Theory Enlightens Practical Problems: Communication and Workplace Conflict - Assignment Example

Theory Enlightens Practical Problems: Communication and Workplace Conflict Name: Course: Tutor: Date: Introduction Conflict in the workplace is prevalent in many organizations. The conflict may be between employees or between employees and customers; all the same, it imposes not so desirable impacts on the performance of any organization as well as its public reputation. Dealing with conflict in the workplace, which can be between employees and their bosses, employees and customers, or between co-workers, is not just about dealing with conflict when it arises, but involves learning about how to prevent destructive conflict from happening in the first place (Bacal, 1998, p. 5). This point may be used to imply that there are benefits of conflict in the workplace, but as it will be discussed in later sections of this paper, the demerits of workplace conflict outweigh the merits. This paper will discuss conflict in the workplace with a view to understand how conflict arises among various individuals, who, ironically may be supposed to be working in concert to attain their organization’s goals.. What is notable is that most instances of conflict are instigated by failure by various parties to communicate effectively. The discussions will be aimed at creating a better understanding of conflict in the workplace, hence developing ways of dealing with it from literature that exist on the same. In doing so, focus will be on two theories related to conflict management through enhanced communication. The relevance of the two theories will also be discussed in order to show how knowledge of the two concepts can be used to manage conflict in the workplace. The first section discusses an understanding of conflict in the workplace. Understanding conflict in the workplace According to Schieman and Reid (2008), interpersonal conflict in the workplace encompasses perceptions about exposure to various negative forms of interaction that range from slight disagreements to more harsh altercations, including violation of people’s rights and use of insults against others; acuities of injustice, inequity or biasness, objective impediments or obscured aims; incompetence; and being the target of other people’s physical or verbal antagonism as well as aggression (p. 276). Understanding conflict in the workplace is important for many reasons. One is that it is often perceived that the workplace is a source of support and solidarity for any employee (due to interactions with other people) (Aquino, 2000). The second one is that the many instances of conflict in the workplace such as bullying, resistance, invincibility, and constant need for negotiation make the workplace one of the most interpersonally intriguing environments (Schieman & Reid, 2008, p. 276; Maravelas, 2005). It has been noted by many authors that conflict in the workplace may be of benefit to any given organization. Nevertheless, according to De Dreu (2007), arguments in such a perspective are based on a rather weak foundation. De Dreu (2007) thus points out that a selective and rather limited review of exiting literature depicts a number of issues regarding conflict. The first one is that the positive attributes of conflict are noticeable only under an exceptionally narrow scope of circumstances. The second one is that the supposition that (various forms of) conflict and conflict management has positive meanings can be disapprove of based on methodological grounds. The third is that even under constructive circumstances, a number of grave negative functions can be noted as well. The fourth is that negative functions of conflict usually outweigh the positive ones, thus prohibiting the emergence of what can be referred to as “positive work conflict” (in which case it is assumed that conflict has predominantly positive corollaries). The fifth point is that organizations need to have cooperative conflict management strategies not because it brings positive conflict, but rather because it averts a situation whereby workplace conflict hurts too much (De Dreu, 2007, p. 5; Runde & Flanagan, 2007). Studies on organizational behaviour have revolved around the positive functions of workplace conflict. Along this line, conflict has been associated with learning, higher levels of creativity as well as innovation. It has also been surmised that conflict leads to an improvement in the quality of decision making as well as an enhancement in overall team effectiveness (Runde & Flanagan, 2007). Some authors have identified aspects of positive impacts of conflicts associated with task-related duties such as formulating company strategies; but the same authors have noted that there is not as much positive impact of conflict in relationship and personal related issues in the workplace (such as disagreements about political issues or overall bad chemistry) (De Dreu 2007, p. 5). Workplace conflict arises when one party- which can be an individual of a group- perceives its values, goal or opinions as being thwarted by a counterpart (De Dreu 2007, p. 6). As such, the workplace conflicts may occur as a result of scarce resources, for example time, budgets, and responsibilities. Conflicts may also arise due to values such as religious convictions, political preferences and morality. As well, conflict may arise because of a combination of the aforementioned factors. Other conflicts arise during general interaction, such as humour that may not be pleasant to some people (De Dreu 2007, p. 6). In relation this, Bacal (1998) notes that conflicts arise because people are not aware of their own behaviour in terms of how they communicate, such that when they do communicate they just create problems for themselves and those around them. Bacal (1998) further adds that whereas people may be aware of what they can do that contributes to rocky relationships, they don’t just use cooperative approaches to avoid it consistently (p. 6). Addressing the concept of workplace conflict, Masters and Albright (2002) note that conflicts arise between parties that are interdependent, implying that the conflict cannot be resolved to common satisfaction without some form of mutual effort. The core of the conflict may be real or just perceived but its effect is imposed psychologically on at least one of the parties involved (p. 14). Irrespective of whichever way workplace conflict occurs, it is of grave concern in view of the fact that is linked to workplace stress and other workplace-related health complications (Runde & Flanagan, 2007, p. 13). Several strategies have been formulated to deal with such problems, some of which are depicted through theories. Two of the theories are discussed next. Face negotiation theory The face negotiation theory was formulated by Ting-Toomey (1988) and drew on the works of Goffman (1955) and Brown and Levinson (1987) (noted from Oetzel and Ting-Toomey, 2003, p. 600). The theory provides a reasonable explanatory framework for describing differences as well as similarities in face to face negotiations during conflict. The theory argues that (1) people from all cultural backgrounds attempt to negotiate face in every communication situation; (2) the idea of face becomes particularly problematic in situations of uncertainty; (3) cultural differences among individuals influence people’s choice of face sets over others during negotiation; and (4) as a result of the aforementioned, face concerns affect the use of various facework as well as conflict strategies in both inter-group and interpersonal encounters (Oetzel and Ting-Toomey, 2003, p. 600). The face negotiation theory emphasizes three major concerns in conflict resolution: the self the other person and the mutual agreement (Rose, et al, 2007, p. 122). What the above description means is that in all settings (such as in the workplace), when people are faced with conflicts they try to solve them by communicating face to face. However, this becomes difficult in situations where deeper ambivalence is involved. Nevertheless, people try to use their own aptitude to resolve conflicts, which may or may not work. This points to the concept mentioned earlier that people do not use cooperative approaches appropriately, which raises the magnitude of a conflict. Thus in order to achieve proper conflict resolution, there is need to integrate face to face approaches with proper aptitude in attempting to apply cooperative strategies. Communication accommodation theory The communication accommodation theory addresses issues of gender, culture and ethnicity in dealing with potential conflicts. It is possible for people with diverse cultural backgrounds to encounter conflicts due to cultural- or ethnic-related misunderstandings. The communication accommodation theory provides a reliable framework for predicting and explaining many adjustments that individuals have to make in order to create, maintain or reduce social distance in interaction (Whaley & Samter, 2006, p. 293). The theory addresses the various ways in which people can accommodate their communication, the motivations for doing so and the implications (Fletcher, Thomas & Durrant, 1999). The concepts in the communication accommodation theory are vital in dealing with workplace related issues such as racial and gender discrimination and related vices. It recognizes the fact that communication is not just a matter of exchanging words and information but is a salient means of creating relationships through the process of accommodation. Hence, the relationships created become vital in dealing with conflicts in the workplace. Relevance of the theories Both the face negotiation theory and the communication accommodation theory address issues related to conflict particularly in the workplace setting. With the face negotiation theory, individuals are empowered to be more judgmental in making decisions that involve two or more parties. As such it is possible to lower the occurrence of conflict among various parties. By analyzing this theory various individuals are able to apply their aptitude in terms of cooperative strategies to resolve workplace conflicts amicably. The communication accommodation theory addresses diverse issues that are likely to cause conflict in the workplace. The theory creates a picture whereby individuals are able to be accommodative of other people’s opinions in the workplace. By being accommodative of diverse opinions, individuals are able to resolve conflicts amicably irrespective of differences in gender as well as cultural, ethnic or racial backgrounds. Conclusion Conflict is inevitable in the workplace, whether it beneficial or negative. While some aspects of conflict in the workplace are beneficial for organizations, much conflict derides the performance of organizations. Hence, there is need to quickly address issues that pronounce conflict in order to mitigate or control the negative consequences. By understanding the face negotiation theory and communication accommodation theory, individuals can adequately address conflict without letting it escalate to unmanageable levels within workplaces. References Aquino, K. (2000).Structural and individual determinants of workplace victimization: the effects of hierarchical status and conflict management style. Journal of Management, 26: 171-180. Bacal, R. (1998). Conflict prevention in the workplace: using cooperative communication. New York: Bacal & Associates. De Dreu, C.K., W. (2008). The virtue and vice of workplace conflict: Food for (pessimistic) thought. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 29:5-18. Fletcher, G., Thomas, G. & Durrant, R. (1999). Cognitive and behavioural accommodation in close relationships. Journal of Social and personal Relationships, 16: 705-715. Maravelas, A. (2005). How to reduce workplace conflict and stress: how leaders and their employees can protect their sanity and productivity from tension and turf wars. London: Career Press. Masters, M. F. & Albright, R. R. (2002). The complete guide to conflict resolution in the workplace. New York: AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn. Oetzel, J.G. & Ting-Toomey. S. (2003). Face concerns in interpersonal conflict: A cross-cultural empirical test of face negotiation theory, Communication Research, 30: 599-603. Rose, R.C., Suppiah, W.R.R.V., Uli, J. & Othman, J. (2007). A face concern approach to conflict management- A Malaysian perspective. Journal of Social Sciences, 2(4): 121-126. Runde, C. E. & Flanagan, T. A. (2007). Becoming a conflict competent leader: how you and your organization can manage conflict effectively New York: John Wiley and Sons. Schieman, S. & Reid, S. (2008). Job authority and interpersonal conflict in the workplace. Work and Occupations, 35: 296: 326. Whaley, B. B. & Samter, W. (2006). Explaining communication: contemporary theories and exemplars. New York: Routledge. Read More