Chapter Five: Conflict and Conflict Management

Meaning of Conflict
The word “conflict‟ can be defined as: the behavior of an individual or group which purposely
sets out to block or inhibit another individual or group from achieving its goals. Note that
conflict involves one party purposely standing in the way of another achieving its goals, and this
distinguishes it from competition.

Conflict can be a disagreement, the presence of tension, or some other difficulty between two or
more parties.

Conflict is a process in which an effort is purposely made by “A‟ to offset the efforts of “B‟ by
some form of blocking that will result in frustrating “B‟ in attaining his or her goals.

Conflict is the pursuit by two different persons on goals that are incompatible so that gains by
one person must come about at the expense of the other. It results from incompatible influence
attempts between and within individuals, groups, or organizations. Conflict often accompanies
differences in power among parties.

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 to affect something that the first party cares
about.
Conflict commonly arises from four circumstances
 Conflict can occur when individuals or groups perceive they have mutually exclusive goals
or values.
 Behavior by one party designed to defeat, reduce, or suppress an opponent
 Groups that face each other with mutually opposing actions and counteractions
 If each group attempt to create a relatively favored position vis-à-vis the other, than conflict
may ensue.

Conflict can easily occur in multinational or multicultural situations, since basic differences in
language, norms, personal styles and other cultural characteristics hinder effective
communication and set the stage for conflict. Cross-cultural sensitivity and understanding are
key ingredients for minimizing dysfunctional conflict.
Conflict has a number of dimensions. These dimensions are public (overt, visible, and
authorized), or private (covert, hidden, and unauthorized), formal or informal, rational
(premeditated or logical) or non-rational (spontaneous, impulsive, and emotional).

The likelihood of conflict increases when parties interact, view their differences as incompatible,
and see conflict as a constructive way of resolving disagreements. Perceptions play a major role
in conflicts.

Functional Vs dysfunctional conflict

Conflict in organizations is inevitable as far as people work together. 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.
Functional (Constructive) Conflict: Functional conflict is a healthy, constructive disagreement
between two or more people. Conflict develops cohesiveness within the group members. A
group goal therefore becomes a priority. Individual goals are then relegated to secondary
position. Conflict leads to innovation and creativity, as there is competing sprit among various
groups. Conflict provides challenging work environment and enhances opportunities for self-
development of group that leads to formation of group norms. Functional conflict enhance work
culture leads to upgradation of various systems within the organization and therefore growth is
achieved. Constructive conflicts contain an element of creative adaptation born from a
realization that one must know both one's own and the other's interests and goals to be able to
find a road both parties are willing to walk to discover a mutually acceptable outcome. Focusing
on the process, not just the outcome one person desires, is key to productive conflict
management.

Dysfunctional Conflict: Dysfunctional conflict is an unhealthy, destructive disagreement

between two or more people. It’s danger in that it takes the focus away from the work to be done
and places the focus on the conflict itself and the parties involved. Dysfunctional conflict is that
does not lead to solution and basic goals of the organization are neglected. If it is violated and a
climate of distrust and suspicion is created people feel defeated and demeaned which develops
 antagonism and leads to conflict. Such conflict may lead to absenteeism and subsequently to
increased turn over if not controlled on time.

Cause of conflict in organizations

A variety of factors can lead to intra-group and inter-group conflicts. These factors can be either
structural or personal.
Structural Factors causes of conflict: The causes of conflict related to the organization's
structure include,
 Specialization: When jobs are highly specialized, employees become experts at certain tasks.
A classic conflict of specialization is one between salespeople and engineers. Engineers are
technical specialists responsible for product design and quality. Salespeople are marketing
experts and liaisons with customers. Salespeople are often accused of making delivery promises
to customers that engineers cannot keep because the sales force lacks the technical knowledge
necessary to develop realistic delivery deadlines.
 Interdependence: Work that is interdependent requires groups or individuals to depend on
one another to accomplish goals. Depending on other people to get work done is fine when the
process works smoothly. However, conflict arises when members fail to cooperate or have
different perspective which is not liked by the other.
 Common resources: Any time multiple parties must share resources, there is potential for
conflict. This potential is enhanced when the shared resources become scarce. One resource
often shared by managers is secretarial support. It is not uncommon for a secretary to support ten
or more managers, each of whom believes his or her work is most important.
 Goal differences: When work groups have different goals, these goals may be incompatible.
For example, in one cable television Company, the salesperson's goal was to sell as many new
installations as possible. This created problems for the service department, because its goal was
timely installations.
 Authority relationships: The nature of a traditional boss-employee relationship brings to
mind a vision of a hierarchy of a boss who is superior to the employee. For many employees, this
relationship is not a comfortable one, because another individual has the right to tell them what
to do. Some people resent authority more than others, and obviously this creates conflicts.
  Status inconsistencies: Some organizations have a strong status difference between
management and none management workers. Managers may enjoy privileges such as flexible
schedules, personal telephone calls at work, and longer lunch hours that are not available to no
management employees. This may result in resentment and conflict.

 Jurisdictional ambiguities: Have you ever telephoned a company with a problem and had
your call transferred through several different people and departments? This situation illustrates
jurisdictional ambiguity that is, unclear lines of responsibility within an organization. When a
problem occurs for which there is no definite source of responsibility, workers tend to "pass the
back," or avoid dealing with the problem. Conflicts emerge over responsibility for the problem.
5.1.1. Personal Factors causes of Conflict
The causes of conflict that arise from individual differences include
 Skills and abilities: The work force is composed of individuals with varying levels of skills
and ability. Diversity in skills and abilities may be positive for the organization, but it also holds
potential for conflict, especially when jobs are interdependent. Experienced, competent workers
may find it difficult to work alongside with new and unskilled recruits. Workers can become
resentful when their new boss, fresh from college, knows a lot about managing people but is
unfamiliar with the technology with which they are working.
 Personalities: Individuals do not leave their personalities at the doorstep when they enter the
workplace. Personality conflicts are realities in organizations. To expect that you will like all of
your coworkers may be a naive expectation, as would be the expectation that they will all like
you.
 Perceptions: Differences in perception can also lead to conflict. One area in which
perceptions can differ is the perception of what motivates employees.
 If managers and workers do not have a shared perception of what motivates people, the reward
system can create conflicts. Managers usually provide what they think employees want rather
than what employees really want.
 Values and ethics: Differences in values and ethics can be sources of disagreement. Older
workers, for example, value company loyalty and probably would not take a sick day when they
were not really ill. Younger workers, valuing mobility, like the concept of "mental health days,"
or calling in sick to get away from work. This may not be true for all workers, but it illustrates
that differences in values can lead to conflict.
 Emotions: The moods of others can be a source of conflict in the workplace. Problems at
home often spill over into the work area, and the related moods can be hard for others to deal
with.
 Communication barriers: Communication barriers such as physical separation and
language can create distortions in messages, and these can lead to conflict. Another
communication barrier is value judgment, in which a listener assigns a worth to a message before
it is received.
Conflict Outcome/Consequences
Positive consequences
- Leads to new ideas
- Stimulates creativity
- Motivates change
- Promotes organizational vitality
- Helps individuals and groups establish identities
- Serves as a safety value of the organization by indicating problems
Negative Consequences
- Diverts energy from work
- Threatens psychological well-being
- Waste resources
- Creates a negative work climate
- Breaks down group cohesion
- Can increase hostility and aggressive behaviors
Type of Conflict
The following are the major and main types of conflicts in organization.
1. Intra-personal Conflict: Intra personal conflict is also called the conflict within the
individual. This type of conflict can be of two types:
 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.
 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.
2. Inter-personal Conflict: This 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 leads 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.
3. Intra-Group Conflict: this 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.
5. Inter-Organizational Conflict: this 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.
Conflict Process
Luis R. Pondy (1967), developed a conflict process model, which is useful to understand how a
conflict starts. He has delineated five steps that he calls as ‘conflict episode’ These are:
 Latent conflict,
Perceived conflict,
Felt conflict
Manifest conflict,
conflict resolution and
Conflict aftermath

LATENT
CONFLICT
CONFLICT AFTERMATH

PERCEIVED FELT MANIFEST CONFLICT

CONFLICT CONFLICT CONFLICT RESOLUTIO
N
Figure 5.1 conflict process

 Latent Conflict: It is a first stage of conflict when conflict-promoting situations appear

on the scene between individuals and groups. In this stage potential conflict inducing
forces exist. The indicators can be presence of competition for scarce resources, drive
for autonomy, and divergent of sub-unit goals.
 Perceived Conflict: At this stage one or more party become aware of the conflict.
When one party frustrates the design of the other party, people perceive that a conflict
condition exist. For example, sales manager may need additional budget for
promotional activities which financial manager may not release.
 Felt Conflict: At this stage, the conflict is actually felt and recognized, there will be
personalization of conflict. As stated earlier, the funds are not released by the finance
manager and the problem is being surfaced and there is a likelihood of confrontation.
 Manifest Conflict: In this stage, there is not only recognition or acknowledgement of
conflict but also manifestation of conflict by covert or overt behavior. It is a stage of
open dispute. Both parties devise their strategies to face each other. In the above
example sales manager may make his point for additional funds for promotional
activities especially during festival season. Finance manager may openly turn down the
request since he might have allotted additional funds for procurement of better raw
material for production department.
 Conflict Aftermath: is related with the outcomes of the conflict; positive or negative.
On the positive side, a genuine resolution can lead to satisfied parties who are better
able to work each other. On the negative side, conflict may be suppressed and not
resolved. That can cause latent conditions of conflict to build and explode in a more
serious form.
 Conflict resolution: This has been added as an additional box in the figure to elucidate
that conflict aftermath is a direct function of the results of the conflict resolution style
adopted and exercised in any given situation.
Conflict management strategies
It may be said that it is the mismanagement of conflict rather than the conflict itself that
causes real trouble in an organization. Current ideas imply that the level of conflict in an
organization needs to be carefully managed. If there is too much conflict, it needs to be
reduced, and if there is too little, the level may need to be increased in a controlled way.
In practical terms this means that a decision has to be made about whether to Stimulate a
conflict or to Resolve any conflicts that exists. It is difficult, however, because there are
no hard-and-fast guidelines to judge an appropriate level of conflict. A viable strategy for
conflict management begins with an analysis of the conflict situation and then moves to
the development of strategy options (stimulation or resolution).
A) Analysis of conflict situation
Managers can analyze a conflict situation by identifying the following:
1) Conflicting parties: The conflict may arise between individuals, groups, or
departments. Hence, the leader must consider factors like
Parties involved
• Who are the parties to the conflict?
• Are there any other people who are not parties but should be (i.e., have a stake
in the outcome, or have power to affect the outcome)?
• Do the parties have settlement authority? If not, who does?
• Do the parties have constituencies? If so, who? What is the relationship between
the parties and their constituencies?
The Issues they have
• What are the issues as stated by each party?
• Are there hidden issues which are not stated by the parties?
Positions
• What are the parties stated positions?
 • Why do they hold those positions?
• How strongly are they committed to their positions?
• I s there room for movement in their positions? What will it take to move
the parties off their positions?
• If the parties are strongly committed to their positions, why? What is important to
the parties about their positions?
Interests
• What are the interests behind each party’s positions?
• How are the parties' interests different? How are they similar?
• What common interests can be identified as the basis for settlement or agreement?
Power
• What power does each party have over the other?
• What is the source of each party's power? (Relationship, economic, physical,
psychological, legal)
• What does the less powerful party need to have more leverage?
• Is each party’s perception of their own power realistic?
• Have the parties used their power against each other? If so, how and with what
results?
2) Source of conflict: The conflict may arise from factors such as differences in value sets,
perception differences, scarcity of resources, workflow relationship, etc. Analyzing this
requires trying to view each situation through the eyes of the parties involved.
3) Level of conflict: The situation may be at a stage where the manager must deal with it
immediately; or the conflict may be at a moderate level of intensity or it may be at very low
level that need managers to induce conflict in a controlled manner. If the goals of the
workgroup are threatened or sabotage is occurring, the manager must take action
immediately. If individuals or groups are simply in disagreement, a less immediate response
is required.
B) Conflict stimulation
The current view is that in certain circumstances there can be benefits in stimulating a
degree of conflict within an organization. In situations such as this, the matter needs to be
handled in a very careful and controlled way so that matters do not go too far and result in
something that is highly dysfunctional.
A great deal seems to depend on the type of conflicts that result. The type of conflict that
results may be relational conflict and task-focused conflict.
Relational conflict: is conflict caused by interpersonal relations whereas Task-focused
conflict is a conflict within a work group caused by a difference on how it should complete
its task. The research evidence suggests that people find relational conflict highly stressful,
and so it often evokes strong emotional responses that lower productive effort and employee
satisfaction. Conversely, minor/moderate Task-focused conflict tends to result in a more
rigorous examination of the way things are done, which can lead to innovation,
productivity, and satisfaction. Therefore, leaders must stimulate task focused conflicts than
relationship conflicts.
Conflict stimulation techniques/ ways
1) Stimulating Competition: This is probably the least risky strategy of all techniques.
Many organizations may have measures of this type in place. A fairly common one is the
use of incentives, such as awards, and bonuses for outstanding performance.
2) Communication: Information is used to create ambiguity, or even an element of
apprehension or fear. This is a riskier way of stimulating conflict, if not used with great care
it can result in emotional conflicts. The tactic here is using ambiguous or threatening
messages to increase conflict levels. An example is the judicious use of a rumor that a major
reorganization to reduce overheads or improve performance is being considered.
3) Altering Organizational Structure: This is another measure that contains pronounced
risks. While organizational structure can be used to make conflict less likely, it can also be a
major source of conflict. Rearranging work groups, altering rules and regulations, increasing
interdependence, and making similar structural changes can disrupt the status quo in the
organization. A healthy degree of competition between subunits can encourage innovation
and improved performance but putting units against each other can lead to outright war.
4) Bringing in Outside Persons: Often this is the riskiest strategy of all. It is usually
underpinned by the belief that if someone with different background values and attitudes is
imported, that person will be a source of inspiration to current employees and pull them out
of their contentment or complacency. However, it can also go sadly off track and result in a
high degree of relational conflict because the people come to see the newcomer as a threat,
and they all unite against the person.
C) Conflict resolution
One of the things that can make conflicts hard to resolve is the way that the parties behave
towards each other. The key to conflict resolution is often found in a fuller understanding of
their styles of behavior.
Conflict resolution techniques
Several strategies can be used to manage conflict in organizations. The major strategies are
presented blow
i. Thomas-Kilmann’s Conflict Management Styles and Techniques
In 1974 Kenneth W. Thomas and Ralph H. Kilmann said that in a conflict situation in which
the concern of two people appears to be incompatible, behaviours of those people are
manifested in two dimensions called Assertiveness and Cooperativeness. Assertiveness is the
extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy his/her own concern. Cooperativeness is the
extent to which the individual attempts to satisfy the other person’s concerns.
By considering the inclination and various degrees of assertiveness and cooperativeness of
the conflicting parties, the writers identified five styles/modes of conflict management
namely Competing, Accommodating, Avoiding, Collaborating and Compromising.
Competing Collaboration
Low

Compromising
Assertiveness

Avoidance Accommodation

Low High
High

Cooperativeness

Thomas Kilmann’s Conflict Management Styles Model

The authors argued that people typically have a preferred conflict resolution style and different styles
were most useful in different situations. They also said that the different attempts of people to deal
with conflict are based on their conflict styles or mode of preference to deal the conflict issues.
Avoidance: Avoiding is unassertive and uncooperative and those who prefer this style do not
act to pursue neither the concern of their own nor for others’. Avoiding is a deliberate
decision to take no action on a conflict or to stay out of a conflict situation hoping the other
will do the same. In other words, it is an indication of peoples’ choice not to deal with
conflict at all and the outcome of this style is Lose - Lose for both conflicting parties.
Therefore, choosing to withdraw, being physically absent and avoiding issues or remaining
silent are mostly seen behaviors of people who avoids conflict.
When to use Avoidance
 If the conflict is minor
 When we need more time to resolve the conflict
 To let a conflicting party cool down
 When gathering more information outweighs the advantage of an immediate decision
 When others can resolve the conflict more effectively
Negative Consequences of Avoidance
 Worsening of conflicts,
 Some people may use the opportunity to make decision which may not be in favor of
the conflicting parties,
 It may also send a message for others our lack of action to resolve the conflict
Accommodating: Accommodating is unassertive and cooperative and those who
accommodate in the conflict resolution process, they give much more concern for other
parties than their own. Their intentions are to smooth the conflict by giving up one’s concern
and are willing to cooperate for the sake of maintaining future relationship with the other
conflicting party. Hence, the outcome is Lose-Win. Moreover, accommodating might take
the form of selfless generosity or charity, obeying another person’s order when one would
prefer not to, or yielding to another’s point of view.
When to Use Accommodation
 When the outcome of the resolution is far more important to the other group;
 When you realize that you are wrong –to allow a better position to be heard, to learn
from others, & to show that you are reasonable;
 When continued competition would only damage your cause;
 To build up your social credit for later issues which are important to you
Competing/Forcing: Competing is assertive and is not cooperative and those who compete
give much more concern for their own interests than the other group. Mostly, people use
whatever power they have to satisfy one’s own interest and win position. It is a preference of
people to push for only their interests and hence, the outcome of using this style is Win-Lose.
When to use Competing
 When getting the right result is so important than long-term relationship;
 With emergency issues that one of the parties should take action;
 To protect yourself against people who take advantage of noncompetitive behavior
Negative Consequences of Competing
 Ignoring the interests of other parties may plant seed for other conflicts because of the fact
that the result the other party craving for was not satisfied.

Compromising/Smoothing: Compromising is intermediary in both assertiveness and

cooperativeness and the objective is to come up with a solution which will partially benefit
both parties. In other words, this style is a give and take approach involving moderate
concern for both self and others. Hence, there is no distinct Looser or Winner. The
Leadership Qualities are being good negotiator, urging everyone to speak out but not too
much.
When to use Compromising
 When people are not in a position to get what they want;
 When goals are moderately important, but not worth the effort or potential disruption
of more forceful modes;
 When two opponents with equal power are strongly committed to continually
exclusive goals;
 To achieve temporary settlement to complex issue;
 To arrive at practical solution under time pressure
Negative consequences of compromising
 Is not good if people are walking away from conflict with a lot of dissatisfaction
about the outcome,
 May give a cynical appearance to conflict resolution if parties are playing some
unfair games to maximize the outcome from the settlement of the case.
Collaborating: A win-win style that is high on both assertiveness and cooperativeness
is known as collaborating. Working toward collaborating involves an open and
thorough discussion of the conflict and arriving at a solution that is satisfactory to both
parties. Situations where collaboration may be effective include times when both
parties need to be committed to a final solution or when a combination of different
perspectives can be formed into a solution.
When to use Collaborating- this style can be effective when
 Focus on both sets of needs, concerns and feelings,
 Parties respect each other’s view.
 The parties see the issue as a mutual problem to be solved,
 The parties are prepared to listen and compromise,
 The parties are not interested in winning at any cost,
  The parties opt for power with rather than power over
ii. Third Party Resolution Techniques: includes
1. Mediation: is a process in which a neutral third party who is expert on the area is
involved to facilitate negotiation between the conflicting parties. The role of the
mediator is limited to facilitation and recommendations but final say or decision is up
to the conflicting parties.
2. Arbitration: is a process in which a third neutral party (judge) hears the issues of both
parties and collect necessary evidences and then pass a binding decision for both
parties.
iii. Other Techniques
In addition to the Thomas Kilmann’s conflict management styles and third-party resolution
tools, there are various specific ways or tactics which either positively or negatively affect a
conflict resolution process. In this regard, there are effective and ineffective techniques.

Ineffective Techniques: There are many techniques for dealing with conflict. Before
turning to techniques that work, it should be recognized that some actions commonly taken
in organizations to deal with conflict are not effective. Non action is doing nothing in hopes
that the conflict will disappear. This is not generally a good technique, because most
conflicts do not go away, and the individuals involved in the conflict react with frustration.
Some of these ineffective techniques are:
 Secrecy: trying to keep a conflict out of view of most people, only creates suspicion. An
example is an organizational policy of pays secrecy. In some organizations, discussion of salary
is grounds for dismissal. When this is the case, employees suspect that the company has
something to hide.
 Administrative or biting: This is delaying action on a conflict by buying time, usually
by telling the individuals involved that the problem is being worked on or that the boss
is still thinking about the issue. Like non action, this technique leads to frustration and
resentment.
 Due process non action: is a procedure set up to address conflicts that is so costly,
time-consuming, or personally risky that no one will use it. Some companies' sexual
harassment policies are examples of this technique. To file a sexual harassment
complaint, detailed paperwork is required, the accuser must go through appropriate
channels, and the accuser risks being branded a troublemaker. Thus, the company has a
procedure for handling complaints (due process), but no one uses it (non action).
 Character assassination: is an attempt to label or discredit an opponent. Character
assassination can backfire and make the individual who uses it appear dishonest and
cruel.
 Effective Techniques: there are also effective techniques that includes
1) Problem solving: Interested parties confront the issue and cooperatively identify the
problem, generate and weigh alternate solutions and select a solution. It is appropriate for
complex issues plagued by misunderstanding. It is inappropriate for resolving conflicts
rooted in opposing value systems.
2) Super ordinate goal: It is a technique used to create a shared goal that cannot be attained
without the cooperation of each of the conflicting parties.
3) Expansion of Resources: When a conflict is caused by the scarcity of a resource – say,
funding, promotions, and desirable work or working conditions, etc. the expansion of
resource can create a win-win situation. Unfortunately, it is often not possible in practice.
4) Altering the Human Variable: This strategy calls for using the behavioral change
techniques such as human resources training to alter attitudes and behaviors that cause
conflict.
5) Altering the Structural Variable: Conflict is resolved through changing the formal
organizational structure and the interaction patterns of conflicting parties through job
redesign, transfers, and the like.
6) Authoritative Command / Impose a Solution: Finally, if all fails, it may be necessary to
impose a solution. But this has to be done with great care. It often works in the short term. If
the solution suits neither party, it seldom solves the problem itself. Indeed, there is always a
danger that the apparent resolution has been achieved at the price of both parties uniting
against the arbiter, who is now seen as a common enemy.