8/7/2019 5000214

1/20

C O N F L I C T A N D C O N F L I C T M A N A G E M E N T I N O R G A N I Z AT I O N S :A F R A M E W O R K F O R A N A LY S I S

Jacob Bercov i t ch

Introduction

Research in to behaviour in organ izations can be divided in to t w ocategories: normative and descriptive. Normative research is concernedwith how things should be, whereas descriptive research addresses itself towh at is rather tha n wh at co uld or shou ld be. This dual perspective ismost apparent in approaches to the issues of c on flic t and co nf lic t manage-ment in organizations. Normative approaches reflect attitudes and beliefswhich identify all co nfl icts as destructive and prom ote con fl ict-el iminationas the formula for organizational success. Descriptive approaches acceptconflict as inevitable and consider its proper management the primaryresponsibility of all administrators. This paper pertains to the descriptivemode of in qu iry in presenting a fram ew ork for the study of co nflic t inorgan izations. But it goes beyond this dom ain in suggesting th atadministrators must take the offensive and seek to manage conflict, andalso in advocating that traditional methods of dealing with conflict bereplaced by a new and more sophisticated app roac h.

Con flict: Towards a D efinition

C on flic t is endem ic to all social life . It is an inevitable part of livingbecause it is related to situations of scarce resources, division of functions,power relations and ro le-d iffere ntia tion. Because of its ub iqu ity andpervasive nature, the concept has acquired a multitude of meanings andconn otations presenting us w ith noth ing short of a semantic jungle. Likeother terms, conflict generates considerable ambivalence and leaves manyscholars and administrators quite uncertain about (1) its meaning andrelevance and (2) how best to cope with it.

The norm ative c once ption of con flic t, strongly influenced by a pre-occupation with stability and equilibrium in organizational design, linkscon fl ict to violence, destruction, inefficiency and irrat ion ali ty.1 This formof intellectual myopia was especially invidious in suggesting thatadm inistrators have the respon sibility of avoiding, co ntro lling or elimina t-

Jacob Bercovitch is Lecturer in Political Science at the University ofCanterbury.

104

8/7/2019 5000214

2/20

ing conflict.2 Descriptive approaches challenge the whole basis andrationale of these assumptions. They permit us to depart from an out-moded paradigm by suggesting that any social interaction in which theparties (however they may be structured or defined) compete for scarceresources or values has the potential for conflict.3 Using the term in abroad sense we suggest that conflict refers to all kinds of antagonisticinteractions. More specifically, it can be defined as a situation in whichtwo or more parties have incompatible objectives and in which theirperceptions and behaviour are commensurate with that incompatability.4

This defin ition is purposely broad. It suggests tha t co nflic t is a socialphenomemon that is found in personal, group or organizational inter-actions. As such it comprises several dimensions. Fink5 distinguishesbetween (1) antagonistic-psychological relations and (2) antagonistic be-haviour, whereas Pondy 6 observes that conflict is made up of (1)

antecedent conditions, (2) affective conditions, (3) cognitive conditionsand (4) behavioural conditions. We advance a conception of conflict whichemphasizes its three, interrelated dimensions, namely: (1) conflict situation(the basic incompatibility), (2) conflict attitudes (range of psychologicalfactors) and (3) conflict behaviour (set of related behaviour).7

Conflict refers to more than just overt behaviour. Concentrating onlyupon its behavioural manifestation is an extremely limiting exercise. Thethree-dimensional conception of conflict emphasizes the need to considerthe situation in which parties (individuals, groups or organizations) cometo possess incompatible goals, their structure of interaction and thenature of their goals. We have to consider emotional (e.g. distrust) andcognitive (e.g. stereotyping) orientations that accompany a co nflic tsituation as well as the range of action undertaken by any party in asituation of conflict.

Administrators often feel that discussions of fundamental terms aremerely academic. This is not always the case. Effective action and sensibleresponses depend upon clear thinking and systematic analysis. Under-standing must precede action. If administrators consider the problem ofconflict and understand that conflicts stem from ineradicable humanqualities and are related to situations of interdependence, scarce resourcesand perceptions of incompatibility,8 they might readily accept conflictand recognize its values prov ided, that is, they are properly aware of"con flict management" and the need to find a solu tion. Both co nflictmanagement and a satisfactory solution are easier to attain when it isaccepted that what we norm ally call con flict is a complex, multi-dimensional phenomenon. It is not caused by "inadequate" structures, noris it undesirable. It is natural and inevitable and, properly managed, it isproductive, relevant and creative.

105

8/7/2019 5000214

3/20

Conflict in Organizations

Organizations are living systems consisting of interacting units performinga task in a mutu ally dependent manner w ith in a structure of scarce re-

sources.9

It seems commonplace to suggest that conflicts would be presentin such a setting. The parties in an orga nization may have a co nf lic t a bou tthe distribution of resources, or they may have a more fundamental con-flict about the very structure of their organization and the basic nature oftheir interaction.1 0 Once the parties are in a situation of goal incom-pa tibi lity, the ir co nfli ct develops in a dyn am ic fashion, initiating valuableand much-needed constructive changes or leading to escalating strategiesand destructive consequences. 11

As there is nothing pre-determined about its course or development,it seems erroneous to view co nf lic t fro m a negative perspective on ly asdestructive or dys fun ction al. It is true tha t co nfli ct may be un com forta ble ,it may even be a source of pro ble m s, but it is ab solu tely necessary ifchange is to occu r, i f organ izations are to survive and adapt. Organiza-tional change and innovation does not just happen, it requires a stimulant.That st imulant is confl ict .

Administrators must accept the need to influence the developmentaldynamics of a conflict, so that the parties' attitudes and actions will leadto better co ord ina tion and a more appropriate interdependence. Theymust not seek to stifle or elimina te organizational c on flict for that ishardly a realistic goal. As Rico has noted, an organization devoid of con-flict ".. . may indicate autocracy, uniformity, stagnation and mental

f i x i t y. "1 2

It would also be protecting only the vested interests of thestatus quo. Administrators must accept and indeed occasionally encourageconflict, because change and other desirable consequences are products ofconf l ic t .1 3 The challenge administrators face is to utilize such conflictmanagement techniques tha t w ou ld ensure that as a co nfl ict passes fro m alatent to a manifest phase, it proceeds towards its potential and realizes itsconstructive values.

Analyzing Organizational Conflict

Three distinct criteria define the role of an administrator in an organiza-

t i o n : planning, resource allocation and conflict management.14

There is nodoubt that managing conflict permeates every aspect of the administrativerole. Awareness of the various form s of c on flic t management tha t can beem plo yed at diffe ren t stages of the deve lopme nt of a co nfl ict is vital , ifadministrators are to organize efforts towards influencing the conflictsi tuation, the parties' attitudes or their behaviour. In addition to that,

10 6

8/7/2019 5000214

4/20

effective conflict management requires a recognition of the sources thatgenerate a conflict. What, then, are the sources or bases of organizationalconflicts?

Sources of Conflict. Organizational co nflic t appears in a variety offorms and has varying causes. These can generally be separated into severalcategories. Katz15 identifies three sources of conflict. These are: (1)structural co nflic t (co nflict arising out of the need to manage the inter-dependence between different organizational sub-units), (2) role conflict(conflic t arising from sets of prescribed behaviour) and (3) resources con-flict (conflict stemming from interest groups competing for organizationalresources). Robbins 16 identifies three sources of organizational conflictand indicates that an understanding of the source of a co nflic t improvesthe probability of effective conflict management. The main factors whichserve as sources of conflict are identified as (1) communicational (conflicts

arising from misunderstandings etc.), (2) structural (conflicts related toorganizational roles), and (3) personal (conflicts stemming from individualdifferences). Methods of conflict management which are appropriate inone case may not necessarily be appropriate when applied to a conflictqenerated from another source.

Here I wish to suggest a different perspective which traces thesource of organizational conflict to the unit of analysis involved. Units ofanalysis are the parties to a con flict . They perceive, in itiate and sustain aconflict. Their characteristics specify the conditions which affect thecourse of a conflic t and determine the mode of its management. Thus, wehave conflicts that originate in the individual person, conflicts that havetheir basis in the relationship between individuals, and conflicts tha t occuras a result of interactions between groups. 17 These may be described as(1) intrapersonal conflict, (2) interpersonal conflict, and (3) inter-departmental conflict. Each of these categories raises different questionsabout the three interrelated components of conflict and each emphasizesdifferent aspects of conflict management.

Intrapersonal Conflict. Intrapersonal conflict is internal to the in-dividual (though its effects can profoundly influence organizationalfunctioning) and is perhaps the most difficult form of conflict to analyzeand manage. Intrapersonal con flict is basically a co nflic t between two

incompatible tendencies. It arises when a stimulus evokes two differe ntand incompatible tendencies and the individual is required to discriminatebetween these tendencies. In such a situation i t is common for individualsto experience frustrations and to allow their conflict situation to beexpressed in a range of behavioural strategies ranging from apathy andboredom to absenteeism, excessive drinking or destructive behaviour.18 If

107

8/7/2019 5000214

5/20

such b ehav ioural consequences are to be avo ided , the n it is essential todiagnose individual perception and utilize some techniques that wouldreduce anxiety-eliciting stimuli and increase consonance between individualbehaviour and organizational requirements.

Interpersonal Conflict. Interpersonal conflict emphasizes the inter-action of human factors in an organization. Here we are concerned withthese factors as the y appear in a dya dic relation ship. We can broad lysuggest two classes of factors as conflict sources. These are:1. Personal. Individu als are not ide ntic al, constant or consistent. Whentwo individuals are brought together and kept together, each with his ownqua lities, needs and skills, a co nf lic t may ensue if their attrib ute s are notmeshed together in a coord inated way. In teraction between individualsw ith differe nt attitudes , values and needs can produce con flict behaviourand affect organizational performance.19

2. Functional. Individuals in organizations have roles which are expectedsets of behaviour associated with their position. In theory, individuals arenot expected to engage in any discretionary behaviour. Such specificationw ou ld be consistent w ith orga nizationa l preferences for consistency andpredictability. In practice, however, role specifications tend to beambiguous and inco mp lete, and in their interac tion w ith others, someindividuals often feel dissatisfied with their role or position, or they mayfeel that their aspirations for higher positions are being frustrated. Inter-personal co nfl ict can be acco unted f or , to a great exte nt, in terms of theincumbents' roles and their expectations in particular situations.

Interdepartmental Conflict. The third major cause of organizationalconflict is structural. Organizations are designed around product lines,regions or technical specialities. These activities are assigned to depart-ments that often have mutually exclusive structured interests and goalsand that interact within a framework of scarce resources and taskdependence. When resources are relatively fixed and when one depart-me nt's gain is at the expense of anoth er, co nf lic t should be exp ecte d. 2 0 Iftwo sub-units in an organizational system have differentiated goals and arefunctionally interdependent, conditions exist for conflict. Interdependenceproduces the need for collaboration, but it also presents occasions forconf l ic t .

Other contextual factors which affect the interaction structurebetween departments and create the conditions for interdepartmentalco nflic t includ e: diffe rent attitudes between line and staff units , organiza-tion al size ( dire ctly related to level of con flic t) and standard ization(inversely related to conflict), physical or communicational barriersbetween depa rtme nts, unequal access to a ut ho rit y, rewards or organiza-tion al resources and a m big uity or unc erta inty in assigning tasks or rewards

108

8/7/2019 5000214

6/20

to different departments.21

These, then, are the sources of conflict situations in organizations.How a conflict situation will change over time, how its interrelated com-ponents w ill alter and the environm ent in which it occurs w ill respond, isdependent upon the administrator's efforts to manage or influence it. This,in turn, is related to one's understanding of the source of a specific con-flict situation.

Conflict Management

Ways of managing organizational co nf lict are as varied as its causes, originsand contexts. The purpose of conflict management, whether undertakenby the parties in conflict or whether involving the intervention of anoutside party , is to affect the en tire struc ture of a conflic t situation so asto contain the destructive components in the con flict process (e.g.hostility, use of violence) and help the parties possessing incompatiblegoals to find some solution to their conflict. Effective conflict manage-ment succeeds in (1) minimizing disruption stemming from the existenceof a conflict, and (2) providing a solution that is satisfactory and accep-table. We describe efforts directed towards containing or limiting someaspects of behaviour as strategies of con flic t settlement and effortsdirected towards the parties' attitudes, situations as well as behaviour asstrategies of conflict resolution. Skilled administrators are aware of thesemethods and techniques and know how to utilize them effectively.

All organizations, however simple or complex, possess a range ofmechanisms or procedures for managing conflict. These are built into theorganizational structure and are consciously employed by administrators toinfluence the course and development of a conflict. The success oreffectiveness of such procedures can be gauged by the extent to whichthey limit conflict behaviour and the extent to which they help to achievea satisfactory solution. It is the contention of this article that strategies ofconflict avoidance, conflict prevention or institutionalization of conflictwill change or replace coercive behaviour, but that only the injection of abehavioural social scientist, acting in a facilitative, non-directive and non-evaluative fashion, will achieve a resolution with respect to the basicissues, attitudes and structure of interaction. If administrators care for

optim al methods of conflic t management, they should give their strongestsupport to a strategy that can end a conf lict in a satisfactory and self-perpetuating manner.

All this is not to contend, however, that conflict resolution is theimmediate outcome of any intervention. The outcome of a conflict

109

8/7/2019 5000214

7/20

depends upon many aspects of the conflict process prior to the efforts tomanage it (e.g. issues in co n fli ct , relative pow er of ac tors, degree ofp ro xi m ity etc .). Wha t I am suggesting is tha t if fo ur basic co nf lic t out-comes may be distinguished namely (1) wit hd raw al, (2) imp osition ordominan ce, (3) com prom ise and a (4) creative, problem-solvingresolution2 2 then the m ost likely mode by w hich o utcom e (4) may bereached pertains to the voluntary intervention of an outside consultantacting as a professional helper. Let me then present a model of co nf lic tmanagement which can describe the relationship between modalities ofconflict management and conflict outcomes and give some directions formanaging organizational conflict.

Managing Intrapersonal Conflict

Intrapersonal con flict is predicated upon an incong ruity between individu alneeds and organizational requirements. Intrapersonal conflict unfolds overtime and manifests itself in a comp lex and mu ltif or m range of a ttitud ina land behavioural consequences. These may vary from psychosomaticconsequences (e.g. fru stra tio n, em otiona l in stab ility) t o physical con-sequences (e.g. absenteeism, destructive behaviour). As such consequencesare obviously correlated with decreased performance and work-motivation,managing intrapersonal co nflic t w ill help the individual to prom ote hiscapacity for adaptation and attain an equilibrium in his relationship withthe organization.

Personal existence is, inevitably, punctuated by conflicts and other

emotionally charged experiences. When a person experiences an inner con-fli ct and feels tha t he can no t master his situ atio n, or change his env iron-men t, a numb er of methods of con flict management can be em ploye d.These are conveniently divided into (1) cognitive strategies and (2) be-havioural strategies. Cognitive strategies, often called defence mechanisms,help an individual to falsify, disto rt or deny a particular co nflic t. C ognitivestrategies represent an atte m pt to co ntr ol or manage negative and dis-turbing feelings associated with conflict and to allow an individual to carryon with his normal activities. Cognitive strategies include repression (anattempt to push conflict out of existence), rationalization (hiding thetruth from oneself), fantasy or even denial of reality. Behavioural

strategies for coping with intrapersonal conflict include escape, withdrawaland aggression (especially against convenient targets).

These strategies can not resolve intrapersonal conflict in anypermanent way. They can be successful in the short-run. They can help anindivid ual to reduce his level of a nxie ty and dim inish his tensio n. The ycan prevent or avoid disru ptive behaviour, but th ey can not generate a

110

8/7/2019 5000214

8/20

solution. This can come about through the involvement of an expert-consultant, acting in an accepting manner and encouraging the individualto evaluate his situation rationally and decide upon more effectiveresponses. Interventions in intrapersonal conflicts entail consideration ofsubstantive issues, discussions and self-observations, helping an individualto unload his burdensome thoughts and reactions and reorienting histhinking towards a more benevolent and self-maintaining pattern ofbehaviour.23

The strength of this approach to conflic t management is tha t it helpsan individual to concentrate on his situation and on ways to evaluatealternatives that may have gone unnoticed. The consultant remainsdetached from an individual, but his intervention, listening, probing, inter-viewing and exp licit confro nta tion of the co nflict issues, sets the basis forself-diagnosis and improved performance. It eliminates distortion and

increases self-knowledge. It is a method which seeks not merely anamelioration of the surface symptoms, but a successful change in thesituational (e.g. reevaluating a co nf lict situation), a ttitud ina l (e.g. reducedanxiety, increased self-esteem) and behavioural (e.g. stimulate productivebehaviour) components of a conflict.24

Consultants may be internal to an organization, or they may be intro-duced by an administrator when circumstances require it. They haveseveral roles to play, all intended to aid a person to be more effective inhis organization.25 What characterizes all these roles is that they areenacted in an informal and flexible fashion and in a facilitative anddiagnostic manner. Techniques which are congruent with implementing theconsultant's role include (1) facilitative techniques (e.g. fac ilitatingindividual exploration and self-observation, giving information, advice, re-assurance and encouragement), (2) behavioural modification techniques(e.g. establish, through negative or positive reinforcement, contingencies ofbehaviour that should be decreased) and (3) cognitive techniques (e.g.learn to undo old values and acquire a new perception of the self).26

When organizations experience difficultie s as a result of intrapersonalconflicts, administrators would be well-advised to manage such conflicts byleading their organization to seek professional help from persons who aretrained to fulfil the role of organizational consultants. Successful organiza-

tional change does, after all, depend upon a strong commitment to con-flict resolution.

Managing Interpersonal Conflict

Interpersonal interactions are extraordinarily complex. Individuals arebrought together and kept together because of personal attraction or corn-

I l l

8/7/2019 5000214

9/20

8/7/2019 5000214

10/20

attitudinal, situational and behavioural components of co nf lict . It is theonly method that does not focus on relatively automatic, unthinkingresponses. It is the only method which seeks to utilize higher mental

processes to achieve a high-quality, integrative and satisfying outcome.30

Em pirical support for the no tion tha t problem-solving is the mosteffective method for dealing with the underlying problem and feelings ofinterpersonal conflict and generating a sound resolution may be obtainedfrom a number of studies. Lawrence and Lorsch31 examined the use ofthe various conflict management methods in six organizations and con-cluded that the highest performing organizations used problem-solving to agreater extent than other organizations. Burke 32 asked seventy-fouradministrators to describe the way they dealt with conflicts and, incomparing scores of constructive conflict management, found that themost effective administrators used problem-solving methods (followed by

smoothing and compromise). In a second study33

he compared fifty-threedescriptions of effective conflict management with fifty-three descriptionsof ineffective conflict management from fifty-seven administrators andfound that 58.5 per cent of statements about effective conflict manage-ment related to problem-solving (followed by 24.5 per cent for forcingand 11.3 per cent for compromise). Organizations that can increase theuse of problem-solving in interpersonal conflict can offer a better workingexperience, more constructive consequences and a more creative conflictresolution.

Problem-solving as a method of conflict management is not acommon experience. A number of elements or conditions have to bepresent if problem-solving is to be realized. These conditions appear to beas follows:34

Situational requirements (e.g. informality and flexibility of inter-actions, absence of time pressures, power symmetry etc.).

Attitudinal requirements (e.g. trust and confidence in each other,belief in conflict resolution rather than conflict avoidance etc.).

Perceptual requirements (e.g. individuals do not perceive threats orneed to win or dominate the other) and

Behavioural requirements (e.g. free information, definition of issues,discussion of alternatives, exhaustive search for solutions etc.).

On the whole these requirements are absent in dyadic conflictmanagement where individua ls' responses are as like ly to escalate as toreduce conflict. The implication of this is that parties outside the dyadmust intervene to alter the fundamental parameters of individual inter-actions in organizations and to introduce the conditions which are suitableto problem-solving. The interven tion of a behavioural consultant eitherfrom within or outside the organization can achieve this goal.

113

8/7/2019 5000214

11/20

Consultation-based approaches to interpersonal conflict focus onunderstanding the psychological and operational environment of anindividua l, u tilizing behavioural scientists in a supportive-fac ilitative way

and promoting the establishment of problem-solving. Interventions bybehavioural consultants may take the form of offering theoretical inputs(e.g. providing individuals with conceptions about conflict), offeringcontent observation (e.g. suggesting various outcome interpretations) andoffering process observations (e.g. increasing productive interactionsthrough openness, synchronization of efforts etc.). They give individualsthe freedom, opportunity and motivation to move away from rigidbehaviour or from reitera ting their positions as prescribed by organiza-tional norms. They address themselves to the attitudinal and behaviouraldimensions of interactions and in combining task and socio-emotionalactivities, they exemplify and help to establish the conditions of problem-

solving.35

In constrast to other methods of conflict management, the inter-vention of a behavioural consultant accentuates the positive and highlightscom monly held views of the actors. Applications of this approach in theinterpersonal sphere rest upon the following assumptions:

1. Deficiencies in perception are the main cause of interpersonalconflict.

2. Barriers to improved information prolong and aggravate a con-flict.

3. Inadequate interactions between individuals prevent them frommanagement their conflict constructively.36

Techniques of intervention in interpersonal conflict are closely relatedto these assumptions and include perceptual, informational and inter-actional procedures. Perceptual procedures involve (1) identifying conflictissues, (2) defining alternative issues, and (3) "reality-lesting". Infor-mational procedures involve (1) clarifying issues, (2) encouraging andgathering information (through interviews, meetings or other instruments),and (3) increasing frequency, openness and accuracy of communication.Interactional procedures entail (1) regulating the pace of interaction, (2)offering "process" observations to help individuals see how to be moreeffective, (3) injection inputs in the form of concepts, models or principles

which might be useful in understanding a co nflic t and (4) he lping in thedesign of implementation steps through which conflict resolution would bepossible.37

Through his interventions a behavioural consultant becomes theinformation-gathering instrument and a "resource person". Administratorswho are concerned about organizational change and more productiveresults wo uld be well advised to be aware of the strengths as well as

114

8/7/2019 5000214

12/20

limitations of this approach to interpersonal conflict management.

Managing Interdepartmental Conflict

Conflict between departments is a natural consequence of organizationalactivities. As organizations move towards greater differentiation and com-plexity, as they change or adapt to new circumstances, the stage is set forincom pa tibility of goals or com petition for scarce resources. The resultingconflict between departments may have ambivalent consequences for anorganization. On the one hand it may have a dysfunctional and counter-productive e ffect on the organization, and on the other hand it can behighly functional and stimulate intra-organizational creativity. For conflictto be a vehicle for organizational growth and creativity, there must existan appropriate method of conflict management between departments. Anadministrator should know when he is faced with interdepartmental con-flict and be informed of the processes for coping with it or resolving it.

Before exploring the methods and techniques for managing inter-departmental conflict, it is pertinent to examine briefly the attitudes andbehaviours which characterize interdepartmental conflict. These can bedescribed in terms of the following categories:

1. Effects within each department. When departments are in con-flict, individual members tend to bury their differences and display greaterloyalty to their department. Departments become more cohesive, moreformal in their behaviour and more insistent upon individual conformityand accomplishment of prescribed tasks.

2. Effects between departments. Each department begins toexperience perceptual disto rtions and to develop a strong self-image and anegative stereotype of the o ther. W ith the rise of p rejudicial attitudesbetween departments there is an increase in hostility and a decrease incom munication . Each department strives to enhance its own image andperformance and to downgrade the other's. Under such conditions a con-flict becomes a matter of victory or defeat, winning or losing.38

The fundamental significance of a win-lose dynamic is that it is, tosome degree, intrinsic to any complex and stratified organization, but thatfeelings of in-group versus out-group are especially strong in conflictsituations. The attitud ina l characteristics of such a pattern include a com-petitive orientation, the evaluative characteristics include antagonisticfeelings and the behavioural characteristics include circumscribed inter-action and distorted communication. The structural attributes of a conflictrelationship must be taken into account in proposing a strategy of c on flictmanagement.

Traditional approaches to managing interdepartmental conflict

115

8/7/2019 5000214

13/20

emphasized such methods as (1) conflict avoidance (separating depart-ments by relocating the m phy sically), (2) regulating a co nflic t by intro-ducing new rules and procedures, (3) seeking a form of "legalistic"

solution (by appealing to higher organizational authorities), (3) usingdep artme ntal representatives to reach a com prom ise agreement or (4)seeking mediation or arbitration from an outside body. Such conflictmanagement methods may indeed produce an agreement. They mayreduce the level of conflict behaviour between departments and evenlegitimize new levels of perform ance . The y can no t, tho ug h, achieve agenuine conflict resolution because they merely reflect, perpetuate andoccasionally aggravate a win-lose pattern of interactions. Separation, wi th -drawal, institutionalization, bargaining or legal approaches are essentiallyforms of a win-lose co nfr on tat ion . They all start w ith a polarized,adversary orie nta tion , in wh ich each departmen t tries to attain as muc h as

possible by o utsm arting the other. They bury a co nfli ct, ignore it , producepower-based decisions or allow departments to withdraw from it. They donot stimulate a search for c on flict reso lution .3 9

A range of new approaches to managing interdepartmental conflictmay be suggested. These approaches acquire new significance because theybecome integral parts of an interaction process between departments,because they move away from win-lose type of strategies and because theycan meet the need for c on flic t re solu tion more effec tively . They are bestsummarized in terms of the social psychologists out of whose experimentsthese approaches evolved:I. She rif et a l .4 0

Sherif and his associates suggest two broad strategies which aredesigned to increase cooperation between departments, facilitate mutualcommunication of needs and minimize the effects of hostility and negativeattitudes. Both strategies are broad in their scope. Their target of change isthe organizational structure, but changes in individual attitudes andimprovement in interpersonal competence may also be involved.

1 . Locating a common enemy. When departments are engaged in aco nf lic t, the ir incentive stru cture (i.e. co nfl ict of interest) may be changedand a mutual understanding as well as favourable attitudes may beprom oted if they perceive a threat fro m a com peting organ ization. Sh ifting

the level of interdepartmental conflict to the higher level of inter-organizational co nflic t will produce a new structural relationship w ith ineach organization, a relationship that would harness departmental effortsand help them to compete more successfully against another organization.

The perception of an external threat or the id entifica tion of acommon enemy supersedes any conflict that departments within anorgan ization may have. As a strategy o f co nf lic t m anagement w ith in an

116

8/7/2019 5000214

14/20

organization, it operates on two levels. First, it affects individual attitudes,perceptions and feelings of trust and distrust. Second, it influencesorganizational role structure. It transforms interactions which are

characterized predominantly by differentiation to accommodative inter-actions of a collaborative and integrated orientation.41

2. Locating a superordinate goal. Superordinate goals are goalswhich are greatly desired by several departments and can only be achievedby combining the energies and resources of all involved. The introductionof a superordinate goal (e.g. developing a new product-line which wouldattract great customer demand) will create a cooperative context in whichdepartments may interact on problems of joint interests, developfavourable attitudes and seek to achieve solutions that are mutuallysatisfactory. The in trod uc tion of a superordinate goal converts a conflic tbetween departments to friendly interactions.42

The logic of introducing a superordinate goal is related to the verydefinition of a conflict. If conflict develops from the perception of in-compatible goals, then cooperation would be promoted from commongoals. To be successful in resolving interdepartmental co nf lict , a super-ordinate goal must be of such importance that departments can forgettheir differences and work together. It must involve several episodes takinginto account the time dimension and it must be introduced by a thirdparty.43 The cum ulative e fforts of developing cooperative ac tivities are animportant determinant of successful conflict management betweendepartments.

II . Blake and Mouton44

Blake and Mouton accept that the most imp ortan t aspect of asuccessful conflict management strategy is the attempt to shift thebehavioural and attitu din al components of a relationship from a com-petitive to a cooperative orientation. They do, however, suggest that boththe common enemy and the superordinate goal approaches fall short ofthe need to achieve a genuine conflict resolution. This is because both canbe seen as (1) being mainly temporary in character, (2) both are primarilydefensive and (3) both strategies may widen a co nflic t by externalizing i t.They offer an approach which emphasizes consultation-based interventions,openness of communication, greater participation in decision-making and

problem-solving interactions.Blake and Mouton accept that traditional conflict managementstrategies can only deal with the behavioural component in conflict andbring about a patchwork solution. They suggest an approach to conflictmanagement which involves interventions by organizational consultants(usually applied behavioural scientists), who have no vested interest in theco nflict itself, but who have the competence and experience to generate a

117

8/7/2019 5000214

15/20

productive mode of conflict management. They avoid the pitfalls ofadjudicating or evaluating which department is "right" or "wong" (sooften the hallmark of traditional conflict management). Nor do they seek

to impose a so lution . They intervene in order to generate creative thin kin gand to establish a problem-solving attitude.Consultation-based approaches to interdepartmental conflict accept

conflict situations as inevitable and see them as useful occasions whichpermit departments to disagree and to work out the disagreements andultimately to understand each other better. The general functions of aconsultant usually consist of (1) avoiding power-based outcomes, (2)providing knowledge and skills regarding conflict processes, (3) inducing anemotional-cognitive change as a prelude to collaborative interactions and(4) providing a supportive, informal and learning environment well-suitedto creating the requirements conducive to problem-solving. The tech-

nologies of consultation consist of educational activities and techniques,laboratory training observations, survey-feedbacks, questionnaires andinterviews. The structure of consultation activities is so designed as toengage individuals as whole persons, not merely as segmented individualsstriving to cope with their role demands.45

Conflict management and indeed all forms of organizationalbehaviour is determined by the interaction of (1) inform atio n, (2) skills,(3) values and (4) situation. Each of these factors acts as a precursor ofsome consultation-based activities. Behavioural consultants provide partiesin conflict with more information and an understanding of the com-plexities of conflict interactions. They promote social interaction skills(which should be recognized as important as technical skills). Theypromote values of cooperation and help to create a situation in whichpeople can interact freely and feel that they are as important to anorganization as are its resources or products.

The sequence of consultation activities commences with upgradingindividual skills and abilities, moves on to team-building activities and thento restructuring intergroup and interdepartmental activities. Theinstitutionalization of these activities consists of four steps. The first step bringing in the consultant represents an administrative response to afelt need for effective conflict management. The second step entry is

associated with various information-giving activities. The third step isaimed at attitudinal change through data-feedback, team-training,sensitivity and T-Group training or Grid development. The final step in-volves a structu ral change in the relationship between departments and amove towards integrative interactions and conflict resolution.

Effective conflict management is quite a major undertaking. There arenot too many guideposts to indicate where we are or how to move to-

1 18

8/7/2019 5000214

16/20

wards conflict resolution. It is, therefore, a task which demands attentionto attitudinal and behavioural elements, to outcome and emotional needsand to interpersonal as well as interdepartmental requirements. The inter-

vention strategies of a behavioural consultant can, we have argued, moveus towards that direction. We can not be certain that the intended effectswill always be achieved. We can suggest, with some certainty, that suchinterventions move us forward in the direction of effective conflictmanagement and success in problem-solving. With this consideration inmind, administrators should encourage such interventions and help toproduce more effective programmes.

Conclusion

Organizations are social entities segmented into hierarchies of departmentsand individuals. The basic realities of organizational life can not butstimulate comparisons, competitions and conflicts between departmentsand individuals. Conflict is an omnipresent feature at each of theseorganizational levels. Since c on flict may have func tional as well asdysfunctional consequences, it is essential that administrators explorevarious methods and techniques of conflict management. Effective conflictmanagement is indispensable if coordinated efforts and productive achieve-ments are to result. I have suggested above that the planned interventionby behavioural scientists represents the most effective method since it canproduce organizational change and a sense of personal accomplishment.

A wide range of intervention activities may be utilized to deal with

conflicts at various organizational levels. It is beyond the scope of thisarticle to provide a manual that can possibly foresee all the contingenciesor to evaluate the effectiveness of different types of intervention.46 Thisarticle purp orted to view co nflic t management as an integral part of theadministrative process. Administrators should be able to ascertain thepresence of a conflict, its basic sources, the level at which it manifestsitself, its degree of intensity and the ways of furthering the objectives ofconflict resolution. From a pragmatic viewpoint administrators shoulddirect their attention to four issues: Is there a conflict? Where is theconflict? Does it require to be managed? How best to implement aneffective conflict management strategy? With these issues in mind, the

main features of this article may be summarized by developing a concep-tual framework for conflict management in organizations.Conflict and conflict in organizations has only recently begun to

receive the attention it deserves. In this article I have sought to addressourselves to the two most important issues in this field, namely, the deter-minants of conflict and the effectiveness of different methods of conflict

119

8/7/2019 5000214

17/20

Figure 1

A Framework for Organizational Conflict Management

C O N F L I C T M A N A G E M E N T

rOO

CONFLICT

INTRAPERSONAL-H

INTERPERSONAL-H

INTERDEPARTMENTAL3

BEHA VIOURA L SCIENCE INTERVENTION S

Cognitivestrategies

RepressionDenialRationalization

Behaviouralstrategies

WithdrawalEscapeAggression

WithdrawalSmoothingCompromiseForcingProblem-solving

Implementeffectiveconflictmanagement

AvoidanceInstitutionalizationRules and proceduresBargainingMediation-arbitration

Counselling and coachingCareer-planning activitiesCognitive trainingAccepting intervention

Interpersonal peacemakingProcess consultationEducation and trainingIncreased skills

Problem-solvingConflict resolution

Intergroup ac tivities process task Grid developmentT-groupSensitivity trainingTeam buildingSurvey feedback

8/7/2019 5000214

18/20

management. Working from a conceptual basis this article represents onlyan initial step in the direction of systemizing our understanding of conflictand conflict management. Our task lies in stimulating a more thoroughanalysis to fill the gap between our knowledge and the realities oforganizational life . The adm inistrators' task lies in accepting con flic tevaluation as part of their role and in developing the creative abilities thatare necessary to deal with it.

N O T E S

1. See, for instance, K. Singer, "The Meaning of Conflict",Australian Journal of Philosophy.27 (3, 1949), 141-157.

2. This is the approach adopted in J. Kelly, Organizational Behaviour. (Homewood, III.:Dorsey Press, 1969).

3. For the support of this conce ption, see: R.W. Mack, "T he Components of Social C on flic t" ,Social Problems, 12 (4, 1965), 388-397.

4. Cf. M. Deutsch, The Reso lution of Conflict. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973) andC.R. M itchell,The Structure of International Conflict(London: Macmillan, 1981).

5. C.F. Fink, "Som e Conceptual Difficulties in the Theory of Social Co nfli ct" ,Journal ofConflict Resolution, 12 (4, 196 8), 412-460.

6. R.L. Pondy, "Organizational Conflict: Concepts and Models", Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 12 (2, 196 7), 296-320.

7. This is adapted from J . Galtung, "Co nf lic t as a Way of Li fe " inProgress in Mental Health,ed. by H. Freeman (London: Churchill, 1969) and elaborated in Mitchell,op. cit.

8. This view is supported by S.M. Schmidt and T.A . Kochan, "Con flict : Towards ConceptualClar i ty" ,Administrative Science Quarterly, 17 (3,197 2), 359-370.

9. On this concep tion of organization see: D. Katz and R.L. Kah n, The Social Psychology ofOrganizations (2nd ed.; New York: Wiley, 1976) and K.E. Boulding, "Organizations and Conflict",Journal of Conflict Resolution,1 (2, 1957), 122-134.

10. This is the distinction between "co nflic ts of intere st" and "co nflic ts of value ". See: V.Aub ert, "Com petition and Dissensus",Journal of Conflict Resolution,7 (1,19 63), 26-42.

11. On the distinction between destructive and constructive conflicts see: M. Deutsch,"Co nflicts: Productive and Destructive",Journal of Social Issues, 25 (1 , 1969), 7-42.

12. L. Rico "Organizational Conflict: A Framework for Reappraisal",Industrial Manageme ntReview, 5 (Fall, 1964), 67.

13. On the constructive or desirable features of organizational co nfli ct, see: H. Assael,"Constructive Role of Interorganizational Conflict",Adm inistrative Science Quarterly, 14 (4 ,1969) ,499-505; J. Kelly, "Make Conflict Work for Y ou ",Harvard Business Review, 48 (July-August, 1970),103-113; and J.A. Litterer, "Conflict in Organization: A Re-examination",Academy ofManagementJournal, 9 (September, 1966), 178-186.

14. In a recent survey administrators note that they spend at least 20 per cent of their timedealing with conflict and that their ability to manage it has become crucial. See: K.W. Thomas andW.H. Schm idt, " A Survey of Managerial Interests with Respect to Co nf lic t",Academy ofManagementJournal, 19 (2, 1976), 315-318. But Cf. C.B. Handy Understanding Organizations. (Harmondsworth,Middx.: Penguin, 1976).

15. D. Katz, "Approaches to Managing Con flict ", inPow er and Conflict in O rganizations,ed. byR.L. Kahn and K.E. Boulding (New Y or k: Basic Books, 1964), pp. 105-114. See also: J.D . Thom pson ,"Organizational Management of Conflict",Administrative Science Quarterly, 4 (4 ,196 0), 389-409.

121

8/7/2019 5000214

19/20

16. S.P. Robbins, Mana ging Organizational Conflict: A N on-Traditional A pproach(EnglewoodCliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974).

17. For an extende d discussion of these units of analysis as actors in con flic t, see: K ..Boulding, Conflict and Defense: A Gene ral Theory(New York: Harper and Row, 1962).

18. For a fuller account of intrapersonal con flict see: J.S. Bro wn , "Principles of IntrapersonalConfl ic t" , Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1 (2, 1967), 135-154 and R.N. Sanford, "IndividualConflict and Organizational Interaction" inPowe r and Conflict in Organizations,ed. by Kahn andBoulding, pp. 95-104.

19. One might also note tha t certain personal variables (for e xample dogm atism, auth orita rian,low-esteem) are major conflict sources.

20 . Du tton and Wa lton fou nd tha t co nflic t increases when departments depend upon comm onbut scarce resources. See: J.M . Du tton and R.E. Wa lton, "Interd epa rtme ntal C on flict and Co-operation: Two Contrasting Studies",Human Organization, 25 (2, 1966 ), 207-220.

21 . On the relationship between contextual factors and interdepartmental conflict, see: R.E.Walton and J.M. Dutton, "The Management of Interdepartmental Conflict: A Model and Review",Administrative Science Quarterly, 14 (1, 1969), 73-84; R.E.. Walton, R.E. et al. "OrganizationalContext and Interdepartmental Conflict",Administrative Science Quarterly, 14 (4, 1969), 522-542;and R.G. Corwin, "Patterns of Organizational Conflict",Adm inistrative Science Quarterly, 14 (4,19691,507-520.

22 . See: Boulding, "Organizations and Conflict" and L. Kriesberg,The Sociology of SocialConflict (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall, 1973).23. Janis and Mann find that intervention techniques are much more successful at resolving

intrapersonal conflict than other techniques. See: I.L. Janis and L. Mann, Decision Making (NewYork: The Free Press, 1977).

24. On the basic idea of intervention in intrapersonal conflict, see: C.H. Patterson,RelationshipCounselling and Psychotherapy (New York: Harper and Row, 1974); J.J. Pietrofessa, et al. Counsell-ing: Theory, Research and Practice (Chicago; Rand McNally, 1978); and K.C. Ferguson, "Concerningthe Nature of Human Systems and the Consultant's Role," Journal of Applied BehaviouralScience, 4(2 , 1968), 179-193.

25. Steele suggests nine roles (the y are not mu tua lly exclusive). See: F. Steele, Consultation forOrganizational Change (Am herst, Mass.: The University Press, 1975).

26 . On techniques of intervention, see: C. Argyris, Intervention Theory and Method (Reading,Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1970); B. Shertzer and S.C. Stone, Fundamentals of Counselling (3rd ed.:

Boston: Houghton, M ifflin , 1980). See also: C. Argyris, "Explora tion in Consultant-Client R elation-ships", Human Organization, 20 (2, 196 1), 121-133; M .I. Gou ld, "Counselling for Self Developme nt",Personnel Journal, 49 (3, 1970), 226-234; and F. Steel, "Consultants and Detectives", Journal ofApplied and Behavioural Science, 5 (2, 1969), 187-202.

27 . See: M. Argyle, The Psychology of Interperson al Behaviour (2nd ed.; Harmondsworth,Middx.: Penguin, 1972).

28 . See: J.G. Holmes and D.T. Miller, "Interpersonal Conflict" inContemporary Topics inSocial Psychology, ed. by J.W. Thibaut et al. (Morristown, N.J.: General Learning Press, 1976), pp.265-308.

29 . See: R.R. Blake, and J.S. M ou ton , The Managerial Grid (Houston: Gulf Publishing Co.,1964) and R .R. Blake, J.S. Mo uton and H.A. Shepard, Mana ging Intergroup C onflict in Industry(Houston: Gulf Publishing Co., 1964).

30. For a discussion of these features, see: N.R.F. Maier, Problem-Solving and Crea tivity inIndividuals and Groups(Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1970).

31 . P.R. Lawrence and J.W. Lorsch, "Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organiza-t ions" , Administrative Science Quarterly, 12 (1 , 1967), 1-47.32. R.J. Burke, "Methods o f Managing Superior-Subordinate Co nflic t",Canadian Journal of

Behavioural Science, 2 (2, 1970), 124-135.33. R.J. Burke, "Methods of Resolving Interpersonal Conflict",Personnel Administration, 32

(4 , 1969), 48-55.

122

8/7/2019 5000214

20/20