THE

This book consists of five chapters and is tailored to meet the needs of University students studying conflicts, administrators, managers, executives and all those in leadership positions to build a healthy organizational growth that will help maximized and achieve the overall goals of the organization. This book makes easy understanding of some of the contemporary issue of conflicts such as meaning, theory of conflict, how to stimulate conflict, positive and negative effects of conflict. This book is therefore, written with the aim of managing conflicts in an organization. Conflicts can be good, bad and ugly depending on how you handle it. According to Kirchoff and Adams (1982), there are four distinct conflict conditions, i.e., high stress environments, ambiguous roles and responsibilities, multiple boss situations, and prevalence of advanced technology. Generally, there are diverse interests and contrary views behind a conflict, which are revealed when people look at a problem from their viewpoint alone. Conflict is an outcome of organizational intricacies, interactions and disagreements. It can be settled by identifying and neutralizing the etiological factors. Once conflict is concluded, it can provoke a positive change in the organization. As you read this book and master the skills suggested therein, you will be able to take charge of any conflict situation to achieve the optimum.
EMC

EXPERT MANAGEMENT CONSULT

Mobile: 0244 881 297 / 0546 003 535 / 0201 247 278 E-mail: expertmgt88@gmail.com expertmgt88@yahoo.com

ELIS

ii
ISSUES ON CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN AN ORGANIZATION: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY Copyright 2012 Foreword By Prof. A. Y. Quashigah All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission.

Published by: Expert Management Consult, Accra Mobile: 0244 881 297 / 0546 003 535 / 0201 247 278 E-mail: expertmgt88@gmail.com
expertmgt88@yahoo.com

ISBN: 978 - 9988 - 1 - 5116 -4

Designed, Printed and Bound in Ghana by:

Mayben Publications Mobile No. +233 (0) 548 039 940 /+233 (0) 277 806 627 / +233 (0) 277 219 786 / +233 (0) 202 953 230 E-mail: maybenpublications@yahoo.com

EMC

EXPERT MANAGEMENT CONSULT

THE CONFLICTS

THE CONFLICTS

iii

iv

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

homas Appiah Kubi Asante holds M. Ed in Educational Administration and Management and B. Ed in Special Education and Social Studies from University of Education, Winneba, Ghana. He also holds Teachers' Certificate A from Dambai College of Education. He had teaching stints with University Practice School, South campus (Winneba), Don Bosco Catholic JHS, Don Bosco Boys School and Good Better Best JHS all in Winneba. He is currently, a staff of University of Education, Winneba

FOREWORD
onflict situations have become almost an event of every minute of our livelihood endeavors. This is a relevant food for thought. In this publication, Mr. Asante painstakingly discussed various aspects of conflict and conflict management. They include: definitions and perceptions; elements of conflicts; differences between competition and conflicts; and forms of conflicts. The others are: sources of conflicts; levels of conflicts; disputes of rights and disputes of interests; signs of conflict between individuals and groups; causes and effects of conflicts; negotiation, mediation & arbitration; and conflict resolution. The rest are: the inevitability of conflict; the advantages (positive) and the disadvantages (negative) of conflicts; conflict situations at the work place; and strategies for making the best out of a 'normalabnormal' phenomena called conflict I recommend this publication to all peace-loving individuals. It is very much appreciated that you will find time to read and think through the issues raised. Professor Augustine Y. Quashigah, Dean, Faculty of Social Science Education, University of Education, Winneba, Ghana. 2012

THE CONFLICTS

THE CONFLICTS

vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
n the writing of a book, it is perhaps unnatural for one person only to make every single step from writing the manuscript to its final printing. A number of persons, therefore, have necessarily contributed in the production of this book. First, I thank the Almighty God for his never-ceasing blessings, knowledge and intelligence that He showers on me. I am also thankful to the Head of Department of Social Science Education, Dr. G. Y. Dake and the Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences Education, Prof. A. Y. Quashigah for accepting to write the foreword and his words of encouragement. I was really encouraged and motivated by their advice. I am again thankful to the entire staff of Faculty of Social Sciences Education for their encouragement. Finally, I am thankful to my dearest wife, Mrs. Emma Veronica Asante of Pro Vice-Chancellor's Office, University Of Education, Winneba for all her support and encouragement.

Dedication

TO GOD BE THE GLORY This book is dedicated to wife, Mrs. Emma Veronica Asante

THE CONFLICTS

THE CONFLICTS

vii

viii

Table of Contents

Page

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION TO CONFLICT
onflicts are inevitable in one's organizational life and personal life. Probably, the executive starts his day at work with a conflict and ends the day with another conflict. He is fortunate if he does not carry a conflict home, but more often, he does, to the chagrin of his spouse, his children and himself. Generally, there are diverse interests and contrary views behind a conflict, which are revealed when people look at a problem from their viewpoint alone. Conflict is an outcome of organizational intricacies, interactions and disagreements. It can be settled by identifying and neutralizing the etiological factors. Once conflict is concluded, it can provoke a positive change in the organization. What is Conflict? According to Hellriegel, Slocum and Woodman (1992), conflict refers to any situation in which there are incompatible goals, thought, or emotions, within or between individuals or groups that leads to opposition. Costly and Todd (1987) also see conflict as the inability to choose between two or more alternatives.

Chapter one Introduction to Conflicts Chapter Two Causes and Effects of Conflicts Chapter Three Theories of Conflicts and Conflicts Management. Chapter Four Managing Conflicts.............. Chapter Five Organizational Conflicts- The Concerns.

THE CONFLICTS

THE CONFLICTS

1
Another school of thought also defines conflict as a struggle to resist or overcome; contest of opposing forces or powers; strife; battle; a state or condition of opposition, antagonism and discord; a painful tension set up by a clash between opposed and contradictory impulses. No matter how hard we try to avoid it, conflict periodically enters our lives. Conflict is a state of mind characterized by indecision, uncertainty, dilemma, tension and anxiety. An individual experiences conflict when he is expected to behave in two or more incompatible ways at the same time. It is the expression of disagreement over something important to both (or all) sides of a dispute. Conflict is a clash of interests, values, actions, views or directions (De Bono, 1985). Conflict, thus can be defined as a struggle or contest between people with opposing needs, ideas, beliefs, values, or goals. The first important thing to grasp is that it is entirely dependent on the people involved. It depends on their having a particular point of view, which may or may not have independent facts and evidence to support it, and on how they behave when they encounter an opposing point of view. Violence is only one kind of conflict-behavior. When we recognize the potential for conflict, we implicitly indicate that there is already a conflict of direction, even though it may not have yet manifested itself as a clash. Confliction is the process of setting up, promoting, encouraging or designing conflict. It is a willful process and refers to the real effort put into generating and instituting conflict. De-confliction is the annihilation of conflict. It does
THE CONFLICTS

2
not refer to negotiation or bargaining, or even to resolution of conflict: it is the effort required to eliminate the conflict. The statistics of war in the world are so appalling that they raise questions that everyone ought to ask: are such levels of suffering imposed by human beings on each other really necessary? Are there not better ways of managing and resolving the differences between people, and groups of people, which bring about war and violent conflict? Conflict is a characteristic of human existence. It is part of the dynamic of life that drives us into the future. However, it needs to be managed constructively. When associated with violence, destruction and killing, it is no longer a healthy part of living. Violent conflict solves few problems, creates many, and breeds more unhealthy conflict to come. Conflicts that lead to violence should be avoided at all cost in our societies and organizations. Conflict has characteristics of its own, and it is possible to analyze its structure and behavior. When conflict is understood, it's easier to find ways to predict it, prevent it, transform it, and resolve it.

Elements of Conflict Organizational conflicts usually involve three elements, which have to be appropriately matched through necessary organizational arrangements in order to resolve the conflict (Turner and Weed, 1983). Turner and Weed classified them as: Power, Organizational demands and Worth. Power is the capacities and means that people have at their disposal to get work done. Power includes budgetary discretion, personal influence, information,
THE CONFLICTS

3
time, space, staff size and dependence on others. If used efficiently, power creates an atmosphere of cooperation, but can generate conflicts when misused, withheld or amassed. Organizational demands are the people's expectations regarding a person's job performance. Usually such expectations are high, and making them rather unrealistic. When these expectations are not fulfilled, people feel disheartened, angry, let down or cheated. Consequently, conflict situations can arise. Worth refers to a person's self-esteem. People want to prove their worth in the organization. Superiors control employees' pay, performance rating, performance and appraisal, etc. How much of these are received by a person reflects their worth. An individual may also feel loss of worth if some basic needs are not fulfilled. Generally, conflicts arise from mismatches between power, organizational demands and feelings of personal worth.

4
In the workplace, a simple disagreement between team members, if unresolved, may escalate into avoidance, inability to work together, verbal assaults, and resentment. In the worst cases, it may also lead to hostility and eventual separation from the organization. Therefore, it is important that the conflict be resolved as soon possible Minkes (1994) deliberated further to explain that conflicts on teams are inevitable; however, the results of conflict are not predetermined. Conflict might escalate and lead to nonproductive results, or conflict can be beneficially resolved and lead to quality final products. Therefore, learning to manage conflict is integral to a high-performance team. Although very few people may go looking for conflict, more often than not, conflict results because of miscommunication between people with regard to their need, ideas, beliefs, goals, or values. Conflict management has to do with the principle that all conflicts cannot necessarily be resolved, but learning how to manage conflicts can decrease the odds of nonproductive escalation. Conflict management involves acquiring skills related to conflict resolution, self-awareness about conflict modes, conflict communication skills, and establishing a structure for management of conflict in your environment. The word conflict is a word that causes most of us a great degree of discomfort, anger, frustration, sadness, and pain. It is a situation that people and or organization would wish to avoid in their daily lives and activities.

The differences between competition and conflict Competition usually brings out the best in people, as they strive to be on top in their field, whether in sport, community affairs, politics or work. In fact, fair and friendly competition often leads to new sporting achievements, scientific inventions or outstanding effort in solving a community problem. When competition becomes unfriendly or bitter, conflict can begin, and this can bring out the worst in people.
THE CONFLICTS

THE CONFLICTS

5
Power Power is the ability or capacity to do something or to control and influence what others do. It determines who makes decisions and what decisions are made. Power is often shown when two or more people interact. We tend to think of power as belonging to public figures who make decisions, such as politicians and directors of companies. These people often hold a lot of power compared with the people they represent or the people who work for them and buy their products. There are also differences in power in everyday relationships. For example, age, gender, education, literacy and location can influence the amount of power we have or the amount of power that other people will recognize. There can be many sources of power. For example, power cannot not just be military strength. It can include money, networks, information, authority, knowledge, security and access to resources. Everyone has power to some degree. Owens (1992) said that the state of 'powerlessness' occurs when people do not think they have power, when they cannot use their power, or when others do not recognize their power. Many people lack the confidence to influence situations which they believe are outside their control. Helping people to gain a sense of self-worth and self-confidence is the first vital step in the process of empowerment. As people gain such confidence, they become more motivated to take action and work together to challenge power imbalances. Conflict is fuelled when the balance of power between different groups changes or is very uneven. Perhaps one group abuses their power, wants more power or fears losing their power.
THE CONFLICTS

6
Perhaps another group wants to challenge those in power in order to improve the balance of power. It is important to note that the way in which power is used varies. In a conflict situation, power can be used either to fuel conflict or to help build peace. There are two types of power. It is useful to distinguish between the two different types of power: Hard Power is the ability to command and enforce. Hard power usually represents physical or military power. It is dominant in violent conflicts as opposing groups struggle for victory. Soft Power is the ability to bring about co-operation. This type of power is vital for peace building. Forms of Conflict Hellriegel, Slocum and Woodman (1992) categorized conflicts into four basic forms. These are as follows: a. Goal conflict: This is a desired end states or preferred outcomes appear to be incompatible. For instance, the management of University of Education, Winneba may desired that increase in enrolment and school fees will enable the University to provide quality services to students and raise more funds for the University so lecturers should agree. The lecturers may disagree on the grounds that it will increase their workload in terms of lecturer-student ratio. b. Cognitive conflict: This is where ideas or thoughts are perceived as incompatible. For example, the Chancellor of the University has a duty to intervene
THE CONFLICTS

7
between management and staff on a new promotion system that the staff views as not good. The concern of the Chancellor would be how to resolve the impasse. How he requests management to reverse their decision, which they are not ready to, and how he would convince the staff to accept the new promotion system, which they see as unacceptable, produces a cognitive conflict.

8
Semantic sources are those stemming from some failure in communication. Traditionally, semantics has to do with the meaning of words, but here that is just one phase of its role. We use semantics to point out a major source of conflict as the failure of two individuals to share fully the meaning of a communicative attempt. The causes for the failure may be technical problems in the communication process (static, filters, barriers, and the like), or they may be actual differences in perception and understanding. The result is an absence of agreement: conflict. Role sources are those that rise out of the varying perceptions of people about the expected behaviors of themselves and others. Many of these come from the status and position levels in organizations. Others come from the structures and processes devised by management to organize work, channel effort, and coordinate activity. Role conflicts are probably no more frequent or more rare than semantic or value conflicts. They might, indeed, be so closely related as to be absorbed in those two sources. Role sources may be evidenced in those situations in which boss and subordinate seem to be butting heads because each perceives the role of the other in a reference frame different from observable behavior. Value sources have their foundations in the individualistic value sets of people. These value sets readily contribute to differences between people because they are different. They cause each of us at times to respond or behave in an unexpected manner because we are behaving as dictated by a value set not fully shared by our associates; hence, a sense on
THE CONFLICTS

c. Affective conflict: This deals with emotions or feelings that are incompatible, that is, people become angry at one another. For instance, on the new promotion system, the staff will feel that the authorities did not think about their welfare by introducing a policy that does not favor them and therefore, they become angry. The University authorities on the other hand may be annoyed with the workers union for challenging their authority. d. Procedural conflict: This is where parties differ on the process of doing things. For example, if the channel of communication in any organization is not properly followed, a request being sought may be canceled on the grounds that it did not followed the proper procedure. Sources of Conflict If a manager is to manage conflict, he must understand its source. We can establish three basic sources as semantic, role, and values as put up by Kahn (1964).
THE CONFLICTS

9
their part of a difference between us. An example may be the conflicting values held by Air Force people as to what constitutes acceptable hair length. One side demands compliance with a published standard while the other demands to know why longer hair must mean degraded performance. What is effective in one value conflict situation may not be in the next. Managing value conflicts requires a psychological awareness and a capacity for adaptivity, which permits situational based activity of the manager. Three basic sources of conflict have been mentioned, but we must admit that such separation is probably valid only for the meticulous person in research or academia or for the person attempting a serious study of the phenomena. In the reality of the manager's world, source separation is of little immediate value although it should be of significant help to control conflict. Most conflicts are really a combination of elements from more than one of the sources. Many people cite their belief that the prime cause of conflict is communicative inadequacy. How, though, can we establish that a communicative failure does not truly evolve from the differing value sets involved or from the varying vantage points of those performing in different roles? The much-discussed generation gap, in the military as well as in general society, most likely is a reflection of both communicative failure and differing value sets. We cannot with comfort, say that the three sources are independent. Each affects the others to some degree. Levels of Conflicts

10
There are four (4) major levels of conflict within an organisation. These are: 1. Intrapersonal Intrapersonal conflict occurs with an individual and can involve some form of goals or cognitive conflicts. For example, an accountant will have to choose between taking up a job in the public sector that does not pay well but has job security or in a private sector that pay well but without job security. 2. Interpersonal Interpersonal conflicts involve two or more individuals who perceive themselves as being in opposition to each other over preferred outcomes, values or behaviors. For example, a dean of a Faculty admonishes a Head of Department to work hard to instill discipline among students, but turns around to accuse the Head of Department of being too strict on the students. 3. Intragroup An intragroup conflict refers to clashes among some or all of the group members. For example, the workers of a particular company may be divided on a dismissal of a colleague. A few may support the decision of management while others may even propose other forms of punishments and if they are unable to reach a consensus, it may degenerate into conflict.

THE CONFLICTS

THE CONFLICTS

11
4. Intergroup Intergroup conflict refers to opposition and clashes that arise between two or more groups. An intergroup conflict often occurs in union- management relations. For example, it could be between the University Teachers Association of Ghana (UTAG) as one group and the Government on the other side, Health Workers versus the Government etc. Stages of Conflict

12
The handling of conflict requires awareness of its various developmental stages. If leaders in the situation can identify the conflict issue and how far it has developed, they can sometimes solve it before it becomes much more serious. Typical stages include: Where potential for conflict exists - in other words where people recognize that lack of resources, diversity of language or culture may possibly result in conflict if people are not sensitive to the diversity. Latent conflict where a competitive situation could easily spill over into conflict - e.g. at a political rally or in the workplace where there are obvious differences between groups of people. Open conflict - This can be triggered by an incident and suddenly become real conflict. Aftermath conflict - the situation where a particular problem may have been resolved but the potential for conflict still exists. In fact the potential may be even greater than before, if one person or group perceives itself as being involved in a win-lose situation.

Disputes of rights and disputes of interests Especially in the workplace, two main types of disputes have been noted although these two types may also happen in other situations according to Mandros, Woodrow and Weinstein (1992). These are: Disputes of rights: This is where people or groups are entitled by law, by contract, by previous agreement or by established practice to certain rights. Disputes of right will focus on conflict issues such as employment contracts, legally enforceable matters or unilateral changes in accepted or customary practices. A dispute of rights is, therefore, usually settled by legal decision or arbitration and not by negotiation. Disputes of interests: This is where the conflict may be a matter of opinion, such as where a person or group is entitled to some resources or privileges (such as access to property, better working conditions, etc). Because there is no established law or right, a dispute of interest will usually be solved through collective bargaining or negotiation.
THE CONFLICTS

Signs of conflict between individuals In the organization, leaders and members should be alert to signs of conflict between colleagues, so that they can be proactive in reducing or resolving the conflict by getting to the root of the issue. Typical signs may include:
THE CONFLICTS

13
colleagues not speaking to each other or ignoring each other contradicting and bad-mouthing one another deliberately undermining or not co-operating with each other, to the downfall of the team CHAPTER TWO

14

CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF CONFLICTS

Introduction

Signs of conflict between groups of people Similarly, leaders and members can identify latent conflict between groups of people in the organization or the community and plan action before the conflict becomes open and destructive: cliques or factions meeting to discuss issues separately, when they affect the whole organization group being left out of organizing an event which one should include everybody groups using threatening slogans or symbols to show that their group is right and the others are wrong

ations, organizations, and groups are made up of individual human beings. Each human has through life's experiences developed a set of values and evolved a set of behavioral rules. These values and rules are sufficiently alike in a given society (more so in a given segment of a society) to allow justice, morals, and ethics to exist and create general agreement about what is right and what is wrong. But, the value-rule set for each individual is a unique set not fully shared by other humans. These differences in value-rule sets are most likely to be the basic causes of conflict. Another major conflict cause is the motivation of the separate individuals. Each is motivated by a peculiarly unique degree of satisfaction in a set of needs. It is quite likely that in a given group situation the individuals concerned will be aiming their personal efforts at slightly different objectives; such objectives may be similar enough to permit cooperative effort but sufficiently different to create some conflict. A common example might be the "hot line," employed by many commanders as a means of staying in touch with the troops. This opportunity to short-circuit supervisory channels often antagonizes intermediate managers, who may learn of a
THE CONFLICTS

THE CONFLICTS

15
problem only when the commander confronts them with it. Then, too, it is possible for all to be motivated to behave toward the same goal accomplishment but to feel that, that goal, when attained, will not be great enough for all to share adequately in the reward. Conflict may then exist as each strives to attain his place in the sun. A third major cause of conflict and one more obvious to us is the differing ideological and philosophic bases we possess. These relate to a great extent to the value-rule set but are sufficiently different to warrant recognition as possible conflict causes. What we use as a base for our ideals and our concepts becomes a great importance to us, and we do not want that base challenged or questioned by others. An example is the old-timer's reluctance to change from a thus-far successful technique even though evidence indicates that a change would be beneficial. When we perceive attack on our ideals from another, we respond with energy and, often, heat. Note the actions of some militant minority groups and you observe idealogic /philosophic conflict reactions at work. The way a society is organized can create both the root causes of conflict and the conditions in which it is likely to occur. Any society, which is organized so that some people are treated unequally and unjustly, is likely to erupt into conflict, especially if its leaders do not represent all the members of that society. If an unequal and unjust society is reformed, then conflicts will be rare. Everyone needs to be recognized as an individual with a personal identity; everyone needs to be able to feel safe. If these needs are not met, people protest, and protesting can
THE CONFLICTS

16
lead to rebellion and violence. Many people find their identity and security in their cultural group and its particular point of view, so clashes between different cultural groups also lead to disputes that can easily turn violent. If people learn to understand that differing cultures are not inevitably a threat to each other, they will also learn how to manage their differences co-operatively and peacefully. One aspect of culture is particularly important, it can create language and behavior that excludes people, creating 'us or them', 'insider or outsider' situations and using language of discrimination, intolerance and hate. If people create a society, that does not see 'difference' and 'diversity' as problems but as valuable for social growth, many causes of conflict disappear. While a conflict starts because of an issue of disagreement, there are usually background influences that fuel the conflict. The most important influence is power. Others include culture, identity and rights. Causes of conflicts in the workplace The causes of workplace conflicts are often misunderstood and blamed on personalities and misbehavior, but in reality, much workplace conflict is systemic and endemic to the workplace environment. Lipid (1994) was of the view that ineffective organizational systems, unpredictable policies, incompatible goals, scarce resources, and poor communication can all contribute to conflict in the workplace. Workplace conflict causes loss of productivity, distractions, and employee dissatisfaction. However, management can produce positive
THE CONFLICTS

17
results by paying attention to and addressing the true causes of conflict in their organizations. Conflicts in organizations could cause constructive, destructive or mixed consequences depending on the methodology of how they are managed. Manager's skill in conflict management plays a vital role in determining which would be the consequences. It has been recognized that there are many basic causes of organizational conflict some of which are listed and explained further as follows: 1. Incompatible goals situation 2. Ineffective Organizational Systems and Unpredictable Policies 3. Difference in perceptions 4. Poor communication 5. Scarce resources 6. Differing values 7. Opposing interests 8. Personality conflicts 9. Personal problems Scarce Resources Incompatible Goals

18
Ineffective Organizational Systems and Unpredictable Policies Poor follow-up, unequal application of policies, and inconsistent communications from management all contribute to workplace conflict. Lack of clearly communicated or constantly changing policies cause confusion and disharmony in the workplace. Organizations need consistent controls, clear communication, and effective conflict management systems in place in order to run smoothly. Managers and supervisors with good management skills who are able to communicate and relate to their employees make the difference between harmonious operations or chaotic, conflict-filled work environments.

According to Owens (1987:245), a conflict exists when incompatible activities occur. Conflict can result when coworkers with different goals and different messages from managers and supervisors have to work together on teams, committees, or in work groups. Management agreement on clear and common goals is important for productivity and harmony among employees in work groups, and a clear vision and business goals from top management eliminates causes of conflict.

Scarce resources or competition for limited resources causes anxiety and frustration, whether the resources needed are
THE CONFLICTS THE CONFLICTS

19
time, space, supplies, or information. Anxiety, frustration, and competition lead to conflict if not managed well. Good policies and procedures for equitable distribution and use of resources, with proper controls, will lessen or eliminate conflict. Poor Communication Poor communication, including dishonesty, unethical behavior, withholding information, and poor interpersonal skills, contribute to or even cause conflict. Clear, consistent, and open communication, as well as good conflict management skills and systems contribute to healthy working relationships and good work environments. Poor communication leads to misunderstanding and strife among employees. For instance, misunderstandings can occur if the manager asks one employee to relay important instructions to the other employees, but the employee fails to do so appropriately. Conveying wrong information can lead to projects being incorrectly done and to employees blaming each other for the end result. When people work together, conflict becomes a part of doing business, it's a normal occurrence in any workplace. Notably, managers spend a minimum of 25 percent of their time settling conflict in the workplace. Workplace conflict often stems from issues between employees within the company. Differing Values The workplace consists of individuals who all have their own perspective of the world. Some employees have strong beliefs, which they are not willing to compromise. These beliefs can conflict with coworkers', creating conflict. For example, if one
THE CONFLICTS

20
individual strongly opposes workplace diversity, he may have trouble accepting other workers different from him. To avoid conflict with these workers, he must try to accept or initiate more tolerance of those with differing values. Opposing Interests When an employee decides to pursue her own career goals, without regard for the organizational goals and its well-being, it results in strife among her coworkers. This occurs when the employee becomes so focused on achieving her own objectives, she disregards how it affects others within the company and the company itself. For instance, she may "forget" that she is a part of a team, in which the goal is to work together on a specific assignment. Consequently, she may work according to her own schedule and in the manner, she sees fit, building resentment in her coworkers. Personality Conflicts No two people are exactly alike. Therefore, personality clashes in the workplace are unavoidable. One employee may have a reserved personality while another may be more outgoing and forward. Problems arise when the two do not understand or respect each other's inner nature. For instance, the more extroverted employee may feel slighted if the more introverted worker doesn't talk to him much. He may perceive it as a slight, rather than it simply being the employee's personality. Furthermore, his approach to handling projects may be analytical while hers is intuitive. When the two do not understand and respect each other's approach, conflict occurs.

THE CONFLICTS

21
Personal Problems If the employee has problems outside of the workplace, such as marital or parental issues, she may take them to work with her. Consequently, if she is short and withdrawn from her coworkers, and if they are ignorant about the cause of her behavior, they will assume that she has an issue with them. Therefore, if she is not willing to divulge her problems to her coworkers, she should leave them at home. Why Conflicts Arise In most organizations, conflicts increase as employees assert their demands for an increased share in organizational rewards, such as position, acknowledgment, appreciation, monetary benefits and independence. Even management faces conflicts with many forces from outside the organization, such as government, unions and other coercive groups which may impose restrictions on managerial activities. Conflicts emanate from more than one source, and so their true origin may be hard to identify. Important initiators of conflict situations include: (i) People disagree: People disagree for a number of reasons (De Bono, 1985). They see things differently because of differences in (a) understanding and viewpoint. Most of these differences are usually not important. Personality differences or clashes in emotional needs may cause conflicts. Conflicts arise when two groups or individuals interacting in the same situation see the situation
THE CONFLICTS

22
differently because of different sets of settings, information pertaining to the universe, awareness, background, disposition, reason or outlook. In a particular mood, individuals think and perceive in a certain manner. For example, the half-full glass of one individual can be half-empty to another. Obviously, both individuals convey the same thing, but they do so differently owing to contrasting perceptions and dispositions. People have different styles, principles, values, (b) beliefs and slogans which determine their choices and objectives. When choices contradict, people want different things and that can create conflict situations. For example, a risk-taking manager would be in conflict with a risk-minimizing supervisor who believes in firm control and a well-kept routine. People have different ideological and philosophical (c) outlooks, as in the case of different political parties. Their concepts, objectives and ways of reacting to various situations are different. This often creates conflicts among them. Conflict situations can arise because people have (d) different status. When people at higher levels in the organization feel indignant about suggestions for
THE CONFLICTS

23
change put forward from their subordinates or associates, it provokes conflict. By tolerating and allowing such suggestions, potential conflict can be prevented. People have different thinking styles, which (e) encourage them to disagree, leading to conflict situations. Certain thinking styles may be useful for certain purposes, but ineffectual or even perilous in other situations (De Bono, 1985). People are supposed to disagree under particular (f) circumstances, such as in sports. Here conflict is necessary, and even pleasurable. (ii) People are concerned with fear, force, fairness or funds (De Bono, 1985). Fear relates to imaginary concern about something, (a) which might happen in the future. One may fear setbacks, disgrace, reprisal or hindrances, which can lead to conflict situations. Force is a necessary ingredient of any conflict (b) situation. Force may be ethical or emotional. It could be withdrawal of cooperation or approval. These forces are instrumental in generating, strengthening and terminating conflicts. Fairness refers to an individual's sense of what is (c)
THE CONFLICTS

24
right and what is not right, a fundamental factor learnt in early childhood. This sense of fairness determines the moral values of an individual. People have different moral values and accordingly appreciate a situation in different ways, creating conflict situations. Funds or costs can cause conflict, but can also force a (d) conclusion though acceptable to the conflicting parties. The cost of being in conflict may be measurable (in money terms) or immeasurable, being expressed in terms of human lives, suffering, diversion of skilled labor, neglect or loss of morale and self-esteem according to De Bono, (1985). Effects of Conflicts Conflict situations should be either resolved or used beneficially. Conflicts can have positive or negative effects for the organization, depending upon the environment created by the manager as she or he manages and regulates the conflict situation. Positive effects of conflicts Some of the positive effects of conflict situations according to Filley (1975) are: Diffusion of more serious conflicts: In organizations where members participate in decisionmaking, disputes are usually minor and not acute as the closeness of members moderate belligerent and assertive behavior into minor disagreements, which
THE CONFLICTS

25
minimizes the likelihood of major fights. Games can be used to moderate the attitudes of people by providing a competitive situation, which can liberate tension in the conflicting, parties, as well as having some entertainment value. Stimulation of a search for new facts or resolutions: When two parties who respect each other face a conflict situation, the conflict resolution process may help in clarifying the facts and stimulating a search for mutually acceptable solutions. Increase in group cohesion and performance: When two or more parties are in conflict, the performance and cohesion of each party is likely to improve. In a conflict situation, an opponent's position is evaluated negatively, and group allegiance is strongly reinforced, leading to increased group effort and cohesion. Assessment of power or ability: In a conflict situation, the relative ability or power of the parties involved can be identified and measured. Conflicts when effectively managed, can lead to outcomes that are productive and enhance the health of the organization over time. Thus, conflict in itself is
THE CONFLICTS

26
neither good, bad nor ugly in value terms. Its impact on organization and the behavior of the people is largely dependent upon the way in which it is treated. Negative Effects of Conflicts The destructive effects of conflicts on any organization may include the following: Impediments to smooth working, Diminishing output, Obstructions in the decision making process, and Formation of competing affiliations within the organization. The overall result of such negative effects is to reduce employees' commitment to organizational goals and organizational efficiency (Kirchoff and Adams, 1982). Owens (1992) has observed that frequent and power conflicts can have a daunting impact upon the behavior of people in organization. Conflicts often develop into hostility, which also causes people to withdraw physically and psychologically. In organization situation, physical withdrawal takes the form of absence, laziness and turnover that is often written off as uncommitted on the part of employees. Conflicts can lead to severe hostile behavior or aggressive behavior such as demonstrations, strikes, property damage and minor theft of property.
THE CONFLICTS

27
Costley and Todd (1987) also emphasized that when frustration persists and an individual's tolerance level is exceeded, the individual responds through aggression and withdrawal. Aggression involves a direct attack upon the perceived barrier to achieving the goal. In some instances, the frustrated individual will direct aggression against the person or object that is perceived as the cause of the frustration. For example, if an administrator is using an obsolete equipment, he would obviously feel bad and therefore would request for replacement. If the request keeps long and the administrator feels that it is the Finance Officer who is not willing to release funds or grant the request, the administrator may react aggressively by attacking the Finance Officer verbally or physically. Aggression can, however, take many other forms including antagonistic behavior, theft, disobedience, sabotage, absenteeism and interference with the work of others. As stated already, withdrawal is another negative response to frustration as a conflict. Withdrawal may reduce tension, but it is usually dysfunctional since the goal of the organisation cannot be attained.

28
Filley (1975) also identified eight main conditions, which could initiate conflict situations in an organization. These are: Ambiguous jurisdiction occurs when two (i) individuals have responsibilities which are interdependent but whose work boundaries and role definitions are not clearly specified. Goal incompatibility and conflict of (ii) interest refer to accomplishment of different but mutually conflicting goals by two individuals working together in an organization. Obstructions in accomplishing goals and lack of clarity on how to do a job may initiate conflicts. Barriers to goal accomplishment arise when goal attainment by an individual or group is seen as preventing another party achieving their goal. Communication barriers as difficulties in (iii) communicating can cause misunderstanding, which can then create conflict situations. Dependence on one party by another group or (iv) individual. Differentiation in organization, where, (v) within an organization, sub-units are made responsible for different, specialized tasks. This creates separation
THE CONFLICTS

Conditions for Creating Conflict Situations According to Kirchoff and Adams (1982), there are four distinct conflict conditions, i.e., high stress environments, ambiguous roles and responsibilities, multiple boss situations, and prevalence of advanced technology.
THE CONFLICTS

29
and introduces differentiation. Conflict situations could arise when actions of sub-units are not properly coordinated and integrated. i ) A s s o c i a t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s a n d (v specialization. When individuals specialized in different areas work in a group, they may disagree amongst themselves because they have different goals, views and methodologies owing to their various backgrounds, training and experiences. Behavior regulation: Organizations have to (vii) have firm regulations for individual behavior to ensure protection and safety. Individuals may perceive these regulations differently, which can cause conflict and negatively affect output. Unresolved prior conflicts: This is a conflict (viii) which remains unsettled over time create anxiety and stress, which can further intensify existing conflicts. A manager's most important function is to avoid potential harmful results of conflict by regulating and directing it into areas beneficial for the organization.

30
stages involved in the conflict process, from inception to end, as sequential in nature, namely: (I) (ii) (iii) (iv) the conflict situation, awareness of the situation, realization, manifestation of conflict

Conflict as a Process Conflict is a dynamic process. In any organization, a modest amount of conflict can be useful in increasing organizational effectiveness. Tosi, Rizzo and Carroll (1986) consider the
THE CONFLICTS THE CONFLICTS

31

32
One thinker, Karl Marx, argued that all property is essential owned or controlled by the state, causing struggles between owners and renters, workers and entrepreneurs and other groups fighting for the acquisition of property and material wealth. That material wealth, he posited, is the essential thing that lends power to certain groups and allows for an advantage over others. Interestingly, Marx took issue with the fact that workers, or the producers of material goods, do not reap the benefits of the production of these goods. He wrote of the exploitation of labor and the unequal sharing of the products of that labor, which further increases the power of "owning classes" and the elites of society. Max Weber, another thinker, revised this theory by stating that political and religious ideology drives power into the hands of certain groups. In other words, the elite to gather power and control over subordinate class groups use religion and ideology. Modern-day conflict theories argue that even negative social institutions, ones that seemingly create a negative impact on society as a whole, still play a part in the ongoing life and movement of society. The Use of Conflict Theory Conflict theory is used to examine society and the interaction of particular social, racial and ethnic groups. Many political scientists attempt to examine social conflicts by reducing the conflicts to a battle over available resources. This, then, makes
THE CONFLICTS

THEORIES OF CONFLICT AND CONFLICTS MANAGEMENT

onflict theory is a field of study designed to examine the way that groups or entities struggle to achieve their desires or maximize their benefits. Politics always revolve around the acquisition of power, and power can come in the form of goods, monetary wealth, land or other valued assets. Most often, conflict theory is used to explain the conflicts that arise between social classes. Working class, middle class and upper class segments of society all have agendas, interests and wants. Conflict is the only situation that produces change, as it forces a decision to be made and action to be taken in the interest of one or more parties. Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes are two thinkers credited with the origin of conflict theory. Both philosophers held a cynical view of human nature, positing that human beings are inherently self-interested. A functionalist approach was first taken to examine and understand human conflict. This approach involved viewing society as a sum of parts that constantly and independently play certain roles. This model is similar to the idea of competing interest groups, groups that serve to make up different necessary parts of society but that all have competing needs for resources, much like the organs and limbs of the body.
THE CONFLICTS

CHAPTER THREE

33
conflict theory a lens through which society can be examined and a policy or philosophy for social change can be created. For example, some thinkers through the lens of conflict theory explained the divide between Protestants and Catholics, and the study of political interest groups often involves the analysis of available resources and desired material goods.

34
traditional goals and structure of organizations may be in conflict with the needs and goal in developing personality. This may be readily seen in the efficient and omnipotent bureaucracy that places emphasis on hierarchy, specialization of work, established norms of conduct, and explicit rules, often forgetting or overlooking the individual and his unique qualities. Traditionally, personal values tend to be hostile toward organizations, big government, big business, bureaucracy, and, in spite of its purely defensive posture in our country, the security forces. Again, conflict can arise when interdependency exists. Employees become dependent on organizations to give their lives direction and meaning. Such dependency allows them to escape the burdens of personal responsibility. Whereas we praise individualism in workers, the organization often requires that the individual be treated impersonally. We see this in "distant" management, in which the people sense an absence of concern for their individuality and personal needs. Efficiency requirements of the organization also act as sources of conflict because they regularly demand that the goals and needs of the organization be given higher priority than the rights of the individual. I therefore, yield to the proposition that conflict between the organization and personal values is normal and a fact of life. I strongly recommend that Argyris's ideas be high on the manager's list of developmental study because managers seem always to be torn between the two competing desires of doing what is best for the organization or what is best for the individual. It is a rough decision spot to be in.
THE CONFLICTS

Modern Uses of Conflict Theory Conflict theory often is used to understand the structure of a workplace environment. Conflict theory can be used to create and revise management policies. This involves the breakdown of basic ideas, such as what each division or worker wants and what actions are being taken to achieve those desires. This helps to explain the motive behind action, thereby moving toward a solution to the conflict and the resolution of workplace tension. Managers use the following model at times to solve workplace tension: Identifying the problem, identifying the actors in the conflict, listing the major needs or desires of each party and categorizing the tangible and intangible needs. Tangible needs are actual concrete goods that can be reallocated or traded, while intangible needs are abstract, such as better relationships, cooperation or morale. The person and the organization Conflicts occur when the needs and goals of the individual are not in harmony with the needs and goals of the organization. Chris Argyris (1952), in his discussion of man versus the organization, indicates that it is highly conceivable that the
THE CONFLICTS

35
Managing this inherent conflict between individual needs and organizational needs demands a high degree of self-awareness on the part of the manager. What are you willing to do in the balancing of these needs? How much can you accommodate comfortably to the need satisfaction of other humans in the organization? How much faith do you really have in the motivational drives of your subordinates? What really is your role in this unit? What can you do, or what will you allow yourself to do, to integrate the needs of the individual with the needs of the organization? In the circumstance that now faces you, which is more important: the individual or the group? No one can pre answer these questions, nor can anyone answer them effectively for another person. Yet the active manager has to answer them as he strives to control conflict. A major influence on the manager's actions or decisions will be his basic concept or philosophy about the nature of man. Douglas McGregor presents a famous dissertation on this subject in his consideration of Theory "X" and Theory "Y." Argyris too develops, a number of managerial considerations such as: Governing variables: Those dimensions that people are trying to keep within acceptable limits. Any action is likely to impact upon a number of such variables thus any situation can trigger a trade-off among governing variables. Action strategies: the moves and plans used by people to keep their governing values within the acceptable range.
THE CONFLICTS

36
Consequences: what happens as a result of an action. These can be both intended - those actor believe will result and unintended. In addition, those consequences can be for the self, and/or for others (Anderson 1997). Abraham Maslow also offers a number of assumptions for the manager to adopt for an enlightened approach to the individual-organization situation. Evaluation of which research and literature leads us to reflect that potential individual-organization conflict is heightened as management acts to reduce or constrain the individual's opportunity to decide. The goal to make mistakes unlikely is commendable but perhaps in solving one problem a number of others would be created. The person needs a growing control over his work environment, more opportunity to make decisions, more autonomy in order to become self-responsible. Yet, in our sophisticated society, the organizational trend is quite the opposite, and many people feel management has decided, without notable exception, that the organization in all instances has precedence and priority. Never is the functioning in organization free of problems. The unresolved problem is a source of conflict because individuals are expected to solve the problem, but the organization (management) often does not permit mistake, or error, or the organization often gives the individual a problem so huge that it overwhelms him. Frustration and conflict naturally result. Unless the organization is supportive to the individual's problem-solving efforts, such conflict continues and likely worsens. What is needed, as Harry Levinson indicates, is a
THE CONFLICTS

37
supportive environment that gives the individual room to maneuver, freedom to make mistakes, set limits, and define expectations, plus respectful treatment of his ideas. In many of today's organizations, such a supportive environment is contrary to develop functional relationship patterns. In far too many organizations, for example, mistakes are anathema, and more effort is expended in protective posterior armor than in productive and progressive activity. Fear is prevalent, and the feeling of individual versus the organization is magnified. Many people in military organizations experience this as they find they must guard against inspection visits, staff visits, and the like, at the expense of a ready solution to an immediate problem. In some instances, they follow the book, even knowing it to be an error in a given situation, because they cannot anticipate support for an innovative action. Argyris (1952) mentions that this disturbance created by the incongruence of the man and organization needs tends to increase as the individual and the organization mature and/or as dependence, subordination, and passivity increase. This increase occurs as management controls are increased, as directive leadership increases, as one goes down the chain of command, as human relations programs are undertaken but improperly implemented, as jobs become more specialized, or as the exactness with which the traditional formal principles are used increases. "The Air Force way," while it cannot be totally removed, stands as a ready reference response (which may be too often used) to the magnified man and organization
THE CONFLICTS

38
need difference. Each of these items has significance for the manager's action choices as he strives to control conflict. How far can he go? How far will he permit himself to go? Can he restrain himself from the imposition of more controls, for example, as he observes his organization at work and notes its results? The challenge exists. The manager must choose to face it or retreat. The new man versus the old man generates an additional source of individual versus organization conflict. The innovator is always in a less supportive environment than the entrenched old hand. Interpersonal conflicts of the old and new vary in intensity in relation to the ability of the manager to deal with such conflict and his personal desire benefit from innovative ideas. Nevertheless, the new is not always right, and we must rationally evaluate these old versus new arguments.

Theories of Conflict Management Conflict can be seen as disagreement between individuals. It can vary from a mild disagreement to a win-or-lose, emotionpacked, confrontation (Kirchoff and Adams, 1982). There are two theories of conflict management. traditional theory is based on the The assumption that conflicts are bad, and are caused by troublemakers, and should be subdued. Contemporary theory recognizes that conflicts between human beings are unavoidable. They emerge
THE CONFLICTS

39
as a natural result of change and can be beneficial to the organization, if managed efficiently. Current theory (Kirchoff and Adams, 1982) considers innovation as a mechanism for bringing together various ideas and viewpoints into a new and different fusion. An atmosphere of tension, and hence conflict, is thus essential in any organization committed to developing or working with new ideas.

40
position, which reduces their vulnerability to any loss. Concealers take no risk and so say nothing. They conceal their views and feelings. Concealers can be of three kinds: 1. Feeling-swallowers swallow their feelings. They smile even if the situation is causing them pain and distress. They behave thus because they consider the approval of other people important and feel that it would be dangerous to affront them by revealing their true feelings. Subject-changers find the real issue too difficult to handle. They change the topic by finding something on which there can be some agreement with the conflicting party. This response style usually does not solve the problem. Instead, it can create problems for the people who use this and for the organization in which such people are working. Avoiders often go out of their way to avoid conflicts.

Response styles People may appreciate the same situation in different ways, and so respond differently. It is therefore necessary to understand the response styles of the people involved so as to manage conflicts properly. According to Turner and Weed (1983), responses can be classified as follows: Addressers are the people who are willing to take initiatives and risk to resolve conflicts by getting their opponents to agree with them on some issues. Addressers can either be first-steppers or confronters: 1. First-steppers are those who believe that some trust has to be established to settle conflicts. They offer to make a gesture of affability, agreeableness or sympathy with the other person's views in exchange for a similar response. Confronters think that things are so bad that they have nothing to lose by a confrontation. They might be confronting because they have authority and a safe
THE CONFLICTS

2.

3.

2.

Attackers cannot keep their feelings to themselves. They are angry for one or another reason, even though it may not be anyone's fault. They express their feelings by attacking whatever they can even, though that may not be the cause of their distress. Attackers may be up-front or behind-the-back:
THE CONFLICTS

41
1. Up-front attackers are the angry people who attack openly; they make work more pleasant for the person who is the target, since their attack usually generates sympathy, support and agreement for the target. Behind-the-back attackers are difficult to handle because the target person is not sure of the source of any criticism, nor even always sure that there is criticism. CHAPTER FOUR

42

MANAGING CONFLICTS

2.

anaging conflict means finding appropriate strategies to resolve it. Management should have specific and efficient technique for managing conflict. Conflict management consist of diagnostic process, interpersonal style, negotiating strategies, and structural interventions that are designed to avoid unnecessary conflicts, reduce or resolve excessive conflicts, or even increase in sufficient conflict (Hellriegel, et al., 1992). Teamwork and co-operation are essential in an organization that aims to be effective and efficient, and not likely to be divided by conflicting factions. The best teamwork usually comes from having a shared vision or goal, so that leaders and members are all committed to the same objectives and understand their roles in achieving those objectives. Important behaviors in achieving teamwork and minimizing potential conflict include a commitment by team members to: information by keeping people in the group up-toshare date with current issues express positive expectations about each other empower each other - publicly crediting colleagues who have performed well and encouraging each other to

THE CONFLICTS

THE CONFLICTS

43
achieve results team-building - by promoting good morale and protecting the group's reputation with outsiders resolve potential conflict - by bringing differences of opinion into the open and facilitating resolution of conflicts Collective bargaining Especially in workplace situations, it is necessary to have agreed mechanisms in place for groups of people who may be antagonistic (e.g. management and workers) to collectively discuss and resolve issues. This process is often called "collective bargaining", because representatives of each group come together with a mandate to work out a solution collectively. Experience has shown that this is far better than avoidance or withdrawal, and puts democratic processes in place to achieve "integrative problem solving", where people or groups who must find ways of co-operating in the same organization, do so within their own agreed rules and procedures.

44
Workers usually attempt this before the more serious step of a strike or a lock-out by management is taken; and it has been found useful to involve a facilitator in the conciliation process. Similarly, any other organizations (e.g. sports club, youth group or community organization) could try conciliation as a first step.

The difference between negotiation, mediation, and arbitration Three methods of resolving situations that have reached the stage of open conflict are often used by many different organizations. It is important to understand these methods, so that people can decide which methods will work best for them in their specific conflict situation: Negotiation: Hellriegel et al. (1992) define negotiation as a process in which two or more parties having both common conflict goals, state and discuss proposal concerning specific terms of a possible agreement. This is the process where mandated representatives of groups in a conflict situation meet together in order to resolve their differences and to reach agreement. It is a deliberate process, conducted by representatives of groups, designed to reconcile differences and to reach agreements by consensus. The outcome is often dependent on the power relationship between the groups. Negotiations often involve compromise one group may win one of their demands and give in on another. In workplaces, Unions and management representative usually use negotiations to solve conflicts.
THE CONFLICTS

Conciliation Conciliation can be defined as "the act of procuring good will or inducing a friendly feeling". The Ghana Labour Regulations i.e. the Labour Act (Act 653) legislation provides for the process of conciliation in the workplace, whereby groups who are in conflict and who have failed to reach agreement, can come together once again to attempt to settle their differences.
THE CONFLICTS

45
Political and community groups also often use this method. Organized and labor unions in Ghana often use this when they are demanding wages and salary increments. Mediation: when negotiations fail or get stuck, parties often call in an independent mediator. This person or group will try to facilitate settlement of the conflict. The mediator plays an active part in the process, advises both or all groups, acts as intermediary and suggests possible solutions. In contrast to arbitration, mediators' act only in an advisory capacity - they have no decision-making powers and cannot impose a settlement on the conflicting parties. Skilled mediators are able to gain trust and confidence from the conflicting groups or individuals (Moore 1994). Arbitration: means the appointment of an independent person to act as an adjudicator (or judge) in a dispute, to decide on the terms of a settlement. Both parties in a conflict have to agree about who the arbitrator should be, and that the decision of the arbitrator will be binding on them all. Arbitration differs from mediation and negotiation in that it does not promote the continuation of collective bargaining: the arbitrator listens to and investigates the demands and counter-demands and takes over the role of decision-maker. People or organizations can agree on having either a single arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators whom they respect and whose decision they will accept as final, in order to resolve the conflict. How to Be an Effective Mediator

46
An effective mediator needs certain skills in order to achieve credibility and results. Kabanoff (1989) outline the following skills for an effective mediator. preferably possessing a proven record of success in mediation or negotiation the ability to gain the trust, acceptance and cohas operation of conflicting parties thinking in identifying the real problems and clear offering practical solutions knowledgeable about the organizational structures, strategies and attitudes of the conflicting parties; as well as any relevant laws or agreements tactful and diplomatic with the necessary powers of persuasion and strong character to nudge the participants progressively towards an agreement.

How to run a mediation process The mediation process can be broadly divided into the following three stages according to Kabanoff (1989): Stage 1: Introduction and establishment of credibility During the first stage, the mediator plays a passive role. The main task is to gain the trust and acceptance of the conflicting parties, so that they begin to believe that he or she will be

THE CONFLICTS

THE CONFLICTS

47
capable of assisting them fairly as a person on whom they can rely at all times. An experienced mediator will leave most of the talking to the disputing parties, but will listen attentively and ask probing questions to pinpoint the causes of the dispute, obstacles to a possible settlement and to identify the issues in order of priority. Once credibility is achieved, and sufficient background knowledge gained, the mediator may begin to persuade the parties to resume negotiations, possibly with a fresh perspective. Stage 2: Steering the negotiation process In the second stage, the mediator intervenes more actively in steering the negotiations. He or she may offer advice to the parties, attempt to establish the actual resistance point of each party and to discover areas in which compromises could be reached. The mediator will encourage parties to put forward proposals and counter-proposals and (when a solution appears feasible) will begin to urge or even pressurize the participants towards acceptance of a settlement. Stage 3: Movement towards a final settlement An experienced mediator will know when to use diplomacy and when to exert pressure towards final settlement of the dispute. Timing and sensitivity to personalities and strategic positions is important to maintain credibility and avoid rejection by one or more parties in the process. S/he might use bi-lateral discussions with individuals or groups and during the final stages may actually suggest or draft proposals for consideration. In the event of a final settlement being reached, the mediator usually assists the parties in the drafting of their
THE CONFLICTS

48
agreement, ensuring that both sides are satisfied with the wording, terms and conditions of the agreement. The process of mediation is dynamic and finely tuned. A good mediator has to be flexible and inventive, must ensure that his or her personal values are not imposed on the conflicting parties. At most, a mediator can advise, persuade or cajole them towards agreement.

Dealing with Conflicts Conflicts are inescapable in an organization. However, conflicts can be used as motivators for healthy change. In today's environment, several factors create competition; they may be differing departmental objectives, individual objectives, and competition for use of resources or differing viewpoints. These have to be integrated and exploited efficiently to achieve organizational objectives. Condliffe (1991) expresses that a manager should be able to see emerging conflicts and take appropriate pre-emptive action. The manager should understand the causes creating conflict, the outcome of conflict, and various methods by which conflict can be managed in the organization. With this understanding, the manager should evolve an approach for resolving conflicts before their disruptive repercussions have an impact on productivity and creativity. Therefore, a manager should possess special skills to react to conflict situations, and should create an open climate for communication between conflicting parties.

THE CONFLICTS

49
When two groups or individuals face a conflict situation, they can react in four ways according to De Bono (1985). They can: Fight, which is not a beneficial, sound or gratifying approach to dealing with a conflict situation, as it involves 'tactics, strategies, offensive and defensive positions, losing and winning grounds, and exposure of weak points.' Fighting as a way of resolving a conflict can only be useful in courtroom situations, where winning and losing becomes a by-product of the judicial process. Negotiate, towards a settlement with the other party. Negotiations take place within the prevailing situation and do not involve problem solving or designing. Thirdparty roles are very important in bringing the conflicting parties together on some common ground for negotiations. Problem solve, which involves identifying and removing the cause of the conflict so as to make the situation normal again. However, this may not be easy. It is also possible that the situation will not become normal even after removing the identified cause, because of its influence on the situation. Design, which is an attempt towards creativity in making the conflict situation normal. It considers conflicts as situations rather than problems. Designing is not confined to what is already there, but attempts to reach what might be created given a proper understanding of the views and situations of the
THE CONFLICTS

50
conflicting parties. The proposed idea should be appropriate and acceptable to the parties in conflict. A third party participates actively in the design process rather than being just an umpire.

Conflict-resolution behavior Depending on their intentions in a given situation, the behavior of conflicting parties can range from full cooperation to complete confrontation. Two intentions determining the type of conflict-handling behavior are assertion and cooperation: assertion refers to an attempt to confront the other party; and cooperation refers to an attempt to find an agreeable solution. Depending upon the degree of each intention involved, there can be five types of conflict handling behavior (Thomas and Kilman, 1976). They are: Competition is a win-or-lose style of handling conflicts. It is asserting one's own viewpoint at the potential expense of another. Competing or forcing has high concern for personal goals and low concern for relationships. It is appropriate in dealing with conflicts which have no disagreements. It is also useful when unpopular but necessary decisions are to be made. Collaboration aims at finding some solution that can satisfy the conflicting parties. It is based on a willingness to accept as valid the interests of the other party whilst protecting one's own interests.
THE CONFLICTS

51
Disagreement is addressed openly and alternatives are discussed to arrive at the best solution. This method therefore involves high cooperation and low confrontation. Collaboration is applicable when both parties desire to solve the problem and are willing to work together toward a mutually acceptable solution. Collaboration is the best method of handling conflicts, as it strives to satisfy the needs of both parties. It is integrative and has high concern for personal goals as well as relationship. Compromise is a common way of dealing with conflicts, particularly when the conflicting parties have relatively equal power and mutually independent goals. It is based on the belief that a middle route should be found to resolve the conflict situation, with concern for personal goals as well as relationships. In the process of compromise, there are gains and losses for each conflicting party. Avoidance is based on the belief that conflict is evil, unwanted or boorish. It should be delayed or ignored. Avoidance strategy has low cooperation and low confrontation. It is useful either when conflicts are insignificant or when the other party is unyielding because of rigid attitudes. By avoiding direct confrontation, parties in conflict get time to cool down.

52
Accommodation involves high cooperation and low confrontation. It plays down differences and stresses commonalities. Accommodating can be a good strategy when one party accepts that it is wrong and has a lot to lose and little to gain. Consequently, they are willing to accommodate the wishes of the other party.

Strategies for Managing Conflicts Tosi, Rizzo, and Carroll (1986) suggested four ways of managing conflicts, namely, through: Styles: Conflict handling behavior styles (such as competition, collaboration, compromise, avoidance or accommodation) may be suitably encouraged, depending upon the situation. Improving organizational practices: After identifying the reason for the conflict situation, suitable organizational practices can be used to resolve conflicts, including: -establishing super-ordinate goals, - reducing vagueness, - minimizing authority- and domainrelated disputes, - improving policies, procedures and rules, - re-apportioning existing resources
THE CONFLICTS

THE CONFLICTS

53
or adding new, - altering communications, - movement of personnel, and - changing reward systems. Special roles and structure: A manager has to - initiate structural changes needed, including re-location or merging of specialized units, - shoulder liaison functions, and - act as an integrator to resolve conflicts. -a person with problem-solving skills and respected by the conflicting parties can be designated to defuse conflicts. Confrontation techniques: Confrontation techniques aim at finding a mutually acceptable and enduring solution through collaboration and compromise. It is done in the hope that conflicting parties are ready to face each other amicably, and entails intercession, bargaining, negotiation, mediation, attribution and application of the integrative decision method, which is a collaborative style based on the premise that there is a solution which can be accepted by both parties. It involves a process of defining the problem, searching for alternatives and their evaluation, and deciding by consensus. Other Means to Resolve or Reduce Conflict

54
Basic to other considerations in dealing with conflict, it is well to note that conflict resolution requires that the parties in conflict trust each other and that the parties in conflict are capable of and willing to locate the source of the conflict. Second, a man convinced against his will is not convinced; thus, we can generally eliminate the archaic, although oftenused, hammer on the head method. Putting the lid on conflict does nothing about eliminating its source. We might, in a conflict situation, do nothing about it. What would be the results if we decided to take no action to deal with conflict that has been discovered to be bad for the organization (with reference to the proposition that not all conflict is bad)? If an individual or group remains in conflict, there will be increased tension that sooner or later will result in one striving to win and drive the loser out of the situation. Alternatively, even worse, the losing element will become increasingly more aggressive or hostile and counterattack the element frustrating it. At any rate, the result is likely to be dysfunctional. So, as a normal thing, the decision to do nothing is probably not the best. However, the manager on the scene must make this determination. He must understand that there are times when the decision to do nothing may be best. This can only be a decision function of the contingencies of the situation, a decision which can only be made by someone in the situation evaluating the forces and strengths involved. An often-used method for resolving conflict is the use of super ordinate goals. For example, the entire work force, taken as a whole, is
THE CONFLICTS

THE CONFLICTS

55
something of a super ordinate goal uniting conflicting groups beneath that umbrella. The manager gets the groups to see how the conflict serves to reduce productivity, thus reducing the smaller group's stake in the benefits of the major organization's success. Even though the source of conflict is not thus treated, it is an important first step because it sets the stage for compromise. This approach is similar to the common enemy approach, wherein groups in competition find unity viewing an outside group as a common enemy. This unity can hide, or make less important, conflicts within the group. A unique method to resolve conflict is to increase interaction between conflicting groups by physically exchanging persons between conflicting groups. For example, if the payroll unit is having difficulty dealing with the budget unit, a temporary shifting of people between these groups could help the conflicting elements learn the other's problems and frames of reference. The result should be better communications, greater understanding, and less future conflict. The quickest resolution is a confrontation meeting. The manager should be warned, however, that confrontation requires complete preparedness on his part. He must have the facts of the conflict situation and confidence in his self-control and his ability to use diplomacy, tactand problem solving. Even then, he must also accept the possibility that a confrontation may worsen and it will not better the situation.
THE CONFLICTS

56
Basic to his efforts to resolve or reduce the conflict is the idea of avoiding win-lose situations. Sports and other recreational activities often acquire their flavor by win-lose situations, but the same win-lose options are not always desirable in organizational functions. Far too often, in organizations, this results in sub-optimization. A sub-element may become so involved in winning that it loses sight of the overall mission of the larger unit it serves, and its efforts become counterproductive. Most complex organizations have reward systems based upon collaborative effort. The organization that depends upon coordinative, cooperative work may be mortally wounded if its sub-elements acquire win-lose attitudes that cause these sub-optimizing activities. Once the manager sets the stage, he may initiate negotiation by representatives of the conflicting groups. During this negotiation, the manager may wish to use an impartial judge or arbitrator to listen to arguments from both sides and seek to find points of possible agreement or compromise. Of course, we recognize this as the usual last resort in management-labor difficulties and severe conflict situations. There are situations in which the manager must seek to repress conflict. This is especially true when the differences between the conflicting elements are not relevant to the organizational task. This occurs when two participating people have off-the job differences, which they permit to enter the world of work. Normally, this type of conflict is bad for the organization. Often these differences are petty and self-serving, thereby causing activity in which the participants try to win to preserve the
THE CONFLICTS

57
sanctity of their original stand. A significant aid to the manager in this form of conflict is a well-developed understanding of the human process of perception, the process by which we handle stimuli in accordance with our values, rules, wishes, and fears. With this understanding, the manager might be able to explain to the conflicting parties how they are misreading the situational data. He might then obtain agreement of a sort that causes the conflict to be repressed. The Need to Manage Conflict We must expect conflict to occur in our organizations. We should be disappointed if it does not because conflict exists only within the context of interdependence. There can be no conflict when there is no awareness of another meaning, role, or value than our own. Thus, conflict is a relationship between segments of an interrelated system: persons, a group, an organization, a community, a nation. There can be no conflict if those involved sense no differences. However, in the environment of interpersonal relationship, there will always be difference, and conflict will be the norm not the exception. We need to manage conflict in order to obtain profitable return from it. Managing conflict requires that we consider not only the required guidance and control to keep conflict at an acceptable but yet not too high level but also the activity to encourage proper conflict when the level is too low. Who would want to lead an organization without the energy and force accompanying the conflict of creativity and initiative?

58
Stephen Robbins (1974), makes a strong case for the need for a more realistic approach to conflict with his "interactionist approach. He states that there are three basic managerial attitudes toward conflict that he identifies as traditional, behavioral, and interactionist. The traditionalist, following our social teaching believes that all conflicts are destructive and management's role is to get them out of the organization. The traditionalist, therefore, believes conflict should be eliminated. The bahavioralist seeks to rationalize the existence of conflict and accurately perceives conflict as inevitable in complex organizations or relationships. Thus, according to Mandros, Woodrow and Weinstein (1992) the behavioralist "accepts" it. The interactionist views conflict as absolutely necessary, encourages opposition, defines management of conflict to include stimulation as well as resolution and considers the management of conflict as a major responsibility of all administrators. The interactionist views are accepted and they encourage conflict.

Manager's Role in Conflict Management Conflicts in organizations are inevitable. It cannot be removed simply by formulating rules or management memoranda. Its effects do not disappear just because management refuses to discuss the issue pertaining to the conflict. Therefore, conflicts in any organization should be managed systematically. Conflict management requires an approach, which is aimed at enhancing the benefit of conflicts. Conflicts should be managed using the following three strategies as propounded by Minkes (1994): 1. Win-Win: This is probably the most desirable from a

THE CONFLICTS

THE CONFLICTS

59
human and organizational point of view. Energy and creativity are aimed at solving the problems rather than beating the other party. Both the needs of parties are met and both receive rewarding outcome. 2. Win-Lose: One party in a conflict situation attempts to marshal its forces to win and the other party loses. 3. Lose-Lose: This concept is where both parties to the conflict lose. This is usually less desirable than the other two strategies. The approach of conflict resolution can take several forms: 1. Compromise 2. To pay off one of the parties 3. Use arbitration 4. To resort to bureaucratic rules In order to manage conflicts to achieve constructive ends, managers must understand the anatomy, true nature and dynamics of the conflict. Managers should possess high level of empathy and understand the psychology of parties involved in the conflict. One of the techniques that assists in the analysis and understanding of conflicts is the "Force-Field" analysis introduced by Kurt Lewin. According to his theory, the conflict is due to a number of forces operating at a given time on an individual or on a given situation.
THE CONFLICTS

60
In addition, a manager/manageress should possess the following skills as well: 1. Self-awareness, how he perceives others and how others perceive him/ her. 2. Maintaining a high level of positive energy - be optimistic 3. Use personal power and charisma to influence 4. Use supportive communication as against defensive communication 5. Dealing with the resistance of others 6. Possess negotiation skills Individual reactions to conflict Since conflict may be positively or negatively evaluated, there may be a range of reactions to it. These reactions might go from high expectation and pleasure to absolute rejection. In a very broad sense, the individual in a conflict situation has only two options open: sign up or ship out. Nevertheless, the choice is too dramatic, and it is rare when the situational factors permit only this form of response. Usually, there is a pad of acceptance, which insulates the individual from absolute or harsh decisions. Massie and Douglas (1992) identify this as the zone of indifference. As a normal event, the individual constantly checks to see whether his/ her personal goals are consistent with the goals of social
THE CONFLICTS

61
groups to which S/he belongs. He continues to function in groups that generally support his/her goals even though there might be day-to-day conflicts between them. This, then, is the zone of indifference and the means of accommodation, which we all use, in our normal functioning in society. The incongruity of the individual's and the group's goals is not sufficient to cause his voluntary severing of the relationship. A high zone of indifference permits loyalty to a group in spite of many differences between personal and group goals. This is our norm because it is rare when we agree fully with our group; even in the family group, perhaps our closest association, we have frequent even though minor disagreements as to goals. A narrow or low zone of indifference offers little such tolerance. In conflict events, the person with a low zone of indifference may opt to ship out. Rejection of the conflict situation may result in shipping out or resignation, which may be temporary or permanent. The response might be as mild as taking a few days of respite, thus the therapeutic value of leave, vacation, and recreation. Perhaps, in certain organizations, it would be a sabbatical or volunteering for special duty in a new environment. Then, too, it can be total severance with the goal of a fresh start in a different organization. Alternatively, it might be using the personnel system to find a clean start through internal transfer to another sub element of the organization. Acceptance of the conflict situation might be manifested in a surge of initiative, a flow of creativity, or a push for productivity. These efforts might result from stimulation of perceived differences, or they might be the observable
THE CONFLICTS

62
behavior representing a strong desire for promotion and, thus, escape from the conflict. The net effect may well be good for both the organization and the person. There is also the individual who reacts to conflict by avoidance. He may choose to be a lamb that hides his needs and saves them for an opportune time when he has a definite advantage over his opponent. He may choose the silent treatment with the idea that it takes two to fight. The opposite is the individual who chooses to meet conflict head on. The lamb-like approach is thought to be the more dangerous. All too often, in the final analysis, the lamb becomes the lion. As soon as the opponent falls or is in critical need of help, he gets pounced on and destroyed by the tension and aggression building up so long within the lamb. Thus, the lamb-like approach may in reality be the dangerous hidden bomb for the group. A host of other forms of reaction might be described. One is resignation on the job in which the individual comes to work but with apathy, reduced loyalty, and decreased involvement. We probably all know such a person. We refer to them as Retired On Active Duty (ROAD) and find them in the civilian as well as the government worlds. Another might be rationalization or the creation of a wall of reasons for his situation, none of which assigns any responsibility to him. Scape-goating, projection of his feeling on others is also common. This is seen in the blaming of others as justification for his own failures or inadequacies. This is experienced in the base level activities, for instance, when we sometimes hear the work group says, "We could have . . . if only . . . had done its job."
THE CONFLICTS

63
Yet another might be fantasizing with escape through daydreaming or mind wandering. Other forms might be aggressiveness, regression to less mature forms of behavior, or on-the-job indifference in which he literally says, "To hell with this outfit." Handling Conflicts I have already said that there are not yet enough skilled interveners, mediators, negotiators, peace-builders at work to help groups at war to solve their problems. There is another problem, that is, those who are already at work are not yet fully in co-ordinated organizations. There are many different peacebuilding groups, many different approaches, and many different time scales. Variety is a good thing, but the experience and knowledge needs to be shared. A coherent overall network with good communications are needed so that everyone knows what everyone else is doing and the work is not duplicated unnecessarily to avoid waste in the system. This is where the idea of coalition comes in. A coalition is an alliance of people or groups working together for a shared purpose. Political coalitions quickly encounter problems, because every member wants to lead. Nevertheless, social coalitions are not interested in power: they work for the common good of everyone. If the different groups, institutions and individuals already working for the peaceful resolution of conflict form coalitions, then a peace-building network begins to take shape. Where there is a strong network of strong relationships, war is less likely to recur. It means a coalition of interveners too: members of this young and exciting profession
THE CONFLICTS

64
have a lot to communicate and a lot to learn from each other, all round the world. As they do, a culture of peace can begin to

THE CONFLICTS

65
CHAPTER FIVE

66

ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT THE CONCERNS?

The Inevitability of Conflict onflict occurs naturally when people interact. For example, if you and I are working together on a task, we are going to disagree about how something should be done, or what each of us should be doing to get the task done, or perhaps some other issues like how I might be treating you, or vice versa. That's normal, and in fact there is a positive aspect about it. When you and I disagree, and even get into heated conversation, it means that you and I care enough about the issue to take a stand, advocate and argue for what we believe is best. According to Schimdt (1974), teams, organizations, and even individuals need conflict interactions to grow. New ideas can emerge from conflicts--new ways of thinking and doing things that can be useful to everyone. So long as we work together in teams and organizations, and people care about what they are doing and how they are treated, we will have disagreements and conflict in the workplace. We can't eliminate all conflict, neither would we want to because we would lose an important way to grow our teams, organizations and ourselves.
THE CONFLICTS

Schimdt (1974) went further to express that there are two kinds of conflict that are not growth producing or productive. The first is conflict that is unnecessary--that occurs as a result of the language we use with each other. For example, if, in a meeting, I call another team-member an idiot", I would be creating a conflict which is not likely to be productive or constructive. The second kind of conflict is conflict that, regardless of the issue being dealt with in ways that make the conflict irresolvable, and where each person's behavior is akin to throwing gasoline onto a fire. In my work with public sector managers and supervisors, the issue that generates the most emotion, and frustrated comments, is conflict within the organization. We generally do not look at conflict as opportunity but rather, we tend to think about conflict as unpleasant, counter-productive and timeconsuming and those who initiate it are seen as bad, controversial and better still enemies of progress. Conflict that occurs in organizations need not be destructive, provided the energy associated with it is harnessed and directed towards problem-solving and organizational improvement. However, managing conflict effectively requires that all parties understand the nature of conflict in the workplace.

The Positive and The Negative There are two ways of looking at organizational conflict. Each of these ways is linked to a different set of assumptions about the purpose and function of organizations.

THE CONFLICTS

67
The Positive The benefits of organizational conflict has to do with conflict and disagreement that allows the organization or people in it to grow, solve problems more effectively, and counter-balance the inertia that most organizations develop. Good organizational conflict contributes to helping people to examine that which is taken for granted, old ways of doing things that may no longer be optimal, and stimulate creativity and problem solving (Schimdt, 1974). For organizations to benefit from conflict, a few things need to happen. People in the organization need to be able to separate the personal, emotional aspects of conflict from the problemsolving parts. When people become overly invested in their positions, they tend to make organizational enemies as conflicts become more and more personalized. Personalization means that people forget they are on the same side and see each other as very personal enemies. Second, people in the organization need the skills and understanding required to interact in conflict situations so they avoid escalating conflicts They need to understand how to "fight fair", and stay focused on problem-solving. Schimdt (1974) explained that the functional view of organizational conflict sees conflict as a productive force, one that can stimulate members of the organization to increase their knowledge and skills, and their contribution to organizational innovation and productivity. Unlike the
THE CONFLICTS

68
position mentioned above, this more modern approach considers that the keys to the success of an organization lie not in structure, clarity and orderliness, but in creativity, responsiveness and adaptability. The successful organization, then, needs conflict so that diverging views can be put on the table, and new ways of doing things can be created. The functional view of conflict also suggests that conflict provides people with feedback about how things are going. Even "personality conflicts" carry information to the manager about what is not working in an organization, affording the opportunity to improve. If you subscribe to a flexible vision of effective organizations, and recognize that each conflict situation provides opportunity to improve, you then shift your view of conflict. Rather than trying to eliminate conflict, or suppress its symptoms, your task becomes managing conflict so that it enhances people and organizations, rather than destroying people and organizations. Therefore, the task is to manage conflict, and not to allow conflict to eat away at team cohesiveness and productivity.

The Bad Schimdt (1974) opines that conflict is not always healthy, and there are several signs that suggest destructive conflict is setting in and managers and supervisors must asked themselves the following questions: Are staff meetings silent? Is one (or several staff members) sitting arms crossed, not
THE CONFLICTS

69
actively participating? Are there staff members who are not speaking to each other? Are there patterns of unusual sick leave being taken by employees who are not usually sick? Can you feel the tension? Have you witnessed or heard of inappropriate behaviors occurring? These are all signs of unhealthy conflict brewing and needs to be addressed. I remember when I was working at a certain Junior High School; someone had lodged a complaint of sexual harassment against a fellow employee. When they approached the manager of the school about the behavior and the ongoing conflict, the manager apparently said the two of you should sort it out. That complainant went from bad to obnoxious state very quickly. When you have staff in conflict, it is important to focus on the behavior, not the person or the labels. It is also important to nip these conflicts in the bud as soon as possible, or they have the potential to escalate into more serious conflicts. Communication problems are an important source of conflict according to Marles (1986). Marles explained that some workers may be very task orientated and not so focused on the relationship. Others may have a greater emphasis on relationship and spend more time building relationships and making sure all parties are comfortable with decisions. As a result, both staff members may interpret the same event quite differently, and be frustrated with each other's communication styles. It is important that they are given the space and structure to discuss the issues and look at how they are going to move forward. This can start with a meeting
THE CONFLICTS

70
designed to let the parties air their differences, discuss the underlying issues and look for a resolution without focusing on blame and culpability. Acting as an intermediary, the manager can set an agenda where both parties are able to explain their side of the story and hear the others perspective. Ground rules regarding behaviors need to be set and it is a good idea to let the parties set these themselves so they feel as though they are having input into how the meeting is run. As the referee, the manager might have to have final say if the conflict is about issues that are against the law or company policy. He or she might have to tell one party that their behavior is not acceptable. However, once this is out on the table, the parties can address future behaviors and discuss how they are going to interact in the future. It is important that managers document things when they meet the parties, note what was agreed on, and follow up with both parties to check whether the conflict is truly resolved. Nipping these conflicts 'in the bud' also ensures that a good working relationship between the parties is possible. The no blame focus means that the parties can concentrate on seeking a resolution rather than focusing on culpability and retribution. If the conflict is entrenched or complex, sometimes external mediators who are professionally trained in conflict resolution are more able to facilitate a positive resolution. The dysfunctional view of organizational conflict is imbedded in the notion that organizations are created to achieve goals by creating structures that perfectly define job responsibilities, authorities, and other job functions. Like a clockwork watch, each "cog" knows where it fits, knows what it must do and
THE CONFLICTS

71
knows how it relates to other parts. This traditional view of organizations values orderliness, stability and the repression of any conflict that occurs. Using the timepiece analogy, we can see the sense in this. What would happen to time telling if the gears in our traditional watches decide to become less traditional, and re-define their roles in the system? To the "traditional" organizational thinker, conflict implies that the organization is not designed or structured correctly or adequately. Common remedies would be to further elaborate job descriptions, authorities and responsibilities, increase the use of central power (discipline), separate conflicting members, etc. This view of organizations and conflict causes problems. Unfortunately, most of us, consciously or unconsciously, value some of the characteristics of this "orderly" environment. Problems arise when we do not realize that this way of looking at organizations and conflict only fits organizations that work in routine ways where innovation and changes are virtually eliminated. Virtually all government organizations work within a very disorderly context, one characterized by constant change and a need for constant adaptation. Trying to "structure away" conflict and disagreement in a dynamic environment requires tremendous amounts of energy, and will also suppress any positive outcomes that may come from disagreement, such as improved decision-making and innovation. The Obnoxious /Objectionable

72
We have conflict which is positive, the negative (conflict is to be avoided), and now we need to address the obnoxious. An obnoxious conflict occurs where the manager (and perhaps employees) attempt to eliminate or suppress conflict in situations where it is impossible to do so. You must know you have an objectionable in your organization when: conflicts run for years many is a good deal of private bitching and complaining there but little attempt to fix the problem show little interest in working to common goals, staff but spend more time and energy on protecting themselves conflict between the parties runs for a long time and across many issues people have given up resolving the conflict and have moved to trying to score points. people in the conflict focus on personal issues, such as attributes, ways of talking, and personal qualities such as loyalty and rudeness. people are often labeled. participants look to a higher authority to "fix" the problem using power (e.g. going to the boss to have someone fired or disciplined).

THE CONFLICTS

THE CONFLICTS

73
Schimdt (1974) stated that the objectionable sorts of conflicts are those that trigger a media and or a legal response. These are conflicts such as bullying, sexual harassment, discrimination or industrial conflicts. One of the problems with the ugly conflicts is that even if the alleged behaviors did not occur, the organization still suffers. There are no winners (except maybe the lawyers). These objectionable conflicts have a financial cost in terms of legal fees, increased staff turnover, difficulty recruiting, increased absenteeism, workers compensation, stress claims, as well as damaging the organizations reputation. These sorts of conflicts are usually characterized by entrenched positions and attempts to defeat the other party. Because of the potential of conflicts escalating into very objectionable conflicts, all inappropriate behavior needs to be addressed by management. The bottom line is that managers are accountable, and they cannot afford to put 'bad' conflicts on the backburner. If a manager hears of, witnesses or is made informally aware of potential inappropriate behavior, they have a duty of care, and a legal obligation to follow it up and prevent or stop the behavior. Once again, my advice is to document any intervention and follow up, in order to prevent these objectionable conflicts occurring. There is also the need to have clear policies around behavioral expectations, and these policies need to be understood by all staff. There is also the need to have guidelines for staff on what to do if they feel they are being treated inappropriately and where they can go to for help in resolving the conflict. Conflict never has to reach the obnoxious stage. An organization that both encourages healthy debate and nips inappropriate behaviors in the bud
THE CONFLICTS

74
goes a long way to nurturing a culture of growth and respect amongst its employees. Contributors to Objectionable Conflicts in the Workplace Conflicts move from positive to objectionable in a number of ways. In addition to the ways people interact, organizations as a whole conspire to create objectionable conflict. If we look at organizations that tend to foster a great deal of ugly conflict, we find that they seem to share some or all of the following. Managers and supervisors are usually an integral part of the problem. Most of the ugly strategies used by managers, employees, and organizations as a whole are based on the repression of conflict or by shifting the conflict issue from the specific issue to personal issues. When we get extreme conflicts occurring in organizations, there is a tendency to look to the manager or formal leader as being responsible for the mess. In fact, that is how most employees would look at the situation. It is true that managers and supervisors play critical roles in determining how conflict is handled in the organization, but it is also true that the avoidance of objectionable conflicts must be a shared responsibility. Management and employees must work together in a cooperative way to reduce the ugliness, and increase the likelihood that conflict can be channeled into an effective force for change.

THE CONFLICTS

75
Indeed, we do live in an important age, saturated with many forms and intensities of conflict. While conflicts of value are slow to erupt between individuals and institutions in a stable society, they are prevalent in times of rapid change. In our age of dynamic change, it is imperative that the manager understand the source of; and various strategies for dealing with conflict, which inevitably occurs in organizations. Typical of this conflict is the breakdown of communication between management and labor; between a commander and his troops; or between a secretary and her supervisor. Even more common, perhaps, is the overt and often hostile dysfunctional competition that erupts between work centers, peers, or social groups vying for scarce resources or attention. In my discovery of conflict, it is possible to become obsessed and preoccupied with its prevalence in society. This concern may veil the much more important acts of cooperation and harmony that characterize normal organizational and society life; like that which we expect and usually find, for example, between administrators and lecturers in a University. However, as a basis for our discussion, we must agree that conflict is a major organizational reality. As managers, it is essential that we become capable of managing conflict in an environment of individual and group differences. Every conflict holds the opportunity for creating improved processes and developing innovative procedures. We are all familiar with the negative attributes of conflictavoidance, immobility, violence, inertia, and maintenance of the status quo. However, conflict has a positive side brimming with opportunities. Conflict has the ability to foster creativity, higher thinking,
THE CONFLICTS

76
better listening skills, and change. These, in turn, provide management with the tools for significant improvement. It is inevitable that we will run into conflict. How we choose to deal with it, in a negative or positive manner, is key to long-term growth and success. Successful organizations generally deal with conflict in a positive, proactive manner. Superior conflict management skills can develop into a core competence, enabling organizations to gain a continuing competitive advantage in its industry. If operating units focus their response on internal conflicts towards finding creative, productive solutions, the organization will function at an accelerated level of efficiency. If the focus is antagonism and/or avoidance, efficiency suffers. Differences, which result in initiative and creativity, are stimulating for those involved, and such conflict is essential for progress. Means to Stimulate Conflict Not all conflict is bad, therefore, there will be times when a manager/manageress would want conflict (of the right type), and it would be advantageous for him/her to know some means of stimulation. In a number of instances, s/he could strive to create the situations S/he earlier worked to eliminate. For example, s/he might create win-lose situations in which a form of competitiveness might be engendered. This often works in such areas as selling an idea, recognizing the creation of new approaches to organizational success, etc. A means to do this according to Minkes (1994) is to de-emphasize the need
References

77
for everyone to contribute to overall organizational success. That is, the manager/manageress begins to emphasize the accomplishments or performance of individual people, or separate units, in lieu of stressing the performance of the whole. S/he must be cautious, though, and avoid creating a monster that becomes an even greater problem than the absence of productive conflict. Individuals are the creative segments of society. True, the synergism of two more individuals often makes us think of organizational creativity, but really, it is the individual who creates. Therefore, stimulation of creative conflict can be obtained by increasing the autonomy of individuals on their jobs. A less demanding imposed structure, granting more freedom for the individual to choose and decide for himself, usually creates an environment in which the creative nature is fanned to flame. Similarly, a decrease in supervisory overhead (a widening of the organization) can accomplish this result. Again, though, the manager must be cautious and remain in control of the situation lest it get out of hand. It is sometimes easy to forget the real goals of the organization as we get enmeshed in the thrill of innovation. Another means of stimulation is to de-clarify goals. That is, redefined them in such a manner as to create questions and discussion. The cautions already stated apply, but this device can serve many useful purposes. A principal gain can be the encouragement of challenge and question for all operating segments, policies, and procedures of the organization. When people begin to question what they are doing, how they are
References

78
doing it, or why they are doing it, new ideas and approaches begin to surface. So encourage questioning and challenge the existing as a method of stimulating desired differences of thought. The "rebel," the individual, who does not blindly accept what already exists, can be such a stimulant. He or she can be discomforting, but energizing, as each asks those questions that the old hands and the managers cannot readily answer with convincing logic. A planted rebel can be a stimulating device if the organizational element in which he is placed is strong enough to handle the turbulence likely to follow. Conflict is a state of unresolved difference between two entities, human or organization. Sometimes the difference is functionally productive, as with creativity; but sometimes it is dysfunctional, as with war or sabotage or less drastic results. Conflict should not, therefore, be naturally considered either bad or good. It will be bad or good depending upon the value base of the interpreter. Nevertheless, conflict of some form is inevitable whenever two or more humans are in some interdependent relationship. The important aspect of conflict is how the human participants relate and respond to it. Managers must control conflict. That is, they must keep dysfunctional conflict at an acceptable level, but, also, they must learn to stimulate functionally productive conflict when it is at too low level.

Obnoxious Strategies In future, I will look at what you can do to proactively manage conflict to increase the probability that positive outcomes
References

79
occur. Right now, let's look at some common strategies that result in the increase of ugly conflict. Most of the ugly strategies used by managers, employees, and organizations as a whole are based on the repression of conflict in one way or another. We need to point that, in general, you want to avoid these approaches like the plague. Secrecy

80
A common means of avoiding conflict (or repressing it) is to be secretive. Employees and managers can do this. The notion is that if nobody knows what you are doing, there can be little conflict. If you think about this for a moment, you will realize its absurdity. By being secretive, you may delay conflict and confrontation, but when it does surface, it will have far more negative emotions attached to it than would have been the case if things were more open. The earlier you try to manage and resolve conflict, the better it would be for both parties.

Not Taken an action The most common repressive management strategy is nonaction, that is, doing nothing. Now, sometimes, doing nothing is a smart thing to do, provided the decision to do nothing is well thought out and based on an analysis of the situation. Most of the time, people "do nothing" about conflict situations for other reasons, such as fear of bringing conflict into view, or discomfort with anger. Unfortunately, doing nothing generally results in conflict escalating, and sets a tone for the organization..."we don't have conflict here". Everyone knows you have conflict, and if you seem oblivious, you also seem dense and out of touch.

Law and Order The final obnoxious strategy is law and order. Normally, managers who mistakenly think that they can order people not to be in conflict use this strategy. Using regulations and power, the person using this approach "leans on" people to repress the outward manifestations of conflicts. Organizations can also use policies as law and order. Of course, this does not make conflict go away, it just sends it scuttling to the underground, where it will germinate and grow and increase its destructive power.

Administrative Orbiting Administrative orbiting means keeping appeals for change or redress always "under consideration". While non-action suggests obliviousness since it does not even acknowledge the problem, orbiting acknowledges the problem, but avoids dealing with it. The manager who uses orbiting will say things like "We are dealing with the problem", but the problem never gets addressed. Common stalls include: collecting more data, documenting performance, cancelling meetings, etc.
References

Conclusion The notion that conflict should be avoided is one of the major contributors to the growth of destructive conflict in the workplace. The negative view of conflict is associated with a vision of organizational effectiveness that is no longer valid (and perhaps never was). Conflict can be directed and
THE CONFLICTS

81
managed so that it causes both people and organizations to grow, innovate and improve. However, this requires that conflict not be repressed, since attempts to repress are more likely to generate very ugly situations. Common repression strategies to be avoided are: non-action, administrative orbiting, secrecy and law and order.

82

REFERENCES
Abraham, M. (1965). Eupsychian Management. Homewood, Illinois Antonioni, D. (1998). 'Relationship between the Big Five personality factors and conflict management style', International Journal of Conflict Management', 9(4): 336-355. Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and Organization. New York: Harper Torchbooks. Costley, D. L & Todd, R. (1987). Human relations in organisations, 3rd Edition. St. Paul: West Publishing Company. Condliffe, P. (1991). Conflict Management: a practical guide. Victoria: TAFE Publications RMIT. De Bono, E. (1985). Conflicts: A Better Way to Resolve Them. London: Harrap. Douglas McGregor (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill Filley, A. C. (1975). Interpersonal Conflict Resolution. Glenview IL: Scott, Foresman.

THE CONFLICTS

THE CONFLICTS

83
Hellriegel, D., Slocum, J.W., Jr. & Woodman, R.W. (1992). Organizational Behaviour, Sixth edition. St. Paul: West Publishing Company House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. (1972). Conflict and ambiguity as critical variables in a model of organizational behaviour. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7: 467505. Kabanoff, B. (1989). 'Conflict management styles: why is compromise so favorably viewed?', Australian Journal of Management. 14(1): 29- 47. Kahn, R. L. (1964). Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Kirchoff, N., & Adams, J. R. (1982). Conflict Management for Project Managers. Drexel Hill: Project Management Institute. Lambert, J., & Myers, S. (1999). 50 Activities for conflict resolution. Amherst, MA: HR Development Press. Lambert, J., & Myers, S. (1999). 50 Activities for conflict resolution. Amherst, MA: HR Development Press. Lippid, G. L. (1994). 'Managing conflict in today's organisations', Developing Managerial Skill Organisation Behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall. Marles, F. (1986). 'Managing conflict in organisations', Managing Conflict Better. Human Resource Centre and Institute for Peace Research, La Trobe University.
THE CONFLICTS

84
Minkes, A. L. (1994). 'Process, conflict and commitment in organisational decision making', Journal of General Management, 20(2): 78-90. Mondros, J. B., Woodrow, R., & Weinstein, L., (1992). 'The use of groups to manage conflict', Social Work with Groups, 15(4): 43-56. Moore, C., (1943). How Mediation Works in The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict. Owens, R. G. (1987). Organizational behavior in education, 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- Hall, Inc. Pitman. T. S., & Weed, F. (1983). Conflict in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. Schmidt. W. H. (1974). "Conflict, A Powerful Process for (Good or Bad) Change," Management Review, December 1974, pp. 4-10 Stephen, P. R. (1974). Managing Organizational Conflict. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, p. 19. Thomas, K. W., & Kilman, R. H. (1974). Conflict Mode Instrument. Tuxedo, New York Tosi, H. L., Rizzo, J. R., & Carroll, S. J. (1986). Organizational Behaviour. New York

THE CONFLICTS