Managing Conflict In Organizations PDF

For the exclusive use of K. Martinez, 2024. UV0416...

For the exclusive use of K. Martinez, 2024. UV0416 Rev. May 15, 2018 Managing Conflict in Organizations Managers often behave as though serious interpersonal confrontations are the result of personality defects. They label people who are frequently involved in conflicts “troublemakers” or “bad apples” and attempt to transfer or dismiss them as a way of resolving conflict. While some individuals seem to have a propensity for making trouble and appear to be cantankerous under even the best of circumstances, “sour dispositions” actually account for a small minority of the organizational conflicts that typically emerge. This proposition is supported by research on performance appraisals. It has been shown that managers generally attribute poor performance to personal deficiencies in workers, such as laziness, lack of skill, or lack of motivation. However, when workers are asked the causes of their poor performance, they generally explain it in terms of problems in their environment, such as insufficient supplies or uncooperative co-workers.1 While some face-saving is obviously involved here, this line of research suggests that managers need to guard against the reflexive tendency to assume that bad behaviors imply bad people. In fact, aggressive or harsh behaviors sometimes observed in interpersonal confrontations often reflect the frustrations of people who have good intentions but are unskilled in handling intense emotional experiences. The Causes of Conflict An alternative to the personality-defect theory of conflict is a “multiple sources” model of conflict that proposes three fundamental causes of conflict in organizations—identity-related differences, role incompatibility, and environmental stress.2 Identity-related differences Individuals bring different personal backgrounds, experiences, and cultural values when they enter organizations. Different socialization processes, levels of education, and so forth, shape their experiences and values. As a result, their interpretations of events and their expectations about relationships with others in the organization will vary considerably. Conflicts caused by incongruent personal values that stem from these social identities are among the most difficult to resolve because they evoke values we hold deeply. Such a conflict occurred in a major industrial company between a 63-year-old white American executive vice president and a 35-year-old Chinese member of the corporate legal department, who was exiled in 1989 following Tiananmen Square. They disagreed vehemently over whether the company should accept a very 1 Robert L. Heneman, David B. Greenberger, and Chigozie Anonyuo, “Attributions and Exchanges: The Effects of Interpersonal Factors on the Diagnosis of Employee Performance,” Academy of Management Journal 32, no. 2 (1989): 466–476. 2 Based on the work of Louis R. Pondy, “Organizational Conflict: Concepts and Models,” Administrative Science Quarterly 12, no. 2 (1967): 295–320. This technical note was prepared by Associate Professor Martin N. Davidson. Copyright  2001 by the University of Virginia Darden School Foundation, Charlottesville, VA. All rights reserved. To order copies, send an email to [email protected]. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, used in a spreadsheet, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without the permission of the Darden School Foundation. Our goal is to publish materials of the highest quality, so please submit any errata to [email protected]. This document is authorized for use only by Kayleen Martinez in FALL 2024 MGT 18 (Michael McKay) taught by Rady Undergraduate Programs, University of California - San Diego from Sep 2024 to Mar 2025.  For the exclusive use of K. Martinez, 2024. Page 2 UV0416 attractive offer from the Chinese government to build a manufacturing facility outside of Beijing. The vice president felt the company had a responsibility to its stockholders to pursue every legal opportunity to increase profits. Moreover, though the human-rights issues in China troubled her, she believed that economic engagement was the most effective way to bring pressure to bear on oppressive governments. In contrast, the lawyer felt that collaborating with the Chinese government in any way was tantamount to condoning its morally repugnant disregard for human rights. Note that in this example, both parties are expressing values flowing from their respective identities. The vice president values success in her work and takes seriously her obligation to her stockholders and to the US economic system. This is a kind of professionalism and conscientiousness that is encouraged in her culture. Moreover, she is a product of a culture in which economic prosperity has repeatedly resolved social injustices (e.g., lifting immigrant populations from poverty and discrimination to wealth and membership in the US system of governance). Therefore, she would be deeply convinced that expanding into China was the right thing to do. The lawyer, in contrast, has had the experience of living in a culture in which many of its members are struggling to create personal freedom. She has had a direct and powerful experience of engaging in that struggle. To be willing to do business with the oppressive Chinese government is not only to condone the government’s behavior, but it also betrays the people with whom she fought to change that behavior, many of whom gave their lives in the struggle. Neither of these individuals is unambiguously right or wrong in her stance. What is noteworthy is that the identity-related experience of each has placed them in a difficult conflict. Role incompatibility The complexity inherent in most organizations tends to produce conflict between members whose tasks are interdependent but whose roles are incompatible.3 This type of conflict is exemplified by the ubiquitous goal conflicts between line and staff, production and sales, marketing, and R&D. Each unit has different responsibilities in the organization, and as a result, each places different priorities on organizational goals (e.g., customer satisfaction, product quality, production efficiency, and compliance with government regulations). It is also typical of firms whose multiple product lines compete for scarce resources. During the early days at Apple Computer, the Apple II division accounted for a large part of the company’s revenue. It viewed the newly created Macintosh division as an unwise speculative venture. The natural rivalry was made worse when a champion of the Macintosh referred to the Apple II team as “the dull and boring product division.” Since this type of conflict stems from the fundamental incompatibility of the job responsibilities of the disputants, it can often be resolved only through the mediation of a common superior. Role incompatibility conflicts may overlap with those arising from identity differences. The personal differences members bring to an organization generally remain dormant until they are triggered by an organizational catalyst, like interdependent task responsibilities. And one reason members often perceive that their assigned roles are incompatible is that they are operating from different bases of information. They communicate with different sets of people, are tied into different reporting systems, and receive instructions from different bosses. 3 Robert L. Kahn, Donald M. Wolfe, Robert P. Quinn, J. Diedrick Snoek, and Robert A. Rosenthal, Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity (New York: John Wiley, 1964). This document is authorized for use only by Kayleen Martinez in FALL 2024 MGT 18 (Michael McKay) taught by Rady Undergraduate Programs, University of California - San Diego from Sep 2024 to Mar 2025.  For the exclusive use of K. Martinez, 2024. Page 3 UV0416 Environmental stress Another major source of conflict is environmentally induced stress. Conflicts stemming from identity differences and role incompatibilities are greatly exacerbated by a stressful environment. When an organization is forced to operate on an austere budget, its members are more likely to become embroiled in disputes over domain claims and resource requests. Scarcity tends to lower trust, increase ethnocentrism, and reduce participation in decision-making. These are ideal conditions for incubating interpersonal conflict. When a large hospital announced a major downsizing, the threat to employees’ security was so severe that it disrupted long-time, close working relationships. Work team effectiveness diminished, people met less frequently at informal coffee breaks, and car pools disbanded because of the increased tension. Uncertainty in the environment also fosters conflict. When individuals find it difficult to predict what is going to happen to them from month to month, they become very anxious and prone to conflict. This type of “frustration conflict” often stems from rapid, repeated change. If task assignments, management philosophy, accounting procedures, and lines of authority are changed frequently, members find it difficult to cope with the resulting stress, and sharp, bitter conflicts can easily erupt over seemingly trivial problems. This type of conflict is generally intense, but it dissipates quickly once a change becomes routinized, and individuals’ stress levels are lowered. When a chemical manufacturing firm announced it was bringing a new production facility online, suboptimal communication of the specifics of the project left employees wondering and worrying about whom would be transferred to work in the new facility and how work shifts would be assigned. People were concerned about the disruption of personal and family routines, and some even considered leaving the company to avoid the turmoil of the transition. Also, employees were constantly “jockeying” for position to get the most favorable assignments should they be transferred to the new facility. Conflict Response Alternatives Figure 1. Two-dimensional model of conflict. Responses to interpersonal conflicts, whatever their causes, tend to fall into Hi  Competing Collaborating  five categories: forcing, accommodating, avoiding, compromising, and Di collaborating. These responses can be str ib organized along two dimensions, as u tin ASSERTIVENESS shown in Figure 1. These five g approaches to conflict reflect different degrees of cooperativeness and assertiveness. A cooperative response is  Compromising intended to satisfy the needs of the interacting person, whereas an assertive g response focuses on the needs of the a tin r focal person. The cooperativeness teg dimension reflects the importance of the In relationship, whereas the assertiveness dimension reflects the importance of the issue.  Avoiding Accommodating  Lo COOPERATION Hi Data source: Thomas L. Ruble and Kenneth W. Thomas, “Support for a Two- Dimensional Model of Conflict Behavior,” Organizational Behavior & Human Performance 16, no. 1 (1976): 142–155. This document is authorized for use only by Kayleen Martinez in FALL 2024 MGT 18 (Michael McKay) taught by Rady Undergraduate Programs, University of California - San Diego from Sep 2024 to Mar 2025.  For the exclusive use of K. Martinez, 2024. Page 4 UV0416 The competing approach (assertive, uncooperative) is an attempt to satisfy one’s own needs at the expense of the other individual’s. This can be done by using formal authority, physical threats, manipulation ploys, or by ignoring the claims of the other party. When using a competing approach, one may use the authority of one’s office (“I’m the boss, so we’ll do it my way”), one may intimidate, or one may use manipulation or feigned ignorance to achieve one’s goals in the interaction. For example, a leader might appear to be democratic by proposing that conflicting proposals be referred to a committee for further investigation. However, the leader ensures that the composition of the committee reflects her or his interests and preferences, so that what appears to be a selection based on merit is effectively predetermined. The repeated use of this conflict- management approach can breed hostility and resentment. While observers may intellectually admire authoritarian or manipulative leaders because they appear to accomplish a great deal, their management styles generally produce a backlash in the long run as people become unwilling to accept the emotional costs. The accommodating approach (cooperative, unassertive) satisfies the other party’s concerns while neglecting one’s own. A common example of accommodation is the case of a board of directors of a failing firm that neglects its interests and responsibilities in favor of accommodating the wishes of management. Accommodation emphasizes preserving positive and friendly relations over protecting one’s personal rights and privileges. The avoiding approach (uncooperative, unassertive) neglects the interests of both parties by sidestepping the conflict or postponing a solution. The manager who never gets around to delivering negative feedback and appraisals to her subordinates exemplifies the avoidant approach to conflict. Really tough problems tend not to be addressed, and this can cause frustration in relationships. Interestingly, in workgroups led by avoidant managers, people sense a leadership vacuum and try to fill the void, often creating considerable confusion and animosity in the process. The compromising response is intermediate between assertiveness and cooperativeness. A compromise is an attempt to obtain partial satisfaction for both parties, in the sense that both receive the proverbial “half loaf.” To accommodate this, both parties are asked to make sacrifices to obtain a common gain. This approach has considerable practical appeal to managers, because by definition, each party gets some portion of what he or she wants. The collaborating approach, (cooperative, assertive) is an attempt to address fully the concerns of both parties. It is often referred to as the “problem-solving” mode. In this mode, the intent is to find solutions to the conflict that are satisfactory to both parties rather than to find fault or assign blame. In this way, both parties can feel that they have “won.” The diagonals in Figure 1 labeled “distributive” and “integrative” characterize approaches to conflict. Distributive approaches occur when a person approaches the conflict as managing the proportion of satisfaction of each person in the dispute—in essence, she or he approaches the conflict as a zero-sum game. In contrast, integrative approaches seek to increase the pie, to work out “win-win” solutions. From this perspective, you can think of collaboration as a “win-win” outcome; avoiding a “lose-lose” outcome; and the compromising, accommodating, and forcing approaches as win-lose outcomes. Choosing the Right Response to a Conflict Situation At first glance, it is tempting to assume a skillful manager would always approach conflict collaboratively. After all, who wouldn’t always want win-win situations? However, conflict-relevant phrases like “let sleeping dogs lie” and “win at all cost” emerge in our vernacular for good reason. Managing conflict skillfully means This document is authorized for use only by Kayleen Martinez in FALL 2024 MGT 18 (Michael McKay) taught by Rady Undergraduate Programs, University of California - San Diego from Sep 2024 to Mar 2025.  For the exclusive use of K. Martinez, 2024. Page 5 UV0416 using the appropriate responses at the appropriate times. What constitutes the appropriate response depends upon the situation as well as the people involved. Choosing approaches that fit the situation best. Table 1 lists several dimensions of a conflict situation and identifies the conditions under which each conflict approach could be used to greatest effect. These dimensions are extracted from reports by 28 chief executives who identified situations in which they felt that each of the conflict approaches would be appropriate. Table 1. Conditions that favor each of the five conflict approaches. Perceived Time Pressure Management Attention to Issue of Others’ Learning in the Complexity Feeling Situation Collaborating High Low High High Competing Low High Low Low Compromising High High High Moderate Accommodating Low Moderate High High Avoiding Low Low High Low Source: Created by author. Perceived issue complexity is an assessment of how intricate the issues driving the conflict are. If the issues are very complex, collaboration or compromising would seem more appropriate. When the issues are simpler, competing, accommodating, and avoiding approaches can be more effective. For example, when a conflict has identity-related factors as a cause, responding competitively or with avoidance can escalate the conflict. Identity-related factors are both deeply held and often complex, involving personality, culture, and history. Such conflicts are better dealt with using integrative approaches such as compromise and collaboration. When the issue is simpler, such as difference of opinion of where to position the furniture in the reception lobby, the other approaches may work easily. Time pressure can also constrain approaches to a conflict situation. Competing and compromising approaches are more prevalent in situations in which time pressure is high and some course of action must be decided. For example, chief executives identified emergency decisions (e.g., cost cutting) as situations in which a conflict may need to be decided by fiat, a competitive approach. In contrast, when time pressure is moderate to low, approaches such as collaboration or even avoidance may be more appropriate. Collaboration requires consensus building and creativity and can take time. For avoidance to be a feasible approach, the issues at hand must be less pressing. Otherwise, avoidance could be disastrous. Attention to managing the other party’s feelings can also determine the best approach in a given situation. When there is little care for how the other responds, competing approaches often ensue. However, whenever there is concern for the feelings of the other party, any of the other four approaches may be appropriate. For example, avoidance can be useful as a means of suppressing angry or frustrating emotions and is often used for just that reason. Accommodation works in similar ways, suppressing hostile feelings by giving the other what she or he wants. Collaboration “cools out the mark” in a different way—by respecting the other’s position and feelings and working to create a solution that would appease the other party. Collaboration is also effective in working through feelings that have previously hampered positive relations between the parties. In sum, all these examples represent high levels of attention to feelings in the conflict. This document is authorized for use only by Kayleen Martinez in FALL 2024 MGT 18 (Michael McKay) taught by Rady Undergraduate Programs, University of California - San Diego from Sep 2024 to Mar 2025.  For the exclusive use of K. Martinez, 2024. Page 6 UV0416 Finally, when you want to learn from the conflict interaction, some approaches seem to be more appropriate than others. Chief executives identify collaboration as the best way to learn in the midst of conflict. Perspectives are shared and diverse approaches are coordinated, leading to high levels of learning. Similarly, learning can occur in accommodating approaches because part of the stance in accommodation is to listen to and learn from the other party. Accommodation can also create potential learning labs for the other, especially when the other party is a subordinate. By accommodating in this situation, you create an opportunity to succeed or fail, and learning can come for the subordinate because they won, own, and are committed to the decision. Learning tends to be minimal in competing and avoiding situations, an overall pattern that is correlated with attention to and concern for the other party. The Appendix lists several situations and their optimal conflict approaches. Other Considerations in Managing Conflict Effectively Understand the cause of the conflict. Just as identifying and analyzing case facts is a critical first step of in determining how to respond to a managerial situation, it is also critical to understand the cause of a conflict situation before trying to manage it. Knowing that a person is angry not because he is “just a hostile person,” but because he is trying to negotiate interdepartmental conflict helps the manager determine what the right approach to conflict should be both for the individual and the organization. Understand your preferred style of dealing with conflict. In the real world, people vary in the degree to which they are comfortable in engaging conflict. Comfort levels are determined by personality, culture, past experience, and a variety of other factors. Thus, a manager may not be able to turn on the collaborative switch so easily. Researchers have developed a number of inventories specifically for the purpose of helping managers determine what their preferred style of conflict management is.4 As is true with the Myers-Briggs inventory, managers are not doomed to use only one approach. Rather, everyone can learn different approaches even if they are not initially the most comfortable. 4 For example, popular measures include the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Inventory, or the Blake and Mouton Managerial Grid. Explore websites such as http://www.teleometrics.com/smi02.htm to get a sense of what such tools might look like (accessed Sept. 7, 2001). This document is authorized for use only by Kayleen Martinez in FALL 2024 MGT 18 (Michael McKay) taught by Rady Undergraduate Programs, University of California - San Diego from Sep 2024 to Mar 2025.  For the exclusive use of K. Martinez, 2024. Page 7 UV0416 Appendix Managing Conflict in Organizations Situations and Optimal Approaches Collaborating To find an integrative solution when both sets of concerns are too important to be compromised When your objective is to learn To work through feelings that have interfered with a relationship To merge insights from people with different perspectives To gain commitment by incorporating concerns into a consensus Competing On important issues where unpopular actions need implementing—e.g., cost cutting, enforcing unpopular rules, or discipline When quick, decisive action is vital—e.g., in emergencies Against people who take advantage of noncompetitive behavior Compromising To achieve temporary settlements to complex issues To arrive at expedient solutions under time pressure When opponents with equal power are highly committed to mutually exclusive goals As a backup when collaboration or competition is unsuccessful Accommodating When issues are more important to others than they are to you—to satisfy others and maintain cooperation To allow subordinates to develop by learning from mistakes When harmony and stability are especially important When you find you are wrong—to allow a better position to be heard, to learn, and to show your reasonableness Avoiding When an issue is trivial or more important issues are pressing To let people cool down and regain perspective When you perceive no chance of satisfying your concerns When others can resolve the conflict more effectively Source: Created by author. This document is authorized for use only by Kayleen Martinez in FALL 2024 MGT 18 (Michael McKay) taught by Rady Undergraduate Programs, University of California - San Diego from Sep 2024 to Mar 2025.