Managing Conflicts in Organizations - Term Paper Example

? Managing Conflicts in Organizations Executive Summary: Conflicts are inevitable in everyday life and in organizations. The challenge for organizations today is not to avoid conflicts but to manage them in such a way that they work to the benefit of the organization. Some of the most common techniques for achieving this are stimulating functional conflict, dealing with dysfunctional conflict by means of integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising, third party interventions and negotiations. Conflict Management Human beings as individuals and as groups such as organizations, nations etc are prone to getting into conflict. It would not be unfair to say that conflict is inevitable amongst human beings. The constant struggle to get hold of status, resources, power etc amongst humans often results in a form of social interaction called conflict. Thus, conflict can formally be defined as: “A process which begins when an individual or group perceives differences and opposition between itself and another individual or group about interests and resources, beliefs, values, or practices that matter to them.” (Digirolamo) In the same way that conflicts are inevitable in everyday life, they are also inevitable in organizations. Especially in modern organizations wherein factors such as constant change, employee diversity, team based structures etc make conflict an ever-present. Conflict, however, is not necessarily a bad thing and can help get the best out of individuals within the organizations. Organizations must therefore make sure that they do not discourage conflict but rather manage it smartly so that it can work to its advantage. Thus, conflict can be looked at in different ways in organizations: Conflict as war – When parties treat conflict as a must-win war. Conflict as opportunity – When parties use the conflict as an opportunity to be more creative, to grow and to improve on what they already are. Conflict as journey – When parties use the conflict as a search for common ground. The first view of conflict is a win-lose situation. Such a situation is not good for the organization in any way because such conflict is destructive. The other two views on the other hand are constructive in nature and are desirable for organizations because they create win-win situations and help the organization get the best out of its employees. (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2008). Organizations should therefore make sure that its employees treat conflict in the right manner and it is for this purpose that they employ conflict management practices. Conflict management practices involve many different strategies which can be used by organizations to manage conflicts effectively. Some of these strategies are discussed below. The first technique that managers can use is fostering functional conflict. Functional conflict can be defined as the kind of conflict which is beneficial to the organization’s interest. (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2008) Managers looking to infuse their decision making teams with creativity and passion very often look towards stimulating functional conflict. There are two ways of doing this. The first method is to fan the naturally arising conflicts between different parties. This method, however, is very unreliable and may end up stimulating dysfunctional conflict. The other method is to employ programmed conflict. Programmed conflict can be defined as “conflict that raises different opinions regardless of what the managers personally feel about the issue.” This method requires disciplined role playing by everyone involved (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2008). The two best methods of programmed conflict are devil’s advocacy and dialectic decision method. Devil’s Advocacy is the technique in which someone is assigned the role of a critic and is told to air all possible objections to an idea. (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2008). Dialectic Decision Method simply requires fostering a debate of opposing points of views prior to making a decision in order to better understand the whole issue (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2008). A corporate example of a company which employs the dialectic decision method is the lawn-mower giant Toro. Toro employs a “contra team”, a team of six vice presidents and directors, to shoot down ideas and air the voice of dissent (Kaihla, 2006). Fostering functional conflict is a good technique but has its limitations because it is not always possible to have only functional conflict and not dysfunctional conflict. Dysfunctional conflict, which can be defined the kind of conflict which is detrimental to an organization’s objectives, rears its ugly head from time to time in organizations and has to be dealt with effectively in order to save the organization from internal strife. Some of the most common negative effects of dysfunctional conflict are decrease in job satisfaction and increase in employee turnover, increase in absenteeism and decrease in job satisfaction and job performance (Digirolamo). There are many different approaches towards handling dysfunctional conflict in organizations and research on this subject has successfully identified 5 major conflict-handling styles: the integrating style, the obliging style, the dominating style, the ignoring style, and the compromising style. (Rahim, 2001) (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2008) The integrating style of conflict management is characterized by high concern for self and others. In this style parties to the conflict collaborate among themselves to generate many different solutions and then work out and select the best one. Use of this method is very helpful in situations where it is critical to solve the problem from its root and not just tackle the symptoms. (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2008) (Rahim, 2001) The obliging style of conflict management is characterized by low concern for self but high concern for others. This style is also called smoothing or accommodating because in this style the obliging person or party neglects its own concern to satisfy the concern of the other party. (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2008) (Rahim, 2001) The dominating style of conflict management is characterized by high concern for self but low concern for others. This style looks to create a win-lose situation and is only suitable when an unpopular solution must be implemented, a deadline looms or a crisis is at hand. (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2008) (Rahim, 2001) The avoiding style of conflict management is characterized by low concern for self and low concern for others. This style is appropriate for issues in which the cost of confrontation outweighs the benefit of solving the problem. (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2008) (Rahim, 2001) The compromising style is basically a give and take approach involving moderate concern for both self and others. This style is most appropriate for issues in which the parties have opposite goals or possess equal power. This strategy however, only provides a temporary solution in most cases and might stifle creative problem solving. (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2008) (Rahim, 2001) It should, however, be kept in mind here that no single style is the best and all of them have their pros and cons. Each of these styles is suitable for a particular situation and it is up to the manager or the individual involved in the conflict to choose the style which he thinks would best solve the problem. Another good technique for resolving dysfunctional conflicts is third party intervention. Third party interventions, as the name suggests, is characterized by the involvement of a third party in the conflict resolution process. One of the most common intervention techniques is conflict triangle. A typical conflict triangle is formed when the conflicting parties involve a third person rather than dealing directly with each other. The best thing to do for the third party involved in the conflict triangle is to detriangle the situation and redirect the two parties’ energies towards each other in a constructive and positive manner (Hocker & Wilmot, 1995). Negotiations are also very effective in resolving dysfunctional conflicts. They can simply be defined as a give-and-take process between conflicting interdependent parties. There are two major types of negotiations distributive and integrative. Distributive negotiation involves the tradition win-lose approach. Such negotiations are vulnerable to ethical pitfalls such as lying, puffery and deception (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2008). Integrative negotiation, on the other hand, involves the progressive win-win approach. This kind of negotiation is very beneficial for intergroup or inter organizational conflicts (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2008). Works Cited Digirolamo, J. A. (n.d.). Conflict in Organizations. Retrieved October 1, 2011, from Turbocharged Leadership: turbochargedleadership.com/docs/Conflict_in_Organizations.pdf Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. W. (1995). Interpersonal Conflict. Brown & Benchmark. Kaihla, P. (2006, March 16). Best-Kept Secrets of the World's Best Companies. Retrieved October 1, 2011, from CNN Money: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/04/01/8372806/index.htm Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2008). Organizational Behavior. New Delhi: Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited. Rahim, M. A. (2001). Managing Conflicts in Organizations. Quorum Books. Read More