Conflict management

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation,
search

Conflict management involves implementing strategies to limit the
negative aspects of conflict and to increase the positive aspects of conflict at
a level equal to or higher than where the conflict is taking place. Furthermore,
the aim of conflict management is to enhance learning and group outcomes
(effectiveness or performance in organizational setting) (Rahim, 2002, p. 208).
It is not concerned with eliminating all conflict or avoiding conflict. Conflict
can be valuable to groups and organizations. It has been shown to increase group
outcomes when managed properly (e.g. Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 2000; Bodtker
& Jameson, 2001; Rahim & Bonoma, 1979; Khun & Poole, 2000; DeChurch
& Marks, 2001).

Contents

1 Definitions

1.1 Conflict

1.2 Substantive Vs.
Affective

1.3 Organizational and
Interpersonal Conflict

2 Conflict Resolution Vs.
Conflict Management

3 Models of Conflict
Management

3.1 Early Conflict
Management Models

3.2 Khun and Poole’s
Model

3.3 DeChurch and Marks’s
Meta-Taxonomy

4 “Current” Conflict
Management

5 How to manage
conflict

5.1 General Suggestions
from Rahim's Criteria for Conflict Management (2002)

5.2 Other
suggestions

6 International Conflict
Management

7 Counseling

8 See also

9 References

10 Further
reading

11 External
links

[edit]
Definitions

[edit]
Conflict

While no single definition of conflict exists, most definitions seem to
involve the following factors: that there are at least two independent groups,
the groups perceive some incompatibility between themselves, and the groups
interact with each other in some way (Putnam and Poole, 1987). Two example
definitions are, “process in which one party perceives that its interests are
being opposed or negatively affected by another party" (Wall & Callister,
1995, p. 517), and “the interactive process manifested in compatibility,
disagreement, or dissonance within or between social entities” (Rahim, 1992, p.
16).

There are several causes of conflict. Conflict may occur when:

A party is required to engage in an activity that is incongruent with his
or her needs or interests.

A party holds behavioral preferences, the satisfaction of which is
incompatible with another person's implementation of his or her
preferences.

A party wants some mutually desirable resource that is in short supply,
such that the wants of all parties involved may not be satisfied fully.

A party possesses attitudes, values, skills, and goals that are salient in
directing his or her behavior but are perceived to be exclusive of the
attitudes, values, skills, and goals held by the other(s).

Two parties have partially exclusive behavioral preferences regarding
their joint actions.

Two parties are interdependent in the performance of functions or
activities.

(Rahim, 2002, p. 207)

[edit]
Substantive Vs.
Affective

The overarching hierarchy of conflict starts with a distinction between
substantive (also called performance, task, issue, or active) conflict and affective (also called
relationship or [the opposite of] agreeable) conflict. If one could make a
distinction between good and bad conflict, substantive would be good and
affective conflict would be bad. However, in a meta-analysis of the current
research, De Drue and Weingart (2003) showed that these two concepts are related
to each other (corrected correlation, ρ = .54).

Substantive conflict deals with disagreements among group members about the
content of the tasks being performed or the performance itself (DeChurch &
Marks, 2001; Jehn, 1995). This type of conflict occurs when two or more social
entities disagree on the recognition and solution to a task problem, including
differences in viewpoints, ideas, and opinions (Jehn, 1995; Rahim, 2002).

Affective conflict deals with interpersonal relationships or
incompatibilities (Behfar, Peterson, Mannix, & Trochim, 2008). It is
generated from emotions and frustration (Bodtker & Jameson, 2001), and has a
detrimental impact on group or organizational outcomes (i.e. information
processing ability, cognitive functioning of group members, attributions of
group members' behavior, group loyalty, work group commitment, intent to stay in
the present organization, and job satisfaction) (Amason, 1996; Baron, 1997;
Jehn, 1995; Jehn et al., 1999; Wall & Nolan, 1986). Summarily stated,
"relationship conflict interferes with task-related effort because members focus
on reducing threats, increasing power, and attempting to build cohesion rather
than working on tasks...The conflict causes members to be negative, irritable,
suspicious, and resentful" (Jehn, 1997, pp. 531-532; c.f. Rahim, 2002, p.
210).

Thus, “[substantive] conflicts occur when group members argue over
alternatives related to the group's task, whereas [affective] conflicts result
over interpersonal clashes not directly related to achieving the group's
function (Amason, 1996; Guetzhow & Gyr, 1954; Jehn, 1992; Pinkley, 1990;
Priem & Price, 1991)” (c.f. DeChurch & Marks, 2001, p. 5).

In De Dreu and Weingart's 2003 meta-analysis, both substantive and affective
conflict are negatively related to team member satisfaction (ρ = -.32; -.56,
respectively). Additionally, substantive and affective conflict are negatively
related to team performance (ρ = -.20; -.25, respectively). It is important to
note that 20% (5 of 25) of the studies used showed a positive correlation
between substantive conflict and task performance. These relationships show the
severe negative impact that conflict can have on groups, and illustrate the
importance of conflict management.

[edit]
Organizational and Interpersonal Conflict

Organizational
conflict, whether it be substantive or affective, can be divided into
intraorganizational and interorganizational. Interorganizational conflict occurs
between two or more organizations (Rahim, 2002). When different businesses are
competing against one another, this is an example of interorganizational
conflict Intraorganizational conflict is conflict within an organization, and
can be examined based upon level (e.g. department, work team, individual), and
can be classified as interpersonal, intragroup and intergroup. Interpersonal
conflict--once again--whether it is substantive or affective, refers to conflict
between two or more individuals (not representing the group they are a part of)
of the same or different group at the same or different level, if in an
organization. Interpersonal conflict can be divided into intragroup and
intergroup conflict. While the former--intragroup--occurs between members of a
group (or between subgroups within a group), the latter--intergroup--occurs
between groups or units in an organization (Rahim, 2002).

[edit]
Conflict
Resolution Vs. Conflict Management

As the name would suggest, conflict resolution
involves the reduction, elimination, or termination of all forms and types of
conflict. In practice, when people talk about conflict resolution
they tend to use terms like negotiation, bargaining,
mediation,
or arbitration.

In line with the recommendations in the "how to" section, businesses can
benefit from appropriate types and levels of conflict. That is the aim of
conflict management, and not the aim of conflict resolution.
Conflict management does not necessarily imply conflict resolution.
“Conflict management involves designing effective macro-level strategies to
minimize the dysfunctions of conflict and enhancing the constructive functions
of conflict in order to enhance learning and effectiveness in an
organization”(Rahim, 2002, p. 208). Learning is essential for the longevity of
any group. This is especially true for organizations; Organizational
learning is essential for any company to remain in the market. Properly
managed conflict increases learning through increasing the degree to which
groups ask questions and challenge the status quo (Luthans, Rubach, &
Marsnik, 1995).

[edit]
Models of Conflict
Management

There have been many styles of conflict management behavior that have been
researched in the past century. One of the earliest, Mary Parker Follett
(1926/1940) found that conflict was managed by individuals in three main ways:
domination, compromise, and integration.
She also found other ways of handling conflict that were employed by
organizations, such as avoidance and
suppression.

[edit]
Early Conflict
Management Models

Blake and Mouton (1964) were among the first to present a conceptual scheme
for classifying the modes (styles) for handling interpersonal conflicts into
five types: forcing, withdrawing, smoothing, compromising, and problem
solving.

In the 1970’s and 1980’s, researchers began using the intentions of the
parties involved to classify the styles of conflict management that they would
include in their models. Both Thomas (1976) and Pruitt (1983) put forth a model
based on the concerns of the parties involved in the conflict. The combination
of the parties concern for their own interests (i.e. assertiveness) and their
concern for the interests of those across the table (i.e cooperativeness) would yield
a particular conflict management style. Pruitt called these styles yielding (low
assertiveness/high cooperativeness), problem solving (high assertiveness/high
cooperativeness), inaction (low assertiveness/low cooperativeness), and
contending (high assertiveness/low cooperativeness). Pruitt argues that
problem-solving is the preferred method when seeking mutually beneficial
options.

[edit]
Khun and Poole’s
Model

Khun and Poole (2000) established a similar system of group conflict
management. In their system, they split Kozan’s confrontational model into two
sub models: distributive and integrative.

Distributive - Here conflict is approached as a distribution of a fixed
amount of positive outcomes or resources, where one side will end up winning
and the other losing, even if they do win some concessions.

Integrative - Groups utilizing the integrative model see conflict as a
chance to integrate the needs and concerns of both groups and make the best
outcome possible. This model has a heavier emphasis on compromise than the
distributive model. Khun and Poole found that the integrative model resulted
in consistently better task related outcomes than those using the distributive
model.

[edit]
DeChurch
and Marks’s Meta-Taxonomy

DeChurch and Marks (2001) examined the literature available on conflict
management at the time and established what they claimed was a "meta-taxonomy"
that encompasses all other models. They argued that all other styles have
inherent in them into two dimensions - activeness ("the extent to which conflict
behaviors make a responsive and direct rather than inert and indirect
impression") and agreeableness ("the extent to which conflict behaviors make a
pleasant and relaxed rather than unpleasant and strainful impression"). High
activeness is characterized by openly discussing differences of opinion while
fully going after their own interest. High agreeableness is characterized by
attempting to satisfy all parties involved

In the study they conducted to validate this division, activeness did not
have a significant effect on the effectiveness of conflict resolution,
but the agreeableness of the
conflict management style, whatever it was, did in fact have a positive impact
on how groups felt about the way the conflict was managed, regardless of the
outcome.

[edit]
“Current” Conflict Management

Rahim (2002) noted that there is agreement among management scholars that
there is no one best approach to how to make decisions, lead or manage conflict.
In a similar vein, rather than creating a very specific model of conflict
management, Rahim created a meta-model (in much the same way that DeChurch and
Marks, 2001, created a meta-taxonomy) for conflict styles based on two
dimensions, concern for self and concern for others (as shown in Figure 2).

Within this framework are five management approaches: integrating, obliging,
dominating, avoiding, and compromising. Integration involves openness,
exchanging information, looking for alternatives, and examining differences so
solve the problem in a manner that is acceptable to both parties. Obliging is
associated with attempting minimize the differences and highlight the
commonalities to satisfy the concern of the other party. When using the
dominating style one party goes all out to win his or her objective and, as a
result, often ignores the needs and expectations of the other party. When
avoiding a party fails to satisfy his or her own concern as well as the concern
of the other party. Lastly, compromising involves give-and-take whereby both
parties give up something to make a mutually acceptable decision. (Rahim,
2002).

See the table on the right, as a quick reference for when a particular
conflict management style is appropriate / inappropriate.

[edit]
How to manage
conflict

Overall conflict management should aim to minimize affective
conflicts at all levels, attain and maintain a moderate amount of substantive
conflict, and use the appropriate conflict management strategy--to effectively
bring about the first two goals, and also to match the status and concerns of
the two parties in conflict (Rahim, 2002).

In order for conflict management strategies to be effective, they should
satisfy certain criteria. The below criteria are particularly useful for not
only conflict management, but also decision making in management.

[edit]
General Suggestions from Rahim's Criteria for Conflict
Management (2002)

Organization Learning and Effectiveness- In order to attain this
objective, conflict management strategies should be designed to enhance
critical and innovative thinking to learn the process of diagnosis and
intervention in the right problems.

Needs of Stakeholders- Sometimes multiple parties are involved in a
conflict in an organization and the challenge of conflict management would be
to involve these parties in a problem solving process that will lead to
collective learning and organizational effectiveness. organizations should
institutionalize the positions of employee advocate, customer and supplier
advocate, as well as environmental and stockholder advocates.

Ethics - A wise leader must behave ethically, and to do so the leader
should be open to new information and be willing to change his or her mind. By
the same token subordinates and other stakeholders have an ethical duty to
speak out against the decisions of supervisors when consequences of these
decisions are likely to be serious. “Without an understanding of ethics,
conflict cannot be handled” (Batcheldor, 2000).

[edit]
Other suggestions

Do not avoid the conflict, hoping it will go away. Ask the participants to
describe specific actions they would like the other party to take. It would also
be beneficial to have a third party (meaning a non-direct superior with access
to the situation) involved. This could be an individual member or a board
dedicated to resolving and preventing issues. Lastly, do not meet separately
with people in conflict. If you allow each individual to tell their story to
you, you risk polarizing their positions.

[edit]
International
Conflict Management

Special consideration should be paid to conflict management between two
parties from distinct cultures. In addition to the everyday sources of conflict,
"misunderstandings, and from this counterproductive, pseudo conflicts, arise
when members of one culture are unable to understand culturally determined
differences in communication practices, traditions, and thought processing"
(Borisoff & Victor, 1989).

Indeed, this has already been observed in the business research literature.
Renner (2007) recounted several episodes where managers from developed countries
moved to less developed countries to resolve conflicts within the company and
met with little success due to their failure to adapt to the conflict management
styles of the local culture.

As an example, in Kozan’s study noted above, he noted that Asian cultures are
far more likely to use a harmony model of conflict management. If a party
operating from a harmony model comes in conflict with a party using a more
confrontational model, misunderstandings above and beyond those generated by the
conflict itself will arise.

International conflict management, and the cultural issues associated with
it, is one of the primary areas of research in the field at the time, as
existing research is insufficient to deal with the ever increasing contact
occurring between international entities.

[edit]
Counseling

When personal conflict leads to frustration and loss of efficiency, counseling may prove to be a
helpful antidote. Although few organizations can afford
the luxury of having professional counselors on the staff, given some training,
managers may be able to perform this function. Nondirective counseling, or
"listening with understanding," is little more than being a good
listener—something every manager should be.[1]

Sometimes the simple process of being able to vent one's feelings—that is, to
express them to a concerned and understanding listener, is enough to relieve
frustration and make it possible for the frustrated individual to advance to a
problem-solving frame of mind, better able to cope with a personal difficulty
that is affecting his work adversely. The nondirective approach is one effective
way for managers to deal with
frustrated subordinates and co-workers.[2]

There are other more direct and more diagnostic ways that might be used in
appropriate circumstances. The great strength of the nondirective approach
(nondirective counseling is based on the client-centered therapy of Carl
Rogers), however, lies in its simplicity, its effectiveness, and the fact that
it deliberately avoids the manager-counselor's diagnosing and interpreting
emotional problems, which would call for special psychological training. No one
has ever been harmed by being listened to sympathetically and understandingly.
On the contrary, this approach has helped many people to cope with problems that
were interfering with their effectiveness on the job.[2]

[edit]
See also

Conflict
resolution

Conflict atlas

Conflict style
inventory

[edit]
References

Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000) Conflict management,
efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53,
625-642.

Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000) Conflict management,
efficacy, and performance in organizational teams. Personnel Psychology, 53,
625-642.

Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and
dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top
management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123-1

Baron, R. A. (1997). Positive effects of conflict: Insights from social
cognition. In C. K. W. DeDreu & E. Van de Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in
organizations (pp. 177-191). London: Sage.

Batcheldor, M. (2000) The Elusive Intangible Intelligence: Conflict
Management and Emotional Intelligence in the Workplace. The Western Scholar,
Fall, 7-9

Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannis, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. K.
(2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the
links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 170-188.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX:
Gulf.

Bodtker, A. M., & Jameson, J. K. (2001) Emotion in conflict formation and
its transformation: Application to organizational conflict management. The
International Journal of Conflict Management, 3, 259-275.

Borisoff, D., & Victor, D. A. (1989). Conflict management: A
communication skills approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

De Dreu, C. K. W. & Weingart, L. R. (2003) Task versus relationship
conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 741-749.

DeChurch, L. A, & Marks, M. A. (2001) Maximizing the benefits of task
conflict: The role of conflict management. The International Journal of Conflict
Management, 12, 4-22.

Follett, M. P. (1940). Constructive conflict. In H. C. Metcalf & L.
Urwick (Eds.), Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker
Follett (pp. 30-49). New York: Harper & Row. (originally published
1926).

Guetzkow, H., & Gyr, J. (1954). An analysis of conflict in
decision-making groups. Hitman Relations, 7, 367-381.

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and
determinants of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40,
256-282.

Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions
of organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530-557.

Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences
make a difference: A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in
workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 741-763.

Kozan, M. K. (1997) Culture and conflict management: A theoretical framework.
The International Journal of Conflict Management, 8, 338-360.

Kuhn, T., & Poole, M. S. (2000). Do conflict management styles affect
group decision making? Human Communication Research, 26, 558-590.

Luthans, F., Rubach, M. J., & Marsnik, P. (1995). Going beyond total
quality: The characteristics, techniques, and measures of learning
organizations. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3, 24-44.

Pinkley, R. L. (1990). Dimensions of conflict frame: Disputant
interpretations of conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 117-126.

Pruitt, D. G. (1983). Strategic choice in negotiation. American Behavioral
Scientist, 27, 167-194.

Rahim, M. A. (1992). Managing conflict in organizations (2nd ed.). Westport,
CT: Praeger.

Rahim, M. A. (2002) Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. The
International Journal of Conflict Management, 13, 206-235.

Rahim, M. A., & Bonoma, T. V. (1979). Managing organizational conflict: A
model for diagnosis and intervention. Psychological Reports, 44, 1323-1344.

Renner, J. (2007). Coaching abroad: Insights about assets. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 59, 271–285.

Ruble, T. L., & Thomas, K. W. (1976). Support for a two-dimensional model
for conflict behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16,
143-155.

Thomas, K. W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M. D. Dunnette
(Ed.), Handbook in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 889-935).
Chicago: Rand McNally.

Van de Vliert, E., & Kabanoff, B. (1990). Toward theory-based measures of
conflict management. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 199-209.

Wall, J. A., Jr., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management.
Journal of Management, 21, 515-558.

Wall, V. D., Jr., & Nolan, L. L. (1986). Perceptions of inequity,
satisfaction, and conflict in task in task-oriented groups. Human Relations, 39,
1033-1052.

^
Henry P Knowles; Börje O Saxberg (1971).
Personality and leadership behavior. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley
Pub. Co.. Chapter 8. OCLC 118832.

^ a
b
Richard Arvid Johnson (1976). Management,
systems, and society : an introduction. Pacific Palisades, Calif.:
Goodyear Pub. Co.. pp. 148–142. ISBN 0876205406
9780876205402. OCLC 2299496.

[edit]
Further reading

Kellett, Peter M. (2007). Conflict
Dialogue. London: Sage Publications. ISBN 1412909309.

[edit]
External links

Conflict Management Articles - A collection of Conflict
Management Articles

Search
For Common Ground - One of the world's largest non-government
organisations dedicated to conflict resolution

CUNY Dispute Resolution Consortium- The Dispute Resolution
Headquarters in New York City.

The Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International
Studies (SAIS) Conflict Management Toolkit

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conflict_management&oldid=454306753"

Categories:

Conflict
process

Ethnic
conflict

Personal tools

Log
in / create account

Namespaces

Article

Discussion

Variants

Views

Read

Edit

View
history

Actions

Search

Navigation

Main page

Contents

Featured
content

Current
events

Random article

Donate to Wikipedia

Interaction

Help

About Wikipedia

Community
portal

Recent
changes

Contact
Wikipedia

Toolbox

What
links here

Related
changes

Upload file

Special
pages

Permanent
link

Cite
this page

Print/export

Create a book

Download as PDF

Printable
version

Languages

Česky

Dansk

Deutsch

Español

Kiswahili

Polski

Українська

This page was last modified on 6 October 2011 at
23:10.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for
details.
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a
non-profit organization.

Contact
us

Privacy
policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Mobile
view