Management of conflict in organizations.

Management of Conflict in Organizations

When we think of the word conflict, we usually think of more than simple disagreement. We think of individuals or groups in sharp disagreement over issues, ideas, or interests. This results in an emotional disturbance between the involved parties, with stress developing and undesirable behaviors being exhibited.

The stress that develops from conflict is important to recognize because of the intensity of the demand for action, readjustment, or adaptation. [2] When conflict is present, it is often suppressed. It is regarded as being negative and undesirable. Most times, we consciously attempt to avoid anger, arguing, and other hostile emotions.

The automatic development of a negative attitude toward conflict is inappropriate. When conflict is approached as being negative, the result is predictable and adverse. It is seen as being confrontational - a situation that places "me against you" or "us against them." [3] This is a destructive process. If pushed to the extreme, dysfunctional conflict results. The primary issue or problem then becomes subverted. Personal and emotional issues become primary. Time, energy, emotion, and money are wasted. Dysfunctional conflict is bad even at its best. This type of conflict must be understood and prevented by early intervention and proper management.

Conflict is inevitable between individuals and groups if they work regularly with one another. But conflict should be regarded as a positive force that can cause indepth evaluation of problems, issues, and ideas. The evaluation process that conflict can initiate can result in a full identification of problems; understanding of other points of view; exploration of alternatives; stimulation of interest, involvement, commitment, and energy; and project success. Conflict can provide the opportunity for personal and organizational growth, if managed properly.

Most managers probably agree that approaching conflict with a positive attitude and managing it are much easier said than done. It would be ideal if everyone always knew the rules and were willing participants in the process of problem solving. This situation will not occur and emphasizes the critical role of the manager in conflict management.

Labeling a conflict episode as being due to personality is an easy "write off" of a person. [4] Even though such labeling may be partially true, it is probably the wrong approach, because it prevents attempts at developing a solution to the problem. On the other hand, if the problem is approached positively, personality conflicts can be handled by learning to understand the other person, developing a higher level of tolerance for that person, and eventually appreciating basic personality differences. From the positive perspective, differences can enrich interpersonal relationships. Personality conflicts can be the source of constant difficulty and can exact a high toll in regard to emotional, energy, time, and material resources.

Dubrin [5] has listed some functional consequences of conflict:

* Positive consequences

- New or modified goals may

evolve.

- Closer interpersonal relationships

may develop.

- New involvement, commitment,

and energy may result.

- The positions of others may be

more clearly understood.

- Individual and group awareness

may improve.

* Negative consequences

- Organizational goals may be

sidelined, distorted, or not accomplished.

- Resources may be wasted or misapplied.

- The emotional impact on individual

mental health may be

adverse.

Dubrin explains further that traditional methods of resolving the conflict episode are by:

* Compromise - agreeing to accept

less than you initially wanted.

* Postponement (procrastination)

- action on determining the

cause and solution of the problem

is delayed.

* Avoidance - the cause and solution

of the conflict episode are

simply avoided.

There are virtually infinite sources of conflict in organizations. Huseman [6] describes five frequent ones:

- Organizational structure.

- Performance measures.

- Ambiguity.

- Disagreement about goals and

how to achieve them.

- Conflicting perceptions of

reality.

Organizational structure alone can be responsible for negative conflict between individuals or departments. Ill-defined or overlapping responsibility, unclear roles and goals, and unclear expectations can lead to adverse competition, and eventual dysfunctional conflict.

If conflict is to be managed in organizations, the nature of conflict must be understood. Pondy [7] describes the typical conflict episode as occurring in five stages:

1. Latent conflict.

2. Perceived conflict.

3. Felt conflict.

4. Action.

5. Results.

There must be some underlying cause or condition (latent conflict) in order for the first stage to develop. Then both parties must be aware of the underlying condition for the conflict to be perceived, stage two. Next, the involved parties respond to the condition with feelings of tension, irritation, and/or anger. The fourth stage reflects the actions or counter-measures taken by the parties involved as a result of the conflict episode. The fifth stage defines the result of the conflict episode. Were the issues in conflict or the underlying conditions resolved? Was the resolution partial or complete, satisfactory or unsatisfactory in the views of the parties involved? When solutions are unsatisfactory and underlying conditions remain unchanged, the conflict episode is sure to recur.

In order for conflict to be resolved satisfactorily, it must be approached and dealt with correctly. An improper strategy will most likely result in an unsatisfactory outcome. The strategy can be goal-directed (what benefits both parties) or outcome-directed (who gets what). Filley's studies [8] describe three forms of conflict strategies - win/lose, lose/ lose, and win/win - the same strategies recommended for negotiations.

The strategy selected will determine if the conflict episode will be:

- Positive or negative.

- Personalized or objective.

- Goal- or outcome-directed.

- Victory- or defeat-oriented.

- Satisfactory or unsatisfactory.

- Resolved or unresolved.

- Finished or recurring.

Individuals as well as departments often oppose one another in order to gain prestige, power, or resources or to show dominance. If the win/lose strategy is selected, the loser will likely be angry and hostile and will not be a fully committed and involved participant in the implementation of solutions. The winner is, therefore, not a true winner, because friendship and future cooperation may be lost. It is noteworthy that the practice of voting in these circumstances makes manifest and formalizes the win/lose strategy and should be avoided.

Most conflicts occur spontaneously, but some are intentionally initiated in order to achieve a specific goal that the individual or group thinks is impossible without a crisis. This maneuver is short-sighted. It is easily recognized for what it is, and the process quickly advances to dysfunctional conflict, a win/lose or lose/lose confrontation.

Just as the lose/lose strategy suggests, neither party wins, the conflict is not resolved, and a solution is not reached, even though each party may have gained something.

The win/win strategy to resolve conflict is most desirable. The solution is agreed upon and is satisfactory to all parties, even though neither party may have received all of what it initially sought. The parties commit to implementation of the solution and involve themselves with the energy necessary to achieve success.

The win/win strategy usually results in solutions by consensus or integration. When this happens, alternatives have been thoroughly examined. True consensus is ideal, but usually takes a long time, requires a lot of energy, and is difficult to achieve. The larger the opposing parties, the greater the difficulty. When consensus occurs, the focus is on problem solving, not the solution itself.

When the integrative approach is used, goals and values, rather than solutions, are stressed. Filley [8] has described several characteristics necessary for the integrative approach:

- Clearly defined issues.

- A focus on goals and objectives.

- A genuine search for

alternatives.

- A lack of time constraints.

- A truly interactive process.

- The sharing of information.

- Open mindedness.

- Leadership that is flexible.

- Trust.

- Acceptance of solutions.

If a conflict episode is proceeding in a win/lose confrontation, a third party may have to intercede by mediating or arbitrating.

After strategy comes the need for methods for reducing conflict. Blake [9] defined five methods:

* Compromising - a process of

problem solving using mutual

concession. * Confronting or problem

solving - facing the problem head

on rather than avoiding it.

Cause is identified and eliminated

during this process. * Forcing - this method uses physical,

intellectual, ethical, and

moral pressures. * Smoothing - an attempt at decreasing

the harshness,

crudeness, unpleasantness, and

distasteful component of the

conflict episode. * Withdrawing - retreating, disengaging,

etc., from the conflict.

Confronting and smoothing result in constructive handling of the situation. Withdrawing and forcing result in adverse outcomes. The impact of compromising is relatively neutral in regard to reducing conflict.

Four actions can assist in effective management of conflict episodes:

- Preparation.

- Early intervention.

- Keeping issues focused.

- Depersonalization of the

problem.

Preparation for the inevitable conflict episode begins with the manager or others learning the points discussed above. They must learn and appreciate the importance of open, frank, and effective communication as an ongoing and integral part of organizational dynamics.

Keeping issues or the problem focused is as important in conflict resolution as it is in any type of serious group interaction.

It is essential to know the people with whom you are dealing. Learn their values, personalities, emotional makeup, and likes and dislikes. If the problem becomes personalized, all the dynamics of defensiveness come into play and exacerbate the problem. When the focus is on persons or personalities, the conflict is sure to continue.

In addition to establishing or improving communications between opposing parties, early intervention into the cause of the conflict episode is essential. The sooner the intervention occurs, the better, before lines become drawn and positions become rigid. But intervention when the emotional state between parties is too high can be counterproductive. There may be the need for a cooling-off period in order for there to be calm, reasoned, and rational discussion. The length of the cooling-off period (minutes, hours, or days), will depend on a number of factors:

- The seriousness and duration

of the conflict.

- How hardened opposing views

are.

- The level of the emotional

state or tension.

- Past experience the opposing

parties have had in dealing

with one another and the

success of those experiences.

- How the parties feel about one

another at the time of the

conflict episode.

Implementation of all of the methods, strategies, approaches, and suggestions described above requires good communication skills. Managing conflict depends on having the awareness that conflict can be both positive and negative. When agreement occurs too early, ideas are not challenged, alternatives are not thoroughly explored, innovation and creativity are never maximal, the best decisions are not reached, and actions are frequently implemented prematurely.

The effective manager views most conflicts as being positive or believes that negative conflicts must be converted to positive outcomes. Positive conflict episodes are beneficial to the organization. They enhance decision making and provide an opportunity for growth. Negative conflict episodes can be expected to worsen and possibly lead to dysfunctional conflict if not managed. Dysfunctional conflict must be avoided because personalization occurs, attention is diverted away from the issues, and there are no winners. The result is great expense to individuals and the organization.

REFERENCES

[1.] Richardson, J. "Interpersonal Relationships

- Communicator, Know Thyself."

Physician Executive 14(3):19-21, May-June

1988.

[2.] Selye, H. Stress without Distress. New

York City, N.Y.: New American Library,

1975.

[3.] Raspberry, R., and Lemoine, L. Effective

Managerial Communication. Boston,

Mass.: Kent Publishing Co., 1986, pp. 377-94.

[4.] Keating, C. Dealing With Difficult

People - How You Can Come out on Top in

Personality Conflicts. New York City, N.Y.:

Paulist Press, 1984.

[5.] Dubrin, A. Fundamentals of Organizational

Behavior - An Applied Perspective.

Elmsford, N.Y.: Pergamon, 1974, p. 312.

[6.] Huseman, R., and others. "Interpersonal 

Conflict in the Modern Organization." In

Huseman, R., and others. Readings in

Interpersonal and Organizational Communication,

3rd ed. Boston, Mass.: Holbrook

Press, 1977.

[7.] Pondy, L. "Organizational Conflict:

Concepts and Models." Administrative

Science Quarterly 12(9):299-306, Sept.1967.

[8.] Filley, A. "Conflict Resolution: The Ethic of

the Good Loser." In Huseman, R., and

others, eds. Readings in Interpersonal and

Organizational Communication, 3rd ed.

Boston, Mass.: Holbrook Press, 1977.

[9.] Blake, R., and others. Magazine Intergroup 

group Conflict in Industry. Houston, Tex.:

Gulf Publishing, 1964.

THE AUTHOR

James M. Richardson, MD, FACP, FACPE, is Medical Director, Fairmont Hospital, San Leandro, Calif. He is a Distinguished Fellow of the College and an Associate Member of the College's Society on Hospitals.