Chapter 10 Conflict in Organizations This Multimedia product and its contents are protected under copyright law. The following are prohibited by law: Any public performance or display, including transmission of any image over a network; Preparation of any derivative work, including the extraction, in whole or in part, of any images; Any rental, lease, or lending of the program. Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007

The Nature of Conflict in Organizations In classical bureaucratic organizations, conflict is something to be suppressed and avoided. Organizations should be smooth running, harmonious and ordered. Use of control and structure to manage conflict. Human relations views see conflict as a failure to develop appropriate norms for groups. Seeks to achieve harmony through happy, congenial work groups. Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007

Definition of Conflict Two essential concepts in any conflict Divergent views and Incompatibility of those views Hostility occurs when an individual or group actively strives for a particular outcome precluding others’ preferred outcome. Leaders need to manage conflict to reduce or prevent hostility. Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007

Conflict Different from Attacks Two Types of Hostility Non-Malevolent Malevolent Non-malevolent behavior may worsen the position of others, but is done to support one’s views. Malevolent hostility may give rise to nefarious attacks, that may: Focus on people (not issues). Use hateful and emotional language and terms. Use dogmatic statements. Be intransigent even in light of new information. The key to determining the type of hostility is the motivation of the hostile party. Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007

Contemporary Views of Conflict Conflict is inevitable, endemic and often legitimate. Chester Barnard described negotiating, stress, and conflict as normal social patterns in organizations. Finite resources lead to competition. Leaders need to manage conflict. Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007

Effects of Organizational Conflict Hostile conflict can result in: Psychological withdrawal--alienation, apathy, and indifference. Physical withdrawal—absence, tardiness, and turnover. Conflict can create a downward spiral in organizational health (See Figure 10.1). Effective conflict management can lead to improved organizational health (See Figure 10.2). Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007

The Criterion: Organizational Performance The central issue to leaders is to insure the impact of conflict does not negatively affect performance of the organization as a system. Leaders should assess organizational culture and the interaction-influence system. Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007

The Criterion: Organizational Performance (continued) Participative management assumes that many people have good ideas and quality information. Divergent views can assist individuals in confronting previously unknown or ignored information. Dealing with problems can result in improved cohesiveness, clarified relationships and better problem-solving procedures. Whereas, pent-up conflict may explode, followed by long periods of frustration. Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007

The Dynamics of Organizational Conflict Louis Pondy identified three primary causes of latent conflict: Competition for scarce resources. Autonomy or “Protecting One’s Turf”. Goal divergence (and how to accomplish the goal). These are naturally-occurring events in schools, and therefore conflict should be expected, planned for and managed. Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007

A Process View of Conflict Kenneth Thomas identified four parts of conflict that occur in a sequence of episodes: Frustration—caused by someone’s action. Conceptualization—defining issues and seeking alternative responses. Behavior—dictated by one’s desire to satisfy the other’s concerns resulting in cooperation (or not), and by one’s desire to satisfy his/her own concerns resulting in assertiveness (or not). Interaction of the parties follows. Outcome—if negative, can have long-term effects on relationships and the organization. Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007

A Structural View of Conflict This approach sees conflict in terms of conditions that influence behavior. Rules and procedures. Personality predispositions. Social norms of the organization. Rensis Likert and Jane Gibson Likert suggested that bureaucratic organizations lack capacity to deal with conflict, and that a System 4 approach works to manage conflict. Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007

An Open-Systems View of Conflict As open systems, schools interact with their environments. Outside mandates and pressures can cause sudden change and subsequent conflict, e.g., NCLB. Griffin and Rostetter hypothesized that depending on availability of resources, opportunities to avoid coercion, and rewards for compliance, people will behave with one of the following: resistance, escape, compliance, passive resistance. Coercion can lead to conflict-hostility-resistance syndrome within organizations. Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007

Approaches to Organizational Conflict Win-Lose Orientation—parties do not see compromise as possible. Two consequences Between parties: hostility rises, hope for solution fades, as does search for solution. Within parties involved: members close ranks, and members are expected to keep the party line. Creative solutions are effectively snuffed out. The losing individual or group may reject the leaders and have powerful long-lasting negative emotional reactions. Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007

A Contingency Approach to Conflict This approach requires a solution based on diagnosis of the situation: Is there conflict: do the parties have goals that are incompatible? If it is a miscommunication instead of conflict, parties may benefit from communication skills training. If a conflict does exist, then select a method of dealing with it productively from options available. In general, a win-win in which both parties win something tends to be the most productive. Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007

A Contingency Approach to Conflict (continued) Collaboration—mutual problem solving. Parties must have: Skills for communicating and working in groups effectively. Attitudes that support a climate of trust to work through problems. Using effective problem-solving strategies. Sometimes use of a third-party consultant is helpful. Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007

A Contingency Approach to Conflict (continued) Bargaining Search for compromises that has some elements of collaborative problem solving. This is not collaborative, and does not necessarily lead to win-win. Neither party wins and neither party loses. Example may be when parties take a conflict to supervisor for resolution. Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007

A Contingency Approach to Conflict (continued) Avoidance—it useful when: It is not likely that latent conflict can be resolved. Issues are not so important as to require time and resources to work them out. Effectively a “cease-fire”. Power Struggle—classic win-lose situation. Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007

A Contingency Approach to Diagnosis of Conflict Kenneth Thomas’ model of conceptualizing conflict through behaviors commonly associated with conflict uses two behavioral dimensions that shape conflict: Cooperativeness Assertiveness Five perspectives result from this analysis: Competition, Avoidance, Accommodation, Sharing, and Collaboration. See Figures 10.4--10.6. Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2007