Conflict Management

A conflict is a serious disagreement between two parties. Within organizational

settings, conflicts arise between employees, departments, and organizations
themselves. This leads to a negative climate within the organization. Conflicts
can arise due to task interdependence, status problems, individual traits, lack of
resources, salary issues, etc.
Conflict management refers to techniques and ideas designed to reduce the
negative effects of conflict and enhance the positive outcomes for all parties
involved.
Conflict management is the practice of being able to identify and handle
conflicts sensibly, fairly, and efficiently. Since conflicts in a business are a
natural part of the workplace, it is important that there are people who
understand conflicts and know how to resolve them. This is important in today's
market more than ever. Everyone is striving to show how valuable they are to
the company they work for and at times, this can lead to disputes with other
members of the team.
Levels of Conflict in an Organisation
The four important levels of conflicts in organisation,
(1) Individual Level Conflict, (2) Interpersonal Conflict, (3) Group Level
Conflict, and (4) Organisation Level Conflict.
(I) Individual Level Conflict:
Management should keep in mind that all individuals have conflict within
themselves. Conflict arises within an individual whenever his drives and
motives are blocked or he is confronted with competing roles and goals and he
is unable to take decisions.
(II) Interpersonal Conflict:
Interpersonal conflict involves conflict between two or more individuals I and is
probably the most common and most recognized conflict. All conflicts are
basically interpersonal conflicts because most of the conflicts involve conflict
between a person in one organisation or a group and another person in other
organisation or a group.

Every individual has a separate acceptable alternative course of action and

different individuals prefer different alternatives. The organisation itself creates
situations in which two individuals are placed in conflict situations. This may
involve conflict, for example, between two managers who are competing for
limited capital and manpower resources.

Another type of interpersonal conflict can relate to disagreement over goals and
objectives of the organisation. These conflicts are highlighted when they are
based upon opinions rather than facts. Opinions are highly personal and
subjective and may lead to criticism and disagreements. These conflicts are
often the result of personality clashes.
(III) Group Level Conflict:
A group consists of two or more persons who are in interaction with each other,
have a well-defined structure of role and status relations and have a system
values and norms of behaviour for the smooth working of the group. Groups not
only affect the behaviour of their members, rather they have impact on other
groups and the organisation as a whole. In this process of interaction, two types
of conflict arises (A) Intra group and (B) Inter group.
(IV) Organisational Level Conflict:
All the conflicts discussed in the preceding discussion relate to conflicts within
the organisational settings. Inter organisational level conflict occur between
organisations which are in some way or the other dependent upon each other.
Conflicts at individual level, group level or inter group level are all inherent in
the organisation level conflict. The organisation level conflict can be between
the buyer and seller organisation, between union and organisations employing
the members, between government agencies that regulate certain organisations
and the organisations that are affected by them.

Managers must try to live with this type of conflict. If the conflict is properly
handled it can be constructive in achieving the results. It can act as a stimulus it
may be a challenge and motivational force to keep the organisation moving.

Is Conflict Always Bad?

Most people are uncomfortable with conflict, but is conflict always bad?
Conflict can be dysfunctional if it paralyzes an organization, leads to less than
optimal performance, or, in the worst case, leads to workplace violence.
Surprisingly, a moderate amount of conflict can actually be a healthy (and
necessary) part of organizational life.

Conflict process
5 Stages of Conflict Process:
Organizational conflict arises when the goals, interests or values of different
individuals or groups are incompatible and those individuals or groups block or
thwart one another’s attempts to achieve their objective. Conflict Process shows
how conflict works within the organization.

We can identify the stages that a conflict born and grows in an organization. we
will look at the stages of a conflict covering the birth, rise, and ending in it.

5 Stages Conflict Process are;

Potential Opposition or Incompatibility.
Cognition and Personalization.
Intentions.
Behavior.
Outcomes.
Conflict Process consists of five stages that show how conflict begins, grows,
and unfolds among individuals or groups with different goals, interests or values
of the organization.
These stages are described below;

5 Stages of Conflict Process

Stage 1: Potential Opposition or Incompatibility
The first step in the conflict process is the presence of conditions that create
opportunities for conflict to develop. These cause or create opportunities for
organizational conflict to rise.

They need not lead directly to conflict, but one of these conditions is necessary
if the conflict is to surface.

For simplicity’s sake, these conditions have been condensed into three general
categories.

Communication,
Structure, and
Personal Variables.
These 3 conditions cause conflict are explained;

1. Communications
Different words connotations, jargon insufficient exchange of information and
noise in the communication channel are all antecedent conditions to conflict.

Too much communication, as well as too little communication, can lay the
foundation for conflict.

2. Structure
In this context, the term structure is used to include variables such as size, the
degree of specialization in the tasks assigned to group members, jurisdictional
clarity, members/goal compatibility, leadership styles, reward systems and the
degree of dependence between groups.

The size and specialization act as forces to stimulate conflict. The larger the
group and the more specialized its activities, the greater the likelihood of
conflict. Tenure and conflict have been found to be inversely related.

The potential for conflicts tends to be greatest when group members are
younger and when turnover is high.

In defining where responsibility for action lies; the greater the ambiguity is the
greater the potential for conflict to the surface. Such Jurisdictional ambiguity
increases inter-group fighting for control or resources and territory.

3. Personal Variables
Certain personality types- for example, individuals who are highly authoritarian
and dogmatic- lead to potential conflict. Another reason for the conflict is the
difference in value systems.

Value differences are the best explanations of diverse issues such as prejudice
disagreements over one’s contribution to the group and rewards one deserves.

Stage 2: Cognition and Personalization

Conflict must be perceived by the parties to it whether or not the conflict exists
is a perception issue, the second step of the Conflict Process.

If no one is aware of a conflict, then it is generally agreed that no conflict exists.

It is the felt level when individuals become emotionally involved that parties
experience anxiety, tension or hostility.
Stage-2 is the place in the process where the parties decide what the conflict is
about and emotions play a major role in shaping perception.

Stage 3: Intentions
Intentions are decisions to act in a given way, intentions intervene between
people’s perception and emotions and their overt behavior.

Using two dimensions cooperativeness (the degree to which one party attempts
to satisfy the other party’s concerns) and assertiveness (the degree to which one
party attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns) five conflict-handling
intentions can be identified.
There are 5 conflict-handling intentions;

Competing (I Win, You Lose),

Collaborating (I Win, You Win),
Avoiding (No Winners, No Losers),
Accommodating (I lose, You win), and
Compromising (You Bend, I Bend).
These are also known as conflict handling styles and orientations which are
discussed below:

1. Competing (I Win, You Lose)

When one person seeks to satisfy his or her own interests regardless of the
impact on the other parties to the conflict, he is competing.
The competition involves authoritative and assertive behaviors.
In this style, the aggressive individual aims to instill pressure on the other
parties to achieve a goal. It includes the use of whatever means to attain what
the individual thinks is right.
It may be appropriate in some situations but it shouldn’t come to a point
wherein the aggressor becomes too unreasonable.
Dealing with the conflict with an open mind is vital for a resolution to be met.
2. Collaborating (I Win, You Win)
A situation in which the parties to conflict each desire to satisfy fully the
concerns of all the parties.
In collaborating, the intention of the parties is to solve the problem by clarifying
differences rather than by accommodating various points of view.
Collaborating aims to find a solution to the conflict through cooperating with
other parties involved.
Hence, communication is an important part of this strategy.
In this mechanism, the effort is exerted in digging into the issue to identify the
needs of the individuals concerned without removing their respective interests
from the picture.

Collaborating individuals aim to come up with a successful resolution

creatively, without compromising their own satisfaction.

3. Avoiding (No Winners, No Losers)

A person may recognize that a conflict exists and want to withdraw from it or
suppress it.

Avoiding included trying to just ignore a conflict and avoiding others with
whom you disagree.

In this approach, there is withdrawal from the conflict. The problem is being
dealt through a passive attitude.

Avoiding is mostly used when the perceived negative end outweighs the
positive outcome.
In employing this, individuals end up ignoring the problem, thinking that the
conflict will resolve itself. It might be applicable in certain situations but not in
all.

Avoidance would mean that you neglect the responsibility that comes with it.

The other individuals involved might think that you are neglecting the problem.
Thus, it is better to confront the problem before it gets worse.

4. Accommodating (I lose, You win)

The willingness of one partying a conflict top lace the opponent’s interest above
his or her own.

Accommodation involves having to deal with the problem with an element of

self-sacrifice; an individual sets aside his own concerns to maintain peace in the
situation.

Thus, the person yields to what the other wants, displaying a form of
selflessness.

It might come as an immediate solution to the issue; however, it also brings

about a false manner of dealing with the problem.

This can be disruptive if there is a need to come up with a more sound and
creative way out of the problem. This behavior will be most efficient if the
individual is in the wrong as it can come as a form of conciliation.

5. Compromising (You Bend, I Bend)

A situation in which each party to a conflict is willing to give up something.
Intentions provide general guidelines for parties in a conflict situation. They
define each party’s purpose.

Yet people intention is not fixed. During the course of the conflict, they might
change because of re-conceptualization or because of an emotional reaction to
the behavior of another party.

Compromising is about coming up with a resolution that would be acceptable to

the parties involved.

Thus, one party is willing to sacrifice their own sets of goals as long as the
others will do the same.

Hence, it can be viewed as a mutual give-and-take scenario where the parties

submit the same amount of investment for the problem to be solved.

A disadvantage of this strategy is the fact that since these parties find an easy
way around the problem, the possibility of coming up with more creative ways
for a solution would be neglected.

Stage 4: Behavior
This is a stage where conflict becomes visible. The behavior stage includes the
statements, actions, and reactions made by the conflicting parties.

These conflict behaviors are usually overt attempt to implement each party’s
intentions.

When most people think of conflict situations, they tend to focus on Stage 4.
Why?
Because this is a stage Where conflict becomes visible. The behavior stage
includes the statements, actions, and reactions made by the conflicting parties;

These conflict behaviors are usually overt attempt to implement each party’s
intentions. But these behaviors have a stimulus quality that is separate from
intentions.

As a result of miscalculations or unskilled enactments, overt behaviors

sometimes deviate from original intentions.
Stage 5: Outcomes
The action-reaction interplay between the conflicting parties results in
consequences.

These outcomes may be functional in that the conflict results in an improvement

in the group’s performance, or dysfunctional in that it hinders group
performance.

Conflict is constructive when it improves the quality of decisions stimulates

creativity and innovations encourage interest and curiosity among group
members provide the medium through which problems can be aired and
tensions released and foster an environment of self-evaluation and change.

Conflict is dysfunctional when uncontrolled opposition breeds discontent,

which acts to dissolve common ties and eventually leads to the destruction of
the group.

Among the more undesirable consequences are a retarding of communication,

reductions in group cohesiveness and subordination of group goals to the
primacy of infighting between members.
When speaking of conflicts, mainly there are two types. They are constructive
conflicts and destructive conflicts. As the names suggest, the outcome of these
two types of conflicts is vastly different. Constructive conflict leads to a
positive outcome that mostly involves conflict resolution. However, destructive
conflicts usually end up with negative outcomes. This does not necessarily have
to be within an organization; it can occur in other settings such as the family,
among friends, or even states as well.
What is Constructive Conflict?
A conflict is usually viewed as something negative, as it generates a lot of
antagonism and frustration between the parties involved. However, a conflict
does not necessarily have to be destructive. In a constructive conflict, even
though, a disagreement between two parties emerges, this can be resolved in a
positive manner so that it benefits both parties. This is often referred to as a
win-win situation because both parties benefit from it. Also, the communication
that takes place between the two parties is often honest and open
communication. They do not involve emotional, impulsive responses and are
focused on finding a solution. Both parties realize the necessity to resolve the
conflict so that the demands of each party can be met.

Let us assume that the conflict emerged in a group of employees who are
assigned to a particular task. Both employees feel the need to achieve the target
but have different strategies. Through a constructive conflict, the two employees
can find a solution by working as a team. This then improves the team
performance of the individuals as well. However, a destructive conflict brings
about different outcomes than a constructive conflict.

What is Destructive Conflict?

Unlike a constructive conflict, a destructive conflict is characterized by feelings
of frustration and antagonism. Destructive conflicts do not bring about positive
outcomes and damages the productivity of an organization. In such a situation,
both parties make an effort to win at whatever cost. They refuse to communicate
honestly and openly and reject the solutions brought about by the other party.
Unlike in a constructive conflict where there is respect for other employees, in
destructive conflicts this cannot be seen.
In a destructive conflict, the demands of both parties do not get fulfilled. This
creates further frustration and impulsive actions. The two parties may even
involve in activities that taint the image of the other. Such conflicts usually do
not strengthen the relationship but detriments the working relationship. This
highlights that while constructive conflicts can be good for organizations,
destructive conflicts are not.

What is the difference between Constructive and Destructive Conflict?

• Definitions of Constructive and Destructive Conflict:
• In a constructive conflict, even though, a disagreement between two parties
emerge, this can be resolved in a positive manner so that it benefits both parties.

• In a destructive conflict, the disagreement leads to negative outcomes creating

feelings of frustration and antagonism.

• Outcome:
• A constructive conflict has positive outcomes.

• A destructive conflict has negative outcomes.

• Effect on the Relationship:

• A constructive conflict strengthens the relationship between the two parties.

• A destructive conflict harms the relationship between the two parties.

• Situation Created:
• A constructive conflict creates a win-win situation where both parties benefit.

• In a destructive conflict, both parties do not benefit.

• Communication:
• In a constructive conflict, there is honest communication.

• In a destructive conflict, there is not.

• Performance:
• A constructive conflict improves performance especially in groups.

• A destructive conflict reduces performance.

• Action of Parties:
• In a constructive conflict, both parties are involved in resolving the issue.

• In a destructive conflict, you cannot see that both parties are involved in
resolving the issue.

Strategies for Constructive Conflict

1. Recognize that conflict is normal. It is not feasible or healthy to avoid
conflict. Humans will disagree with one another. They will have different points
of view about tasks, about how tasks should be assigned, and about people.
Moreover, they simply like some people more than others. Conflict is going to
happen. It is not a sign of failure, and suppressing it is not a viable option. It
hasn't gone away, you just aren't seeing it, and your team's effectiveness is
probably suffering.

2. Take the time to address interpersonal disagreements between team members.

The research shows that interpersonal conflicts can hurt a team's performance.
Unchecked, they can also erode psychological safety, in turn making it difficult
to have constructive disagreements about work-related issues. I coached a team
leader who told me that an on-going conflict between two of his team members
"was their problem." I advised him that "their" problem affects the team, and so,
although I knew he'd rather not deal with it, it was also his problem.

3. Some conflicts are best handled in private. When two team members have an
interpersonal conflict, it should typically be handled in private. If it surfaces in a
team setting, find a time to talk with each person individually and then together,
but not in front of the entire team. In contrast, when psychological safety is
high, a team discussion about a task-related conflict can be quite useful.

4. Surface and discuss concerns. Conflicts sometimes emerge because small

concerns go unchecked. Talk with your team to surface irritants before they
become bigger problems. We are currently conducting research with NASA on
crews that work and live together in close quarters for days at a time (to
simulate future space missions). We find that enabling teams to uncover and
discuss potential irritants (for them it's about topics like privacy, sleep, meals)
before they become a source of conflict is helping them avert problems later in
the mission. Establish a pattern of identifying and discussing concerns openly
and "conflict" will boost performance.

5. Make "deposits" to create a sense of psychological safety. As a team leader

you greatly influence the degree to which your team feels safe. Look for
opportunities to set the right tone. How? When a team members offers a
dissenting point of view, thank him for speaking up (to encourage others to
speak up). Be constructive when you disagree with a team member (to model
how to disagree effectively). Admit your own concerns or mistakes (so team
members become comfortable voicing theirs). In contrast, want to know the
easiest way to kill psychological safety? Punish someone for voicing a
dissenting opinion.

6. Frame disagreements so they are about the work and not about the person.
Disagreements that seem "person-related" are perceived as interpersonal
conflict. You can take an opposing view about a work idea without sounding
like you are opposing the person offering the idea.
7. Choose your team wisely. When you have the chance, select people for your
team who are open to experience and emotionally stable. That alone will
improve the chances that differing points of view about work will boost rather
than hurt your team's performance.

8. Know your team. Some people are more comfortable with conflict than
others. And there are cultural differences as well. Countries have differing
norms about the appropriateness of speaking up. And even within a country
there can be differences.Be aware of your team's preferences, and encourage
them to speak up or coach them to be more constructive, as needed.

9. Know yourself. How do you feel about conflict? I generally enjoy task
conflict – a debate about a work issue makes me very happy. As a leader, I like
to think I promote "constructive friction" but I suspect not everyone sees it that
way! Knowing your tendencies can enable you to tone it down or amp it up
accordingly.

Conflict resolution strategies

Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann developed five conflict resolution

strategies that people use to handle conflict, including avoiding, defeating,
compromising, accommodating, and collaborating.

This is based on the assumption that people choose how cooperative and how
assertive to be in a conflict. It suggests that everyone has preferred ways of
responding to conflict, but most of us use all methods under various
circumstances. It is helpful to understand the five methods, particularly when
you want to move a group forward.

Conflict Resolution Strategy #1: Avoiding

Avoiding is when people just ignore or withdraw from the conflict. They choose
this method when the discomfort of confrontation exceeds the potential reward
of resolution of the conflict. While this might seem easy to accommodate for the
facilitator, people aren’t really contributing anything of value to the
conversation and may be withholding worthwhile ideas. When conflict is
avoided, nothing is resolved.

Conflict Resolution Strategy #2: Competing

Competing is used by people who go into a conflict planning to win. They’re
assertive and not cooperative. This method is characterized by the assumption
that one side wins and everyone else loses. It doesn’t allow room for diverse
perspectives into a well informed total picture. Competing might work in sports
or war, but it’s rarely a good strategy for group problem solving.
It’s what can happen when people feel like they aren’t being listened to and start
being assertive.

Conflict Resolution Strategy #3: Accommodating

Accommodating is a strategy where one party gives in to the wishes or demands
of another. They’re being cooperative but not assertive. This may appear to be a
gracious way to give in when one figures out s/he has been wrong about an
argument. It’s less helpful when one party accommodates another merely to
preserve harmony or to avoid disruption. Like avoidance, it can result in
unresolved issues. Too much accommodation can result in groups where the
most assertive parties commandeer the process and take control of most
conversations.

Conflict Resolution Strategy #4: Collaborating

Collaborating is the method used when people are both assertive and
cooperative. A group may learn to allow each participant to make a contribution
with the possibility of co-creating a shared solution that everyone can support.

A great way to collaborate and overcome conflict is to reach out and touch
them.

Conflict Resolution Strategy #5: Compromising

Another strategy is compromising, where participants are partially assertive and
cooperative. The concept is that everyone gives up a little bit of what they want,
and no one gets everything they want. The perception of the best outcome when
working by compromise is that which “splits the difference.” Compromise is
perceived as being fair, even if no one is particularly happy with the outcome.