Conflict Management Styles - Example

Organisational psychology is not exactly quantum physics, but in one respect it is difficult to tell the difference between the two. In physics, the Heisenberg Effect describes a conundrum wherein the act of observation of an object or process alters that which is being observed. The relational processes between person, group, and context work in much the same way: the person both affects and is affected by the group and these individually and together affect and are affected by the context, and all these mutual changes alter the mutual effects. Thus, the only valid analysis and explanation of the group-person-context dynamic is a snapshot, and this is particularly true of analysing the dynamic from a first-person perspective. My observations of my own behaviour and experiences in the dynamic inevitably alters my perceptions in some way, at the very least by expanding my understanding of them, so that my behaviour changes and has a different effect on the dynamic. Relational Processes between Person and Group There are different ideas about how a personality is defined. In the Week 6 class lecture various approaches to theories of personality were explored, and one of the concepts presented was Eysenck’s Type Theory, an idiographic approach that describes four interconnected parts of a personality: Extroversion, Introversion, Neuroticism, and Stability. Much of the research into actual applications of personality into real-world organisational situations, however, speaks of the “Big Five” components of personality: extroversion, agreeableness, neuroticism or anxiety, conscientiousness, and openness. (Guthrie, Coate, and Schwoerer, 1998; Antonioni, 1998; Manning, Pogson, and Morrison, 2008) Every person has some degree of every one of these components in their personality, which are determined by the person’s heredity, environment – meaning family, and culture – and circumstances. These components are all interconnected and are all changeable to some degree, mostly through the circumstances determinant, which is where the relational process between person and group occurs. The other determinants of personality – heredity and environment – are what J.M. Balkin (1998) calls cultural software. These are the parts of the personality that are the least easy to change, and represent a kind of “operating system” for each person. This personal software is made up of memes, or units of cultural transmission, most of which are written into the person’s system at an early age through their genes, their family and social status, and the culture in which they grow up. (Balkin, 1998: 43) Thus when forming or joining groups, every person brings a unique basic program – a personality – to the group. But because every personality can be determined at least partially by circumstances, the group, which is the product of many diverse personalities, can change every personality. There are two ways in which this can happen: cognitive contagion, which is the transfer of ideas and knowledge, and emotional contagion, which is the transfer of feelings and emotions. (Barsade, 2002) Of the two, cognitive contagion is easier to understand, because most ideas can be transmitted with language, whereas emotional contagion is a complex mix of language and non-verbal cues. (Ibid.) In common terms, emotional contagion is what happens when someone’s mood “rubs off on” someone else. Barsade’s study was one of the first to quantify the effect, by using carefully-trained researcher to ‘transmit’ specific moods to a group of unsuspecting subjects, and then using several observers to note the subjects’ reactions. (Barsade, 2002: 652) Cognitive and emotional contagions are important in terms of other research into the role of personalities in shaping the ways people manage their careers (Guthrie, Coate, and Schwoerer, 1998), influence and are influenced by groups (Manning, Pogson, and Morrison, 2008), and manage conflict (Antonioni, 1998). Cognitive contagion affects personality because it changes what a person knows, information that the person uses to form rational judgments and make decisions, and can sometimes change the way the person feels about something. Emotional contagion affects personality because it establishes a ‘mood’ or emotional context in which a person processes information. Here, then, is the Heisenberg Effect of assessing one’s own engagement with a group such as a class in a university course: the initial motivations for joining the course and the objectives sought by doing so are entirely personal and individualised, and one engages with the activity from a certain singular perspective. One might be enthusiastic about exploring a compelling and challenging area of knowledge, or one might be resigned to just getting through the course in order to satisfy a degree requirement. But the cognitive contagion – the actual knowledge which is gained from the instructor and from the exchange of ideas with other members of the class – and the emotional contagion – the way in which the increase in knowledge alters each individual’s emotions and creates an overall ‘atmosphere’ in the group – alters one’s original perspective, and the additional personal insight of self-assessment alters one’s emotional response to the group. And that emotional response in turn changes, at least to a small degree, the nature of the group. And round and round it goes. From my own personal experience, it seems there are five main relational processes that exist between a person and group: Cognitive Contagion. Emotional Contagion. Social Identity: Personal identity within a group, and personal identity as a member of a group in relation to other groups. Power/Influence: A personality as defined by the “Big Five” components exercises influence within a group, and is in turn influenced, in specific ways according to the makeup of his personality. This is the process at work when ‘natural leaders’ emerge within groups. (Manning, Pogson, and Morrison, 2008) Conflict: In research similar to that of Manning, Pogson, and Morrison, it was found that particular personality types respond to and manage conflicts in predictable ways. (Antonioni, 1998) These relational processes not only determine the engagement of the individual with the group, but also the engagement of groups with each other, and the group with the organisation or context, as will be discussed below. Relational Processes between Person and Context During the course lectures, the following visual representation of the linkages between individual, group, and organisation was presented: The link connecting ‘Individual’ and ‘Organisation’ represents the psychological contract between an employer and employee, and is also applicable to any individual and larger entity, such as student and university. Although the relationship is presented as a balance, the relational processes between person and organisation/context would not seem to flow with the same strength in both directions. Rather, the relational process seems to be one of fit: whether the individual fits within a paradigm the organisation has developed to meet certain objectives, and whether the organisation fits the individual’s personal objectives. There may be some mutual change in both entities as a result of their interaction, but this is less likely to occur than it does in a person-group relational process. What is more likely is that the person will change, at least superficially, to suit the organisation. This is an idea that has been borne out by studies that find that subjects of personality screenings are often able to tailor their answers to what they believe the interviewer wants to hear. (Van Iddekinge, Raymark, Eidson, and Attenweiler, 2004) That does not mean, however, that the effect on the organisation from the person is entirely absent. Despite the intellectual unpopularity of Taylorism, the relational process between person and organisation still presents the person as a resource in many respects – although the value of that resource to the organisation is much greater than in a Taylorist model. Consider the psychological contract between a student (person) and the university (organisation/context) in terms of what each receives from the bargain: Student University Instruction/practise of critical thinking & learning skills. The intellect and learning capacity of a person through which the body of knowledge represented by the entire university organisation can be expanded. Exchange of ideas with peers & mentors to expand knowledge & understanding. Funds to operate and support scholarship in the form of tuition and fees. Access to a greater body of knowledge through libraries, archives, research. Prestige in having graduated numbers of students. Directed study toward a vocational goal, with adequate expertise in the chosen field represented to the world at large by a degree. Prestige in having facilitated new ideas and research. Good students are a valuable resource for the university, and the value that the university derives from them over time changes the personality, as it were, of the university. But except in a few rare instances, this effect is neither immediate nor traceable to a single individual. Relational Processes between Group and Context The relational processes between group and context can be expressed by the somewhat nebulous concept of ‘organisational culture’. Everyone seems to know what ‘culture’ in an organisation is, but no one seems to be able to agree on a definition for it. McAleese and Hargie (2005: 156 & 162) count 164 different definitions for ‘organisational culture’ in their literature review and finally conclude, “it would appear that the only seemingly ‘fair’ way to view the problem of defining culture is to accept that it is a term with a selection of interpretations, each of which may be derived from its author’s perspective.” Which is another way of saying, “culture is what it is;” it has a tangible, if inexpressible, meaning to those within it, even if the exact same features in a different context or organisation would not constitute a culture and be meaningless. The organisational culture of Chester College is not the same as the organisational culture at, say, British Airways. Yet even though these two organisations are obviously completely different in nature and have different cultures, the relational processes that form those cultures are exactly the same. Every single one of the more than six billion people on Earth has a different personality, yet the determinants of their personalities – heredity, environment, and situation – are the same. ‘Culture’ is nothing more than another word for an organisation’s ‘personality’. There are many layers of groups within the context of the organisation, with the same relational processes occurring at many different levels simultaneously. The individual peoples’ relational processes with their groups – to which they belong, simultaneously, on many different levels – ultimately characterise the relationships of the groups to the context. Within the university context, one could belong to: The student body as a whole, which is a very large group A group within the student body defined as either “graduate” or “under-graduate” students. A group within either of those two groups defined as the student body of a particular academic area – Humanities, Sciences, Business, etc. A group within the academic area representing the student body of a particular department or study discipline, such as Strategic Management Studies within the School of Business. A group within the department or study discipline representing a single course or study group. Any number of non-academic groups, such as sports teams or other recreational groups, associations of residents in a residence hall, religious groups, or political or service groups. Any one person could also belong to several groups at each of these levels. All the relational processes occur within each of these groups, and between groups on the same and on different levels. The product of the group cultures is what gives the university its own unique culture, and that in turn carries with it reciprocal relational processes that help form the cultures of the groups. Conclusion The most natural question to ask myself in assessing my own engagement with this module is, “What have I learned?” People, Processes, and Contexts represent a set of complex, dynamic, inter-connected relationships among bodies of people – either in the singular, individual sense, or in groups of varying scale within an organisation. From my point of view, the most important component of the overall concept is the personality, not only that of the individual, but the personalities of groups and organisations that are perhaps better known as ‘culture’. Because of my personality, I have an effect on groups and organisations of which I am a part, and the personalities of those entities in turn have an effect on me. Recalling our troublesome friend Dr. Heisenberg, there is no “right” answer, only an answer “right now”; the understanding of the interplay of person, group, and context is itself a manifestation of cognitive contagion, and the insight changes the variable that I represent in the complex equation that describes the group. Thus it seems that the real value is not in knowing how, exactly, all of it works, but rather in knowing that it does. The evolution of the relevant research in a way represents the evolving understanding I have of the complexity organisational and group dynamics. The simplistic ideas of Adam Smith and Frederick Taylor seem quaint and unsophisticated now, and they are, not coincidentally, also mostly wrong. The implications of all this in a management setting is clear: firm objectives and goals may be envisioned, but the processes and organisations constructed to reach those goals will need to be constantly re-examined and fine-tuned. What worked yesterday may not work today, and probably will not work tomorrow; knowing that, and not assuming the infallibility of any single concept of how to organise a particular group of people in order to complete a task will make all the difference between success and failure. More importantly, understanding what affects the ways in which I interact with others will make me a more effective member of the collective, and as a result of my effect on it, improve the group. References Antonioni, David. (1998) Relationship between the Big Five Personality Factors and Conflict Management Styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9(4): 336-355. Retrieved 18 March 2009 from the Emerald database: www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/eb022814. Balkin, J. M. Cultural Software. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1998. Barsade, Sigal G. (2002) The Ripple Effect: Emotional Contagion and its Influence on Group Behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4): 644-675. Retrieved 18 March from the JSTOR database: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0001-8392%28200212%2947%3A4%3C644%3ATREECA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z. Guthrie, James P., Coate, Charles J., and Schwoerer, Catherine E. (1998) Career management strategies: the role of personality. Journal of Management Psychology, 13(5/6): 371-386. Retrieved 20 March 2009 from the Emerald database: www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/02683949810220024. Manning, Tony, Pogson, Graham, and Morrison, Zoe. (2008) Interpersonal influence in the workplace – part three: Some research findings: influencing behaviour and team role behaviour. Industrial and Commercial Training, 40(6): 328-334. Retrieved 19 March 2009 from the Emerald database: www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/00197850810900093. McAleese, Donna, and Hargie, Owen. (2005) Five guiding principles of culture management: A synthesis of best practice. Journal of Communications Management, 9(2): 155-170. Retrieved 24 March 2009 from the Emerald database: www.emeraldinsight.com/10.1108/13632540510621399. Van Iddekinge, Chad H., Patrick H. Raymark, Carl E. Eidson, Jr., and William J. Attenweiler. (2004) What Do Structured Selection Interviews Really Measure? The Construct Validity of Behavior Description Interviews. Human Performance 17(1): 71-93. Read More