The Nature of Conflicts - Essay Example

The Nature of Conflicts 2008 The Nature of Conflicts There is a specific branch of social psychology that investigates the sources ofconflicts as well as suggests resolution strategies. This knowledge is extremely important for managers who have to control and organize work of numerous employees resolving conflicts between them. There are a lot of examples how incapability to compromise led to collapse of economically stable companies. Due to this the manager's competence to find a resolution to difficult conflict is sometimes more important than his other professional qualities. Correspondingly, knowledge of psychology of the conflicting sides and ability to classify and forecast development of the conflict implied in this knowledge are literally priceless. Organisational conflict is commonly defined as "disagreement between individuals or groups within the organisation stemming from the need to share scarce resources or engage in interdependent work activities, or from differences in status, goals or cultures" (Stoner & Freeman 1989). Earlier on scientists considered that conflicts are an evidence of ineffective functioning of the company and poor management: the traditional or unitary perspective implies that all conflicts are harmful and must be avoided (Esquivel, & Kleiner 1996). By contras, representatives of the human relations or pluralist perspective view conflict as a natural and inevitable outcome in any group. Pluralists perceive conflict as inevitable because " various organisations participate in determining the rules of employment these have their own bases of authority, and whenever there are separate sources of authority there is the risk of conflict" (Clegg 1979: 1). Therefore, pluralists are salient in the approach of management: instead of a unitary denial that there was any rational basis for conflict, managers should recognize the inevitability of conflict situations and seek means to effectively regulate them (Edwards and Edwards, 2003). Furthermore, proponents of the increasingly popular interactionist perspective claim that conflicts not only possess positive potential but are absolutely necessary for effective performance of organisation though not all conflicts are good. Nowadays, after decades of intensive research, majority of experts put in question the traditional unitary perspective on conflict while leaning toward the opinion that even in best-managed companies conflicts are not only unavoidable but also desirable when properly controlled and managed (Esquivel, & Kleiner 1996). Conflicts are unalienable part of interpersonal communication in everyday life, but organizational conflicts possess some characteristic features. While conflicts in interpersonal relations are caused by personal factors, majority of organizational conflicts have different roots. Employees may wage struggle for narrow resources or exploitation of equipment, working space or access to information, etc. The following classification of conflicts has been developed by one of the founders of Saxonic school of conflict studies: Conflicts between individuals; Conflicts between isolated social groups or groups that compete each other in a certain field of social or political life; Conflicts between states; Conflicts between states and separate individuals (or group of individuals); Conflicts between social groups and separate individuals (Shellenberg, 1996). This classification defines conflicts as conscious and intensive clashes of interests, the battle of social life. All conflicts fall into several categories, depending upon the social or political level, and it is also admitted that the essence of any conflict lies in psychological sphere, i.e. conflict is a manifestation of converse interests. The above definition of conflict identifies the following major causes of conflict namely, the need to share scarce resources, engage in interdependent work activities, from differences in status, goals or cultures. However, the actual amount of causes that may potentially result in conflict is literally immeasurable so that it is almost impossible to identify all of them. Historical experience and social practice allow outlining several most common causes that lead to conflict situations in organizations (Shellenberg, 1996). There are several classifications of conflict situations depending upon their duration, difficulty, current, and other factors. But the most logical way of classification is dividing all conflicts into two big groups: interpersonal and in-personal. In-personal conflicts are caused by inner psychological factors that clash with each other. For example, a person wants to spend more time with his/her family but the job takes a lot of time. Apparently, these conflicts are difficult to control and manage. Interpersonal conflicts between individuals or departments can be found in any organization. There is an opinion that the main cause of interpersonal conflicts is difference in characters. However, thorough analysis of causes of such conflicts demonstrate that real sources for majority of organizational conflicts are prose - struggle for narrow resources, plant space, exploitation of equipment, manpower, etc. Conflicts between chiefs and subordinates are also very popular when the former consider that the latter do not work to the best of their ability while the latter believe the demands are unreasonable. Other sources of interpersonal organizational conflicts may include intimate interdependence between tasks performed by different employees/departments (for example, the chief executive blames the marketing department in low sales, the marketing department blames personnel department in engaging unqualified employees), difference in tasks (when one department is interested in introducing new products while another department is not), insufficient communication, and sometimes psychological incompatibility (Thomas, 1973). Since majority of conflicts have material not psychological causes they can be successfully resolved. Since modern perspectives on the nature, origins and outcomes of organisational conflict deviate from the traditional perception of conflict as always negative process that undermines organisational performance, all conflicts that occur in organisational setting can be split into two large groups: 'good' conflicts and 'bad' conflict. 'Good' conflicts lead to functional improvements in organisation and have constructive nature and, consequently, support goals of groups in which they occur. The benefits of such conflicts for organisational performance can be measured by their outcomes such as production of better ideas, intensive search for new approaches, bringing to surface and resolving long standing problems, clarification of individual views, stimulation of creativity and interest, etc. In case such outcomes are observed, the conflict can hardly be considered bad. 'Bad' conflicts that do hinder group performance originate from a different set of causes as compared to good conflicts. Thus, the most commonly cited sources of such conflicts are overlapping authority, unreasonable rules, standards, policies, status inconsistency, different goals and time horizons, unrealised expectations, time pressures, communication breakdown, scarce resources, personal clashes, task interdependency, and incompatible evaluation and reward. Therefore, 'bad' conflicts are not constructive and lead to dysfunction of the group in which they occur. The dysfunction occurs because these conflicts make some people feel defeated and demeaned, increase the distance between people, stimulate development of mistrust and suspicion, make individuals and groups concentrate on their own narrow interests, develop resistance rather than teamwork, and increase employee turnover (Esquivel, & Kleiner, 1996). Given such outcomes, this kind of conflicts is not likely to improve organisational design, functioning or decision-making, nor can 'bad' conflicts act as agents for evolution and for internal and external change. Therefore, 'bad' conflicts must really be avoided. Unfortunately there is no panacea that would effectively resolve all conflicts as well as there is no particular strategy that would fit all conflicts due to struggle for narrow resources, for example. Each separate conflict requires individual approach and separate strategy, although an effective strategy employed to resolve one conflict might be successfully used to cope with another conflict (Shellenberg, 1996). There are two approaches to managing conflicts: organizational and interpersonal. Organizational methods include clear formulation of requirements, rights and duties, scope of work of each employee and department, the principle of unity of command, formulation of common goals and informing the stuff about overall policy, strategy and perspectives of the company (for example, "McDonald's" employees are convinced that the goal of their work is to feed all Americans, quickly and tasty), and the proper system of encouragement and motivation (Thomas, 1973). The letter means establishing such criteria of effectiveness that would exclude and clash of interests. For instance, if safety engineers are rewarded depending upon the quantity of safety rules violation (the more the better), it will inevitably lead to constant conflicts with all other departments. Obviously, organizational methods focus mainly upon preventing and managing conflict situations. Interpersonal methods help to find a proper solution using either manager's authority or his mediation gift. Research vividly proved that any organizational conflict can be resolved if the manager is aware of applicable techniques. Psychologists defined the principles for managers to follow in resolving conflicts: Finding out the essence of the conflict and identification its real source; Tracking the development of the conflict and developing a strategy for its resolution; Resolving the conflict that includes: taking into consideration material goals of each conflicting side, their emotional condition, psychological characteristics, and dynamics of the conflict development (Shellenberg, 1996). Mediation and arbitration may be very effective in resolving conflicts, especially if the manager belongs to one of conflicting sides. In this case mediators or arbitrators have to stick to the same principles in order to find an objective solution. Well-being of any organization depends upon harmonic and stable work of all employees and departments. Apparently, conflicts rock the boat but in some case the manager simply can't properly control his company and organize employee relations even if there are no conflicts. Psychological research in field of conflicts, their sources and resolution strategies is really priceless. It explains the nature of organizational conflicts providing managers with knowledge that allows finding an objective and quick solution to seemingly irresolvable conflicts and their effective management. References Berlo, David K. The Process of Comunication. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960 Clegg, H. A. (1979) The Changing System of Industrial Relations in Great Britain Oxford: Blackwell Edwards, Paul and Paul K. Edwards (2003), Industrial Relations Theory and Practice, 2nd edition, Blackwell Publishers Esquivel, M., & Kleiner, B. The importance of conflict in work team effectiveness. Team Performance Management, Vol. 2(3), 1996, pp. 42-48. Franzoi, S. Social Psychology. Toronto: Brown and Benchmark, 1996 Gleitman, H., Friedlund, A., and Reisberg, D. Basic Psychology. W.W. Norton and Co., 2000 Jarboe, Susan, "A Comparison of Input-Output, Process-Output, and Input-Process-Output Models of Small Group Problem-Solving Effectiveness", Communication Monograph 55, 1988; pp.121-142 Pearson, Judy C., and Nelson Paul E. Understanding and Sharing: An Introduction to Speech Communication, Sixth Edition, Brown and Benchmark, 1994 Shellenberg, J. Conflict Resolution: Theory, Research, and Practice. State University of New York Press, 1996. Thomas, K. Management of conflict. Los Angeles, 1973 Read More