciate such differences in each other’s perception. This is yet
another cause for conflicts.
9. Work Flow Relationship: Where the group performance is dependent on another group, or if
interdependence allows one group to Gain at another group’s expense, opposing forces is
stimulated. This is a sure recipe for generating Conflict.
5.5 The conflict process – stages of conflict
The conflict process can be thought of as progressing through five stages: potential opposition,
cognition and personalization, intention, behavior, and outcomes.
Page 6
Stage I: Potential Opposition or Incompatibility
The first step in the conflict process is the presence of conditions that create opportunities for
conflict to arise. They need not lead directly to conflict, but one of these conditions is necessary if
conflict is to arise. For simplicity's sake, these conditions (which also may be looked at as causes
or sources of conflict) have been condensed into three general categories: communication,
structure, and personal variables.
Stage II: Cognition and Personalization
If the conditions cited in stage I generate frustration, then the potential for opposition becomes
realized in the second stage. The antecedent conditions can lead to conflict only when one or more
of the parties are affected by, and cognizant of, the conflict. As we noted in our definition of
conflict, perception is required. Therefore, one or more of the parties must be aware of the
existence of the antecedent conditions. However, because a conflict is perceived does not mean it
is personalized. You may be aware that you and a co-worker are in disagreement. But the
disagreement may not make you tense or anxious and it may not influence your affection toward
this co-worker. It is at the level where conflict is felt, when individuals become emotionally
involved, that parties experience anxiety, tension, frustration, or hostility.
Perceived conflict: is Awareness by one or more parties of the existence of conditions that create
opportunity for conflict to arise.
Felt conflict: Emotional involvement in a conflict that creates anxiety, tenseness, frustration, or
hostility.
Keep in mind two points. First, Stage II is important because it’s where conflict issues tend to be
defined, where the parties decide what the conflict is about. If I define our salary disagreement as
a zero-sum situation (if you get the increase in pay you want, there will be just that amount less
for me), I am going to be far less willing to compromise than if I frame the conflict as a potential
win–win situation (the dollars in the salary pool might be increased so both of us could get the
added pay we want). Thus, the definition of a conflict is important because it typically delineates
the set of possible settlements.
Our second point is that emotions play a major role in shaping perceptions. Negative emotions
allow us to oversimplify issues, lose trust, and put negative interpretations on the other party’s
behavior. In contrast, positive feelings increase our tendency to see potential relationships among
Page 7
the elements of a problem, to take a broader view of the situation, and to develop more innovative
solutions
Stage III: Intentions
Intentions intervene between people’s perceptions and emotions and their overt behavior. They are
decisions to act in a given way. We separate out intentions as a distinct stage because we have to
infer the other’s intent to know how to respond to his or her behavior. Many conflicts escalate
simply because one party attributes the wrong intentions to the other.
Using two dimensions cooperativeness (the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy the other
party’s concerns) and assertiveness (the degree to which one party attempts to satisfy his or her
own concerns) we can identify five conflict-handling intentions: competing (assertive and
uncooperative), collaborating (assertive and cooperative), avoiding (unassertive and
uncooperative), accommodating (unassertive and cooperative), and compromising (midrange on
both assertiveness and cooperativeness).
Avoidance
The avoiding style is uncooperative and unassertive. People exhibiting this style seek to avoid
conflict altogether by denying that it is there. They are prone to postponing any decisions in which
a conflict may arise.
Accommodation
The accommodating style is cooperative and unassertive. In this style, the person gives in to what
the other side wants, even if it means giving up one’s personal goals. People who use this style
Page 8
may fear speaking up for themselves or they may place a higher value on the relationship, believing
that disagreeing with an idea might be hurtful to the other person. They will say things such as,
“Let’s do it your way” or “If it’s important to you, I can go along with it.”
Compromise
The compromising style is a middle-ground style, in which individuals have some desire to express
their own concerns and get their way but still respect the other person’s goals. The compromiser
may say things such as, “Perhaps Iought to reconsider my initial position” or “Maybe we can both
agree to give in a little.” In a compromise, each person sacrifices something valuable to them.
Competition
People exhibiting a competing style want to reach their goal or get their solution adopted regardless
of what others say or how they feel. They are more interested in getting the outcome they want as
opposed to keeping the other party happy, and they push for the deal they are interested in making.
Collaboration
The collaborating style is high on both assertiveness and cooperation. This is a strategy to use for
achieving the best outcome from conflict—both sides argue for their position, supporting it with
facts and rationale while listening attentively to the other side. The objective is to find a win–win
solution to the problem in which both parties get what they want. They’ll challenge points but not
each other.
Intentions are not always fixed. During the course of a conflict, they might change if the parties
are able to see the other’s point of view or respond emotionally to the other’s behavior. However,
research indicates people have preferences among the five conflict-handling intentions we just
described.
Stage IV: Behavior
We are in the fourth stage of the conflict process when a member engages in action that frustrates
the attainment of another's goals or prevents the furthering of the other's interests. This action must
be intended; that is, there must be a known effort to frustrate another. At this juncture, the conflict
is out in the open.
Overt conflict covers a full range of behaviors, from subtle, indirect, and highly controlled forms
of interference to direct, aggressive, violent, and uncontrolled struggle. At the low range, this overt
behavior is illustrated by student who raises his or her hand in class and questions a point the
instructor has made. At the high range, strikes, riots, and wars come to mind.
Page 9
Stage IV is also where most conflict-handling behaviors are initiated. Once the conflict is overt,
the parties will develop a method for dealing with the conflict. Conflict-handling behaviors might
be initiated in stage III, but, in most cases, techniques for reducing frustration are used not as
preventive measures but only when the conflict has become observable.
Stage V: Outcomes
The interplay between the overt conflict behavior and conflict-handling behaviors results in
consequences. They may be functional in that the conflict has resulted in an improvement in the
group's performance. Conversely, group performance may be hindered and the outcome then
would be dysfunctional.
Functional Outcomes: is a confrontation between groups that enhances and benefits the
organization’s performance. When conflict focuses on tasks, constructive debate can improve
decision making and work outcomes.
Dysfunctional Outcomes: The destructive consequences of conflict on the performance of a group
or an organization are generally well known: uncontrolled opposition breeds discontent, which
acts to dissolve common ties and eventually leads to the destruction of the group. And, of course,
a substantial body of literature documents how dysfunctional conflicts can reduce group
effectiveness.
5.6 Conflict Management Strategies
It may be said that it is the mismanagement of conflict rather than the conflict itself that causes
real trouble in an organization. Current ideas imply that the level of conflict in an organization
needs to be carefully managed – If there is too much, conflict needs to be reduced, and if there is
too little, the level may need tube increased in a controlled way. In practical terms, this means that
a decision has to be made about whether to resolve any conflicts or to stimulate a conflict that
exists. It is difficult, however, because there are no fixed guidelines to judge an appropriate level
of conflict. A viable strategy for conflict management begins with an analysis of the conflict
situation and then moves to the development of strategy options.
A) Analysis of Conflict Situation
Managers can analyze a conflict situation by identifying the following:
1. Conflicting parties: The conflict may arise between individuals, groups, or departments.
Page 10
2. Source of conflict: The conflict may arise from factors such as differences in value sets,
perception differences, scarcity of resources, workflow relationship, etc. Analyzing this
requires trying to view each Situation through the eyes of the parties involved.
3. Severity of conflict: The situation may be at a stage where the manager must deal with it
immediately; or the conflict may be at a moderate level of intensity. If the goals of the
workgroup are threatened or sabotage is occurring, the manager must take action immediately.
If individuals or groups are simply in disagreement, a less immediate response is required.
B) Conflict Resolution
One of the things that can make conflicts hard to resolve is the way that the parties behave towards
each Other. The key to conflict resolution is often found in a fuller understanding of their styles of
behavior.
Conflict Resolution Techniques
1. Problem solving: Interested parties confront the issue and cooperatively identify the problem,
generate and weigh alternate solutions and select a solution. It is appropriate for complex issues
plagued by misunderstanding. It is inappropriate for resolving conflicts rooted in opposing
value systems.
2. Super ordinate goal: It’s a technique used to create a shared goal that cannot be attained
without the cooperation of each of the conflicting parties.
3. Expansion of Resources: When a conflict is caused by the scarcity of a resource – say,
funding, Promotions, and desirable work or working conditions, etc- the expansion of resource
can create a win-win Situation. Unfortunately, it is often not possible in practice.
4. Avoidance: When conflicts have negative contribution the situation calls for resolution. This
strategy calls for a party to withdraw or ignore the conflict. The manager passively withdraws
or ignores the problem. Avoiding is a deliberate decision to take no action on conflict o to stay
out of conflict situation.
5. Smoothing: In this strategy, an obliging person neglects his/her own concern to satisfy the
concern of the other party. This strategy involves playing down differences while emphasizing
commonalties. Its primary strength is that it encourages cooperation.
6. Compromise: In this strategy, the parties‟ reach a mutually acceptable solution in which each
gets only part of what he or she wanted. In the case of compromise, each party is required to
give up something of value in order to get another thing. Each party moves to find a middle
ground. There is no clear winner or loser, rather there is a willingness to share the object of the
Page 11
conflict and accept a solution that provides incomplete satisfaction for both parties' concerns.
The main advantage of compromise is that it allows a solution to major conflicts.
7. Altering the Human Variable:This strategy calls for using the behavioral change techniques
Such as human resources training to alter attitudes and behaviors that cause conflict.
8. Altering the Structural Variable: Conflict is resolved through changing the formal
organizational Structure and the interaction patterns of conflicting parties through job redesign,
transfers, and the like…
9. Authoritative Command / Impose a Solution: Finally, if all fails, it may be necessary to
impose a solution. However, this has to be done with great care. It often works in the short
term. If the solution Suits neither party, it seldom solves the problem itself. Indeed, there is
always a danger that the apparent resolution has been achieved at the price of both parties
uniting against the arbiter, who is now seen as a Common enemy.
10. Resolving conflict through negotiation or third-party intervention: Although the conflict
handling styles just discussed can be used for all types of conflict, they primarily targets
interpersonal conflict. But what about intergroup conflict that is increasingly common in today’s
team-and project-oriented organizations? And what about inter-organizational conflict often
encountered in today’s world of organizational alliances and partnerships? Negotiation and third-
party interventions can be helpful in these areas. When conflicting parties do not have desire or
ability to complete their Owen negotiation process, a third party may have to intervene. Briefly,
there are three types of third- party interventions.
❖ Consultation-this is the process where mandated representatives of group in a conflict
situation meet together in order to resolve their differences and to reach agreement. It is a
deliberate process, conducted by representatives of groups, designed to reconcile
differences and to reach agreements by consensus. Consultation often involves
compromise-one group may win one of their demands and give in on another.
❖ Mediation-A trusted third party facilitates the negotiating process and suggests
alternatives. An increasing number of business organizations are opting to resolve intra-
organization disputes by mediation. Cost is one factor. Mediation is far less costly than
arbitration or litigation generally requires significantly less time than does arbitration.
❖ Arbitration: The arbitrator is delegated the authority to render a judgment or otherwise
resolve the dispute. In some business organization arbitration follows an unsuccessful
mediation. In other business organizations there may be no mediation effort, and intra-
organization disputes are resolved by relying solely upon arbitration techniques.
Page 12
