Conflict 1

7/17/2019 Conflict 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/conflict-1-568d74fdc5764 1/26

INTRODUCTION

Conflict! For many people, conflict is negative, difficult, and unwanted-such

as an argument with one's spouse or with a friend. However, others find con-

flict fun and energizing; they enjoy the excitement and stimulation that conflict

can provide. For example, they play competitive sports and games, or they pre-

fer movies and books that involve intense conflicts and their sometimes exhila-

rating resolutions. In this course, we begin with the assumption that conflict isneither inherently good nor bad. However, conflicts that are left unresolved

(e.g., continually sidestepped) tend to have negative consequences for organi-zations and the people working in them. In this course, we will teach you how

to resolve conflict in a manner that maximizes its potential benefits and mini-

mizes its potential harm. In the best-case scenario, properly resolved conflict

improves productivity, job satisfaction, personal well-being, and the conflicting

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, you should be able to:

• Define conflict and describe the two basic kindsof conflict found in every organization.

• Describe Thomas's process model of conflict

episodes.

• Describe Pondy's revised model of conflict

dynamics.• Describe the main features of the principled

negotiation approach to conflict and its resolu-

tion.

• Compare and contrast the three approaches tounderstanding conflict.

1

Conflict in OrganizationsW h e n e v e r p e o p l e m e e t t o c o n d u c t b u s i n e s s , c o n f l i c t i s t h e n o r m . C o n f l i c t s o f w i l l s , p e r s o n a l i t i e s , a n d i d e a s . C o n f l i c t s o f p l a n s

a n d s t r at e g i e s . C o n f l i c t s o f i n t e r e s t . T h e w o r l d o f w o r k i s c h a r a c te r i z e d b y c o n f l i c t . -

Malcolm Kushner



2 HOW TO MANAGE CONFLICT IN THE ORGANIZATION

parties' relationship. We want this best-case scenario to become the norm inyour day-to-day work as a manager.

DEFINITION OF CONFLICT

The term conflict has no single, clear definition. However, most people recog-

nize its manifestations in tension, frustration, verbal or physical abuse, dis-

agreement, incompatibility, annoyance, interference, or rivalry (Rahim,1986; Lewicki and Spencer, 1992, pages 205-207). Conflict can develop

when two or more individuals or groups have differing interests and pursuethose interests with vigor. Conflict often involves one or both sides con-

sciously interfering with the efforts of the other side to achieve its goals.However, conflict also can arise when individuals or groups are trying tocooperate in attaining a common goal but have differing thoughts on the best

plan of action to pursue. Conflict can range from friendly competition to

extreme violence. In seeking to capture these many and varied senses of con-

flict, we will define conflict as "the process that begins when one party per-ceives that another has affected negatively, or is about to affect negatively,

something about which he or she cares" (Thomas 1992a, page 653; 1992b).

Let's look at a conflict situation common to many organizations. Theexample involves a sales representative and a secretary arguing over produc-t i v i t y -

JACK (sales representative): Phy lli s! I want t o talk to y ou about y our slowness ingetting my sales agreements and other secretarialwork done. Your work tends to be much too late; evenworse, it has too many mistakes. You know I w on't beable to tolerate this dismal showing much more.

P H Y L L I S (secretary): I wish I could say I was sorry, but I can't. I was toldwhen I started this job that I w ould be given all typingand photocopying work at least 2 days in advance of when it needs to be finished. And, you know, you'renot the only sales rep he re.

JACK Yeah, that's what's supposed to happen. But I can'talways control the flow of work or opportunities tomake a sale. The bottom line is the work has to getdone.

P H Y L L I S :

I know it does, but I work 9 to 5 , and I'm just one per-son. Can we get another secretary around here?Maybe even just part- time?

J A C K : We can't afford another secretary. We've always had just one, and the work has always gotten done. Areyou going to be our "one"?

Jack turns his back and walks briskly out of the office. Phyllis feels

insulted and thinks to herself, "What a jerk." Later that day, she meets afriend from the business across the street for lunch. She tells her side of thestory. The two agree that Jack is a fool and doesn't know how to act right.



CONFLICT IN ORGANIZATIONS 3

The conflict between these two individuals illustrates the two basic kindsof conflict common to every organization: structural and interpersonal.

Structural conflict is rooted in the very nature of organizations, which

divide the work they do across a set of positions. This division of laborcreates interdependence-when the work associated with one position isnot done correctly or on time, other positions suffer. The division of labor

also creates differing-even competing-interests and priorities. In theexample above, it is very likely that, had Jean, or Condace , or Lisa been thesecretary, the same conflict would have arisen. The heart of the conflict is

not Jack's or Phyllis's personality, but the structural relationship between

secretary and sales person. Structural conflict is heightened by scarce

resources.

The structural conflict just described, however, contains elements of

interpersonal conflict. Interpersonal conflict is rooted in differences in person-

alities and values, and, because much of our personality and many of our val-

ues are shaped by the social groups to which we belong, interpersonal

conflict often is magnified by social and physical differences-for example,

differences in race, sex, national origin, age, income, marital status, region,and physical ability. Had Jack approached Phyllis in a different manner-say

softer or subtler or more humorously-the conflict would have been milderand probably more readily resolved.

The best practitioners in any field are guided by theory, allowing them

to apply general principles to specific situations. This frees them from alwayslearning by trial and error. Theories abstract the key elements of commonsituations, and individuals who know the relevant theories can apply them

regardless of the idiosyncrasies of each new situation they encounter. Forexample, regardless of which particular bone was broken, a competent ortho-

pedist uses knowledge of bones in general to realign and repair the fracture.

Similarly, if as a manager you have a grasp of theories of conflict and its reso-lution, you can use these theories as a guide to handling any conflict situa-

tion, regardless of what the particular conflict is about. Because of theirvalue, we will spend considerable time detailing the three major theories, or

models, of conflict and its resolution. Indeed, this first chapter is the longest

and perhaps most difficult of the course.

THOMAS'S MODEL OF CONFLICT

How does the process of conflict begin, develop, and end in organizations?

Does it, in fact, have an end, or does the process continue indefinitely?Kenneth W. Thomas (1992a) proposes a process model of conflict,

depicted in Exhibit 1-1. A basic premise of this model is that the outcome of one particular conflict episode can lead to another conflict episode.

Let's examine the elements of this model and the relationships between

the elements. We'll start with a classic conflict in organizations: the struggle

between the production and sales departments.



4 HOW TO MANAGE CONFLICT IN THE ORGANIZATION

Production Versus SalesConsider the following case: A production manager has been frustrated by

unexpected special orders from the sales department, which have upset the

efficiency of his operation. If he had known about these orders in advance, he

could have scheduled his production runs more efficiently to minimize thedowntime required to retool. So far, he has not raised the issue. But whilereading an article in a trade journal, he discovers that another company

requires its sales staff to give the production people advance notice of all

pending sales orders through a fairly detailed, weekly questionnaire. Thisdiscovery prompts the production manager to raise the issue, and he shows

the questionnaire to his counterpart in sales. However, the sales manager

refuses to cooperate: "That questionnaire will take 2 hours a week to fill out,which my salespeople don't have," she says. "They're already snowed under

with paperwork."

Most managers in production or sales will probably sympathize with one

or the other manager in this case. This type of conflict is typical and quite

predictable. Using Thomas's model in Exhibit 1-1, we can better understandthe dynamics of the conflict process.




Awareness

Consistent with our definition of conflict, the conflict episode begins when

one party becomes aware that another party has negatively affected, or isabout to negatively affect, something about which the original party cares. In

the case we presented, the production manager is disappointed because his

goal of production efficiency is not being achieved. Feelings of tension,

unhappiness, and frustration prompt him do something about the situation.Responding in a rational fashion, the production manager starts to think about the causes of his negative feelings. This leads to the second element in

the model.

Thoughts and Emotions

As the unhappy party becomes aware of a given conflict, that awareness is

experienced as thoughts that help the party make sense of the conflict. These

thoughts involve making causal connections. In our example, the production

manager developed two basic causal relationships: First, unexpected special

orders from sales caused his production efficiency to drop. This, in turn, led

to his frustration and unhappiness. Second, if the sales staff filled out a fairly

detailed, weekly questionnaire regarding pending sales orders, the produc-

tion department would have sufficient information to schedule properly.This, in turn, would increase production's efficiency and eliminate the pro-

duction manager's frustration.

Thoughts and emotions are, by definition, subjective. The production

manager is developing ideas based on his particular view of the problem. Per-

haps production efficiency will not be improved through this questionnaire.There might be other causes of production inefficiency, such as poor-quality

raw materials, inefficient machines, or careless production workers. In addi-

tion, the questionnaire might not reveal the last-minute special orders, which

could be the cause for most of production's difficulty. No matter-the pro-duction manager has categorized the situation and feels he now knows how

to act. This leads us to the third step in the model.

Intentions

An intention is the decision to act in a given way; it intervenes between the

party's thoughts and emotions and the party's overt behavior. Intention iscritical to understanding conflict: a particular behavior-say slamming adoor-can be viewed as a positive, negative, or neutral act depending uponthe intention of the door slammer and how his or her intention is perceived

by the other party in conflict.

Behavior

Behavior is the set of actions taken by an individual. While thoughts andemotions and intentions occur within an individual's mind, behavior is visible

and can lead to reactions from other people. The range of possible behaviors

i s wide. Some are clearly physical. One can stand up, leave the room, pick up



How TO MANAGE CONFLICT IN THE ORGANIZATION

a report, look angry, and throw a book across a desk. Other, less dramaticbehaviors include the simple act of voicing an opinion or stating a fact.

In our case, the production manager tells the sales manager about theproduction problems caused by unexpected sales orders and proposes a solu-

tion. To resolve the situation, the sales manager should see to it that her staff

completes a fairly detailed weekly questionnaire describing pending sales

orders. But instead, the production manager's statement causes the salesmanager to respond negatively. This response constitutes the next item in themodel.

Others' Reactions

The reactions of the other party are his or her behavioral responses to theconflict. In our example, the sales manager angrily rejected the production

manager's idea. This annoyed reaction stemmed from the additional work-

load the production manager's proposal would place on the sales staff. In allprobability, the sales manager marched through her own thoughts and emo-

tions and intentions seconds before she reacted. She was probably frustrated

because her goals of sales effectiveness and efficiency were being threatened

by the production manager's proposal, and she probably saw the direct rela-

tionship between his proposal and her frustration. Hence, she reactedabruptly and angrily.

To illustrate this part of the Thomas model, consider the following

developments in this classic conflict between production and sales:

P R O D U C T I O N M A N A G E R : You people in sales never want to cooperate. It's alwaystake, take, take. You don't care about the problems youcause other departments.

S A L E S M A N A G E R : Gimme a break! I hav e enough problems of my own

without picking up any of yours.P R O D U C T I O N M A N A G E R : Well, y ou just picked up one more. Just wai t and seehow long it takes us to get your special orders out.Then you'll understand the need to cooperate.

Outcomes

Outcomes are the decisions reached by the parties as well as how the conflict

episode affects their relationship and the rest of the organization. The deci-

sion the sales manager reached was to refuse to have her staff fill out thequestionnaire. In response, the production manager decided to reduce hislevel of cooperation with sales as a way to retaliate.

These two decisions will reverberate throughout the organization. Therelationship between production and sales can now be characterized as poor.

In all probability, this poor relationship will diminish organizational perfor-

mance as sales and production neglect customers in pursuit of their ownintramural warfare. If their relationship and performance deteriorate dramat-

ically, higher-level managers will have to intervene and deal with the conflict.

Referring to the bottom half of Exhibit 1-1, we can now understandthe episodic nature of the conflict. Because the outcome of the first episode




was negative, additional episodes are likely to develop. These episodes can

be compared to skirmishes and battles in a long, debilitating war. Bothsides, as well as the entire organization, will lose if the war is permitted to

drag on.

Consider the following scenario, which is episode 2 in this developing

conflict between production and sales: As the production manager walks

through the order section the next day, he hears a clerk taking a special rushorder from a sales representative. After the phone call is completed, the pro-

duction manager informs the clerk to place this order on the bottom of the

pile. One week later, the sales manager storms into the production manager's

office and demands an explanation for the delay in processing this special

order. The production manager smiles and points to the policy-and-proce-

dures manual. In clear language, the manual states that a special order,defined as an order required in less than 2 weeks, must be approved in writ-

ing by the sales manager and his or her immediate superior, the vice presi-

dent of operations. The sales manager complains that this procedure hasnever been enforced in the 10 years she's been in sales. The production man-

ager continues to smile and says: "It's being enforced now. This should solvethe problem between us." Of course, the production manager's solution will

not solve the problem between sales and production. It will lead, inevitably,to episode 3.

PONDY'S REVISED MODEL OF CONFLICT

DYNAMICS

Thomas's model of conflict is a useful beginning in our study of managingand resolving conflict. Nevertheless, because it emphasizes only individual

thinking, emotions, intentions, and behavior, it is incomplete. A much morecomprehensive explanation can be found in Pondy's revised model of conflict

dynamics, presented in Exhibit 1-2. Even though it's 3 decades old, Pondy's

model is still fundamentally sound (see Lewicki and Spencer, 1992). Study it

carefully before you continue reading.

Pondy predicts the episodic quality of conflict, as does Thomas. Conflict

in organizations moves through a series of acts similar to those in a theatrical

presentation. Each act leads naturally to the one that follows. Let's carefully

examine the four acts in his model.

Act I: Potential for Conflict

Conflict does not appear suddenly without a rational explanation. Theremust be fertile ground for conflict to emerge and grow, generally, from fun-

damental structural and interpersonal factors within organizations.

Structural VariablesStructure refers to how the organization is set up and operated. Thus, thetypes of jobs and departments and the relationships among these jobs anddepartments typically constitute the organizational structure. If you remove






What we have are basic structural differences. The production manager

inevitably will resist special orders from sales; the sales manager naturally will

push production to fill special orders rapidly. Thus, there is a potential for

conflict based on the different roles these managers must perform. We willexplore structural variables more fully in Chapters 2 and 3.

Interpersonal VariablesInterpersonal variables comprise an individual's personality and values. In

everyday speech, personality refers to a person's typical patterns of attitudes,

needs, characteristics, and behavior; in fact, the everyday definition of person-ality is consistent with scientific definitions (Schaefer and Lamm, 1992). Val-

ues are conceptions of what is good, desirable, and proper or, conversely, of

what is bad, undesirable, and improper (Schaefer and Lamm, 1992).Quick! What word comes to mind when you hear the term conflict? For

many people, the word is personality. How many times have you heard it said

that a particular struggle or disagreement between two people was a person-ality conflict? We tend to blame conflict on personality differences, even

when personality has little to do with the disagreement-at least initially.Most experts in organizational conflict downplay the impact of personalitydifferences and emphasize structural variables as the most common cause of conflict.

Let's return to the struggle between the production and sales managers.

We've identified structural variables-the conflicting demands of their

respective jobs-as the major cause of the conflict. But the conflict has gonebeyond the differences in their roles. There is clearly an interpersonal com-

ponent to the fight-they don't seem to like each other. Maybe some of the

friction is based on gender differences. The production manager might

believe that women are usually poor managers; the sales manager may be sus-

picious of all male managers. Perhaps the differences in conversational stylebetween men and women are at the heart of the matter (see Glass, 1992; Tan-nen, 1990).

The conflict also could have arisen from incompatible personality pat-terns and traits. The production manager may be the kind of individual who

holds a grudge if embarrassed. On the other hand, the sales manager may be

overly glib and tend to speak before thinking situations through. Interper-sonal differences such as these may have intensified the structurally rooted

conflict between the two managers.

Interpersonal variables, like structural variables, are seedbeds in which

conflict can grow. But differences in personal characteristics and role

demands do not lead to conflict automatically. These differences just increasethe probability that conflict will emerge. We will examine interpersonal vari-ables more completely in Chapters 2 and 4.

Act II: Awareness and Emotion

Recall Thomas's model of conflict (see Exhibit 1-1), in which awareness,thoughts, and emotions are key elements. In Pondy's model, perceived con-

flict is similar to awareness, and felt conflict is similar to thoughts and emotions.



1 0 H o w T O M A N A G E C O N F L I C T I N T H E O R G A N I Z A T IO N

Nevertheless, important differences exist between these pairs of terms, and

we need to define them carefully.

Perceived ConflictPerceived conflict is the awareness that the antecedent factors, structural and

interpersonal variables, might lead to open conflict between two parties. Thismeans that an individual is cognizant of the potential for conflict but has not

yet and maybe will not engage in overt conflict. The individual may not viewthe potential for conflict as being very high, or the issue may be too small or

too distant to demand immediate attention. Also, the individual might view

the potential conflict as a communication problem. For example, supposethat the production manager sent the detailed questionnaire to the sales

manager instead of bringing it to her personally. With the questionnaire was

this brief handwritten note:

M a ry ,P l e a s e l o o k t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e o v e r . We might want to chat about it in the

future .

Thanks,P h i l

The sales manager glanced at the questionnaire, and not particularly liking it,

put it on her back-burner pile. Pondy would call the sales manager's reaction

perceived conflict. She immediately understood that the questionnaire meant

more work for her staff, but she didn't want to start a fight. So, she just put it

away and tried to ignore it.

During a normal working day, every employee might observe or

become aware of many opportunities for conflict. But employees lack the -

time or the inclination to turn these potential conflict situations into actual

conflicts. Managers and professionals tend to face the greatest number of these situations, and the best of these people are able to put potential con-flicts into the proper perspective. They live by the old adage, Don't cross abridge until you get to it.

Felt Conflict

Felt conflict is the knowledge that overt conflict is about to occur, accompa-

nied by the emotions associated with anticipated overt conflict-tension,anger, and fear. These feelings are similar to those that soldiers feel justbefore a military encounter.

Let's modify our example. Suppose that the production manager sent the

detailed questionnaire to the sales manager with this typed note:

M a ry ,You know the trouble your special orders are creating for us over here in

p r o d u c t io n . I f y o u f i ll o u t t h i s q u e s t io n n a i r e e v er y w e e k , it w i ll s o l v e t h e p r o b -lem. I'll talk to you about it before tomorrow's department heads' meeting.M a k e s u r e y o u f i ll o u t t h i s q u es t io n n a i r e b e fo r e t h e m e e ti n g , s o y o u c a n g i v e itt o m e t h e n .

P h i l



C O N F L I C T IN O R G A N I Z A T I O N S 1 1

This note does not offer the sales manager the option of depositing it on

her back-burner pile. The production manager essentially has ordered her to

fill out the questionnaire by the next day. Instead of perceived conflict, the

sales manager will experience felt conflict. She knows that a big fight is brew-

ing, and she will rise emotionally to the bait-the imperious note tossed toher by the production manager.

In addition, the note will stimulate her anger as much as her fear. Theproduction manager explicitly blames the sales department for his produc-

tion problems. This type of provocation often elicits an equally fervent accu-

sation from the accused person-or worse. The sales manager may respond

by dredging up all of her complaints about production, from poor-qualitywork to delivery promises not kept. The production manager's approach hasmade conflict almost inevitable.

Act III: Behavior

Behavior has been defined as the set of actions taken by an individual. In

Pondy's revised model of conflict dynamics, behavior has two major compo-nents: overt conflict and conflict-resolution approaches. As we shall see, overt

conflict usually is much more observable than a particular conflict-resolution

approach. Nevertheless, both components can be identified and categorized.

Overt ConflictOvert conflict is the interference by one or both parties in the goal-achieve-

ment efforts of the other side. In general, the interfering party is usuallyaware of what he or she is doing. Awareness does not imply malice or vicious-

ness, nor does it mean that the interfering is done primarily to frustrate the

other side. The interference may be without rancor or premeditation. Themotivation for the interference can be simple or complex. An example of

interference motivated by simple intentions would be: "I am taking thisaction to accomplish my own goal. I am sorry Mr. X and his department got

in the way." An example of interference motivated by more complex reasons

would be: "I need to do this to help my department. The fact that it hurts Mr.

X and his department is an added bonus. It might also help my chances forpromotion and hurt Mr. X's at the same time."

Overt conflict can take many forms, from the most obvious to the most

subtle. Wars, strikes, beatings, fights, killings, and vandalism are obvious and

violent examples of overt conflict. Clearly, these behaviors are not acceptable

in modern organizations, though they sometimes occur-recent killing ram-

pages by frustrated postal employees come to mind (Billiter, 1993). Since

1980, throughout American business, homicide has accounted for 12 percentof workplace deaths, outpaced only by motor-vehicle and machine-related

accidents; indeed, for women, homicide is the number one cause of death on

the job (Los Angeles Times, 19 9 4; Wall S treet Journal, 19 9 3).Yelling and insults are more common forms of overt conflict. In fact,

some organizational cultures encourage this kind of behavior. These verbal

attacks are often accompanied by facial expressions and body postures thatmagnify their force.



1 2 H o w T O M A N A G E C O N F L I C T IN T H E O R G A N I Z A T IO N

More subtle forms of overt conflict include insulting or embarrassing an

opponent with a joke, a comment, or a provocative look. Even a behaviorsuch as forgetting to invite an opponent to a meeting can constitute an inter-

ference in his or her goal-achievement efforts. Think back to the production

manager and his use of the policy-and-procedures manual to thwart the sales

manager. He used the manual to achieve his goal as well as to frustrate the

goal of the sales manager. It didn't matter to him that the specific procedurehe invoked had not been enforced for many years. In the public sector, wherestrikes are illegal, some unions have used this same kind of overt, but subtle,

conflict behavior. Union members work to rule, which means they don't do

anything that is not contractually mandated. In this fashion, they try to inter-

fere with management's attempt to keep operations running smoothly. By

interfering in management's goal-achievement efforts, the unions hope topressure the organization into being more flexible at the bargaining table.Working to rule is an example of overt conflict behavior, even if it is not as

obvious and direct as a strike.

Conflict- resolution ApproachesA conflict-resolution approach is the method and manner by which a person

attempts to eliminate or minimize a dispute. There are different paths to and

orientations toward resolving conflict. Thus, a conflict-resolution approachis a combination of specific behaviors and specific orientations used to deal

with a particular conflict situation. Let's turn now to a description of the fiveconflict-resolution approaches: avoiding, accommodating, compromising,

forcing, and collaborating.

AVOIDING w-Avoiding occurs when one or both sides recognize that a con-

flict exists but react by withdrawing from or postponing the conflict. Thisapproach is a relatively passive one. Consider this example: Suppose the sales

manager received the demanding note from the production manager, order-ing her to fill out the detailed questionnaire within a day. The following tele-

phone call from the sales manager to the production manager would belabeled avoiding:

H e l l o , P h i l . I g o t y o u r n o t e a n d t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Y e s , i t d o e s l o o k q u i t e i n t e r -e s ti n g . B u t , I c a n 't f il l i t o u t b y t o m o r r o w . I t 's a b u s y t im e f o r a l l o f u s . T e ll y o uw h a t - g iv e m e a w e e k o r t w o t o r e v i e w i t a n d t h e n l e t' s t a lk . W e s h o u l d b e a b let o w o r k s o m e t hi ng o u t th e n. S e e y o u a t t h e m e e ti ng t o m o r r o w .

The sales manager suppressed her anger and convinced her production

counterpart to agree to a delay-perhaps an indefinite delay. The productionmanager may forget about the questionnaire, or the special-order volumemight drop as the firm moves into a slower period, thus reducing the obvious

conflict between sales and production. There are a variety of events thatcould alleviate or eliminate the conflict, thus making the avoiding approach

quite effective. However, in general, avoidance is best used as a stopgap mea-

sure to give one time to decide how best to resolve the underlying problem

that is provoking conflict. Conflicts that are avoided can result in molehillsbecoming mountains. A stitch in time saves nine.



C O N F L I C T IN O R G A N I Z A T I O N S 1 3

ACCOMMODATING > Accommodating occurs when one side resolves the con-flict by giving in to the other side at the expense of at least some of his or her

own needs. This approach is also passive and could be called appeasement.

Accommodating may be a rational approach if the other side has over-

whelming power and the will to use it. Let's assume that in our example the

production department is the most powerful and assertive department in the

company. Let's also suppose that the sales manager's superior, the vice presi-dent of operations, is a former production person. Under these conditions,

an accommodating approach to the demanding note from the production

manager might be quite sensible.

There is another good reason why accommodating might be a usefulapproach. If the relationship between the parties is much more importantthan the specific conflict issue, each side might be more inclined to accom-

modate the other. A good, nonorganizational example is a domestic conflict

between a husband and wife. If one or both sides value the relationship more

than the issues dividing them, then one or both parties may select the accom-modating approach.

In our case, let's assume the relationship between production and saleshas been good for a long time. The sales manager may accommodate theproduction manager by filling out the questionnaire at least once to preserve

their relationship. She might also try to eliminate the behavior that's causing

the problem, for example, by reducing the number of special order requests.While accommodating may seem an overly meek approach, we have identi-

fied conditions that would make it a sensible one. Quite understandably,though, too much accommodation can lead one to feel resentful, short-changed, or cheated.

C O M P R O M I S IN G >

Compromising occurs when both sides gain and lose inorder to resolve the conflict. It is an approach in which each side is partially

satisfied and partially dissatisfied.The word compromise has both positive and negative connotations. In

labor-management disputes, a party willing to compromise is considered fair

and reasonable, while a party unwilling to compromise is thought to be stub-

born and unfair. On the other hand, a person who compromises too fre-quently may be seen as unprincipled or, perhaps, as a pushover. Therefore

most people do not wish to appear too willing to compromise.

In dealing with organizational conflict, compromise is not inherentlygood or bad. The situation may prohibit the emergence of clear-cut winners

and losers. Both sides may need to preserve face and continue their relation-

ship. Production needs sales and sales needs production. Examine the com-

promising approach the sales manager takes in this phone conversation withthe production manager:

H e l lo , P h i l . J u s t r ea d y o u r n o t e a n d lo o k e d o v e r t h e qu e s ti o n n a i r e . F i l li n g it o u tl o o k s li k e a r ea l c h o r e . I r e a ll y d o n ' t h a v e th e t im e t o g e t i t d o n e b y t o m o r r o w . Iknow- you really need it to plan for the special orders. Tell you what- I'll fill itout for next week's orders. Just as a trial run. If it's too time- consuming ord o e s n 't g iv e y o u t h e i n fo r m a t io n y o u n e e d, w e ' ll d ro p i t a n d l o o k f o r s o m e t h in gbetter. H o w 's th a t s o u nd ? G o o d . T a lk to y o u so o n .



1 4 H o w T O M A N A G E C O N F L I C T I N T H E O R G A N I Z A T IO N

The sales manager adopted a compromising attitude toward the devel-

oping conflict between sales and production. Sales would not complete the

questionnaire by the next day (a win) but would do it next week (a loss). Sim-

ilarly, production would get the completed questionnaire from sales (a win)

but not until next week (a loss). Compromising is an approach that ensurespartial victory and partial defeat for both parties and is quite effective when

both sides need to preserve face.FORCING > Forcing occurs when one or both sides attempt to satisfy their

own needs regardless of the impact on the other side. It is an aggressive, no-

holds-barred approach. When forcing alone is used to resolve conflict, it can

be assumed that the specific individuals involved in the conflict want to win

t ot ally .

There are problems associated with this force approach, however. Theloser will lose face as well as the particular issues involved in the conflict. If

the opponent has equal power, he or she might respond to force with oppos-

ing force. This could result in an enormous struggle and end in a stalemate,

with all involved-including the entire organization-the eventual losers.

Forcing can also produce hollow victories, in which the winners incur overly

severe losses. In organizations, one side may win a particular dispute by forc-

ing, but may thoroughly damage an ongoing relationship and, thus, destroy

the possibility of future ventures with the other side.

There are conditions that make it rational to pursue every conflict-reso-

lution approach. Forcing can be quite effective when the side adopting it has

superior power. Consider the demanding note from the production manager

to the sales manager:

M a ry ,You know the trouble your special orders are creating for us over here in

production ... Make sure you fill out this questionnaire before the meeting, soy o u c a n g i v e it t o m e t h e n .

P h i l

Why would the sales manager acquiesce to a direct order from a peer? If

the production manager has more power than the sales manager, then forc-

ing is a fast, effective, approach for him, and accommodating is the safestcoarse for her. Forcing is a common approach for managers and those in

high-level positions to use when dealing with subordinates. Remember the

words of sales representative Jack to his secretary Phyllis: "The bottom line is

the work has to get done.... We've always had just one [secretary], and the

work has always gotten done. Are you going to be our `one'?" Using force asan approach to conflict resolution can be efficient; however, the person being

coerced often will harbor resentment and might even look for opportunities

to get even.

COLLABORATING > Collaborat i ng i s an at t empt made by one or both part i es

to satisfy fully the needs of both. With collaboration, both sides can be win-

ners. This approach assumes that both sides have legitimate goals and that




creative thinking can transform conflict into an opportunity for both of themto achieve their goals.

How is this possible-that is, how can conflict be transformed into col-

laboration and mutual gain? Let's turn to our developing conflict betweensales and production. Here is another version of the phone call from the salesmanager in response to the production manager's demanding note:

Hello, Phil. About your note. I didn't know you guys were having such a prob-

lem with special orders. Ten this week! That's amazing. I agree, it's too much for

you to handle in one week. You never had this problem before, did you? That

makes sense. You never had ten special orders in one week before. How many

do you usually get from my people? Two to four a week. Can you usually handle

that number? No problem, eh? Well, Phil, let me look into this. We've hired

some new salespeople, and they may not understand that you can't promise

everybody everything. What's that? You say that John Simpson placed seven of

the ten special orders? I'll talk to John about it. He's one of our new people and

doesn't know the ropes yet. I'm sure we can handle this informally. Let's chat

about it before tomorrow's meeting. Thanks for bringing this to my attention,

Phil.

Not all problems between production and sales will disappear as rapidly,

but some conflicts can be handled by collaboration. In our example, the sales

manager tried to determine the real problem. She didn't get angry or accuse

production of some nefarious act. Instead, she dug below the surface and dis-

covered it was not a deep-seated conflict between production and sales. It was

just one, green sales representative who made a mistake.In uncovering the real problem, she was able to redefine the situation.

Rather than interfering in her goal-achievement efforts, the production man-

ager actually was helping her achieve her goals. He identified a new sales rep-

resentative who needed more training or perhaps some discipline. This new

information will enable the sales manager to improve her sales force-and

one of her major goals is to have an effective sales group.

Collaborating, or creative problem-solving as it is sometimes called, does

demand that at least one and preferably both sides look beyond the immedi-

ate problem. It takes imagination and cooperation and can consume consid-

erable amounts of time and energy. Nevertheless, a collaborating approach to

conflict resolution can produce two winners and, therefore, can contribute to

the quality of working relationships. Thomas (1992a) cites many studiesdemonstrating that individuals and firms that emphasize collaboration have

much higher success rates than individuals and firms that emphasize otherforms of conflict resolution. Indeed, because of its many benefits, this con-

flict-resolution approach will be stressed throughout this course under the

rubri c pri nci pled negot i at i on (see the last sect i on of t hi s chapt er).

A Diagram of Pondy's Conflict-resolution ApproachesExhibit 1-3 diagrams the relationship of Pondy's conflict-resolvingapproaches to one another. The schematic highlights the differences among

the approaches with regard to two dimensions: the degree of assertiveness



1 6 HowTO MANAGE CONFLICT IN THE ORGANIZATION

that a participant is willing to use to resolve a conflict, and the degree to

which the participant attempts to cooperate with the other party and addressthat party's concerns.

In one landmark study, Kenneth Thomas (1977) found that successfulexecutives varied their conflict-resolving approaches according to the situation.

The ability to implement the right approach for the conflict at hand is a skill

you should acquire. Exhibit 1-4 sununarizes Thomas's findings. Study it care-fully, for it shows what individuals who have gone to the very top-chief execu-

tive officers (CEOs)-do when confronted with conflicts in their organizations.

Act IVOutcomes

Both Thomas's and Pondy's examinations

of organizational conflict recognizeits episodic nature-that is, one particular conflict event may lead to others in

what could be viewed as a war between two parties. In describing Thomas's

model, we defined outcomes as the decisions reached by the parties involved as

well as how the conflict episode affects relationships between the parties and

the rest of the organization. Pondy's revised model contains a narrower and

potentially more useful outcome variable-organizational performance.





18 HOW TO MANAGE CONFLICT N THE ORGANIZATION

Organizational performance is a measure of the effectiveness and effi-

ciency of goal attainment. Organizations are effective if they achieve their

goals and efficient if they achieve their goals at minimal cost. It is possible for

an organization to be effective but not efficient; it is not possible, however,

for an organization to be both efficient and ineffective. Here are some exam-

ples: Suppose a business sets as its goal 25 percent of a particular market

within 3 years. At the end of the third year, the organization has accom-plished its goal but has incurred huge losses because of excessive advertisingcosts. In this example, the organization has been effective because it achieved

its goal but inefficient because the cost of achieving its goal was too high.

In order to prevent such developments, many organizations have multi-

ple goals that contain some efficiency measures. For example, a more com-

prehensive set of goals for the organization might be a 25 percent marketshare, a 15 percent return on investment, and a 25 percent increase in profits

at the end of 3 years. The return on investment and profit goals direct theorganization to consider ways to achieve its market-share goal efficiently.

In Pondy's revised model (see Exhibit 1-2), three possible outcomes are

depicted: increased, stable, and decreased organizational performance. As aresult of the conflict and the conflict-resolution approaches employed, orga-

nizational performance may improve, remain the same, or deteriorate. At this

juncture, we'll introduce a basic value judgment: If organizational perfor-mance improves or remains stable, the overt conflict and the conflict-resolu-

tion approaches have been beneficial at best, harmless at worst. If organizational performance has declined, the overt conflict and the conflict-

resolution approaches have been detrimental.

To some, this value judgment may seem obvious and noncontroversial.Be assured, it is neither. When we focus on the concept of organizationalperformance, we are minimizing the importance of personal satisfaction,

departmental satisfaction, and the satisfaction of external groups, such asconsumers or suppliers. In other words, if organizational performance isimproved, we can state that the behaviors described in Act III have been ben-eficial. To illustrate, recall the final part of the confrontation between Jack,the sales representative, and his secretary (Phyllis):

J A C K . .. The bottom line is the work has to get done.PHYLLIS: I know i t does, but I work 9 to 5, and I'm just one person. Con we get

another secretary around here? Maybe even just part- time?J A C K : We can't afford anot her secretary . We'v e alway s just had one, and the

work has always gotten done. Are you going to be our "one"?

What if we told you that the secretary was fired within 2 months? Eventhough she had improved her performance, it still fell short of Jack's "bottom

line." Phyllis's replacement, Lisa, struggled, but consistently got each day's

typing and photocopying done. Jack and the other salesmen were satisfiedwith Lisa's work, and confrontations between the secretary and the sales rep-resentative ceased.

The manager in charge resolved this conflict through a forcing

approach, he fired the secretary. From the secretary's point of view, the out-




come was terrible. From an organizational-performance perspective, theresults were beneficial. Pondy also would evaluate the outcome as beneficial.

Let's look at a different conflict and its resolution. Suppose, in our con-tinuing example of the conflict between the production manager and thesales manager, the production manager decided to go to their common supe-

rior, the vice president of operations. The vice president decides that the

sales staff must fill out the detailed questionnaire on a weekly basis. Produc-tion is pleased, but sales is extremely unhappy. How do we decide whetherthe overt conflict and its resolution are beneficial or harmful? The deciding

factor is organizational performance. The outcome is positive if overall orga-

nizational performance is improved by the decision. Sales may grumble and

be unhappy, but if this new questionnaire helps production considerablymore than it hurts sales, the organization has benefited. From an organiza-

tional performance perspective, which is what the vice president tried to take,

the results of the actions in Act III have been positive.

Naturally, we must be careful in measuring organizational performance.

We need to be aware of long-term impacts as well as immediate results. If, as

a consequence of the vice president's decision, the sales manager and her twotop salespeople leave the organization within a year, we might have a long-

term decrease in organizational performance.

This is clearly a measurement problem. But the value judgment remainsthe same. We need a basic outcome measurement-organizational perfor-mance, not individual or departmental satisfaction, is Pondy's key measure-

ment. In this course, we will adopt Pondy's revised model and its emphasison total organizational performance. The following chapters will examine

Pondy's model in detail, providing illustrations to clarify important con-

cepts.

PRINCIPLED NEGOTIATION

As is apparent in the preceding description of approaches to conflict resolu-

tion, whenever possible, collaboration is the best approach. It has the greatest

chance of satisfying each party and, therefore, the greatest chance of main-

taining agreements over the long haul; this, in turn, yields the greatest prob-

ability of achieving high levels of organizational performance. This approach

has received intensive study at Harvard University Law School in its Pro-

gram on Negotiation, a program involving scholars and researchers fromHarvard, MIT, Simmons College, and Tufts University. The program has

produced a form of conflict resolution that is rooted in collaboration and hasbecome known as principled negotiation. The method requires that conflicts be

resolved on the merits of the issues involved rather than through haggling,

trickery, or posturing. It prescribes that individuals in conflict search formutual gains; when this does not seem possible, then their decisions should

be based on fair standards independent of the will of either side. The method

of principled negotiation has been described as hard on the merits of thepoints of views involved but soft on the people. Roger Fisher, William Ury,



20 HowTO MANAGE CONFLICT IN THE ORGANIZATION

and Bruce Patton have popularized this approach to conflict and its resolu-

tion (see Fisher, Ury, and Patton, 1991; 1993; Fisher, 1993; and Ury, 1991).

Fisher, Ury, and Patton do not define conflict precisely. They assume the

participants involved in a conflict realize that there is a problem between theparties, a problem that needs to be resolved. They assume that each of us has

different interests and that conflict will arise when parties involved in a social

or business relationship pursue those interests. Given a conflict situation,Fisher, Ury, and Patton focus on those behaviors that will magnify or reduce

the conflict. They argue that conflict resolution works best for individualsand organizations when (1) each side walks away with its legitimate interestsmet; (2) the relationship between the parties has been improved or at leastnot damaged; and (3) organizational or community interests are taken intoaccount (Fisher, Ury, and Patton, 1991, page 4).

Exhibit 1-5 diagrams the key factors that serve to promote or reduce a

particular conflict, according to the proponents of principled negotiation.Study this exhibit carefully; it will be worth your time to memorize these fac-

tors as they appear throughout this book. Below, we present brief descriptions

of each fact or. As t he course progresses, we will deal wi t h t hem i n more det ai l.

Separating People from Issues

Fisher, Ury, and Patton (1991) remind us never to forget that the other side in

a conflict is a person or persons. As human beings we have emotions, values,




different backgrounds, and different viewpoints. Everyone wants to feel good

about himself or herself. If you try to resolve a conflict by attacking the person

and not the problem, you may win the battle but lose the war. If while winning

you make the other party lose face, you risk losing their full cooperation; you

risk losi ng t hem as an ally i n future disputes t hat y ou may hav e wi t h ot hers; y ou

risk their revenge. In our first conflict vignette involving Jack, the sales repre-

sentative, and Phyllis, the secretary, Jack would likely improve his chance of success by first sympathizing with Phyllis's complaints about her workload,

and, in turn, she would have become less defensive. She would be less likely to

t hink of him as a jerk and more li kely t o appreci at e Jack's problem.

Focusing on Interests, Not Positions

Fisher, Ury, and Patton (1991, page 5) observe that individuals who focus only

on particular positions in a conflict tend to paint themselves into a corner.

The more you clarify and defend your position, the more committed you

become to it; your ego becomes identified with your position, and you now

have a new issue: saving face. All of this reduces the odds of resolving a con-

flict in a manner that will maximize gains and minimize costs. Rather thantaking a position at the onset, you should let your interests be known, giving

both you and your adversary the opportunity to choose from one of manystarting positions. For example, in the Jack-Phyllis dispute, Jack began with

the position that the work had to be done as it was in the past, with just one

secretary. But what if his starting position with Phyllis had been his overallproblem: "the work not getting done"? Had he expressed this general concern

without saying, "the work's got to get done as it was in the past, and thatmeans just one secretary!" he would have made Phyllis less defensive and

more open to a discussion on how to solve Jack's problem of the work not get-

ting done and Phyllis's complaint of being overworked. At the outset, it is very

possible that neither Jack nor Phyllis knows how best to resolve their conflict.

Perhaps it requires something as simple as getting an answering machine to

help Phyllis handle telephone calls while she types and photocopies; perhaps

the resolution lies in restructuring the work day or even restructuring theorganization. Such possibilities were shut off when Jack announced that the

work had to done and in the way it had been done in the past.

Inventing Options for Mutual Gain

Obviously, had Jack and Phyllis not gotten personal in their dispute and had

Jack not focussed solely on the work having to be done as it was in the past,

the door might have opened to consideration of a variety of options for get-ting what they both wanted. Quite likely, some of these options never would

have been considered by the disputants individually, but would emerge only

in discussion and brainstorming.

Using Objective Standards of Fairness

We are not always going to get our way in life. None of us can win every bat-

tle. When we do lose, however, it is easier to accept if we see justice in the



2 2 How TO MANAGE CONFLICT IN THE ORGANIZATION

outcome. We also win more battles amicably when we can show our oppo-

nent that the outcome we desire meets some criterion of fairness. What we

use as a fair standard will vary with every situation. Although the standard

emphasized in Pondy's model and in this course is organizational perfor-mance, Fisher, Ury, and Patton (1991, page 85) offer many others:

•

Market value •

What a court would decide• Precedent • Moral standards• Scientific judgment • Equal treatment• Professional standards • Tradition• Efficiency • Reciprocity• Costs • Expert opinion

Jack would unlikely impress Phyllis with the argument that she should

stay after 5 o'clock to finish her work. Phyllis's salary is based on a 40-hour

week, a standard many American workers have come to accept as fair. Hewould do better if he invoked the standard of efficiency and opened a dis-

cussion of how Phyllis could get more work done with less effort (and,among other things, make her feel that the company is not taking advan-tage of her).

Having Alternatives to a Collaborative Agreement

We can't always settle a dispute in a way that meets the interests of all parties.

In such cases, we can keep conflict and its ill effects in check if we make sure wehave a BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement). Perhaps Phyllis is thebig boss's niece, and Jack comes to realize that the situation isn't going toimprove no matter how much he separates the person from the issue, focuses

on interests instead of positions, and so on. To make everyone less miserable

and to promote his interest of getting his sales work done on time, Jack mayhave to forget about Phyllis and go his own way. For example, he may realize

that he is still making money if he farms out part of the work, for example, by

taking some of his sales agreements to a commercial photocopier.

Degree to Which Each Party Is Knowledgeable

Knowledge is power. The more of it you bring to bear on a conflict the more

likely you are to find a solution that is satisfying to everyone. Before saying

that the company could not afford another secretary (even part-time), itwould be best if Jack knew what Phyllis was being paid and whether, indeed,

he was correct in his assessment of company finances. Phyllis would be in a

better negotiating position and increase the likelihood of resolving the con-

flict to everyone's satisfaction if she knew for sure that Jack was telling thetruth about the past situation (or if Jack is an honest man, whether he is cor-

rect in his assessment) -that is, that the work got done on time with just one

secretary. Perhaps if Phyllis talked with the previous secretary, she mightlearn that this secretary also struggled. Or she might learn that secretary'ssecrets for getting the work done.




Willingness to Communicate

A willingness to communicate means taking the time to empathize-to putyourself in the shoes of other party. Of course, this is easier said than done.

But there are some tricks of the trade: Interrupt if you don't understand and

you want a point repeated, but don't interrupt to jump to a conclusion. If you

have a tendency to interrupt, try sucking in a breath of air for 3 seconds, then

holding it for 3 seconds, and then exhaling it, quietly, for 6 seconds. Thistechnique will help you gain more control over your interrupting tendencies,

as well as give you more control over what you say and how you say it. Resist

foot-tapping, fiddling with objects, and fidgeting (see Glass, 1992, page 98).

Avoid loaded questions that make value judgments or assume too much("Phyllis, why do you think I'm getting these sales agreements back late"? is

much preferred to "Phyllis, why do you hate your job?"). Keep the person

talking by smiling and interjecting "uhmm hmm's" periodically (of course,

smiling is not appropriate in every situation). Don't focus just on words;home in on the emotions with which the words are spoken. Whatever yousay, expect the other side to hear something different; then take the time to

close the gap between what you said and what they heard.

SUMMARY

In this chapter, we have introduced concepts, terms, models, and value judg-

ments regarding conflict and conflict resolution within organizations. Our

basic premise is that conflict in organizations is not inherently positive ornegative. Rather, we must examine each conflict situation and its aftermath

before determining the value of the conflict to the organization. For thepurposes of this course, we accept Pondy's fundamental criterion for evalu-

ating conflict and its aftermath: How does it affect organizational perfor-mance?

We defined conflict as the process that begins when one party perceives

that another has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, some-

thing that he or she cares about. We emphasized that successful managers

must learn to distinguish how much of a particular conflict in his or her orga-nization is due to structural causes and how much is, due to interpersonal dif-

ferences. Structural conflict is rooted in the very nature of organizations and

is heightened by scarce resources. Interpersonal conflict is rooted in person-

ality differences. Because much of our personality is shaped by biology and

the social groups to which we belong, interpersonal conflict is magnified by

biological and social differences-for example, differences in race, sex,national origin, age, income, marital status, region, and physical disability.

Three major models of the conflict process were presented. Thomas's

model emphasizes individual emotions, thinking, behavior, and the episodic

aspect of conflict. The major elements in his model are awareness, thoughts

and emotions, intentions, behavior, the reactions of the other party, and out-

comes.



24 HowTO MANAGE CONFLICT IN TAE ORGANIZATION

Pondy's revised model of conflict dynamics is also episodic, but it

emphasizes organizational variables, such as structural and interpersonal fac-

tors and organizational performance. The major elements in this model are

antecedent factors, perceived and felt conflict, overt conflict, conflict-resolu-

tion approaches, and organizational performance.

Finally, Fisher, Ury, and Patton's principled-negotiation model empha-

sizes that conflict reduction is best handled through collaboration and nego-tiation. Major determinants of successful conflict resolution include

separating people from issues, focusing on interests rather than positions,inventing options for mutual gain, using objective standards, having alterna-

tives to resolving the conflict, knowledge, and the willingness to communi-

cate.



1. Conflict can be defined as

1. (c)

(a ) perceived differences in interests(b) aggressive or angry actions between or among hostile parties

(c ) the process that begins when one party perceives that anotherhas affected negatively, or is about to affect negatively, some-

thing about which he or she cares

(d) arguments and hostile behaviors rooted in personality differ-

ences between or among two or more parties

2. Structural conflict has its roots in the

2. (d)organizations.

(a ) division of labor in

(b) interdependence among positions in

(c ) scarce resources of

(d) all of the above

3. Interpersonal conflict has its roots in

3. (a)

(a ) personality differences

(b) interdependence among positions in organizations(c ) the division of labor

(d) ambiguity in role expectations

4. Kenneth W. Thomas's model of conflict

4. (b)(a ) depicts in graphic form the differences between conflict and

competition

(b) illustrates the episodic aspect of conflict

(c ) refutes the contingency approach to conflict resolution

(d) is based on principled negotiation




26 How TO MANAGE CONFLICT IN THE ORGANIZATION

5 . Pondy's revised model of conflict dynamics identifies two anteced- 5. (d)ent factors that can lead to overt conflict. These two factors are

variables and

v ari ables.

(a ) personality/racial

(b) hierarchical/sexual

(c ) vocational/avocational(d) structural/interpersonal

6. In Pondy's model, there are five conflict-resolution approaches: 6. (a)accommodating, forcing,

,

and

.

(a ) avoiding/compromising/collaborating

(b) appeasing/mediation/concession(c ) avoiding/collaborating/mediation(d) mediation/avoiding/appeasing

7. If both sides adopt the conflict-resolution approach of forcing, 7. (a)then both sides will

(a ) attempt to satisfy their own needs regardless of the impact on

the other side(b) use physical force(c ) try to force on the other side a solution beneficial to it, even if

the other side is not interested in its own welfare

(d) none of the above

8. Thomas's landmark study of 2 8 CEOs revealed that collaborating is 8. (c)the best conflict-resolution approach

(a ) when emergencies arise(b) on important issues where unpopular actions need implement-

ing (e.g., cost cutting)(c ) when your objective is to learn(d) when an issue is trivial

9. Pondy's conflict-handling mode of

is 9. (a)very similar to Fisher, Ury, and Patton's idea of principled negotia-

tion.(a ) collaborating(b) avoiding

(c ) accommodation(d) forcing

10. Among the objective standards disputants can use to help resolve 10. (d)their conflict are

(a) organizational performance

(b) professional standards(c) efficiency

(d) all of the above

Date post:	07-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	rohanfyaz00
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Conflict 1

Documents