Organizational Conflict and Management Styles
Introduction
The thought of the word conflict usually connotes a sharp disagreement between two or more individuals. Disagreements over interests, issues or ideas are some of the common roots of conflict. In turn, this makes involved parties emotionally troubled; at times, this disturbance causes people to act undesirably towards others. It is said that conflict cannot be avoided especially between individuals or groups of people who regularly work together. This is because working together allows people to use their skills, bring out their ideas and show their personalities. As each person is made unique, personal differences on these mentioned aspects are likely to collide among workers in the organization. While conflict may be inevitable, this common organizational problem can be resolved.
In particular, organizational managers play an important role in ensuring that conflicts in the workplace are resolved effectively. From this point, it is stressed that rather than take a negative behavior towards the occurrence of conflict in the workplace, involved parties and managers should integrate positive forces to prevent the problem from worsening. In order to do these, one must be able to conduct an in-depth evaluation of the causes of conflict; understanding the views of both contradicting parties and exploring possible alternative that can lead to agreement must also be done. By means of adapting certain conflict management styles, managers may be able to maintain harmony within the workplace. Most importantly, if conflicts are handled properly, managers may be able to use this issue as a source of personal and organizational growth. In this essay, focus will be on description of conflict, its sources and its effects. The content and discussion of this paper will be centered on the workplace setting. Finally, the different styles of conflict management that managers may apply will be identified and evaluated.
Conflict: Sources and Effects
According to (1998), conflict may be defined as the perception of personal differences among individuals. Other meanings of conflict defined the term as the process of social interaction between struggling parties over beliefs, status, power, resources and other desires or preferences. The goal of the contradicting parties may vary from a simple aim of gaining acceptance to securing a resource advantage; in worst cases, conflicting parties will go even to the point of harming or eliminating their opponents ( 2001).
Conflict can result due to a number of sources; in most literature, types of conflicts are often categorized based on the source or origin. Affective conflict for instance is a type of conflict that arises when two contradicting parties have incompatible emotions or feelings. This is why this type of conflict is also termed as relationship, emotional or psychological conflict. According to (1997), affective conflict happens when interpersonal clashes are observed between the contradicting parties. Oftentimes, this type of conflict is characterized by frustration and anger. When two or more organizational parties argue over content or task issues, substantive conflicts result. Also known as cognitive, task or issue conflict, this type of conflict occurs when group members disagree on each other’s opinions or ideas in relation to the task at hand ( 2001). An example of this conflict is when organizational members disagree on which marketing strategy or alternative is to be applied; arguing over company data to develop a business plan is also a common example.
Organizations also often encounter conflicts due to differing interests. In this type of conflict, two parties realize and understand the problem; however, the solution they intend to use to solve it is different from one another. Ideological conflict or the conflict of values is yet another source of this organizational problem. Basically, this conflict type occurs when two or more social entities have contradicting ideologies over certain matters. This conflict is often observed in human resource issues especially when one party prioritizes what is best for the company while the other is after the interest of the employees. Conflict may also occur in an organization due to contradicting goals. When social entities have different preferred results or decision outcomes, conflict may also result. A person or group may feel the need to cause conflict so as punish an opponent. This is referred to as retributive conflict. Lastly, conflict may also be considered as displace conflict; this happens when conflicting parties direct their emotional disturbances or negative feelings towards other who are not involved in the issue ( 2001).
Other authors also raised similar sources of conflict in the workplace. In a literature review done by Renwick in 1975 for example, the author noted that intra-organizational conflict occurs due to differences in beliefs, basic values or knowledge; personal dislike; differing attitudes or perceptions generated through organizational structure; and competition for power, position or recognition. Diversity in the workplace is said to be an important aspect for efficient and optimized organizational performance. Diversity does not only pertain to people’s gender, age and race; differences in role expectation. Goals, thoughts and values are also part of this concept ( 1993). The concept of diversity is a notion of individual differences. While others may consider this as a way of expanding one’s perspectives, experience or ideas, diversity may be taken negatively and be seen as a factor that hinders organizational effectiveness. This negative perception on diversity then causes
In the article written by (1995), provided a summary of conflict sources by developing the three main levels of organizational conflict. These levels include intrapersonal, intragroup and intergroup conflicts. The researchers stated that intrapersonal conflicts occur when an organizational member is asked to perform a particular task that does not match his of her interest, values, goals or skills. Intragroup conflict on the other hand, happens between organizational members or groups disagree over a certain issue. When the organizational members’ leaders or representatives are the ones arguing, intergroup conflict results.
The effect of conflict to the organization is not purely negative. In some instances, positive outcomes may also arise out of disagreements. For example, conflicts may result to the development of and better goals. Rather than draw contradicting parties apart, conflicts can actually bring people together, resulting to closer interpersonal relations. As conflicts may be taken as a challenge, its presence can motivate others to become more positively involved and committed to the assigned task. Conflicts can also promote better understanding of each person’s personality, views and attitudes. Nonetheless, conflicts in the organization can also result to negative outcomes. The goals of the company for example may be distorted or not reach achievement at all. Conflicts on tasks can cause delays, resulting to resource wastes or misapplication. The emotional impact of conflicts can also cause adverse effects on people and may draw them further apart ( 1991). As conflicts can results to even worst outcomes, it is important that managers apply appropriate conflict management styles.
Conflict Management
Conflicts had been occurring even from way back; thus, traditional methods of managing conflict had been introduced and applied. One of these conflict management styles is through compromise where one party would just have to agree to one side of the argument. Postponement or procrastination is another style of conflict management; in this method, action will be done in order to determine the cause of the conflict while the solution to the problem is delayed. Another traditional method of conflict management is avoidance. Here, both the cause and the solution to the conflict are simply avoided ( 1991).
If these methods will be analyzed, none of these conflict management styles appear to be effective. For one thing, no positive resolution is obtained out of these styles, particularly in postponement and avoidance methodologies. Moreover, the focus is on short-term rather than long-term solutions. In compromise for example, one contradicting side will just have to give in to the argument so as to prevent the conflict from worsening. The postponement technique on the other hand, used the delay factor so as not to prolong the argument. Among other conflict management styles cited, the avoidance strategy is perhaps the most ineffective as there were no effort exerted to resolve the conflict.
As indicated by (1999), managers must have the confrontation skill in order to handle organizational conflicts. This is because conflicts can be destructive if managers will just choose to avoid or ignore them. Others adapt this behavior of conflict management style in order to avoid hurting others’ feeling or acting impolite. By means of confrontation, conflicting parties are able to face, analyze and settle the issue; they are allowed to generate views and ideas, which can help achieve clear settlement. Aside from these, confronting rather than avoiding the problem generates the feeling that both sides are willing to resolve the matter by hearing each other out. Face to face interaction also exhibits respect, openness and commitment.
The studies of in 1977 ( 1991) suggested that conflicts should be managed through the same strategies applied for negotiations. These include lose/lose, win/lose and win/win techniques. In the lose/lose conflict management strategy, neither contradicting party wins the argument. Although either party may have benefited from this strategy as the disagreement is immediately addressed, this style may still not be recommendable since no solution is reached. In the win/lose style, the losing party will likely be hostile to the winning party; this negative feelings in turn prevents the losing party from being cooperative and committed to the given solution. In as sense, there is no actual winner in this conflict management style since cooperation and friendship is not achieved.
The win/win strategy is the most effective conflict management style among the three mentioned negotiation strategies. This is mainly because this strategy leads to the most favorable outcome. With this strategy, a solution is developed and all parties involved are satisfied with these solutions (2003). Though the parties may not obtain what they initially intend to achieve, both sides receive at least part of their objectives. As both conflicting parties gained something beneficial out of the disagreement, friendship is established. Furthermore, both are likely to participate in implementing the solution they agreed upon. Although this strategy results to the best outcome, it is the most difficult to apply. Compared to the two other cited styles, the win/win strategy takes the most time, energy and effort. Since both parties would have to benefit in the situation, all possible alternatives would have to be considered.
Though there had been conventional styles and approaches applied in order to manage conflicts within organizations, some modern tools are also integrated in order to promote harmonious working relations and conflict prevention. At present, information technology systems and online collaborative instruments are used by companies in order to ensure that all members of the organization are able to communicate their ideas and opinions easily and effectively. Instant messaging, electronic mailing and voice chatting are some of the known technologies applied today to prevent conflicts in the workplace. Furthermore, conflicts between the company and the customers are also addressed effectively by means of these technologies ( 2004).
Rather than encountering a multitude of barriers before a complaint is forwarded, customers find it easier to use the internet or e-mail so as to receive a faster response or solution. Employees also find this style less stressful since they are given enough time to understand and respond to the problem. Communication technologies are also helpful in preventing the generation of too intense emotions due to conflict.
This approach can be effective as conflict prevention is more advantageous than curing an actual conflict. In this case, conflicts are totally prevented, harmonious working relations are maintained and no time and energy for discussions are wasted. However, others do not see it as useful. In fact, it is often considered as the coward’s choice for handling conflicts. Some think that this only gave organizations a way to evade complaints and issues of conflict.
It is possible that these communication technologies for conflict management may not be as effective as face to face communication. This is because in online communication, no non-verbal cues are observed; in turn, this could increase the likelihood of miscommunication, leading to conflict. Moreover, if this is the only style used by the organization to manage conflict, others who are not familiar with these technologies will tend to keep their issues to themselves.
While there are other possible styles of conflict management, other literatures had stressed that in addition to methodologies, managers must also be equipped with the essential skills so as to address organizational conflicts effectively. For instance, it is essential that managers have the right communication and listening skills for conflict management. It is important that managers must be able to speak up his or her thoughts to others. Without proper communication abilities, employees will just feel frustrated every time a conflict arises. Effective communication also practices two-sided conversation; in this aspect, managers should let the conflicting parties raise their views and reasons. Managers should not refrain from hearing the parties’ inputs and just focus on developing the right solutions.
Listening abilities is also important among managers; in this case, the managers should concentrate on what both sides are saying and not on response for each point raised. The aim of having these important skills among managers is to ensure that a positive environment is observed despite the conflict (2005). The maintenance of a positive environment is not only helpful for developing the right solutions but also in speeding the process of conflict management.
Conflict management also requires the right attitude among managers. For example, managers must be able to handle his or her emotions well. Strong negative emotions such as despair, frustration and anger must be managed well so as not to worsen the situation. Through effective emotional management, respect will be exercised all parties involved. It is essential that managers do not verbally attack employees who are trying to issues of conflict; it is important that managers still see to it that good relations are still observed in the workforce. Rational behavior is also important in conflict management; managers should realize that they have to be connected with the parties at all times so as to understand the situation and implement the proper solutions.
Conclusion
Conflict is a normal occurrence in the organizational setting. In general this can be caused by individual differences on personalities, attitudes, ideas and goals. Managers on the other hand must be equipped with both conflict management skills and styles so as to handle issues effectively. From the evaluation of possible styles for managing conflict, it is clear that all styles have their own positive and negative features. This then suggest that managers should be flexible in utilizing these conflict management styles. In conclusion, it is important that managers should focus on what is best for all parties involved and not on which conflict management style is appropriate.
References:
Credit:ivythesis.typepad.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment