CHAPTER FOUR

THE ROLE OF COMMUNICATION IN MANAGING CONFLICT

Nature and Type of Conflicts

We can define conflict, then, as a process that begins when one party perceives that another party
has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affects, something that the first party cares
about.

Conflict in organizations is inevitable as far as people work together. It can be defined as any
situation in which incompatible goals, attitudes, emotions or behaviors lead to disagreement or
opposition between two or more organizational members or groups. That is, conflict occurs
because people do not always agree on goals, issues, perception, and because people inevitably
compete. Conflicts can be functional or dysfunctional. Functional conflict is healthy &
constructive disagreement between two or more people, whereas, dysfunctional conflict is
unhealthy & destructive disagreement between two or more people.

Causes of Conflict
Conflict may occur, for example, due to organizational hierarchy; competition for scarce resources; self-
image & stereotypical views of others; differing goals & objectives; failures & resultant blame fixing and;
poor coordination of activities.

According to both Daft and Terry, several factors may create organizational conflict. They are as follows:

• Scarce Resources. Resources may include money, supplies, people, or information. Often,
organizational units are in competition for scarce or declining resources. This creates a situation where
conflict is inevitable.

• Jurisdictional Ambiguities. Conflicts may also surface when job boundaries and task responsibilities
are unclear. Individuals may disagree about who has the responsibility for tasks and resources.

• Personality Clashes. A personality conflict emerges when two people simply do not get along or do not
view things similarly. Personality tensions are caused by differences in personality, attitudes, values, and
beliefs.

• Power and Status Differences. Power and status conflict may occur when one individual has
questionable influence over another. People might engage in conflict to increase their power or status in
an organization.

• Goal Differences. Conflict may occur because people are pursuing different goals. Goal conflicts in
individual work units are a natural part of any organization.

• Communication Breakdown. Communication based barriers may be derived from differences in

speaking styles, writing styles, and nonverbal communication styles. These stylistic differences frequently
distort the communication process. Faulty communication leads to misperceptions and misunderstandings
that can lead to long-standing conflict. Additional barriers to communication may emerge from the cross-
gender and cross cultural differences of participants. Such fundamental differences may affect both the
ways in which the parties express themselves and how they are likely to interpret the communication they
receive. These distortions, in turn, frequently result in misreading by the parties involved. Moreover, it is
common for the parties involved to be oblivious to these false impressions. The resultant
misunderstandings subsequently lead the parties involved to believe that a conflict based on
misunderstood behavior exists when, in fact, no conflict actually does exist. Miller and Steinberg call this
misreading “pseudo-conflict,” that is, perceived conflict rather than actual conflict. Much of what
managers take to be an actual conflict is the product of such pseudo-conflict.

Types of Conflict
Systems and subsystems exist in the organizations that are managed by individuals and work teams or
work groups. While interacting with each other on individual, team or group levels, there may be
occasions when conflict occurs due to perceptual differences. The conflict may be intra personal, inter-
personal, intra-group, inter-group or intra-organizational, and inter-organizational in nature.
These are discussed below.

1. Intra-personal Conflict
Intra personal conflict is also called the conflict within the individual. This type of conflict can be of two
types;

(a) Value conflict: Every individual has to play certain roles, which conforms to his value system.
However, there are certain situations when an individual may have to compromise on value
system and beliefs. For example, finance manager of an organization, while submitting tax
returns to the government may conceal some facts, which may go against his belief and value
system. This situation may cause tension and conflict within the individual.
(b) Decision-making: Problem solving is one of the important jobs every individual has to undertake
in work environment. Every problem has various courses open. At times it is difficult for a person
to select an appropriate course of action. This situation causes conflict within the individual. He
therefore will have to take decisions based on the past experience and the knowledge. It may be
noted that decision-making has become simpler these days due to firstly; information technology
where required data is available and secondly, group decision is the norm in most of the
organizations.

2. Inter-personal Conflict
Inter-personal conflict relates to conflict between two or more individuals and is probably the most
common and recognized form of conflict. Interpersonal conflict is caused due to disagreement over goals
and objectives of the organization. These are heightened due to difference of opinion of individuals and
when issues are not based on facts. Every organization is full of unresolved issues, problems and differing
situations that lead to conflict. Conflict can also take place between one person of a group with another
person of the same group or another group on issues relating to decision-making. Individuals may have a
difference of opinion on selection of a particular course of action that will lead to disagreement and often
result in the conflict. It is the merit of the issue, and willingness of members of the organization to accept
the others point of view that will avoid the conflict situation.
3. Intra-Group Conflict
Intra-group conflict relates to values, status and roles played by an individual in the group and the group
norms. Individual may want to remain in the group for social needs but may disagree with the methods
and procedures followed by the group. The conflict may arise when social changes are incorporated in the
group. When group faces new problems and when values are changed due to change in social
environment. Intra-group conflict is like Inter-personal conflict except that the people involved in the
conflict episode belong to a common group.

4. Inter-Group Conflict
Conflicts between different groups, sections and departments are called inter-group conflict. For example,
conflict between production and sales departments over the quality being produced and the customer
requirements. Inter-group conflict causes due to factors inherent to the organizational structure like
independence, inconsistency in various policy matter, variance on promotion criteria, reward system and
different standards being adopted for different sub-units and departments. Organizational objectives can
only be achieved when all departments work towards attainment of organizational goals. This is possible
when interactions between departments are smooth and cordial. Conflict can be avoided by better
communication between departments, joint decision making, removing disparity in group goals and
paying due respect and displaying concern for other group’s views.

5. Inter-Organizational Conflict
Inter-organizational conflict takes place between two dependent organizations. Conflict can take place
between government organization, unions and the operating industry. Government organizations function
to ensure that minimum standards are followed by the organizations. Managers must try and reduce inter-
organizational conflicts by adopting positive approach and by following strictly, the rules and regulations
laid down by the government agencies. Conflict can also take place between seller and buyer
organizations.

6. Intra-Organizational Conflicts
Intra organizational conflict encompasses horizontal, vertical, line–staff and role based conflicts. Let us
briefly discuss these situations.

a) Horizontal Conflict
Horizontal Conflict is caused due to incompatibility of goals, sharing limited resources and difference in
time orientation. It leads to tension, misunderstanding and frustration on the part of both the parties.
Horizontal conflict relates to employees or group at the same level. Organizational goal at implementation
level vary from department to department. Finance department may not be able to spare additional
amount as may be required by research and development department for new product development that
may cause tension, misunderstanding between two individuals or departments. Individuals may not be
able to meet the targets of production in given time due to variety of reason that may cause conflict with
sales department as the latter would like to flood the market with their product to make the presence felt.
It has been seen that due to increased interdependence of individuals or groups to carry out various
functions, situations do arise where there is difference of opinion on issues that cause conflict between
individuals or groups.
b) Vertical Conflict
Vertical conflict refers to conflicts that might take place between different levels of hierarchy. Conflicts
between subordinates and superior occur due to incompatibility. It is generally caused because of
differences in perception, value system, goals that may be assigned, cognition and difference in individual
behavior. Conflict is also caused due to inappropriate communication between individuals at two different
levels.

c) Line and Staff Conflict

Line and staff conflict has been traditional. Line authority creates product and services and contributes
directly towards the revenue generation. While staff authority assists line authority and acts in advisory
capacity. Staff and line authority have a different predispositions and goals. They have different skills and
expertise. Since staff authorities (managers) are in the chain of command and have a day to day access to
the top boss, have a tendency to dictate terms to the line authority and usually disregard the working
knowledge of the line authority. They have tendency to dominate and disregard the efforts put in by line
authority managers. On the contrary staff managers have a technical knowhow and they are able to advice
the line authority to cut down cost of production and save on wastage etc. Line authority does not like
their advice at times. Staff managers get frustrated when their suggestions and ideas are not implemented
by line managers and hence the cause for conflict. In the process the organizational goals are not achieved
as per plans.

d) Role Conflict
A person in an organization has to perform various roles. Conflict arises when roles assigned to him have
different expectation. ‘Time’ management may cause conflict. A person may be asked to take care of an
additional section in the absence of section head. Value system in an organization is also a cause for
conflict. Supervisor is asked to be honest while he is dealing with sale of the product while the same
person may be asked to pay commission to an official from whom a sanction is required to be obtained,
thereby causing a conflict situation in the ethical value system of an individual. When an individual is line
or a staff employee and also a union representative, has to perform duties of conflicting nature hence a
role conflict.

Conflict Management Techniques

The term conflict refers to perceived incompatibilities resulting typically from some form of interference
or opposition. Conflict management, then, is the employment of strategies to correct these perceived
differences in a positive manner. Management theorists have developed and suggested a range of options
for handling organizational conflict.

Thomas and Kilmann identified a conflict-handling grid comprised of five conflict management styles
based on two dimensions: assertiveness and cooperativeness. Assertiveness is the motivation of an
individual to achieve his/her own goals, objectives, and outcomes, while cooperativeness assesses the
willingness to allow or help the other party to achieve its goals or outcomes. Any of the five conflict
resolution styles might be appropriate based on the circumstances of the situation and the personalities of
the individuals involved.
1. Avoiding Conflict Resolution Style. Is also known as lose-lose approach. The avoiding style is low
on both assertiveness and cooperativeness. In other words, the manager is not very cooperative in
helping the other individuals to achieve their goals, but neither is he/she aggressively pursuing his/her
own preferred outcomes in the situation. The original problem, conflict, or situation is never directly
addressed or resolved. However, avoiding behavior might be appropriate when the issue is perceived
by the manager to be trivial. It might also be an appropriate approach to use when there is no chance
of winning or when disruption would be very costly.
This situation pertains to un-cooperative and unassertive behavior on the part of parties involved. A
Party may avoid facing B Party. When situation reaches a point of negligence by A Party, B Party
may take advantage of the situation. By avoiding, the individual might side step, postpone or even
withdraw from the conflicting situation. This strategy is useful when issues involved in conflict are of
a very minor nature or when more important issues deserve attention. This strategy suits a manager
whose power base is very low and there is no chance of satisfying one’s own concerns. Avoidance
strategy should be applied when one feels that people in the organization should cool down so that the
issue can be handled at a latter date in a better psychological environment. The issue can also be
postponed if additional information is required to be obtained. Avoidance is a poor strategy hence if
someone else is able to handle the situation of conflict more effectively, should be allowed to do so.
Managers having high score on avoidance as a strategy of conflict management, may suffer from
delayed decision making and hence the loss to the organization. Those who have a low score on
avoidance thereby wanting to attend to every single issue may spend lot of time on every trivial issue,
hurt people’s feelings and stir hostility in the organization that should be taken care of.

2. Competing Conflict Resolution Style. The competing style of resolving conflict is also known as the
win-lose approach. A manager using this style, characterized by high assertiveness and low
cooperativeness, seeks to reach his/her own preferred outcomes at the expense of other individuals.
This approach may be appropriate when quick, decisive action is needed, such as during emergencies.
It can also be used to confront unpopular actions, such as urgent cost cutting.
This strategy may be adopted when other strategies of conflict resolution are not workable.
Competing is also useful in emergencies where quick decisions are required. In this strategy power
must be used unilaterally as a weapon when unpopular decisions like termination, pay cuts, layoffs,
cost cutting and enforcing discipline are required to be taken. The managers who are high on power
base have an added advantage in using competing strategy because people from opposite side would
not dare confront a person who is so powerful. There is a tendency that managers using this strategy
should be careful about ‘yes’ men around them. They should identify conflicting situations and take
bold decisions based on win-lose strategy. On the other hand there are managers who are low on
competing mode, are likely to feel powerless in many situations. Not realizing that though they have
power but they are not comfortable using it. By trying to use power, one could enhance one’s
achievement. Another drawback in scoring low is that such individuals find it difficult to take bold
stand on various issues concerning organizations. In situations when a manager is very low on
‘concern for the people’ may postpone vital decisions on matters pertaining to subordinates that may
be detrimental to organizational effectiveness.
3. Accommodating Conflict Resolution Style. This style reflects a high degree of cooperativeness. It
has also been labeled as obliging. A manager using this style subjugates his/her own goals, objectives,
and desired outcomes to allow other individuals to achieve their goals and outcomes. This behavior is
appropriate when people realize that they are in the wrong or when an issue is more important to one
side than the other. This conflict resolution style is important for preserving future relations between
the parties.
In accommodating mode a person scarifies his own interest for accommodating other person’s
interest. It is form of selfless generosity, obeying other person’s point of view. This mode is usually
adopted when other person’s view is stronger, you want to achieve goodwill and indicate that you are
reasonable. This strategy of conflict resolution is important when you want other person to give at a
later date when it favors you. When people are high on accommodating score they might be differing
too much to the wishes of others and pay very little attention to their own ideas and concern even
though they may realize that they are not getting the attention they deserve. This might even lower
one’s self esteem in addition to depriving on the influence, respect and recognition from others, since
it negates the potential contribution that individuals are capable of making to the organization. While
individual low on accommodating score, they should start thinking about whether they lack the
goodwill of others and whether others perceive them as unreasonable, uncompromising, rigid and
demanding.

4. Compromising Conflict Resolution Style. Is also known as the neither Win nor Lose approach. This
style is characterized by balancing concern for oneself with concern for the other party in order to
reach a solution and moderate levels of both assertiveness and cooperativeness. Compromise can also
be referred to as bargaining or trading. It generally produces suboptimal results. This behavior can be
used when the goals of both sides are of equal importance, when both sides have equal power, or
when it is necessary to find a temporary, timely solution. It should not be used when there is a
complex problem requiring a problem-solving approach.
In conflict situation, compromising is a mode when both parties try to find out some expedient,
mutually acceptable solution that sacrifices both the parties partially. In compromising, there is no
clear winner or loser. None of the party is fully satisfied as they ration the object of conflict and
accept the solution which is not complete to either of the parties. In compromising, there is a
possibility of an atmosphere of ‘gamesmanship’ in the work environment. There is also a possibility
of compromising on certain principles of behavior which is not desirable. Values, ethics, principles
and long term objectives of the organization must be protected while adopting compromising. When
people are tough to compromise, they find it hard to make concessions and land up in power struggle
that must be avoided. Compromising policies can easily be adopted when competing or collaboration
strategy fails. Research indicates that people have underlying disposition to handle conflict in certain
ways. Especially individuals have preferences among the five conflict handling intensions. Their
preferences tend to be relied upon quite consistently and a person’s intensions can be predicted rather
well from a combination of intellectual and personality characteristics. When confronting conflict
situation, some people want to win it at any cost, some wants to find an optimum solution, some want
to run away, others want to be obliging, and still others want to “split the differences”
5. Collaborating Conflict Resolution Style. Is also known as the win-win approach. This approach, high
on both assertiveness and cooperativeness. Both sides creatively work towards achieving the goals
and desired outcomes of all parties involved. The collaboration style is appropriate when the concerns
are complex and a creative or novel synthesis of ideas is required. The downside of this approach is
that the process of collaborating mandates sincere effort by all parties involved and it may require a
lot of time to reach a consensus.
Strategy of collaboration involves attempt of one party to work with the other party in cooperative
manner and find solutions to the problem for mutual benefits. The strategy involves identification of
areas of disagreement, examining the issue in greater detail and a workable solution arrived at, which
is for mutual benefit. This strategy signifies when two sets of solutions are important for both parties
to be compromised. Hence finding integrated solution become imperative, this strategy signifies joint
efforts, gain for both parties and integrated solutions arrived at by consensual decisions. Sekaran7
concluded that when people are high on collaborating, they have to be concerned about how they
spend their time and other organizational resources. Collaboration is time and energy consuming. Not
all situations need collaborative solutions. Over use of collaboration and consensual decision-making
may reflect risk aversion tendencies or an inclination to defuse responsibility. When people score low
on collaborating, they may fail to capitalize on situations, which would benefit immensely from joint
problem solving. Also by ignoring the concerns of employees, decisions and policies may be evolved,
which make the organizational members both unhappy and uncommitted to the system.

Of the five modes described in the matrix, only the strategy employing collaboration as a mode of conflict
management breaks free of the win-lose paradigm. It has become almost habitual to fall back on the win-
win alternative, but this was not the authors’ original intention. They did not reject win-lose
configurations out of hand. Instead, strategic considerations for managing conflict according to varied
circumstances were identified. For instance, in a conflict centered on bids by two alternative suppliers, the
best choice might well be a competing strategy with a winner and loser. After all, the objective in such a
situation is to win the contract for one’s own company. In most cases, winning the contract can be
accomplished only at the expense of the competing supplier, who by definition becomes the loser.

In contrast, a competing approach almost never works well in the interpersonal conflict of people working
in the same office (or even the same organization). Unlike the case of competing suppliers, coworkers—
both the winner and the loser—must go on working together. Indeed, in many conflicts revolving around
office politics, an accommodating strategy may actually enable individuals to strengthen their future
negotiating position through allowing themselves to lose in conflicts over issues they do not feel
particularly strongly about. In such situations, accommodating can be seen as a form of winning through
losing. For instance, a manager may choose to concede an issue to an employee who is experiencing
considerable stress as a means to motivate him or her.

Similarly, an individual might choose an accommodating strategy to add balance to negotiations in which
one’s counterpart has already had to give up several other points. Indeed, a winner in a win-lose scenario
who fails to put forth some effort to accommodate the other party may even provoke a backlash in the
form of lack of commitment or open resistance.

Even the traditional approach of conflict avoidance has its place as an occasionally acceptable strategy.
While conflict avoidance has justly been the subject of considerable condemnation, it can be rather useful
in allowing both parties to cool off or in buying time until all the facts of a matter have been gathered. A
manager might choose to avoid an employee in the throes of an emotional outburst, for example, until the
employee has had sufficient time to calm down.

Finally, compromise is often a useful strategy when dealing with relatively small concerns. This differs
from an accommodating strategy, in which the conceding party finds an issue unimportant that the
opposing party considers comparatively important. A manager might enlist a compromise approach most
effectively when both parties consider the issue to be of moderate or little importance. In such cases,
compromising saves both parties the time required to employ problem-solving techniques to address the
fundamental core of the conflict. While all of these modes have their place among the strategies available
to the manager, the collaborating approach to conflict management represents the most beneficial mode
for most types of conflict management. In the collaborating mode, conflict itself acts as a managerial tool.
The manager utilizes the conflict to guide the conflicting parties to address what essentially are obstacles
faced by the organization. Through collaborative behavior, the conflicting parties pool their creative
energies to find innovative answers to old problems.

It is in this key respect that the collaborative mode of conflict management differs from the other four
conflict-handling modes. Accommodating, avoiding, competing, and compromising—as permutations of
the win-lose scenario—are simply forms of conflict interventions. Collaboration as a conflict-handling
mode, on the other hand, represents an attempt to channel conflict in a positive direction, thus enabling
the manager to use conflict as a tool to resolve otherwise incompatible objectives within the organization.
In other words, this method of handling conflict acts less as a conflict intervention and more as true
conflict management.

However, any of the five conflict resolution styles may be appropriate and effective depending on the
specific situation, the parties’ personality styles, the desired outcomes, and the time available, The key to
becoming more prepared is to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each method.