Chapter 5

Conflict Management Design

Although conflict is often said to be functional for organizations, most recommendations relating to organizational conflict still fall within the realm of conflict resolution, reduction, or minimization. Action recommendations from the
current organizational conflict literature show a disturbing lag with the functional
set of background assumptions that are endorsed. Insofar as it could be determined, the literature on organizational conflict is deficient (with minor exceptions) in three major areas.
1. There is no clear set of rules to suggest when conflict ought to be maintained at a
certain level, when reduced, when ignored, and when enhanced.
2. There is no clear set of guidelines to suggest how conflict can be reduced, ignored,
or enhanced to increase individual, group, or organizational effectiveness.
3. There is no clear set of rules to indicate how conflict involving different situations
can be managed effectively.

This book addresses these issues at a macrolevel and provides a design for
managing intrapersonal, interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup conflicts that
can be useful to the management practitioner as well as the academician.
DEFINING CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
It will be evident in this chapter and throughout this book that the emphasis
is in conflict management, as opposed to resolution of conflict. The difference
is more than semantic (Robbins, 1978; Boulding, 1968). Conflict resolution implies reduction, elimination, or termination of conflict. A large number of studies
on negotiation, bargaining, mediation, and arbitration fall into the conflict res-

76

Managing Conflict in Organizations

olution category. In a review of literature on conflict and conflict management,

Wall and Callister (1995) made the following comments: [W]e raised three of
the most important questions in this article: is moderate conflict desirable? Is
too little conflict as dysfunctional as too much? And should leaders, at times,
promote conflict to attain organizational goals? Our tentative answers to these
questions are no, no, and no (p. 545). Wall and Collisters approach to handling
conflict is inconsistent with the recognition of scholars that organizational conflict has both functional and dysfunctional outcomes. Their conclusions fall
within the realm of conflict resolution, which involves reduction or termination
of all conflicts. This is like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
What we need for contemporary organizations is conflict management, not
conflict resolution. 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. As
discussed in Chapter 4, studies on conflict resolution did not provide any clear
link between conflict management strategies and organizational learning and
effectiveness.
In order to design effective conflict management strategies, relevant literature
on conflict and conflict management styles in connection with the following
should be discussed.

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, 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. 531532).
Affective conflict impedes group performance. It affects group performance
by limiting information-processing ability and cognitive functioning of group
members 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.

Conflict Management Design

77

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)
suggests that a moderate level of substantive conflict is beneficial, as it stimulates
discussion and debate, which help groups to attain higher levels of performance.
Groups with an absence of task conflict may miss new ways to enhance their
performance, while very high levels of task conflict may interfere with task
completion (Jehn, 1997a, p. 532). 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).
Groups that report substantive conflict generally have higher performance.
This conflict can improve group performance through better understanding of
various viewpoints and alternative solutions (Bourgeois, 1985; Eisenhardt &
Schoonhoven, 1990; Jehn, 1995, 1997a, 1997b; Jehn et al., 1999). It should be
noted that the beneficial effects of substantive conflict on performance were
found only in groups performing nonroutine tasks, but not groups performing
standardized or routine tasks.
Although substantive conflict enhances group performance, like affective conflict, it can diminish group loyalty, work group commitment, intent to stay in
the present organization, and satisfaction (Jehn, 1997b; Jehn et al., 1999). 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.
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 analyses came up with higher expected profits than those managers who received
single analyses. The studies included by Tjosvold and Johnson (1983) in their
book indicate that conflict in organizations can be productive if it is handled in
a constructive manner.
It was suggested in Chapter 1 that organizations in which there is little or no
conflict may stagnate. On the other hand, organizational conflict left uncontrolled may have dysfunctional effects. Recent studies on organizational conflict
suggest that a moderate amount of substantive conflict is necessary for attaining

78

Managing Conflict in Organizations

Figure 5.1
Relationship Between Amount of Substantive Conflict and Job Performance

Source: Adapted from Rahim, A., & Bonoma, T. V. (1979). Managing organizational conflict: A
model for diagnosis and intervention. Psychological Reports, 44, 1326.

an optimum level of job performance in nonroutine tasks. Therefore, it appears

that the relationship between the amount of substantive conflict and job performance approximates an inverted-U function, as shown in Figure 5.1.
Figure 5.1 shows that a low level of job performance (OY1) will be attained
when the amount of substantive conflict is low (O) or high (OX). At a moderate
amount of substantive conflict (OX1) an optimum level of job performance (OY)
can be attained. This relationship is expected to hold good when other factors
that affect job performance are held constant for nonroutine tasks. This is consistent with the activation theory, which supports the inverted-U relationship
between a persons activation or arousal level and his or her job performance
(Berlyne, 1960; Frankenhaeuser, 1977). This is comparable to the YerkesDodson phenomenon, which indicates that the relationship between the amount of
motivation and level of performance is approximated by an inverted-U function
(Yerkes & Dodson, 1908). Andersons (1990) review of the literature provides
strong support for the inverted-U relationship between activation and job performance. It has been acknowledged, however, that the relationship between
arousal and performance may appear linear when all the stimuli in use produce
very high or very low levels of arousal (Smith & Principato, 1983, p. 213).
Wilson and Jarrell (1981, p. 111) compared this view of a humpbacked or

Conflict Management Design

79

inverted-U shaped curve with Daviss (1975) concept of a law of diminishing

returns for a wide range of managerial activities. A recent experimental study
provided some support for the inverted-U relationship between conflict and effectiveness (Tjosvold, 1984). This study showed that constructive problem solving is encouraged at a moderate level of conflict, but it is discouraged at either
a low or a high level of conflict.
In general, a moderate amount of substantive conflict may provide necessary
activation or stimulation in order to optimize job performance of the organizational members or to enhance their adaptive or innovative capabilities. As such,
Brown (1983) has suggested that conflict management can require intervention
to reduce conflict if there is too much, or intervention to promote conflict if
there is too little (p. 9). As will be seen later, conflict management involves
more than just reducing or generating conflict to attain a moderate amount of
it.
A few things should be said about the relationship presented in Figure 5.1.
Empirical evidence from field studies in support of the inverted-U function is
somewhat limited. Probably there are two major reasons for this. The first is the
usual problem of obtaining reliable and valid measures of conflict and organizational effectiveness. The second is the problem of isolating the effect of conflict on effectiveness, after controlling for the numerous extraneous independent
variables that affect organizational effectiveness. No study on this function has
satisfied the requirement of proper control. Several studies on interorganizational
conflict in marketing channels found positive as well as negative relationships
between conflict and channel performance or efficiency (Reve & Stern, 1979).
Pearson and Monoky (1976) found the level of service output to be negatively
related to channel conflict. The study by Lusch (1976a) found no support for
the inverted-U relationship between channel conflict and dealer operating performance. He concluded that for the distribution of automobiles in the United
States (at least for the five channels studied) channel conflict does not have a
threshold effect on dealer operating performance (p. 12). Rahims (1990) study
with a random sample of employees of a manufacturing plant found no support
for the linear or inverted-U relationship between the perceptions of employees
of intrapersonal, intragroup, and intergroup conflicts and supervisory rating of
performance. These three and other studies on this relationship have the major
limitation of control. Lusch (1976a) particularly recognized this problem and
concluded that further research should attempt to control for some of the other
variables that influence retailer performance so that the impact of channel conflict can be isolated (p. 89).
Paradox of Conflict
Guetzkow and Gyr (1954) suggested two dimensions of conflict that are useful
for managing conflictone consisting of disagreements relating to task issues
and the other consisting of emotional or interpersonal issues that lead to conflict.
In recent years several researchers (Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1995, 1997b) have

80

Managing Conflict in Organizations

empirically investigated these two dimensions of conflict. They suggest that the
distinction between these two types of conflict is valid and that they have differential effects in the workplace.
One of the problems of managing conflict is that the two dimensions of conflict are positively correlated. Past studies have reported significant positive correlations between these conflicts, which range between .34 and .88 (cf. Simons
& Peterson, 2000). Only one study, by Jehn (1995), reported a negative correlation (.17) between these conflicts. This indicates that in the process of enhancing substantive conflicts, affective conflict may also be increased. Amason
and Shweiger (1997) noted that the danger of encouraging disagreement may
yield results that are no better and may well be worse than avoiding conflict
altogether. . . . The problem is that our ability to stimulate conflict outstrips our
knowledge of how to manage its effects (p. 108). This chapter reports a strategy
for managing conflict to deal with this issue.

Conflict Management Styles

Studies on the management of organizational conflict have taken two directions. Some researchers have attempted to measure the amount of conflict at
various organizational levels and to explore the sources of such conflict. Implicit
in these studies is that a moderate amount of conflict may be maintained for
increasing organizational effectiveness by altering the sources of conflict. Others
have attempted to relate the various styles of handling interpersonal conflict of
the organizational participants and their effects on quality of problem solution
or attainment of social system objectives. It becomes evident from this discussion that the distinction between the amount of conflict at various levels and
the styles of handling interpersonal conflict, discussed in Chapter 2, is essential for a proper understanding of the nature of conflict management.
The previous discussion was mainly based on the notion of the amount of
conflict. In recent years, some researchers have used the indices of annoyance,
disputes, distrust, disagreement, incompatibility, and so on to measure conflict
at various levels. These are measures of the amount of conflict that are quite
distinct from the styles of handling conflict. Various sources affect the amount
of conflict. The management of conflict partly involves the identification and
alteration of these sources to minimize affective conflict and/or to attain and
maintain a moderate amount of substantive conflict.
Chapter 2 presented the five styles of handling interpersonal conflictintegrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising. Although some behavioral scientists suggest that integrating or problem-solving style is most
appropriate for managing conflict (e.g., Blake & Mouton, 1964; Burke, 1969;
Likert & Likert, 1976), it has been indicated by others that, for conflicts to be
managed functionally, one style may be more appropriate than another depending on the situation (Hart, 1991; Rahim & Bonoma, 1979; Thomas, 1977).

Conflict Management Design

81

Matching Styles with Situations

Functional or effective management of conflict involves matching styles with
situations. Matching can be effective when the criteria for conflict management,
discussed before, are satisfied. The situations in which each of the styles is
appropriate or inappropriate are described in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1 was prepared on the basis of a number of conflict management
workshops conducted by the author for managers. In these workshops, participants were required to participate in a Management of Disagreements Exercise
(see Appendix B). This essentially involves the following:
1. Participants complete and score the Rahim Organizational Conflict InventoryII
(ROCIII) before attending the workshop.
2. The workshop leader discusses the theory of the styles of handling interpersonal conflict with superior, subordinates, and peers and interprets the participants ROCIII
scores.
3. Participants in subgroups list the situations where each style is appropriate or inappropriate.
4. The workshop leader with the help of subgroup leaders summarizes the results of
step 3.

Table 5.1 was prepared on the basis of data collected from more than 20
workshops. The participants were from different industries and organizational
levels and had different functional specializations.
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 organizations objectives and policies, longrange 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., 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.

Table 5.1
Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict and Situations Where They Are Appropriate
or Inappropriate

Source: Rahim, M. A. (1983). Rahim organizational conflict inventories: Professional manual. Palo Alto,
CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, p. 21. Reprinted with permission.

Conflict Management Design

83

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 inappropriate
when a party believes that the other party is wrong or unethical.
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.
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 responsibility of the party to make decisions,
when the parties are unwilling to wait, or when prompt action is required.
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

84

Managing Conflict in Organizations

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.
Criteria for Conflict Management
In order for conflict management strategies to be effective, they should satisfy
the following criteria (Rahim, Garrett, & Buntzman, 1992):
1. Organizational Learning and Effectiveness
As discussed in Chapter 4, 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. Mitroffs (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. (p. 50)

3. Ethics
As will be seen in Chapter 10, 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,

Conflict Management Design

85

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.
Conflict Management Strategy
Existing literature on conflict management is deficient on strategies needed to
manage conflict at the macrolevel 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:
1. Attain and maintain a moderate amount of substantive conflict for nonroutine tasks.
2. Minimize substantive conflict for routine tasks.
3. Minimize affective conflicts for routine and nonroutine 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.

CONTINGENCY APPROACH
Management scholars now agree that there is no one best approach 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 may
be justified. In the reverse condition (high decision quality and high decision
acceptance), the integrating style is the most appropriate to use.
The strategies of conflict management presented in this chapter are consistent
with the contemporary leadership theories in organizations: Fiedlers (1967) con-

86

Managing Conflict in Organizations

tingency theory of leadership, Houses (1971) pathgoal theory of leadership,

and Vroom and Yettons (1973) decision theory of leadership. According to
these theories, there is no one best style for dealing with different situations
effectively. Whether a particular leadership style is appropriate or inappropriate
depends on the situation.
The theory of conflict management presented earlier is flexible in terms of
the situations or factors to be considered in selecting and making use of a conflict
style (see Table 5.1). A style is considered appropriate for a conflict situation
if its use leads to effective formulation and/or solution to a problem.
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT PROCESS
The management of organizational conflict involves the diagnosis of, and
intervention in, conflict. Diagnosis provides the basis for intervention. This process is shown in Figure 5.2.
Diagnosis
As discussed in Chapter 4, 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). The diagnostic

Figure 5.2
Process of Managing Organizational Conflict

Source: Rahim, M. A. (1983). Managing conflict in complex organizations. In D. W. Cole (Ed.), Conflict resolution technology (p.
81). Cleveland: Organization Development Institute. Reprinted with permission.

88

Managing Conflict in Organizations

aspect of conflict management has been particularly neglected by management

researchers and practitioners. A comprehensive diagnosis involves the measurement of conflict, its sources, and effectiveness and analysis of relations among
them.
Measurement
A comprehensive diagnosis involves these measurements:
1. The amount of conflict at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup
levels;
2. The styles of handling interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup conflicts of the organizational members;
3. The sources of (1) and (2); and
4. Individual, group, and organizational learning and effectiveness.

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.

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.
As discussed in Chapter 4, two instrumentsthe Rahim Organizational Conflict InventoryI (ROCII) and the Rahim Organizational Conflict InventoryII
(ROCIII)were designed by the author for measuring the amount of conflict
at individual, group, and intergroup levels and the five styles of handling interpersonal conflict (Rahim, 1983a,d). Each instrument uses a 5-point Likert scale,
and the responses to items are averaged to create subscales. A higher score
indicates a greater amount of conflict or greater use of a conflict-handling style.

Conflict Management Design

89

The ROCIII measures integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising styles, which can be used to calculate the integrative and distributive
dimensions.
A number of studies have shown that cooperative styles, such as integrating,
obliging, and compromising, are correlated with positive outcomes, and noncooperative styles, such as dominating and avoiding, are correlated with negative outcomes (cf. Burke, 1969; Korbanik, Baril, & Watson, 1993; Johnson,
1989).
The percentile and reference group norms of the three types of conflict and
the five styles of handling interpersonal conflict are reported in Chapters 69.
These data on norms are important for diagnosis.
In addition to the preceding measures, there is need to measure affective and
substantive conflicts at the interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup levels. Recently, an instrument was developed by Jehn (1994) to measure the affective
and substantive conflicts at the group level. The items of this instrument may
be altered to measure these conflicts also at the interpersonal and intergroup
levels. Unfortunately, the percentile and reference group norms of this scale are
not available.
Data collected through the questionnaires should not be the sole basis of a
diagnosis. In-depth interviews with the conflicting parties and observation may
be needed to gain a better understanding of the nature of conflict and the type
of intervention needed.
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. The
national norms of conflict reported in Chapters 69 can provide some rough
guidelines to decide whether an organization has too little or too much of a
particular type of conflict. In addition to the national norms, data from in-depth
interviews are needed to determine the effectiveness of the styles of handling
interpersonal conflict of the organizational members.
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 technostructural 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.

90

Managing Conflict in Organizations

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 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 a
long-term effort, led and supported by top management, to improve an organizations
visioning, empowerment, learning, and problem-solving processes, through an ongoing,
collaborative management of organization culturewith special emphasis on the culture
of intact work teams and other team configurationsusing the consultant-facilitator role
and the theory and technology of applied behavioral science, including action research.
(p. 26)

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. These include cultural assimilator training

Conflict Management Design

91

developed by Fiedler, Mitchell, and Triandis (1971), which can be adapted as

part of the reframing process. An organizational consultant can use observation
and interview data to construct causal cognitive maps that link conflict management strategies to ineffective organizational performance. Also, role playing,
along with psychoanalytic reframing techniques such as generative metaphors,
storytelling, and reflective/inquiry skills training, is useful in challenging managers and employees to discard their old ways of thinking and to see the relevance of learning and problem solving. Another technique that should be useful
for managing strategic conflict is Mitroff and Emshoffs (1979) dialectical inquiry. This is based on the Hegelian dialectic, which involves a process of
change through the conflict of opposite forces.
As suggested by French and Bell (1999), learning new behavior requires
support from top management (which probably requires transformational leadership) and a collaborative organizational culture that supports learning.
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 unlearningthe conscious effort to challenge traditional assumptions about the company and its environment. (Slater, 1995,
p. 33)

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 Electrics chief executive
officer (CEO) Jack Welch and Chryslers former CEO Lee Iacoca fit this description of leadership.
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 (as measured by the Multifactor

92

Managing Conflict in Organizations

Leadership Questionnaire; Bass, 1985) is positively associated with unit performance (Bass & Yammarino, 1991; Hater & Bass, 1988; Keller, 1992).
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 venturesyet 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.
B. F. Skinners operant conditioning, which refers to voluntary learning of behavior through positive reinforcement, is particularly appropriate here. This was
acknowledged by Schein (1993):
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.
Kerr (1995) in updating his classic article, On the Folly of Rewarding A,
While Hoping for B, discussed numerous reward systems that are ineffective
because they are fouled up in that the types of behavior rewarded are those
which the rewarder is trying to discourage, while the behavior desired is not
being rewarded at all (p. 7). This situation has not changed during the last two
decades and is unlikely to change to a significant extent in the future (Dechant
& Veiga, 1995, p. 16).
Structural
This intervention attempts to improve the organizational effectiveness by
changing the organizations structural design characteristics, which include dif-

Conflict Management Design

93

ferentiation and integration mechanisms, hierarchy, procedures, reward system,

and so on. This approach mainly attempts to manage conflict by altering the
perceptions of the amount of conflict of the organizational members at various
levels.
Conflicts that result from the organizations structural design can be managed
effectively by appropriate change in such design. Evidence indicates that there
is no one best design for all organizations. Whether a mechanistic (bureaucratic)
or organic (organismic) design is appropriate for an organization or one or more
of its subsystems depends on the organizations 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 organicadaptive structures,
which encourage effective management of conflict.
Although Duncan and Weiss (1979) indicated more than 20 years ago the
need for designing organizations for encouraging organizational learning, scholars have not yet provided adequate attention to this issue. Many organizations
have responded to competitive pressures by creating flatter, decentralized, and
less complex designs than others. The shift is reflected in new organizational
forms, such as the modular organization, virtual corporation, and the horizontal
organization. One of the recent Business Week reports by Byrne (1993, pp. 78
79) discussed seven of the key elements of the horizontal corporation:
1. Organize around process, not task.
2. Flatten hierarchy.
3. Use teams to manage everything.
4. Let customers drive performance.
5. Reward team performance.
6. Maximize supplier and customer contact.
7. Inform and train all employees.

Many organizations have responded to competitive pressures by downsizing.

Unfortunately, downsizing does little to alter single-loop learning and, consequently, the basic way work gets done in a company. To do that takes a different
model, the organic design. This design is flatter, decentralized, and less complex
than others. Some of the biggest corporations, such as GE, Xerox, DuPont, and
Motorola, are moving in this direction. Unfortunately, changes in organization
design, without corresponding changes in culture, may not alter single-loop
learning and consequently the basic ways of doing work.

94

Managing Conflict in Organizations

An organizational consultant may decide to use both process and structural

intervention approaches for managing conflict. It should be noted that although
process intervention is primarily designed to alter the styles of handling conflict
of the organizational members through education and training, such an intervention may also affect their perception of the amount of conflict. On the other
hand, the structural intervention is primarily designed to alter the amount of
conflict by changing certain structural design characteristics; such an intervention may also affect the styles of handling conflict.

MAJOR RESEARCH CHALLENGES

There are several research challenges in the area of managing conflict in
organizations:
Several recent studies investigated the relationships of intragroup affective and substantive conflicts to productivity and satisfaction. We need studies to explore the relationships of (1) interpersonal affective and substantive conflicts to individual job
performance and satisfaction and (2) intergroup affective and substantive conflicts to
intergroup relationship and satisfaction.
We need to know the effects of affective and substantive conflicts on productivity
under different task conditions (e.g., structured vs. unstructured tasks).
Two qualitative studies discuss how the five styles of handling conflict should be used
to deal with different situations effectively (Rahim, 1997; Thomas, 1977). More studies
are needed to assess the effectiveness of each style to deal with different situations.
We need to know how the five styles of handling conflict influence the perception of
affective and substantive conflicts.
There are several causes of conflict and styles of handling conflict. More studies are
needed to clearly identify the process and structural factors that influence conflict and
conflict-handling styles.
There have been several studies on the relationship between personality and styles of
handling interpersonal conflict (for a review see Antonioni, 1998; Moberg, 1998). More
studies are needed to establish clear links between personality and styles.
There have been some cross-cultural studies on the styles of handling conflict in several
cultures (Ting-Toomey et al., 1991). We need to have more cross-cultural studies on
styles and the effects of various types of conflict on job performance and satisfaction.

SUMMARY
Organizational conflict must not necessarily be reduced, suppressed, or eliminated, but managed to enhance organizational learning and effectiveness. The
management of conflict at the individual, group, and intergroup levels involves
(1) reduction of affective conflict, (2) attainment and maintenance of a moderate
amount of substantive conflict at each level for nonroutine tasks, and (3) helping

Conflict Management Design

95

the organizational participants to learn the various styles of handling conflict for
dealing with different conflict situations effectively.
Studies of organizational conflict have taken two directions. One group of
studies used the measures of the amount of conflict. Implicit in these studies is
that affective conflicts may have to be minimized and that moderate amount of
substantive conflict may have to be attained by altering the sources of conflict.
Other studies have looked at the various styles of handling conflict of the organization members, such as integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and
compromising. For conflicts to be managed functionally, one style may be more
appropriate than another depending on the situation.
The management of organizational conflict involves diagnosis of and intervention in conflict. A proper diagnosis should include the measures of the
amount of conflict, the styles of handling conflict, sources of conflict, and learning and effectiveness. It should also indicate the relationships of the amount of
conflict and conflict styles to their sources and learning and effectiveness.
Intervention is needed if there is too much affective and substantive conflict
for routine tasks or too little or too much substantive conflict for nonroutine
tasks and if conflicts are not handled effectively to deal with different situations.
There are two types of intervention: process and structural. The process approach
is mainly designed to manage conflict by enabling organizational participants to
learn the various styles of handling conflict and their appropriate uses. The
process approach to intervention requires transformational leadership and an
organizational culture that supports learning.
The structural approach is designed to manage conflict by changing the organizations structural design characteristics. The effectiveness of a department
can be improved by matching its structural design with the needs of its relevant
environment. A structural intervention aims mainly at attaining and maintaining
a moderate amount of substantive conflict and reducing the incidence of affective conflict by altering the sources of these conflicts.
The next chapter discusses the overall design or strategy for the management
of organizational conflict, which involves the diagnosis of and intervention in
intraorganizational conflict and the styles of handling interpersonal conflict.