Evaluation of Constructive and Destructive Conflict - Essay Example

Evaluation of Constructive and Destructive Conflict Student’s Name Institution Abstract This paper analyses on how a conflict can be beneficial or destructive to an organization. The paper notes that any amount of conflict, which is tolerable, is beneficial to an organization since it allows the individual members to freely share their information for the common good of the organization’s operations. On the other hand, destructive conflict might result to losses in the organization and thus, for this reason, it must be avoided at all cost. Keywords: conflict, disagreement, organization Evaluation of Constructive and Destructive Conflict Introduction In an organization, conflicts are most likely to exist between factions or groups of individuals existing within a given team. For instance, the team can have a conflict of interest with a manager or leader or with other departments and teams. In its course, conflict is defined as those disagreements that result to a negative reaction. It is worth mentioning that not all disagreements can be classified as conflicts. For example, if one member of an organization feels like the best office temperature should be at 66 degrees, and another feels like 72 is the most appropriate, the two individuals might agree to set it at 70 degrees. If one member gets adamant to budge while the other worker concedes, one might find it difficult and too uncomfortable, suffer from health issues caused by the office temperature or even ask to be allowed to work from home. It must be mentioned that even those agreements that fail to affect an individual’s operations still remain to be problematic if at all they can result to immense levels of malice and ill-intentions among the employees of an organization. This becomes worse and troublesome for those organizations that are smaller and whose workers perceive and work together on a daily basis. Conflicts can also involve non-personnel factors. For example, it can occur whenever two divisions within a company solicit access to one computer, machine or vehicle. It is worth noting that even if, in most cases, conflicts causes’ anger and frustrations and occasionally violence, with proper conflict resolution mechanisms put in place, the involved parties can get to agree. This calls for human skills in conflict management, to see through the conflicting parties to reach on a consensus for the benefit of the individuals and the larger organization (Uvin, 2002) Constructive Conflict Constructive conflict is that type of conflict whose benefits are more than the costs. It results into a mutual benefit between the involved parties; it is more productive and brings about shared decisions. The conflict process is defined as being an important part just like the end results of the entire conflict. Following this line of reasoning, the parties to a conflict work together to redefine and create a stronger relationship between them. This, in turn, translates to an effective working relationship that meets the overall objective of a firm as a whole. Ostensibly, constructive conflicts can be very beneficial to both the aggrieved parties and the external parties. In an organization, this conflict will spur debate, more open communication and flow of information and as a result, there will be a greater possibility of the involved individuals generating more quality ideas and information, which will aid the organization in exploring viable options that might directly or indirectly result to increased productivity. Through constructive conflict, the employees are able to develop a very cordial working relationship amongst themselves and with their respective supervisors. Through this collaboration, all employees get devoted to performing their functions whose result is increased overall production. Consequently, as a result of constructive conflicts, there are strengthened relationships that restore equality within work environments (Guttman, 2003). Contributory Factors It is generally agreed that under constructive conflicts, the involved parties will, in most cases, possess a belief that a compromising solution for all can be brokered. This is possible whenever it is ascertained that the goals of the involved parties are flexible. Accordingly, it is worth noting that whenever the aggrieved parties are able to determine the bone of contention and a common linkage that will bring them together, then they can start a negotiation process that will eventually promote working as a group. Constructive conflicts generally occur when the involved parties are comfortable with a particular disagreement level and in which case both of the parties acknowledge the fact that there is need for them to reach on a compromise. This type of conflict is always solved and overcome in a case whereby there is a steady flow of communication and also, willingness and need to embrace a paradigm change. Both the parties in this case are aware that they need to work together in order to realize the overriding common good and achieve the desired objectives of the entire organization (Guttman, 2003). Within an organizational setting, constructive conflict leads to a healthier discourse in cases where there is the presence of possible disagreements from the members of a group. The disagreement might result from personality traits, the content of the ideas floated and the nature of working styles which should be adopted. This will call for task processes that will offer a leeway towards a lasting solution. It is important to note that in case of a constructive conflict in an organization, it means that its members are participating in a debate, which discourages group thinking. Thus, such a tolerable amount of group conflict will result to more ideas being discussed that are creative and innovative in nature: the result is increased productivity. It must be mentioned that the vast and potentially differing members of an organization in a constructive conflict stand out to be members who are independent and creative enough to offer an organization increased productivity at the (Freeman & Fisher, 2012). Constructive conflicts avoid possible chances of conformity pressure and that of group thinking mechanism. When there are pressures of compliance and conformity, members of an organization are likely to adopt a common view that will impress a few powerful and dominant people within the organization as a whole. The workers will not have a chance to explore other available options and avenues that will eventually lead to a more innovative and best compromised idea. This conflict gives the involved parties a sense of ownership and responsibility, given that the conclusion arrived at is a compromise position carefully settled at (Freeman & Fisher, 2012). Destructive Conflict Destructive conflicts usually results from rigid goals that are narrowly defined and, in most cases, they result in negative outcomes. The parties to a conflict are less flexible and usually, they have a mindset that the opposing side must be defeated. The parties to this form of conflict succumb to threats and personal attacks. The general tone of the conflict is hostile in nature (Eunson, 2007). Contributory Factors Destructive conflicts, more than often, will ignore the real and actual issues at hand. These conflicts occur out of a myriad of reasons. More often the struggle to capture power is the blame. One of the parties to a conflict is determined to win on the subject matter of the conflict no matter the circumstances; this party is normally not willing to relent and would, in most cases, want to have their respective way to win over any interest at hand. Destructive conflict results from lack of proper conflict management skills. For this reason, there is lack of any positive interaction between the aggrieved parties. This conflict results from feelings of hopelessness and inadequacy. This kind of conflict is as well contributed from factors such as inability to listen to and understand other individual’s views, lack of empathy, personal vulnerability and the general fear of organizational paradigm shift. The obvious destruction caused by this form of conflict is characterized by the toll on the emotions of personnel. Those individual employees who depict a higher morale will mostly work hard, stay in the company for longer and better their productivity capacities. Those employees, who feel bullied, face favoritism or that they are being taken advantage of, are likely to react by looking for employment elsewhere or embark on performing poorly within their respective areas of operations. Departmental conflicts are more likely to result to disrupted production, loan repayment inability and loss of key customers and business. For example, assume that if the sales division wants to negotiate with a customer for a 60 day terms while the accounting division want the receivables within a period of 30 days to make payments for wages and materials, this results to a conflict that is potentially destructive to a business overall goal (Eunson, 2007). The kind of destructive conflicts that results to any form of inequality and power imbalance most often damage the relationships that exist within these organizations. Those workers, who have a feeling that they are being judged and viewed negatively lose focus, fail to perform their duties accordingly and thus, they are unable complete their tasks as assigned, their productivity dramatically decreases and finally, they lose confidence in their skills altogether. Given that these workers have no respect from their co-workers, these employees experience immense levels of resentments and frustrations. For that reason, they are likely to spend more time thinking and exploring the means and ways of finding approval than getting to deal with the underlying issues. Avoiding the possible conflicts and having all communication channels closed will minimize the levels of destructive conflicts. Visoka (2012) notes that destructive conflict depicts a tendency of occurring in varying degrees due to such simple dynamics as adopting the diversity of workers from different backgrounds, agendas and ideas. It is better that destructive conflict is avoided and also, it should be addressed swiftly in the event that it occurs. This is because of the potential problems that it can cause to the organization in terms of reduced productivity and loss of its key customers as. As a result, it is likely to harm most of the stakeholders. It is worth noting that destructive conflicts are more likely to lead to negative issues between the employees and the office of the human resources management. Given the nature and amount of harm that can result from these conflicts, they should be completely eliminated and those that are inevitable should at least be minimized. Individual firms and organizations can implement minimization mechanisms by creating and fostering trust and open communication and also, by preventing the establishment of out-groups and in-groups activities. The organization management should also seek to understand the various individual employees and their personality traits so that they are identified. They can then be coached on the skills that will help them adopt a harmonious working relationship with other members of the organization (Visoka, 2012). A classical example of a firm, whose in-groups and out-groups activities, did more harm than good was Lehman Brothers organization. The overall impact caused by the out-groups and in-groups was the selling of the organization. The strong and evident separation between the bankers and the traders divided the organization so much that it eventually caused its demise. There was an exaggeration of the differences between the two factions with allegations of sub optimization as each faction pursued its perceived duties to be more valuable goals and objectives. These individuals did not have a common vision and the conflicts were a common occurrence that characterized the organization. The traders had taken a common view by the traders that the bankers were generally lazy graduates and got awarded with greater perks and more benefits just to uphold their respective status quo. On the other hand, the bankers had a common view that the brokers were less educated and not intelligent; therefore, they were blue collar workers that should, otherwise, be less compensated as compared to the rest who possessed more qualifications and intellectual skills. This creation of both the out-groups and in-groups might persist and lead to a very unhealthy competition in any other organization. In such a case, each faction will initiate a fight in a bid to acquire and posses a larger share of the resources of the organization. A lot of energy is drained and wasted as each group tries to outshine the other rather than using the energy to concentrate and maintain a common vision for benefit of the organization. It must be noted that it is very essential that a common purpose is maintained within an organizational setting. Such will aid in the reduction of individual conflicts. This is a position that was demonstrated by the Robbers Cave Experiment; which stipulated that having a common goal will greatly reduce personal conflicts. In the experiment the scouts group were able to achieve more results than what they would have been able to achieve while working independently (Bensahel & Byman, 2004) Conclusion In conclusion, it has been noted that conflicts can be very destructive and at the same time beneficial to the overall operations of an organization. Thus, organization should accept an amount of conflict as this will encourage its members to freely express their ideas without any form of infringement. As a result, this will result to more creative and innovative way of carrying out the affairs of an organization. On the other hand, destructive conflicts must be avoided at all cost since there consequences negatively impact not only on the individual members of an organization but also, on the activities of the organization at large. The organization should try to understand the personalities of its individual members in order to seek for coaching workshops that will be tailored towards improving such traits and thus, help to create harmonious working relationship among these individuals. An organization whose employees enjoy a harmonious work relationship would also enjoy unity that might trigger higher productivity and profitability levels. References Bensahel, N., Byman, D., & United States. (2004). The future security environment in the Middle East: Conflict, stability, and political change. Santa Monica, CA: RAND/Project Air Force Eunson, B. (2007). Conflict management. Milton, Qld: Wiley. Freeman, L. J., & Fisher, R. J. (January 01, 2012). Comparing a Problem-Solving Workshop to a Conflict Assessment Framework: Conflict Analysis versus Conflict Assessment in Practice. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development: Critical Thinking and Constructive Action ATV the Intersections of Conflict, Development and Peace, 7, 1, 66-80. Guttman, H. M. (2003). When Goliaths clash: Managing executive conflict to build a more dynamic organization. New York: American Management Association. ILO Management and Leadership Development Programme & International Labour Office. (2005). Conflict management. Geneva: ILO. Leeuwen, M. ., & Verkoren, W. (January 01, 2012). Complexities and Challenges for Civil Society Building in Post-Conflict Settings. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development: 7, 1, 81-94 Noma, E., Aker, D., & Freeman, J. (January 01, 2012). Heeding Women's Voices: Breaking Cycles of Conflict and Deepening the Concept of Peacebuilding. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development: Critical Thinking and Constructive Action ATV the Intersections of Conflict, Development and Peace, 7, 1, 7-32. Uvin, P. (January 01, 2002). The development-Peacebuilding nexus: A typology and history of changing paradigms. Journal of Peacebuilding and Development: Critical Thinking and Constructive Action at the Intersections of Conflict, Development and Peace Visoka, G. (January 01, 2012). Three Levels of Hybridization Practices in Post-conflict Kosovo. Journal of Peacebuilding & Development: Critical Thinking and Constructive Action ATV the Intersections of Conflict, Development and Peace, 7, 2, 23-36 Vallacher, R. R., Nowak, A., Coleman, P. T., Bui-Wrzosinska, L., Liebowitch, L., Kugler, K., & Bartoli, A. (2013). Attracted to conflict: Dynamic foundations of destructive social relations Read More