Conflict has been defined from several stand points in literature. In one approach, it has been related with tension and defined as expression of hostility, negative attitude, antagonism, misunderstanding, aggression, rivalry, stereotypes, etc. In political science and economics, it has been associated with situations, bodying contradictory or irreconcilable interest between two opposing groups. Conflict is also considered a special kind of competition and as a break down, delay and difficulty in the decision making process. In general, conflict has been defined as a process in which an individual purposefully makes a concerted effort to offset the efforts of another individual by some form of blockage that causes frustration to the better in accomplishing his goals or furtherance of his interests.
Conflict is
a normal part of daily life and of every organization. There is always the
potential for conflict to occur at some level or another if more than one
person participates in organizational activities. When conflict does occur, the
result may be positive or negative, depending on how this result is involved to
approach. Individuals have to deal with conflict within them; groups may be in
conflict with other groups. Organizations have to survive despite the
conflicts. Managers often have to assume the role of conflict manager,
mediating between parties in conflict. They may also be involved on an almost
daily basis. There are a number of techniques available for use in dealing with
conflicts, which may vary in applicability according to the nature of the
conflict. The different approaches discussed to manage conflict in the
organization are:
Approaches to Conflict Management
Conflict arises from different sources. It is inevitable to avoid conflict in organizational setting. So with appropriate technique, conflict should be managed. There are different approaches to manage conflict. But in management literature, the highly adopted approaches are as follows:
Interpersonal Conflict Management Approaches
1. Dominance / Forcing
This is the easiest technique to manage conflict. In this technique, manager will eliminate the conflicting parties. By dismissing the conflicting parties the conflict can be managed. But this is a short-term solution not a long term.
The forcing
response (assertive uncooperative) is an attempt to satisfy one's own needs at
the expenses of the needs of the other individual. This can be done by using
formal authority, physical threats, manipulation plays, or by ignoring the
claims of the other party. The open use of the authority of one's office or a
related form of intimidation is generally evidence of a lack of tolerance or
self-confidence. The use of manipulation or feigned ignorance is a much more
subtle reflection of an egoistic leadership style. Manipulative leaders often
appear to be democratic by proposing that conflicting proposals be referred to
a committee for further investigation. However, they ensure that the
composition of the committee reflects their interests and preferences so that
what appears to be selection based on merit is actually an authoritarian act. A
related play (accounting plan on action for own advantage) some managers use is
to ignore a proposal that threatens their personal interests. If the originator
inquires about the disposition of his or her memo, the manager will plead
ignorance, will blame the mail clerk or new secretary and then will suggest
that the proposal be redrafted. After several of these encounters, subordinates
generally get the message that the boss isn't interested in their ideas.
The problem
with the repeated use of this conflict management approach is that it breeds
hostility and resentment. While observers may intellectually admire
authoritarian or manipulative leaders because they appear to accomplish a great
deal, their management styles generally produce a backlash in the long run as
people become increasingly unwilling to absorb the emotional costs and work to
undermine the power base of the authoritarian leader.
Conflict can be managed by avoiding it. In this technique one party avoids the conflict and let the conflicting parties to win. Moreover, redefining the goals and not making over-lapping of goals can also manage conflict.
The avoiding
response (uncooperative, unassertive) neglects the interests of both parties by
sidestepping the conflict or postponing a solution. This is often the response
of managers who are emotionally ill-prepared to cope with the stress associated
with confrontations, or it might reflect recognition that a relationship is not
strong enough to absorb the fallout of an intense conflict. The repeated use of
this approach causes considerable frustration for others because issues never
seem to get resolved. Really tough problems are avoided because of their high
potential for conflict and subordinates engaging in conflict are reprimanded
for undermining the harmony of the work group. Sensing a leadership vacuum,
people from all directions rush to fill it, creating considerable confusion and
aversion in the process.
3. Smoothing
In this technique, the differences between two parties are disguised while similarities are highlighted. This make the other party feel that they are not much a part from each other. This shared viewpoint enhances the possibility of working together for common goals. However smoothing, it is a temporary solution only.
4. Compromise
In this technique, the conflicting parties' compromise with each other on certain points and conflict is resolved. The party provides something else to other parties in exchange for the desired outcomes. But this is also a temporary solution. If the desired outcome is not achieved, conflict again arises.
The
compromising response is intermediate between assertiveness and
cooperativeness. A compromise is an attempt to obtain partial satisfaction for
both parties, in the sense that both receive the proverbial "half
loaf." To accommodate this, both parties are asked to make sacrifices to
obtain a common gain. While this approach has considerable practical appear to
managers, its indiscriminate use is counterproductive. If subordinates are
continuously told to "split the differences", they may conclude that
their managers are more interested in resolving disputes than solving problems.
This creates a climate of expediency that encourages game playing, such as
asking for twice as much as you need.
A common
mistake made in mergers is placing undue emphasis on "being fair to both
sides" by compromising on competing corporate policies and practices as
well as on which redundant staff members get laid off. When decisions are made
on the basis of "spreading the pain evenly" or "using half of
your procedures and half of ours", rather than on the basis of merit, then
harmony takes priority over value. Ironically, actions taken in the name of
"keeping peace in the merged families" often end up being so
illogical and practical that the emerging union is doomed to operate under a
pall of constant internal turmoil and conflict.
5. Hierarchical Decision Making
In this technique, a common superior can be requested to use his authority to resolve conflict through a proper decision. However, it is very widely accepted technique but it loses its goodness when the authority figure fails to understand the issue properly and the subordinates do not respect them.
6. System restructuring
Sometime, by restructuring system, conflict can be managed in the organization, system restructuring technique involves the clarifying demands and segregating roles in different position, and people can resolve role conflict.
7. Problem solving
In this technique, problem is solved through face-to-face confrontation and tries to accomplish the common interest of the parties in conflict. In this technique, area of common interest is identified and information's views are shared and effort is made to achieve mutual common interest. However this technique is effective to remove misunderstanding among the parties but it is time consuming technique.
The
collaborating approach (cooperative, assertive) is an attempt to address fully
the concern of both parties. It is often referred to as the
"problem-solving" mode. In this mode, the intention is to find solutions
to the cause of the conflict that is satisfactory to both parties rather than
to find fault or assign blame. In this way, both parties can feel that they
have "won". This is the only win-win strategy among the five. The
avoiding mode results in a lose-lose outcome and the compromising,
accommodating and forcing modes all represent win-lose outcomes. Although the
collaborative approach is not appropriate for all situations, when used
appropriately, it has the most beneficial effect on the involved parties. It
encourages norms of collaboration and rust while acknowledging the value of
assertiveness. It encourages individuals to focus their disputes on problems
and issues rather than on personalities. Finally, it cultivates the skills
necessary for self-governance, so that effective problem solvers feel
empowered. The collaborative approach to problem solving and conflict
resolution works best in an environment supporting openness, directness and
equality.
8. Bargaining
In this technique, parties in conflict bargain each other to solve the conflict. Here, the use of bargaining power is highly used.
9. Accommodating The accommodating approach (cooperative, unassertive) satisfies the other party's concerns while neglecting one's own. Unfortunately, as in the case of boards of directors of failing firms who neglect their interest and responsibilities in favor of accommodating the wishes of management, this strategy generally results in both parties "losing". The difficulty with the habitual use of the accommodating approach is that it emphasizes preserving a friendly relationship at the expense of critically appraising issues and protecting personal rights.
The table shows a comparison of conflict management approaches. In this table, the fundamentals of each approach are laid out including its objective, how that objective is reflected in terms of an expressed point of view, and a supporting rationale. In addition, the likely outcomes of each approach are summarized.
|
Approach
|
Objective
|
Point of View
|
Supporting Rationale
|
Likely Outcome
|
|
Forcing
|
Get your way
|
"I know what's right. Don't question my judgment or
authority."
|
It I better to risk causing a few hard feelings than to abandon an
issue you are committed to.
|
You feel vindicated but other party feels defeated and possibly
humiliated.
|
|
Avoiding
|
Avoid having to deal with conflict
|
"I'm neutral on that issue." "Let me think about
it." "That's someone else's problem."
|
Disagreements are inherently bad because they create tension.
|
Interpersonal problems don't get resolved, causing long-term
frustration manifested in a variety of ways.
|
|
Compromising
|
Reach an agreement quickly
|
"Let's search for a situation we can both live with so we can
get on with our work."
|
Prolonged conflicts distract people from their work and engender
bitter feelings.
|
Participants become conditioned to seek expedient, rather than
effective solutions.
|
|
Accommodating
|
Don't upset the other person
|
"How can I help you feel good about this encounter?"
"My position isn't so important that it is worth risking bad feelings
between us."
|
Maintaining harmonious relationships should be our top priority.
|
The other person is likely to take advantage of you.
|
|
Collaborating
|
Solve the problem together
|
"This is my position. What is yours?" "I'm committed
to finding the best possible solution." "What do the facts suggests?"
|
The positions of both parties are equally important (though not
necessarily equally valid). Equal emphasis should be placed on the quality of
the outcome and the fairness of the decision making process.
|
The problem is most likely to be resolved. Also, both parties are
committed to the solution and satisfied that they have been treated fairly.
|
(Source:
Whetten, D.A., & Cameron, K. S. (2011), Developing Management Skills)
The following identifies four important incident-specific circumstances that can be used to select the appropriate conflict management approach. These can be stated in the form of diagnostic questions with accompanying examples of high and low responses.
|
Situational Considerations
|
Conflict Management Approach
|
|
Forcing
|
Accommodating
|
Compromising
|
Collaborating
|
Avoiding
|
|
Issue Importance
|
High
|
Low
|
Med.
|
High
|
Low
|
|
Relationship Importance
|
Low
|
High
|
Med.
|
High
|
Low
|
|
Relative Power
|
High
|
Low
|
Equal
|
Low-High
|
Equal
|
|
Time Constraints
|
Med.-High
|
Med.-High
|
Low
|
Low
|
Med.-light
|
(Source:
Whetten, D.A., & Cameron, K. S. (2011), Developing Management Skills)
The advantage of this table is that it allows you to quickly assess a situation and decide if a particular conflict management approach is suitable. As noted in the following descriptions, it is important to keep in mind all of the situational considerations that are not equally important for selecting a particular approach.
The forcing approach is the most appropriate when a conflict involves values or policies and one feels compelled to defend the "correct" position; when a superior-subordinate relationship is involved; when maintaining a close, supportive relationship is not critical; and when there is a sense of urgency. An example of such a situation might be a manager insisting that a summer intern follow important company safety regulations.
The accommodating approach is most appropriate when the importance of maintaining a good working relationship outweighs all other considerations. While this could be the case regardless of your formal relationship with the other party, it is often perceived as being the only option for subordinates of powerful bosses. The nature of the issues and the amount of time available play a secondary role in determining the choice of this strategy. Accommodation becomes especially appropriate when the issues are not vital to you and when interest and the problem must be resolved quickly.
Trying to reach a compromise is the most appropriate when the issues are complex and moderately important, there are no simple solution and both parties have a strong interest in different facts of the problem. The other essential situational requirement is adequate time for negotiation. The classic case is a bargaining session between representative of management and labor to advert scheduled strike. While the characteristics of the relationship between the parties are not essential factors, experience has shown that negotiations work best between parties with equal power who are committed to maintaining a good long-term relationship.
The collaborating approach is the most appropriate when the issues are critical, maintain an ongoing supportive relationship between peers is important, and time constraints are not pressing. Although collaboration can also be an effective approach for resolving conflicts between a superior and subordinate, it is important to pint out when a conflict involves in peers, the collaborative mode is more appropriate than either forcing or accommodating approach.
The avoidance approach is the most appropriate when one's stake in an issue is not high and there is not a strong interpersonal reason for getting involved, regardless of whether the conflict involves superior, subordinate or peer. A server time constraint becomes a contributing factor because it increases the likelihood of sign avoidance, by default. While one might prefer other strategies that have a good chance of resolving problems without damaging relationships, such as compromise and collaboration, these are ruled out because of time pressure.
Structural Conflict Management Approach
The change in organization structure or some part of it can reduce dysfunctional conflicts. It is observed that conflicts can be reduced by decentralization, restricting to remove obvious differentials in status symbols between hierarchical interest groups, development of cycles of work, with opportunity to employees to complete tasks and sharing in organizational rewards. Such structural variables, more specifically, can be used in the following ways:
a) Reduction in Interdependence
The reason of having inter-group conflict is interdependence among them. Whenever there is less interdependence, the various divisions of the organization are relatively self-contained and independent. In sequential interdependence, there is high degree of interdependence between two or more departments which might be using the product of others in a particular sequence. The units are more interdependent when the interdependence is reciprocal, that is, the outcome of various units becomes input to others. According to conflict model, the degree of conflict is high in the case of latter two relationships, that is, more the interdependence, more the chances for conflict. In organizations, such interdependence cannot altogether be avoided, however, instead of separating units organizationally, they can be separated physically. Physically separating the conflicting groups has the distinct advantage of preventing more damage from being done and of preventing the creation of further rationale for fighting.
b) Reduction in Shared Resources
The potential for conflict increase whenever two or more than two units are required to share resources, particularly scarce ones. The management of conflict suggests reducing such sharing. One technique for reducing such sharing is the increase in such resources so that each unit is independent in using them. However, since resources are scarce, it is not always possible to do so. As such, measures may be adopted for their optimum allocation.
c) Exchange of Personnel
In a research study, it was found that the exchange of people program was effective at reducing conflict and speeding agreement. Personnel of the conflicting groups may be exchanged for a specified period as a way to reducing and managing conflict. An exchange of people is very similar to role reversal, which is aimed at greater understanding between people by forcing each to present and defend the others position.
d) Certain of Special Integrators
Lawrence and Lorsch have found that in certain situations, particularly when there are much differentiation between departments in terms of time span, goals and values, the use of special integrator departments or individuals facilitate the management and resolution of interdepartmental conflicts. For example, they found that integrators were more effective when they were viewed as about intermediate in position between the conflicting departments, where they were viewed as high in influence, and where they perceived that their rewards were tied to the total performance of the two groups they were integrating.
To resolve conflict, organization may create provisions for the appointment of special integrators who may manage the interdependence of various groups so that unresolved matters can be solved through them.
e) Reference to Superior's Authority
If resolution cannot be attained by two organizational members, they may take the issue to a common superior who resolves the conflict by making a decision; such a decision is usually accepted by organizational members because of the recognized superior authority of high-ranking individual. Such a decision may not necessarily bring agreement but it will usually be accepted.
