102

Chapter 6

Conflict Management

The management of conflict in organizations is one of the major tasks facing

managers today. According to Van der Waldt and Du Toit (1997), the true skill of a

manager lies in finding a sound balance between constructive and destructive conflict.

Contemporary views on conflict tend to indicate that a certain level of conflict can be

beneficial to organizations and managers no longer need to hold on to the traditional

view, which advocates for the complete elimination of conflict. Managers should try

to explore ways of enabling them to tap the benefits of functional conflict. Rather than

trying to eliminate conflict or suppress its symptoms, a manager’s task should be to

manage it so that it enhances its people and the organization.

There are several causes of conflict. Conflict may occur when:

A party is required to engage in an activity that is incongruent with his or her

needs or interests.

A party holds behavioural preferences, the satisfaction of which is

incompatible with another person's implementation of his or her preferences.

A party wants some mutually desirable resource that is in short supply, such

that the wants of all parties involved may not be satisfied fully.

A party possesses attitudes, values, skills, and goals that are salient in

directing his or her behaviour but are perceived to be exclusive of the

attitudes, values, skills, and goals held by the other(s).

Two parties have partially exclusive behavioural preferences regarding their

joint actions.

Two parties are interdependent in the performance of functions or activities.

6.1 Different Views of Conflict

Widely held views of conflict today indicate that conflict can be bad, good or ugly.

The three main views of conflict, which have been advanced by researchers, can be

used to explain the above assertion. These views are: the traditional, the human

103

relations and the interactionist views of conflict. The bad view of conflict is advocated

by the traditionalists while both the human relations and the interactionist approach to

conflict advocate for the good and functional view of conflict. The ugly view is

usually associated with the interactionist who believes that if conflict is not managed

effectively, it may get out of hand, thus becoming ugly.

6.1.1 The Traditional View

The traditional is the oldest view of conflict. It assumes that all conflict is bad and

therefore has a negative impact on an organization’s effectiveness. It treats conflict

synonymously with such terms as violence, destruction and irrationality (Robbins

1990). Because conflict is seen as being harmful to organizations, management must

strive to avoid it, or eliminate it completely. Managers, who subscribe to this view,

usually belong to organizations characterized by unitary views of interest, conflict and

power. According to Burrel and Morgan (1979), such organizations regard conflict as

a rare and transient phenomenon, which can be removed by appropriate managerial

action. When conflict does occur, it is usually attributed to the activities of deviants

and troublemakers.

Resolving conflict by elimination as advocated by the traditionalist approach, puts

pressure on managers to initiate actions to reduce or eliminate it. Conflict is assumed

to be a preventable problem. Managers are expected to create a working environment

to prevent it. According to Tosi et al (1994), managers can do this by developing

positive relationships, designing plans, and implementing policies and procedures,

which can ensure mutual efforts towards common goals.

Supporters of the traditional view believe that the organization is not designed or

structured correctly or adequately. Because of this, organizations would need

elaborate job analysis, streamlined authorities and responsibilities. In a way this

would create an orderly environmental context with little or no conflict.

Others who have also criticized the traditional view, such as Ivancevich and Matteson

(1996), have noted that while the suppression of conflict may remove the outward

appearance of conflict, it does not contribute to resolving the underlying difficulties

which led to it. Bacol and associates (2002) also argued that the suppression of

conflict is not only a short-term solution, but it can in the long run make conflict turn

ugly. In other words conflict that has been suppressed will come back in most cases

and when it does, it is usually more destructive than the first time.

104

According to Robbins (1990), conflict elimination is not realistic in complex

organizations, nor would such elimination be desirable. The goal of management is

not to seek harmony and co-operation – it is the effective attainment of organizational

goals. The argument raised by the above assertion is that although the suppression or

elimination of conflict can contribute to an orderly and peaceful environment in

organizations, on the other hand, innovation and change may be virtually eliminated.

6.1.2 The Human Relations View

The human relations view emerged after various writers on conflict criticized the

traditional view. This view dominated conflict thinking from the late 1940’sthrough to

the mid 1970’s. The human relations view regards conflict as natural and inevitable.

Because of this, the supporters of the human relations view accepted conflict and

believed it could not be eliminated entirely. Conflict was also regarded as neither

inherently bad nor good and was considered to lead to either negative or positive

results (Ivancevich & Metteson 1996: 324; Robbins &Coulter 1996: 632).

The human relations view was one of the first reactions to the views of conflict held

by the supporters of the traditionalist view. The fact that this view holds the notion

that conflict is unavoidable and can have both negative and positive consequences is

an indication of how difficult it would be to manage conflict from this point of view.

The assumption to be made is that whatever policies managers may apply, conflict

will always be present. On the other hand, they should also recognize that not all

conflict is bad and that conflict resolution should not aim at completely eliminating or

suppressing it.

6.1.3 The Interactionist View

This is regarded as the current theoretical perspective on conflict. According to

Ivancevich and Matteson (1996), the interactionist view is the realistic view of inter-

group conflict. It states that conflict is not only a positive force in organizations, but

some conflict is absolutely necessary for organizations to perform effectively. It

encourages conflict on the grounds that a harmonious, peaceful, tranquil and co-

operative organization may be prone to becoming static, apathetic and non-responsive

to the needs of change and innovation (Robbins & Coulter 1996).

The contention that conflict is functional and could constructively facilitate group

decision making can be traced to Coser (1956). However, Coser stressed the

105

functional aspects but did not pay much attention to the dysfunctional aspects of

social conflict. A number of other writers later agreed with his assertion by stressing

the constructive nature of conflict more and the need to assess bad and functional

conflict before either suppressing or stimulating conflict (Assel1969: 573; Eisehardt

& Schoonheven 1990; Van de Vliet 1985). All these writers mentioned above,

asserted that conflict was necessary for individuals and group or team members to

avoid complacency and mistake that could undermine the need for change, creativity,

innovation and productivity.

Ivancevich and Matteson (1996) concurred with Robbins when they state that every

organization has an optimal level that can be considered highly functional and can

generate positive performance. They also indicated that too low levels of conflict can

lead to poor performance. This results in low levels of organizational performance.

Conflict strategies at this stage are aimed at resolving it or managing it until it comes

back to optimal level. There are also situations when the conflict levels become too

high. According to Ivancevich and Matteson(1996: 327), high levels of conflict can

result in dysfunctional conflict with organizational consequences such as disruption,

interference with organizational activities and chaos.

Conflict management does not necessarily imply avoidance, reduction, or termination

of conflict. It involves designing effective strategies to minimize the dysfunctions of

conflict and enhancing the constructive functions of conflict in order to enhance

learning and effectiveness of an organization.

6.1.4 Affective Conflict

Certain types of conflicts, which may have negative effects on individual and group

performance, may have to be reduced. These conflicts are generally caused by the

negative reactions of organizational members (e.g., personal attacks of group

members, racial disharmony, and sexual harassment, to name a few) and are called

affective conflicts. “Summarily stated, relationship conflicts interfere with task-

related effort because members focus on reducing threats, increasing power, and

attempting to build cohesion rather than working on the task. The conflict causes

members to be negative, irritable, suspicious, and resentful” (Jehn, 1997a, pp. 531–

532).

Affective conflict impedes group performance. It affects group performance by

limiting information-processing ability and cognitive functioning of group members

106

and antagonistic attributions of group members’ behavior (Amason,1996; Baron,

1997; Jehn, 1995; Jehn, Northcraft, & Neale, 1999; Wall & Nolan,1986).

Affective conflict diminishes group loyalty, work group commitment, intent to stay in

the present organization, and satisfaction (Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1995,1997a, 1997b;

Jehn et al., 1999). These result from higher level of stress and anxiety and conflict

escalation.

6.1.5 Substantive Conflict

Other types of conflicts may have positive effects on the individual and group

performance. These conflicts relate to disagreements about tasks, policies, and other

business issues and are called substantive conflict. A study by Jehn (1995) suggested

that a moderate level of substantive conflict is beneficial, as it stimulates discussion

and debate, which help groups to attain higher levels of performance.

Evidence indicates that substantive conflict is positively associated with beneficial

outcomes: Groups that experience this conflict are able to make better decisions than

those that do not. This relationship has also been found to be true at the individual

level (Amason, 1996; Cosier &Rose, 1977; Fiol, 1994; Putnam, 1994; Schweiger,

Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986).

As a result, interventions for conflict management should be able to develop cultural

norms to support disagreement among group members in connection with tasks and

other related management issues without generating affective conflict.

6.1.6 Inverted-U Function

Several researchers have noted the positive consequences of conflict (Assael, 1969;

Cosier & Dalton, 1990; Hall & Williams, 1966; Janis, 1982). Empirical studies have

found that small groups are more productive when dissenters who create conflict are

present than when there is no difference of opinion or conflict among members

(Cartwright & Zander, 1968). Schwenk and Thomas (1983) found in their

experimental study that managers who received conflicting analysis came up with

higher expected profits than those managers who received single analyses.

Models of Conflict Management: There have been many styles of conflict

management behavior that have been researched in the past century. One of the

earliest, Mary Parker Follett (1926/1940) found that conflict was managed by

individuals in three main ways: domination, compromise, and integration. She also

107

found other ways of handling conflict that were employed by organizations, such as

avoidance and suppression.

Early Conflict Management Models

Blake and Mouton (1964) were among the first to present a conceptual scheme for

classifying the modes (styles) for handling interpersonal conflicts in five types:

forcing, withdrawing, smoothing, compromising, and problem solving. In the 1970s

and 1980s, researchers began using the intentions of the parties involved to classify

the styles of conflict management that they would include in their models. Both

Thomas (1976) and Pruitt (1983) put forth a model based on the concerns of the

parties involved in the conflict. The combination of the parties concern for their own

interests (i.e. assertiveness) and their concern for the interests of those across the table

(i.e. cooperativeness) would yield a particular conflict management style. Pruitt called

these styles yielding (low assertiveness/high cooperativeness), problem solving (high

assertiveness/high cooperativeness), inaction (low assertiveness/low cooperativeness),

and contending (high assertiveness/low cooperativeness). Pruitt argues that problem-

solving is the preferred method when seeking mutually beneficial options.

Khun and Poole's Model

Khun and Poole (2000) established a similar system of group conflict management. In

their system, they split Kozan's confrontational model into two sub models:

distributive and integrative.

Distributive - Here conflict is approached as a distribution of a fixed amount

of positive outcomes or resources, where one side will end up winning and the

other losing, even if they do win some concessions.

Integrative - Groups utilizing the integrative model see conflict as a chance to

integrate the needs and concerns of both groups and make the best outcome

possible. This model has a heavier emphasis on compromise than the

distributive model. Khun and Poole found that the integrative model resulted

in consistently better task related outcomes than those using the distributive

model.

108

DeChurch and Marks's Meta-Taxonomy

DeChurch and Marks (2001) examined the literature available on conflict

management at the time and established what they claimed was a "meta-taxonomy"

that encompasses all other models. They argued that all other styles have inherent in

them into two dimensions - activeness ("the extent to which conflict behaviors make a

responsive and direct rather than inert and indirect impression") and agreeableness

("the extent to which conflict behaviors make a pleasant and relaxed rather than

unpleasant and strainful impression"). High activeness is characterized by openly

discussing differences of opinion while fully going after their own interest. High

agreeableness is characterized by attempting to satisfy all parties involved

In the study they conducted to validate this division, activeness did not have a

significant effect on the effectiveness of conflict resolution, but the agreeableness of

the conflict management style, whatever it was, did in fact have a positive impact on

how groups felt about the way the conflict was managed, regardless of the outcome.

Rahim's Meta-Model

Rahim (2002) noted that there is agreement among management scholars that there is

no one best approach to how to make decisions, lead or manage conflict. In a similar

vein, rather than creating a very specific model of conflict management, Rahim

created a meta-model (in much the same way that DeChurch and Marks, 2001,

created a meta-taxonomy) for conflict styles based on two dimensions, concern for

self and concern for others.

Within this framework are five management approaches: integrating, obliging,

dominating, avoiding, and compromising. Integration involves openness; exchanging

information, looking for alternatives, and examining differences so solve the problem

in a manner that is acceptable to both parties. Obliging is associated with attempting

to minimize the differences and highlight the commonalities to satisfy the concern of

the other party. When using the dominating style one party goes all out to win his or

her objective and, as a result, often ignores the needs and expectations of the other

party. When avoiding a party fails to satisfy his or her own concern as well as the

concern of the other party. Lastly, compromising involves give-and-take whereby

109

both parties give up something to make a mutually acceptable decision. (Rahim,

2002).

How to Manage Conflict

Overall conflict management should aim to minimize affective conflicts at all levels,

attain and maintain a moderate amount of substantive conflict, and use the appropriate

conflict management strategy—to effectively bring about the first two goals, and also

to match the status and concerns of the two parties in conflict (Rahim, 2002).

In order for conflict management strategies to be effective, they should satisfy certain

criteria. The below criteria are particularly useful for not only conflict management,

but also decision making in management.

Organization Learning and Effectiveness- In order to attain this objective,

conflict management strategies should be designed to enhance critical and

innovative thinking to learn the process of diagnosis and intervention in the

right problems.

Needs of Stakeholders- Sometimes multiple parties are involved in a conflict

in an organization and the challenge of conflict management would be to

involve these parties in a problem solving process that will lead to collective

learning and organizational effectiveness. Organizations should

institutionalize the positions of employee advocate, customer and supplier

advocate, as well as environmental and stockholder advocates.

Ethics - A wise leader must behave ethically, and to do so the leader should be

open to new information and be willing to change his or her mind. By the

same token subordinates and other stakeholders have an ethical duty to speak

out against the decisions of supervisors when consequences of these decisions

are likely to be serious. "Without an understanding of ethics, conflict cannot

be handled" (Batcheldor, 2000).

110

Steps to Manage

The first step is reactionary by assessing and reacting to the conflict. The second step

is proactive by determining how the employee reacted to the decision. The manager

tries to take (create) a new approach, and once again tries to discern how the

employee reacts. Once the manager feels that the best decision for the organization

has been chosen, and the employee feels justified, then the manager decides if this is a

single case conflict, or one that should be written as policy. The entire process starts

as a reactive situation but then moves towards a proactive decision. It is based on

obtaining an outcome that best fits the organization, but emphasizes the perception of

justice for the employee. The chart below shows the interaction of the procedures.

Maccoby and Studder identify five steps to managing conflict.

1. Anticipate – Take time to obtain information that can lead to conflict.

2. Prevent – Develop strategies before the conflict occurs.

3. Identify – If it is interpersonal or procedural, move to quickly manage it.

4. Manage – Remember that conflict is emotional

5. Resolve – React, without blame, and you will learn through dialogue.

According to (Maccoby& Scudder), the there are five steps to identify and resolve

workplace project management.

1. Set the Scene

2. Gather Information

3. Agree to the Problem

4. Brainstorm Possible Solutions

5. Negotiate a Solution

Melissa Taylor's research on Locus of Control is directly related to individual abilities

of communication, especially as it pertains to interpersonal conflict. She also states

that conflicts should be solution driven which are creative and integrative. They

should be non-confrontational, and they should still maintain control, utilizing non-

verbal messages to achieve the outcome. (Taylor, p. 449)

111

Rahim, Antonioni, and Psenicka's 2001 article deals with two types of leaders. Those

that have concern for themselves, and those that have concern for others. (Rahim,

Antonioni & Psenicka, 2001, p. 195)

They also have degrees of conflict management style.

1. Integrating involves opening up, creating dialogue, and exploring differences

to choose an effective solution for both groups. "This style is positively

associated with individual and organizational outcomes." (Rahim et al.,

p. 197)

2. Obliging tries to find the same interests of the parties, while trying to

minimize the true feeling of the conflict, to satisfy the other party.

3. Dominating is a coercive manager who forces their own way.

4. Avoiding is ignoring the problem in hopes that it will go away.

5. Compromising is a manager that is willing to make concessions and the

employee makes concessions for a mutual agreement. (Rahim et al., p. 196)

The avoiding and dominating styles are considered ineffective in management. The

following chart shows the interaction between the styles. (Rahim et al., p. 196)

6.2 International Conflict Management

Special consideration should be paid to conflict management between two parties

from distinct cultures. In addition to the everyday sources of conflict,

"misunderstandings, and from this counterproductive, pseudo conflicts, arise when

members of one culture are unable to understand culturally determined differences in

communication practices, traditions, and thought processing" (Borisoff & Victor,

1989).

Indeed, this has already been observed in the business research literature. Renner

(2007) recounted several episodes where managers from developed countries moved

to less developed countries to resolve conflicts within the company and met with little

success due to their failure to adapt to the conflict management styles of the local

culture. International conflict management, and the cultural issues associated with it,

is one of the primary areas of research in the field at the time, as existing research is

112

insufficient to deal with the ever increasing contact occurring between international

entities.

Table 6.1: Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict and Situations Where They

Are Appropriate or Inappropriate

113

Source: Rahim, M. A. (1983). Rahim organizational conflict inventories: Professional manual. Palo

Alto,CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, p. 21.

114

6.3 Styles of Handling Conflict

The way in which individuals behave during conflict depends on personality,

experience, training, and the particular circumstance of the situation. Recognizing

those styles helps to identify the way individuals react to conflict, even though it is

generally recognized that often people adopt a combination of styles depending on the

respective context. Before developing the most appropriate and cost efficient method

of conflict resolution it is important to understand the different conflict styles and

their most salient characteristics. Thomas and Kilmann developed a model that

identifies the following five common styles for dealing with conflict: competitive,

collaborative, accommodating, compromising or avoiding. Thomas and Kilmann

believe that people are capable of using all five conflict styles. However, certain

people use some styles better than others and therefore tend to rely on those more

heavily. People's conflict behavior in the workplace is therefore a result of both the

respective personal predispositions and the requirements of a specific situation. The

competitive style is about achieving one’s goal. Weinstein argues that while a

competitive style is indeed about winning and losing, competitive people are not

necessarily aggressive or adversarial, often view competition as a sport and does not

necessarily have the intention to harm others. However, for others who do not share

this perception, competitive people can be quite threatening.

6.3.1 Integrating Style

This is useful for effectively dealing with complex problems. When one party alone

cannot solve the problem (i.e., synthesis of ideas is needed to come up with a better

solution to a problem), this style is appropriate. It is also useful in utilizing the skills,

information, and other resources possessed by different parties to define or redefine a

problem and to formulate effective alternative solutions for it and/or when

commitment is needed from parties for effective implementation of a solution. This

can be done provided that there is enough time for problem solving. Lawrence and

Lorsch (1967a) found this mode (style) to be more effective than others in attaining

integration of the activities of different subsystems of an organization. This style is

appropriate for dealing with the strategic issues pertaining to an organization’s

objectives and policies, long range planning, and so on.

This style may not be effective in some situations. It is inappropriate when the task or

problem is simple or trivial; when there is no time for problem solving (i.e.,

115

immediate action is required); when the other parties do not have adequate training

and experience for problem solving; or when they are unconcerned about outcomes.

6.3.2 Obliging Style

This style is useful when a party is not familiar with the issues involved in a conflict,

or the other party is right, and the issue is much more important to the other party.

This style may be used as a strategy when a party is willing to give up something with

the hope of getting some benefit from the other party when needed. This style may be

appropriate when a party is dealing from a position of weakness or believes that

preserving a relationship is important.

This style is inappropriate if the issue involved in a conflict is important to the party,

and the party believes that he or she is right. It is also in appropriate when a party

believes that the other party is wrong or unethical.

6.3.3 Dominating Style

This style is appropriate when the issues involved in a conflict are important to the

party, or an unfavorable decision by the other party may be harmful to this party. This

style may be used by a supervisor if the issues involve routine matters or if a speedy

decision is required. A supervisor may have to use it to deal with subordinates who

are very assertive or who do not have expertise to make technical decisions. This is

also effective in dealing with the implementation of unpopular courses of action.

This style is inappropriate when the issues involved in conflict are complex and there

is enough time to make a good decision. When both parties are equally powerful,

using this style by one or both parties may lead to stalemate. Unless they change their

styles, they may not be able to break the deadlock. This style is inappropriate when

the issues are not important to the party. Subordinates who possess a high degree of

competence may not like a supervisor who uses this authoritarian style.

6.3.4 Avoiding Style

This style may be used when the potential dysfunctional effect of confronting the

other party outweighs the benefits of the resolution of conflict. This may be used to

deal with some trivial or minor issues or when a cooling-off period is needed before a

complex problem can be effectively dealt with. This style is inappropriate when the

issues are important to a party. This style is also inappropriate when it is the

116

responsibility of the party to make decisions, when the parties are unwilling to wait,

or when prompt action is required.

6.3.5 Compromising Style

This style is useful when the goals of the conflicting parties are mutually exclusive or

when both parties (e.g., labor and management) are equally powerful and have

reached an impasse in their negotiation process. This can be used when consensus

cannot be reached, the parties need a temporary solution to a complex problem, or

other styles have been used and found to be ineffective in dealing with the issues

effectively. This style may have to be used for avoiding protracted conflict.

This style is inappropriate for dealing with complex problems needing a problem-

solving approach. Unfortunately, very often management practitioners use this style to

deal with complex problems and, as a result, fail to formulate effective, long-term

solutions. This style also may be inappropriate if a party is more powerful than

another and believes that his or her position is right. This style also may not be

appropriate when it comes to dealing with conflict of values.

Organizational members, while interacting with each other, will be required to deal

with their disagreements constructively. This calls for learning how to use different

styles of handling conflict to deal with various situations effectively.

6.4 Managing Conflict through Resolution

Since conflict is an inevitable and a natural occurrence in organizations, managers

need to confront the problem of managing it. One way of doing this is by using

approaches aimed at resolving it. Past and current research provides five common

styles of resolving conflict. Each of the styles has particular strengths and weaknesses

and no one option is ideal for every situation.

According to Barbara (1997), strategies for managing conflict will vary according to

the form of reference of an organization’s management. She indicates that managers

subscribing to an organization with a unitary philosophy will tend to suppress conflict

wherever possible. Those subscribing to a pluralist organization will tend to suppress

dysfunctional conflict while encouraging functional conflict. The effectiveness of

each approach will depend on the nature and condition of the conflict.

In order for conflict management strategies to be effective, they should satisfy the

following criteria (Rahim, Garrett, &Buntzman, 1992):

117

1. Organizational Learning and Effectiveness

Conflict management strategies should be designed to enhance organizational

learning and long-term effectiveness. In order to attain this objective, conflict

management strategies should be designed to enhance critical and innovative thinking

to learn “the art of solving the right problems”(Mitroff, 1998).

2. Needs of Stakeholders

Conflict management strategies should be designed to satisfy the needs and

expectations of the strategic constituencies (stakeholders) and to attain a balance

among them. Mitroff’s (1998) comments on picking the right stakeholders to solve

the right problems are relevant here:

Humankind continually vacillates between the following two unwarranted

assumptions:

(1) Others are fundamentally like us and will react as we do to a situation, and

(2) Others are so completely different from us that there is no basis for mutual

understanding whatsoever.

Both are pernicious because they dehumanize us and those to whom we would relate.

In both cases, the fundamental error is taking the narcissistic self as the primary, if not

the only, stakeholder in all situations.

3. Ethics

A wise leader must behave ethically, and to do so, the leader should be open to new

information and be willing to change his or her mind. By the same token, subordinates

and other stakeholders have an ethical duty to speak out against the decisions of

supervisors when consequences of these decisions are likely to be serious. To manage

conflicts ethically organizations should institutionalize the positions of employee

advocate and customer and supplier advocate, as well as environmental and

stockholder advocates. Only if these advocates are heard by decision makers in

organizations may we hope for an improved record of ethically managed

organizational conflict.

6.5 Conflict Management Strategy

Existing literature on conflict management is deficient on strategies needed to manage

conflict at the macro level that can satisfy the preceding criteria. There is a need to

design new conflict management strategies based on contemporary literature that are

likely to satisfy the three criteria. These strategies are:

118

1. Attain and maintain a moderate amount of substantive conflict for non-routine

tasks.

2. Minimize substantive conflict for routine tasks.

3. Minimize affective conflicts for routine and non-routine tasks.

4. Enable the organizational members to select and use the styles of handling

interpersonal conflict so that various conflict situations can be appropriately dealt

with.

6.6 Contingency Approach

Management scholars now agree that there is no one best approaches to make

decisions, to lead, and to motivate. The contingency approach (also called situational

approach), which is the hallmark of contemporary management, has replaced the

simplistic “one best” approach (Pennings, 1992). Consider, for example, the decision

theory of leadership, which states that each of the five leadership styles (1 _

Autocratic . . . 5 _ Participative) is appropriate depending on the situation. The theory

considers two situations: the quality of the decision (i.e., the extent to which it will

affect important group processes) and acceptance of the decision (i.e., the degree of

commitment of employees needed for its implementation). The theory suggests that

when the decision quality and acceptance are both low, the leader should use the

autocratic style. On the contrary, if the decision quality and acceptance are both high,

the leader should use the participative style. Therefore, it appears that effective

leadership depends on matching leadership styles with situations. Failure to match

these two variables leads to ineffective leadership.

Taking the lead from the contingency approach, it is possible to develop a

contingency theory of conflict management. For example, in a conflict situation

characterized by low decision quality and acceptance, the dominating style maybe

justified. In the reverse condition (high decision quality and high decision

acceptance), the integrating style is the most appropriate to use.

6.7Conflict Management Process

The management of organizational conflict involves the diagnosis of, and intervention

in, conflict. Diagnosis provides the basis for intervention.

119

6.7.1 Diagnosis

The first step in the problem-solving process is problem recognition which involves

problem sensing and problem formulation. The field of management has developed

solutions to numerous problems, but it has neglected to investigate and develop the

process of problem recognition. Problem finding or recognition requires appropriate

diagnosis of the problems, which is neglected in contemporary organizations. As a

result, very often interventions are recommended without proper understanding of the

nature of the problem(s). This can lead to ineffective outcomes.

Identification or diagnosis of the problems of conflict in an organization must precede

any intervention designed to manage the conflict. Several writers specifically

suggested the need for the diagnosis of conflict through some formal and informal

approaches (Brown, 1979; DuBrin, 1972). Proper diagnosis of the causes and effects

of different types of conflict in an organization is important because its underlying

causes and effects may not be what they appear on the surface. We also need to know

(1) Whether an organization has too little, moderate, or too much affective and

substantive conflicts and

(2) Whether the organizational members are appropriately selecting and using the

five styles of handling conflict to deal with different situations.

If an intervention is made without a proper diagnosis of conflict, then there is the

probability that a change agent may try to solve a wrong problem. This may lead to

Type III error (Mitroff, 1998; Mitroff & Featheringham, 1974). The management of

organizational conflict involves a systematic diagnosis of the problems in order to

minimize the Type III error.

The preceding discussion is consistent with the literature of organization

development, which indicates that organizational diagnosis is essential for an

effective change program (see French & Bell, 1999; Burke, 1994).

120

Figure 6.1: Process of Managing Organizational Conflict

A comprehensive diagnosis involves the measurement of conflict, its sources, and

effectiveness and analysis of relations among them.

6.7.2 Measurement

A comprehensive diagnosis involves these measurements:

1. The amount of conflict at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, intra-group, and

intergroup levels;

2. The styles of handling interpersonal, intra-group, and intergroup conflicts of the

organizational members;

3. The sources of (1) and (2); and

4. Individual, group, and organizational learning and effectiveness.

6.7.3 Analysis

The analysis of data collected above should include:

1. The amount of conflict and the styles of handling conflict classified by

departments, units, divisions, and so on, and whether they are different from their

corresponding national norms.

2. The relationships of the amount of conflict and conflict styles to their sources.

3. The relationships of the amount of conflict and conflict styles to organizational

learning and effectiveness.

121

The results of diagnosis should indicate whether there is any need for intervention and

the type of intervention necessary for managing conflict. The results of diagnosis

should be discussed, preferably by a representative group of managers who are

concerned with the management of conflict, with the help of an outside expert who

specializes in conflict research and training. A discussion of the results should enable

the managers to identify the problems of conflict, if any, that should be effectively

managed.

The preceding approach may be used to conduct a comprehensive diagnosis of

conflict, but not every organization requires such a diagnosis. A management

practitioner or consultant should decide when and to what extent a diagnosis is needed

for a proper understanding of a conflict problem.

6.7.4 Intervention

A proper diagnosis should indicate whether there is any need for intervention and the

type of intervention required. An intervention may be needed if there is too much

affective conflict or too little or too much substantive conflict and/or if the

organizational members are not handling their conflict effectively.

There are two basic approaches to intervention in conflict: process and structural

(Rahim &Bonoma, 1979). Beer and Walton (1987) described these as human-process

and techno-structural approaches of intervention for organization development. A

process refers to the sequence of events or activities that are undertaken to bring about

some desired outcome. Certain processes in an organization, such as communication,

decision making, leadership, and so on, are necessary for making the social system

work. Structure refers to the stable arrangement of task, technological, and other

factors so that organizational members can work together effectively. In order to

accomplish the goals of an organization, both process and structure require proper

integration.

6.7.5 Process

This intervention attempts to improve organizational effectiveness by changing

members’ styles of handling interpersonal conflict. The process approach is mainly

designed to manage conflict by helping the organizational participants learn how to

match the uses of the styles of handling interpersonal conflict with different

122

situations. In other words, this intervention enables the organizational members to

make effective use of the five styles of handling interpersonal conflict, depending on

the nature of the situation. This calls for changes in other organizational processes,

such as culture and leadership, which can support the organizational members’ newly

acquired skills of conflict management. This intervention, to a certain extent, may

also change the perceptions of organizational members regarding the intensity of

different types of conflict.

Applied behavioral scientists have developed organizational development strategies

and techniques for improving organizational effectiveness (Beer &Walton, 1987;

Burke, 1994; French, Bell, & Zawacki, 1989; Golembiewski, 1998), which may be

adapted for managing organizational conflict. French and Bell (1999) defined

organization development as along-term effort, led and supported by top management,

to improve an organization’s visioning, empowerment, learning, and problem-solving

processes, through an ongoing, collaborative management of organization culture—

with special emphasis on the culture of intact work teams and other team

configurations—using the consultant-facilitator role and the theory and technology of

applied behavioral science, including action research.

Traditionally, the conflict resolution theorists emphasized the areas of agreement or

commonality existing between conflicting entities by suppression or avoidance of the

areas of disagreement. This probably encourages single-loop learning. Organizational

development interventions, on the contrary, are designed to help the organizational

participants learn mainly the integrative or collaborative style of behavior through

which to find the “real” causes of conflict and arrive at functional solutions. This

approach is needed for encouraging double-loop learning. For example, Watkins and

Golembiewski (1995) have suggested how organization development theory and

practice might change to create organizational learning. Organizational development

strategies focused on learning are especially useful in managing strategic conflict

where an integrating style is more appropriate than other styles.

Lectures, videos, cases, and exercises can be used for learning conflict management.

Argyris (1994) has indicated that cases from managers’ own organizations can be

used to overcome defensive reactions of the supervisors and employees. This is

necessary for learning and problem solving. Other intervention techniques can be

useful to bring about a change in learning and innovation in an organization.

123

6.8 Evolution of Workplace Conflict

Glasl analyzed this natural tendency to escalation and developed the concept of a

conflict escalation ladder describing phases of escalation with specific characteristics

which impact on the appropriate conflict management tool to use. In that logic, there

is an initial phase of each conflict in which the parties are still ready to cooperate. In

the second phase the parties start to threaten each other and in a last phase the parties

enter into full confrontation. Glasl argued that it is generally only until the end of the

second phase and the very beginning of the third phase that classic mediation is

productive and the only point at which the parties still have some regard for each

other’s interests, but not later in the third phase when the parties aim at destroying

each other. Glasl’s model underscores the importance of addressing conflict situations

early. In addition, it shows that the degree of escalation is an important indicator of

the applicability and potential effectiveness of conflict resolution tools, including

mediation.

6.8.1 Human Behavior

To understand how people react to conflict situations and why they employ certain

conflict styles it is useful to review some of the theories underlying human behavior

in dealing with conflict situations. A variety of theoretical perspectives have emerged

to explain people’s behavior in conflict situations. These theories include the Face

Negotiation Theory, the Attribution Theory or the Reciprocity Theory. The Face

Negotiation Theory refers to the potentially “face-threatening” character of conflict. The

theory explains that the various facets of individual and cultural identities are

described as faces. Conflict occurs when people perceive their face threatened. The

Attribution Theory builds on studies revealing that it is in people’s nature to attribute

their own negative behavior to external factors while attributing others’ negative

behavior to internal factors. The Reciprocity Theory builds on research finding that

individuals are likely to reciprocate what is done to them. While the aforementioned

theories focus on specific aspects of human behavior, the Social Exchange Theory

(SET) is broader and based on the idea that human beings in conflict are guided by

self-interest and cost benefit considerations in achieving a specific goal. The possible

relational or social goals can be relationship, power, identity (e.g. saving face and

maintaining self- esteem) or justice, namely fairness. “Justice” and “fairness” are

124

considered by some authors to be critical benchmarks in evaluation of human

behavior.

They argue that there is only justice if fair procedures are provided for. A corner stone

of fair procedures is the right to be heard. According to this view, “only the principle

of fairness in setting conflict can claim universal ground as being a principle of share

rationality, indispensable in all decision making and in all intentional action”. It is

further argued that whatever the subject matter on which there can be considerable

disagreement, conflict is less likely when there is a perception of procedural justice,

including respect of the principle of “hearing the other side”. The notions of “justice”

and “fairness” seem to play an important role in determining people’s reactions to

conflict. Our own views of what is right and good are built on our own value set,

which in turn determines our feelings and behavior.

6.9 Visibility of Negative Consequences of Conflict

Visibility is defined in this analysis as how easily negative consequences can be

spotted or recognized as a result of conflict in the workplace. The most visible

negative consequences of conflict include as the most easily noticeable costs, legal

fees or increased health costs. For many people the experience of badly managed

conflict is alienating and disempowering. They feel themselves to be “not ok”, and

experience a downward spiral into negative thinking and feeling. Physically people

become ill, suffering from a range of stress-related illnesses. Resulting visible

consequences include absenteeism, reduced motivation, and increase of wasted time

in dealing with unmanaged or badly managed conflict and departure of employees.

Considerably reduced motivation can result in ‘presenters’.

This term refers to employees who “retire on the job”, do not do the work expected

from them and cause additional workload problems for others in their area. While it is

acknowledged that it may be difficult to establish precisely to what extent a health

problem can be attributed to a specific conflict situation, research data show that

employees working in conditions with high levels of interpersonal conflict are facing

higher stress levels and are more likely to have injuries. There are other less-visible

consequences which tend to be the cumulative result of unmanaged conflict in the

workplace, such as sabotage, damage to the company’s brand, the diminished ability

of a company with a questionable reputation for treating its employees fairly to attract

top talent, the drain of the company’s intellectual capital as a result of turnover,

missed opportunities or the loss of key business with damaging and long-term adverse

125

impact on the company’s productivity. Many of these costs are typically overlooked

because they are not immediately associated with conflict and are accounted for as

part of the normal cost of doing business.

Unmanaged or badly managed conflict is stressful, reduces confidence levels,

produces anxieties and frustration and leads to lowered job motivation, humiliation,

and stress-induced psychological and physical illness with often dramatic

consequences for the employee, family and friends and long term career damage.

People involved in conflict experience a break in their interpersonal connections, and

often feel alienated from each other and self- focused. They may avoid or attack each

other in a number of different ways: withdrawing from each other, interrupting, not

listening, or finding unnecessary fault with each other. This is detrimental not only to

the working relationship, but also to those with whom they work, as energy is used in

fuelling the conflict rather than in furthering the performance of the individuals or of

the team.

6.10 Transformational Leadership

Transformational leaders encourage their subordinates to engage in critical and

innovative thinking, which is needed for solving the right problems. Conflict and

tension will increase as more people challenge the old ways of thinking and doing

things. As a result, right problems are surfaced and formulated (problem recognition),

which leads to recommendations for change in the process and structure (solving

problems) and implementation of recommendations.

Senge (1990) maintains that a different set of leadership roles will be needed with

more emphasis on leaders as teachers, stewards, and designers. These leaders

articulate a clear and challenging vision for their firm based on their insights into key

industry trends that can be the catalyst for redefining the foundation of competition.

They focus on developing the people around them, motivating them to want to learn

and take greater responsibility. They lead in “unlearning”—the conscious effort to

challenge traditional assumptions about the company and its environment. (Slater,

1995,)

These leaders encourage learning that involves the identification, acquisition, and

application of information that enables an organization, and the people within that

organization, to reach their goals. General Electric’s chief executive officer (CEO)

Jack Welch and Chrysler’s former CEO Lee Iacoca fit this description of leadership.

126

Transformational leadership is appropriate for managing conflict. Such leaders

sometimes referred to as charismatic leaders; use their personal power to inspire

employees’ new ways of thinking and problem solving. Bass (1985) indicated that

this leadership has three distinct factors: charisma, intellectual stimulation, and

individualized consideration. Substantial evidence now exists indicating that

transformational leadership.

6.11 Organizational Culture

Conflict management to support organizational learning and long-term effectiveness

would require cultures that support experimentation, risk taking, openness, diverse

viewpoints, continuous questioning and inquiry, and sharing of information and

knowledge. This implies that employees would be encouraged to take responsibility

for their errors and not blame others for their mistakes or incompetence.

Such a culture would encourage substantive or task-related conflict and discourage

affective or emotional conflict. For example, Honda encourages its employees to

explicitly surface and handle conflict in a constructive way. Honda holds sessions in

which employees can openly (but politely) question supervisors and challenge the

status quo. “This is not an empty ritual but a vital force in keeping Honda on its toes.

It sustains a restless, self-questioning atmosphere that one expects to see in new

ventures—yet Honda is into its fourth generation of management. Its founders retired

in 1970” (Pascale, 1990, p. 26).

Conflict management requires experimentation and risk taking. Garvin (1993)

indicated that effective programs require an incentive system that encourages risk

taking. An organization may have to reward failures; otherwise organizational

members will learn to do what is safe and avoid risk-taking behaviors.

This is the kind of learning symbolized by the use of the carrot instead of the stick, the

creation of incentives to do the right thing, and the immediate rewarding of correct

behavior. In this model, errors and wrong behavior are not punished but are ignored

so that the learner remains focused on improving and refining correct behavior. (p.

86) Managers need to know how to use reinforcements to elicit conflict management

behaviors that are associated not only with effective performance and creativity but

also with risk taking for improving long-term performance.

127

This intervention attempts to improve the organizational effectiveness by changing

the organization’s structural design characteristics, which include conflicts that result

from the organization’s structural design can be managed effectively by appropriate

change in such design. Evidence indicates that there is no one best designs for all

organizations. Whether a mechanistic (bureaucratic) or organic (organism) design is

appropriate for an organization or one or more of its subsystems depends on the

organization’s environment (stable or dynamic).

Studies by Lawrence and Lorsch (1967a) and Morse and Lorsch (1970) led to the

development of the contingency theory of organization design, which suggests that a

mechanistic design is appropriate for departments that respond to a stable

environment, but an organic design is appropriate for departments that respond to an

unstable environment. The greater the congruence between the design and

environment, the more effective is the management of conflict and the greater is the

organizational effectiveness. Organizational development interventions generally

recommend the adoption of organic–adaptive structures, which encourage effective

management of conflict.

Conflicts are the lifeblood of high performing organizations. Disputes, disagreements

and diverse points of view about strategy and implementation create energy, bring

about change, and stimulate creativity and help form strongly bonded teams in full

alignment. Organizations that encourage people to raise difficult issues find that doing

so leads to innovation, new goals and the changes needed to achieve them. This

approach has been adopted by many of the world’s largest multinationals, as well as

law enforcement agencies, humanitarian agencies and governments.

Confronting conflict does have risks, however. If not properly managed, and if the

result is winning-lose, the process can undermine teams and can damage mutual

respect, alignment, engagement and trust. However, there is every reason to believe

that all conflicts can result in win-win outcomes.

One of the most extreme and violent manifestations of conflict occurs when an

individual or group is being physically held hostage. In fact more than 95 percent of

hostage incidents are resolved peacefully, with the hostages freed, and the hostage-

taker surrendering, accepting the consequences to come. We can all use the tactics

that produce this extraordinary success rate to defuse conflicts in our business and

personal lives.

128

The mind’s eye is a fundamental tool to create a positive or negative result in

managing conflict. Our mind’s eye is shaped by experiences and choice, which

determine the way we view the world and, ultimately, determine success or failure in

dealing with conflict. Many leaders in conflict situations are ‘hostages’ to their inner

fears and other negative emotions and fail to see the opportunities in resolving them.

6.12 Six Essential Skills for Managing Conflict Effectively

1. Create and maintain a bond, even with your ‘adversary’

The key to defusing conflict is to form a bond, or to re-bond, with the other party. We

do not have to like someone to form a bond with him or her. We only need a common

goal. Treat the person as a friend, not an enemy, and base the relationship on mutual

respect, positive regard and co-operation. Leaders must learn to separate the person

from the problem, genuinely want to help the other party and avoid negative

responses to attacks or intense emotions.

2. Establish a dialogue and negotiate

At all times it’s important to keep the conversation relevant, stay focused on a

positive outcome and remain aware of the common goal. It is imperative to avoid

being hostile or aggressive. The next stage is negotiation, in which we add bargaining

to the dialogue. Talking, dialogue and negotiation create genuine, engaging and

productive two-way transactions. We need to use energy from the body, emotions,

intellect and the spirit.

3. “Put the fish on the table”

This expression means, simply, raising a difficult issue without being aggressive or

hostile. The analogy comes from Sicily where the fishermen, who are strongly

bonded, put their bloody catch on a large table to clean it together. They work through

the messy job and are rewarded by a great fish dinner at the end of the day.

If you leave a fish under the table it starts to rot and smell. On the other hand, once an

issue is raised, we can work through the mess of sorting it out and find a mutually

beneficial outcome. The important thing to remember is that we should not slap the

other party in the face with the fish! We should be direct, engaging and respectful,

always helping the other person to ‘save face.’

In addition, timing is important. It would not be beneficial to raise a difficult topic just

as a senior colleague is leaving to the airport. We can decide not to put the fish on the

table as a tactic, but not because we wish to avoid the conflict. Choosing the right

129

time and the right circumstances are part of an effective conflict management

strategy.

4. Understand what causes conflict

To be able to create a dialogue aimed at resolving the conflict, we need to understand

the root of the disagreement. Among the common causes of disagreement are

differences over goals, interests or values. There could be different perceptions of the

problem, such as ‘It’s a quality control problem’ or ‘It’s a production problem’, and

there may also be different communication styles. Power, status, rivalry, insecurity,

resistance to change and confusion about roles can also create conflicts. Egotistical

people, for example, leaders who manipulate others to build their own identities and

self-importance often generate conflicts. It is crucial to determine whether a conflict

relates to interests or needs. Interests are more transitory and superficial, such as land,

money, or a job; needs are more basic and not for bargaining, such as identity,

security and respect. Many conflicts appear to be about interests, when they are really

about needs. The most conflict provoking losses have to do with needs, and those

needs may connect to the deeper wounds people have suffered in their life. Someone

passed over for promotion, for example, may seem to be upset about the loss of extra

money, when the real pain is caused by a loss of respect or loss of identity.

5. Use the law of reciprocity

The law of reciprocity is the foundation of cooperation and collaboration. What you

give out is likely to be what you get back. Human shave a deeply hardwired pattern of

reciprocity. Researchers have recently discovered mirrorneurons in the brain,

suggesting that our limbic system (emotional brain) that establishes empathy re-

creates the experience of others’ intentions and feelings within ourselves. Mutual

exchange and internal adaptation allows two individuals to become attuned and

empathetic to each other’s inner states. Hence a powerful technique to master in any

kind of dispute is to empathize with the feelings and views of the other individual by

managing what we express – both verbally and non-verbally. This social awareness

allows you to make the right concessions at the right time. Once you have made a

concession, it is likely that the other party will respond in kind. Moreover, when you

recognize a concession has been made, reciprocate with one of your own.

130

6. Build a positive relationship

Once a bond has been established, we must nurture the relationship as well as pursue

our goals. We need to balance reason and emotion, because emotions such as fear,

anger, frustration and even love may disrupt otherwise thoughtful actions.

We need to understand each other’s point of view, regardless of whether we agree

with it or not. The more effectively we communicate our differences and our areas of

agreement, the better we will understand each other’s concerns and improve our

chances of reaching a mutually acceptable agreement. The deepest bonds are founded

on what the eminent psychologist Carl Rogers called ‘unconditional positive regard’.

We can all learn to communicate acceptance of the other person while saying no or

disagreeing with a specific point or behavior. Feeling accepted, worthy and valued are

basic psychological needs. And, as hostage negotiation demonstrates, it is more

productive to persuade than to coerce.

Conflict is everywhere. The good news is that conflict can be extremely productive

for companies and individuals and conflicting management skills can be learned. High

performing leaders are effective at dealing with conflict because they use the six

essential skills. I have been negotiating with hostage-takers, many of them violent, for

30 years, and I have been taken hostage four times. I am convinced that even the most

extreme conflicts can be resolved through bonding, dialogue and negotiation.

6.13 Conflict Management Systems

The term “system” is widely used in the field of organizational conflict management.

The term refers to a focus on “the whole and the interaction of parts, not the parts

themselves”. Rather than approaching conflict resolution on a case-by-case basis, the

systemic approach defines conflict management as a mechanism in which the

different components are interrelated and integrated parts in an organizational

environment allowing for a comprehensive, system approach to the prevention,

management and resolution of conflict. This approach also suggests that conflict

management is building on something that already exists, focusing on structure and

the arrangement and interaction of the different components, rather than an add-on.

The elements of a conflict management system that ‘hang together’ include processes,

the people, the rules, the physical environment, the control and grievance mechanisms

131

as well as less visible attributes in the organizational culture such as attitudes, beliefs

and values. Such a systemic approach aims at offering people a choice of options by

inter-connecting all available options and functions and as a result has the potential to

drive organizational culture transformation in helping to create a culture of “conflict

competency”. Integrated conflict management systems are meant to support an

environment in which managers are expected to prevent, manage, contain and resolve

conflict at the earliest time and lowest level possible. To achieve those objectives such

systems have to provide support mechanisms including training, coaching, policies

and procedures. Building on a systemic approach and the role of interests, rights and

power in conflict resolution, Slaikeu and Hasson developed the “preferred path”

model illustrating critical success factors for a conflict resolution system aiming for

cost control and maximum choice for the parties to resolve conflicts.

The “preferred path” model begins with self-help options, starting with individual

initiative, followed by negotiation, and then an assisted process such as mediation,

followed by higher authority and force as last resort. However, depending on the

individual judgment of the parties and the nature and stage of the conflict, the parties

may loop forward to either higher authority or power-options. The term “preferred

path” may thus be misleading. If something like a “preferred path” exists in conflict

resolution it would be primarily determined by the nature and stage of the conflict.

Slaikeu and Hasson suggested a comprehensive system template for dispute

resolution which is universally applicable, emphasizing self-help as the desired first

approach, providing many options for resolution and privileging site-based solutions

over external solutions. The template is supported by seven conditions which enable

the system to function properly: policy, roles and responsibility, documentation,

selection, training, support and evaluation. While it is difficult to agree to the concept

of a “preferred path” to be applicable for the wide range of different conflict

situations, Slaikeu and Hasson’smodel does describe critical success factors of a

universal character in conflict resolution, including (a) the importance of a

comprehensive approach, anchored in and supported by an organization’s policies and

procedures and supported by leadership and (b) the need for early intervention and

related structures for staff to consult in conflict situations.

Conflicts have been viewed somewhat differently at different times in the literature.

The views of conflicts are different in different situations. Different scholars’ theories

132

about conflict formation, and the critical factors in conflict formation, will be

discussed here. Conflict management strategies, whether they are motivated by a

concern for self or a concern for others include avoiding, domination, obliging,

obliging and integrating. Hence, conflict management methods will include the

application of the various management strategies involving negotiation, consultation

and communication, education and public relations, reinterpretation, mediation and

arbitration. The concept of emotional quotient is studied and defined in terms of

personal and social competence in the recognition and regulation of emotion.

Research theory and related research issues are discussed. The objectives of the

research are to identify whether there is any relationship between emotional quotient

and conflict formation, and whether there is any relationship between emotional

quotient and conflict management strategies. The determinants of the relationships

involved in conflict situations will also be identified and analyzed.

After the clarification and elaboration of the concepts and their related theories, the

determinants of conflict formation and the related research issues will be reviewed,

including the formation of analytical and theoretical frameworks concerning the

relationship between conflict and emotional quotient. In a study named ‘Conflict

management in the high stress environment of the operating room’, Pinosky (2003)

concluded in his study that conflict is inevitable, especially in highly stressed

environments. Therefore, he opined, professional organizations and employers have a

responsibility to recognize that people approach conflict differently and should

provide opportunities for multidisciplinary audiences to learn and develop conflict

management skills and thereby change their interpersonal environments. Therefore, it

is important to identify effective conflict management strategies for conflict

resolution.