1. Chapter 2 Nature of Conflict

2. Defining Conflict Conflict is defined as an interactive process manifested in incompatibility, disagreement, or dissonance within or between social entities (i.e., individual, group, organization, etc.).

3. Occurrence of Organizational Conflict Organizational conflict occurs when members engage in activities that are incompatible with those of colleagues within their network. Some of the manifestations of conflict behavior are expressing disagreement with the opponent, yelling, verbal abuse, interference, and so on.

4. Threshold of Conflict In order for conflict to occur, it has to exceed the threshold level of intensity. The incompatibilities, disagreements, or differences must be serious enough before the parties experience conflict. There are differences in the threshold of conflict awareness or tolerance among individuals. Thus, some individuals may become involved in a conflict sooner than others under similar situations.

5. Conflict and Competition Competition is a subset of conflict. Conflicts may be placed along a continuum of cooperative to competitive. Cooperative: Both parties receive satisfactory and high outcomes. Competitive: One party wins and the other loses.

6. Categorization of Conflicts Conflicts can be categorized as following: Purely Cooperative Conflicts Purely Competitive Conflicts Cooperative-Competitive Conflicts

7. Purely Cooperative Conflicts:- Purely cooperative conflicts are also known as “positive-sum games” or “conflicts of coordination”. A mutually profitable outcome for both individuals through coordination is ensured. For e.g. a lost child’s trying to find his or her mother

8. Purely Competitive Conflicts:- Purely competitive conflicts are also known as “zero-sum games” or “negative-sum games”. Positive outcomes to one party are directly and equally matched by negative outcomes to the other. For e.g. two candidates are interviewed but only one can be hired.

9. Cooperative-Competitive Conflicts:- Cooperative-competitive conflicts are also known as “nonzero-sum games” or “mixed- motive” conflicts. Most conflicts are characterized by both cooperative and competitive aspects Most managerial conflicts are mixed-motive in nature.

10. Classifying Conflict Conflict may be classified on the basis of its sources. It may also be classified on the basis of organizational levels (individual, group, etc.) at which it may originate.

11. Sources of Conflict Conflict may originate from a number of sources, such as tasks, values, goals, and so on. It is classified as following: 1. Affective Conflict 2. Substantive Conflict 3. Conflict of Interest 4. Conflict of Values 5. Goal Conflict 6. Realistic versus Nonrealistic Conflict 7. Institutionalized versus Non-institutionalized Conflict 8. Retributive Conflict 9. Misattributed Conflict 10. Displaced Conflict

12. 1. Affective Conflict:- This category of conflict has been labeled as psychological conflict, relationship conflict, emotional conflict and interpersonal conflict. This occurs when two interacting social entities, while trying to solve a problem together, become aware that their feelings and emotions regarding some or all the issues are incompatible.

13. 2. Substantive Conflict:- This type of conflict has been labeled as task conflict, cognitive conflict and issue conflict. This occurs when two or more organizational members disagree on their task or content issues. Disagreement regarding an organization’s current strategic position or determining the correct data to include in a report. Affective conflict is concerned with the feelings or emotions whereas substantive conflict is associated with the task or other business-related issues.

14. 3. Conflict of Interest:- An inconsistency between two parties in their preferences for the allocation of a scarce resource. The conflict of managers A and B for the same vice president’s job exemplifies a conflict of interest.

15. 4. Conflict of Values:- This occurs when two social entities differ in their values or ideologies on certain issues. This is also called ideological conflict.

16. 5. Goal Conflict:- This occurs when a preferred outcome of two social entities is inconsistent. For e.g. when only one of the preferred job design programs of managers A and B can be implemented is an example of goal conflict.

17. 6. Realistic versus Non-realistic Conflict:- Realistic conflict refers to incompatibilities relating to tasks, goals and values. Non-realistic conflict occurs as a result of a party’s need for releasing tension and expressing hostility, ignorance, or error. Realistic conflict is associated with “mostly rational or goal-oriented” disagreement. Non-realistic conflict has little to do with group or organizational goals.

18. 7. Institutionalized Versus Non-institutionalized Conflict Institutionalized conflict is characterized by situations in which parties follow explicit rules, display predictable behavior, and their relationship has continuity, as in the case of labor–management negotiations. Most racial conflict is non-institutionalized where these three conditions are nonexistent.

19. 8. Retributive Conflict:- A situation where the conflicting entities feel the need for a drawn-out conflict to punish the opponent. Each party determines its gains by incurring costs to the other party. Examples of retributive conflicts are Palestinian– Israeli conflicts and the Cold War between the former superpowers.

20. 9. Misattributed Conflict:- This relates to the incorrect assignment of causes to conflict. Such conflict is based on misunderstanding. For example, an employee may wrongly attribute to his or her supervisor a cut in the employee’s department budget, which may have been done by higher-level managers.

21. 10. Displaced Conflict:- This type of conflict occurs when the conflicting parties either direct their frustrations or hostilities to social entities who are not involved in conflict. For e.g resentment shown by the people over increase in petrol prices.

22. Levels of Analysis Organizational conflict may be classified as intraorganizational (i.e., conflict within an organization) or interorganizational (i.e., conflict between two or more organizations). Intraorganizational conflict may also be classified on the basis of levels (individual, group, etc.) at which it occurs.

23. Intraorganizational Conflict Classification Intraorganizational conflict may be classified as: Intrapersonal Conflict Interpersonal Conflict Intragroup Conflict Intergroup Conflict

24. 1. Intrapersonal Conflict This type of conflict is also known as intraindividual or intra-psychic conflict. It occurs when an organizational member is required to perform certain tasks and roles that do not match his or her expertise, interests, goals, and values.

25. 2. Interpersonal Conflict This is also known as dyadic conflict. It refers to conflict between two or more organizational members of the same or different hierarchical levels or units. The studies on superior–subordinate conflict relate to this type of conflict.

26. 3. Intragroup Conflict This is also known as intradepartmental conflict. It refers to conflict among members of a group or between two or more subgroups within a group in connection with its goals, tasks, procedures. Such a conflict may also occur as a result of incompatibilities or disagreements between some or all the members of a group and its leader(s).

27. 4. Intergroup Conflict This is also known as interdepartmental conflict. It refers to conflict between two or more units or groups within an organization. Conflicts between production and marketing, headquarters and field staffs are examples of this type of conflict. One special type of intergroup conflict is between labor and management.

28. Four Models Interpersonal Conflict Four models of the styles of handling interpersonal conflict in organizations are as following: Model of Two Styles Model of Three Styles Model of Four Styles Model of Five Styles

29. Model of Two Styles Cooperative–Competitive model:(Suggested by Deutsch) This model focuses on conflicts that are either purely cooperative or purely competitive. In real life and managerial settings, one hardly encounters purely cooperative or purely competitive conflict situations. Most conflicts are characterized by both cooperative and competitive aspects (i.e., they are “nonzero-sum games” or “mixed-motive” conflicts). This is very similar to the compromising style.

30. Model of Three Styles This model identified three, instead of five, factors for handling conflict which were:  Non-confrontation(obliging),  Solution-orientation (integrating)  Control (dominating) Evidence of how the three styles influence organizational behavior and management is needed. Unfortunately, the researchers have not provided any evidence of the relationships between the three conflict styles and individual, group, and organizational outcomes.

31. Model of Four Styles This model proposed four styles of handling conflict:  Yielding  Problem solving  Inaction  Contending This model provided evidence that problem-solving style is the best for managing conflict effectively. The evidence,(empirical evidence) was mainly from laboratory studies. The relationships of the four styles to job performance or productivity have not been provided.

32. Model of Five Styles This model differentiate the styles of handling interpersonal conflict on two basic dimensions: concern for self and concern for others. The first dimension explains the degree (high or low) to which a person attempts to satisfy his or her own concern. The second dimension explains the degree (high or low) to which a person wants to satisfy the concern of others. Combination of the two dimensions results in five specific styles of handling interpersonal conflict.

33. A Two-Dimensional Model

34. Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict 1.Integrating Style 2.Obliging Style 3.Dominating Style 4.Avoiding Style 5.Compromising Style

35. 1. Integrating Style This style is also known as problem solving. This style indicates high concern for self and others. It involves collaboration between the parties. The first rule for obtaining integration is to put your cards on the table, face the real issue, uncover the conflict, bring the whole thing into the open. This style has two distinctive elements: confrontation and problem solving.

36. 2. Obliging Style This style is also known as accommodating. This style indicates low concern for self and high concern for others. There is an element of self-sacrifice in this style. It may take the form of selfless generosity, charity, or obedience to another party’s order. An obliging person neglects his or her own concern to satisfy the concern of the other party. Such an individual is like a “conflict absorber,”

37. 3. Dominating Style This style is also known as competing. This style indicates high concern for self and low concern for others. This style has been identified with a win–lose orientation. A dominating person goes all out to win his or her objective and, as a result, often ignores the needs and expectations of the other party. Sometimes a dominating person wants to win at any cost.

38. 4. Avoiding Style This style is also known as suppression. This style indicates low concern for self and others. It has been associated with withdrawal, or “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” situations. Such a person may refuse to acknowledge in public that there is a conflict that should be dealt with.

39. 5. Compromising Style This style indicates intermediate concern for self and others. Both parties give up something to make a mutually acceptable decision. A compromising party gives up more than a dominating party but less than an obliging party. Likewise, it addresses an issue more directly than an avoiding party but does not explore it in as much depth as an integrating party.

40. Interpersonal Conflict According to Game Theory According to game theorists the five styles of handling interpersonal conflict can be reclassified as following: Integrating style as a (win–win) style. Compromising as a (no-win/no-lose) style. Obliging as a (lose–win) style. Dominating as a (win–lose) style. Avoiding as a (lose–lose) style.

41. Integrative and Distributive Dimensions Five styles of handling interpersonal conflict can be organized according to the integrative and distributive dimensions. Integrative-dimension: The integrative-dimension (integrating–avoiding) represents the amount of satisfaction of concerns received by both parties (i.e. self and others). Distributive-dimension: The distributive-dimension (dominating–obliging) represents the amount of satisfaction of the concerns received by one of the parties (i.e., self or others).

42. Integrative-dimension According to integrative-dimension: The integrating style attempts to increase the satisfaction of the concerns of both parties by finding unique solutions to the problems acceptable to them. The avoiding style leads to the reduction of satisfaction of the concerns of both parties as a result of their failure to confront and solve their problems.

43. Distributive-dimension According to integrative-dimension: The dominating style attempts to obtain high satisfaction of concerns for self (and provide low satisfaction of concerns for others). The obliging style attempts to obtain low satisfaction of concerns for self (and provide high satisfaction of concerns for others).

44. Intersection of the Two Dimensions Compromising Style: The compromising style represents the point of intersection of the two dimensions, that is, a middle-ground position where both parties receive an intermediate level of satisfaction of their concerns from the resolution of their conflicts.

45. Integrative and Distributive Dimensions Model