Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 15

Intergroup conflict

Freud described a similarly quasi-benign version, whereby "it is


precisely communities with adjoining territories, and related to
each other in other ways as well, who are engaged in constant
feuds and ridiculing each other like the Spaniards and
Portuguese, for instance...[as] a convenient and relatively
harmless satisfaction of the inclination to aggression, by means
of which cohesion between the members of the community is
made easier".

The harder version of the theory would suggest that "pent-up


sub-group aggression, if it cannot combine with the pent-up
aggression of other sub-groups to attack a common, foreign
enemy, will vent itself in the form of riots, persecutions and
rebellions".

WHAT IS CONFLICT?

Conflict can occur in both competitive and cooperative


situations. To show this, let us review the matrix game
presented in the description of Deutsch's relational definition for
"group" in Chapter 1. Two people play the matrix game. Each
must choose between two possible moves: "Yes" and "No."
After both move each receives a certain number of points,
which depends both on their own move and on the other's
move.

Scientists who examine the implications of matrix games are


called "game theorists." Game theorists make several
assumptions about how people act in game situations. They
assume that each person knows all the moves that both they
themselves and their opponent can make, along with the
number of points that will result from all possible combinations
of moves. They assume that people consider only the number
of points each will make in the short run when deciding which
move to make. Finally, they assume that the goal of game
players is to win as many points as possible for themselves,
while not caring about how many points their opponent wins. In
other words, game players are seen as having "individualistic"
orientations.

Conflict, according to Deutsch, exists whenever Person A and


Person B choose actions that are incompatible. In other words,
conflict exists when Person A makes moves that make it harder
for Person B to reach his or her goal.

In a competitive situation, as shown in Figure 4.1, Deutsch's


version of conflict is most apparent. The normal goal is to win
as many points as possible in the game. Any move by Person
A to reach his or her goal of having the most points will make it
more difficult for Person B to reach his or her goal of having the
most points, and vice versa.

CAUSES OF INTERGROUP CONFLICT

When trying to prevent or correct intergroup conflict, it is


important to consider the history of relations between the
groups in conflict. History will repeat itself if left to its own
devices.

Limited resources and reward structures can foster intergroup


conflict by making the differences in group goals more
apparent. Differences in perceptions among groups regarding
time and status, when coupled with different group goals, can
also create conflict.

Reorganization of the workplace and integration of services and


facilities can be stressful to some and create negative conflict.
Some individuals within the group have inherent traits or social
histories that impact intergroup conflict, but problems within
intergroup relations are not usually caused by the deviate
behavior of a few individuals.

CONSEQUENCES OF INTERGROUP CONFLICT

Haughtiness and isolation quickly lead to decreased


communication. Communication is the key between groups in
reciprocal interdependence, and these have the highest
negative consequences for lack of effective communication.
Miscommunication can be the death knell of any organization.

Intergroup conflict causes changes to occur, both within the


groups in conflict and between them. Within the groups,
members will usually overlook individual differences in an effort
to unite against the other side, and with this concerted effort the
focus is on the task.

SOLUTIONS TO INTERGROUP CONFLICT

This approach is especially effective on relatively simple


conflicts and is viewed as a short-term remedy.

Yet another quick fix is the authoritative command, where


groups, who cannot satisfactorily resolve their conflict, are
commanded by management. This response does not usually
deal with the underlying cause of the conflict, which is likely to
surface again in some way. This would probably be a choice of
last resort in this era of individual independence and self-
determination.

Although it is not always possible to change a person's


behavior, by focusing on the cause of the conflict and the
attitudes of those involved, it will lead to a more permanent
resolution. It is also possible to change the structural variables
involving the conflicting groups, such as changing jobs or
rearranging reporting responsibilities.

This approach is much more effective when the groups


themselves participate in structural change decisions. Without
meaningful input, this resolution method resembles avoidance
or forcing and is not likely to succeed, further frustrating all
involved.

Any method or response to conflict, lost productivity,


miscommunication, or unhealthy work environment can be
reconstituted in many forms of ADR. Alternative dispute
resolution should also be appropriate to the needs of those
involved. It is crucial that the organization determines the needs
of its stakeholders, the types of conflict that occur, and the
conflict culture (how conflict is dealt with) within the
organization before initiating an ADR program.

Any program must allow for creativity, approachability, and


flexibility if people are asked to utilize it. All employees should
be aware or involved in the establishment of an ADR program,
if it is to work properly.
Without full involvement or input, needs assessment is hit or
miss, and assumptions lead to actions, which lead to the same
place you were before.

This assumicide behavior by an organization's leadership would


not be tolerated in marketing a new product or acquiring a
capital asset, so why are people less important?

In this major commitment of time and resources, success is its


best reward, but to ensure an ADR approach suitable for you, it
is important to:

Build trust

Clearly define participants' roles and authorities

Establish ground rules

Promote leadership

Bring a collaborative attitude to the table


Maintain participant continuity

Recognize time and resource constraints

When an organization is creating a dispute resolution process,


there are key factors to success:

1. Strategic cooperation among historical enemies;

2. Realistic and satisfactory outcomes;


3. A moratorium on hostilities or conflict-seeking behavior.

THERE ALSO ARE BARRIERS TO SUCCESS:

1. Corporate philosophy;

2. Top leadership reluctance;

3. Lack of knowledge about ADR;

4. Lack of success stories.

The workplace of the new millenium will have in-house


mediation or other conflict management programs to reduce
formal claims and act as a risk management business practice.

Responsible measures to reduce barriers and encourage a true


paradigm shift are training, incentives, marketing, periodic
review, case studies, and top management support and
participation.

GROUP CONFLICT

Group conflict can be separated into two sub-categories of


conflict: inter-group conflict (in which distinct groups of
individuals are at odds with one another), and intra-group
conflict (in which select individuals that are part of the same
group clash with one another). Although both forms of conflict
have the ability to spiral upward in severity, it has been noted
that conflict present at the group level (i.e., inter-group rivalries)
is generally considered to be more powerful than conflict
present at an individual level a phenomenon known as the
discontinuity effect.
BELIEF DOMAINS THAT CONTRIBUTE

Vulnerability: At the individual level, vulnerability refers to a


person's belief that he or she is perpetually in harm's way. At
the group level, this belief is manifested in the form of fears
about the future.

This vulnerability can manifest itself in a group as catastrophic


thinking when the envisioned worst-case scenario is seen as
being inevitable. Chirot (2001) notes that the genocides of
Armenia, Germany, Cambodia, and Rwanda shared a common
belief that "if they did not destroy their real or imagined enemies
first, they would themselves be annihilated" (p. 10).

Distrust: At the individual level, this belief focuses on the


presumed intent of others to cause harm and/or exhibit hostility.
The notion of trust is often seen by psychologists as the first
challenge of psychosocial development.

At the group level, this worldview focuses specifically on the


perspective that outgroups are dishonest, untrustworthy and
have negative intentions toward the in group.

In more extreme manifestations, this belief is similar to


collective paranoia, which is defined as collectively held beliefs,
either false or exaggerated that cluster around ideas of being
harmed, harassed, threatened, or otherwise disparaged by
malevolent outgroups.
Even when no such hostility exists, this distrust belief can
cause group members to see any behavior by the other as
hostile and malevolent.

Helplessness: At the individual level, helplessness focuses on


the belief that even carefully planned and executed actions will
fail to produce the desired outcome. When taken at the group
level, it translates into a collective mindset of powerlessness
and dependency.

The group shares a pessimistic approach which focuses on


their own weaknesses, and attributes setbacks to their own
limitations.

Helplessness, when it exists as a shared belief within a group,


serves as a constraint on organized political movement, as
those who participate in a social movement must see
themselves as capable of righting the wrongs they perceive.

PERSPECTIVES

Girard

Ren Girard saw "collective violence as sacred...[as] the great


remedy for communal life".

He saw the violence directed at the group scapegoat as


"absorbing all the internal tensions, feuds, and rivalries pent up
within the community...a deliberate act of collective
substitution".
His view parallels the Freudian approach, rooted in Totem and
Taboo, which considers that "transgression... is at the origin of
a higher complexity, something to which the realm of civilization
owes its development".

Freud saw violence as standing at the root of the social bond


"what prevails is no longer the violence of an individual but that
of a community" and thus "politics made out of
delinquency...the social contract establishes corporate virtue as
an asylum for individual sin".

Girard concluded therefore that regression and 'the dissolution


of differences encourages the proliferation of the double
bind...spells the disintegration of social institutions', to reveal
the group conflict latent at their core.

TYPES OF CONFLICT

When you think of the different types of conflict, you might


instantly think of the ones referred to in literature, especially in
fiction. They can be applied to real life, of course. However,
there are types of conflict which are easily identifiable in our
contemporary times.

Conflict is classified into the following types:

Interpersonal conflict:

Interpersonal conflict refers to a conflict between two


individuals.
This occurs typically due to how people are different from one
another. We have varied personalities which usually results to
incompatible choices and opinions.

Apparently, it is a natural occurrence which can eventually help


in personal growth or developing your relationships with others.
In addition, coming up with adjustments is necessary for
managing this type of conflict.

However, when interpersonal conflict gets too destructive,


calling in a mediator would help so as to have it resolved.

Intrapersonal conflict:

Intrapersonal conflict occurs within an individual. The


experience takes place in the persons mind. Hence, it is a type
of conflict that is psychological involving the individuals
thoughts, values, principles and emotions.

Interpersonal conflict may come in different scales, from the


simpler mundane ones like deciding whether or not to go
organic for lunch to ones that can affect major decisions such
as choosing a career path.

Furthermore, this type of conflict can be quite difficult to handle


if you find it hard to decipher your inner struggles. It leads to
restlessness and uneasiness, or can even cause depression. In
such occasions, it would be best to seek a way to let go of the
anxiety through communicating with other people.

Eventually, when you find yourself out of the situation, you can
become more empowered as a person.
Thus, the experience evoked a positive change which will help
you in your own personal growth.

Conflict may seem to be a problem to some, but this isnt how


conflict should be perceived. On the other hand, it is an
opportunity for growth and can be an effective means of
opening up among groups or individuals. However, when
conflict begins to draws back productivity and gives way to
more conflicts, then conflict management would be needed to
come up with a resolution.

TYPES OF TEAM CONFLICT

Differences are inevitable when passionate people work


together.

Eventually, after a team gets through an initial orientation with a


new task, members usually come to the realization that working
together to accomplish a common goal is tough work.

This occurs in the dissatisfaction stage of team development


when the team recognizes the discrepancy between what is
expected of them and the reality of getting it done. It is not a
pleasant stage.

As a leader its important to differentiate between the different


types of conflict teams experience and to have a plan for
helping the team move forward.
Here are four examples of team conflict and some advice on
how a leader can intervene properly from Dr. Eunice Parisi-
Carew, teams expert, and coauthor of the upcoming
book, Collaboration Begins With You.
Conflict over positions, strategies or opinions

If two or three strong, but differing, positions are being argued


in the group and it is getting nowhere, a leader might stop the
group and ask each member to take a turn talking with no
interruption or debate.

The rest are just to listen and try to understand where they are
coming from and why they are posing the solution that they
are. It may go something like this.

Leader: Lets stop for a minute.

I want each of you state what is underneath your argument.


What is your desire, your concern, your goal, your fear or your
need that leads you to that conclusion?

In this instance, the leaders job is to make sure everyone is


heard. When the exercise is completed the leader should look
for concerns or goals that people have in common.

Once all are uncovered, the leader can build on any interests
that are shared.

In most cases this becomes the new focus and it turns the
situation from conflict to problem solving.

Mistrust or uneven communication

If some people on the team are dominating the conversation


while others sit silent or appear to have dropped out, a leader
might stop the process and ask each person what they need
from others to feel effective in the group and how others can
help.

Another simple practice is to appoint a process observer whose


job it is to focus on how the team is interacting.

If the teams gets out of kilterit might be tempers are rising or


communication is not flowingthe process observer is allowed
to call time and point out their observations.

For example, In the last five minutes we have interrupted the


speaker 10 times, or, We keep talking over each other.

Just knowing this fact can alter the teams interaction. Soon the
team will catch itself. It is harder to misbehave once you know
what the impact of your behavior is.

Discrimination Issues

Discrimination can be a source of heated conflict, potentially


ending in legal trouble for a company or its owners.
Discriminatory conflicts can arise from personal prejudices on
the part of employees or perceptions of mistreatment of
employees.

As an example of a discrimination-related conflict, imagine a


minority employee in a team setting who feels that he is
consistently assigned the most menial work tasks in the group.
This employee may begin to harbor resentment against team
members and managers, eventually lashing out through
decreased productivity or outright verbal conflict.
To resolve this issue, a manager could sit down with the whole
team and discuss the way in which job tasks are assigned,
making changes as necessary to ensure that tasks are divided
equitably.

Performance-Review Conflicts

No employee likes to receive a negative performance review,


but giving negative feedback in a review can be unavoidable
based on the employee's own actions during the review period.
Employees may become angry over not receiving expected pay
raises, promotions or other performance-related incentives, and
may lash out by spreading discontent through gossip and a
negative attitude at work.

Employees may argue directly with supervisors during


performance reviews, creating sensitive situations that require
tactful communication.

To resolve a conflict arising from a negative performance


review, work directly with the employee to create a solid, time-
bound plan of action to improve her performance, and tie the
completion of these goals to guaranteed incentives. Allow
employees a voice when setting goals to increase their
dedication to achieving the goals.

Conflicts with Customers

Sales and customer service employees can experience conflict


with customers on a fairly regular basis, depending on the
industry. A common conflict experienced by salespeople is a
dissatisfied customer who feels personally defrauded by an
individual salesperson.
For example, if a car salesman sells a used car without a
performance guarantee or warranty and the car breaks down
on the buyer, the buyer may return to angrily confront the
salesperson and demand a refund.

The best first step to solve these conflicts is to involve a


manager who has the right to offer refunds, discounts or other
conciliatory gestures to the customer unless you are in a
situation where employees are empowered to make these
kinds of decisions.

Leadership Conflicts

Personality clashes between managers and subordinates can


cause a range of interpersonal conflicts to arise. Employees
may feel bullied or pushed by more authoritarian managers, or
may perceive a lack of guidance from more hands-off
managers.

Managers with type-A personalities may set goals that are too
ambitious for their subordinates, setting them up for failure and
inevitable conflict. To handle these personality mismatches,
first try to garner an understanding between the manager and
the subordinate so that each understands the others'
perspective in the situation.

Never treat conflict management situations as disciplinary


hearings, as if managers are inherently right and employees
are inherently wrong; this is a reliable way to lose good
employees. If the two cannot come to an understanding, place
the employee under the supervision of another manager if
possible.

Вам также может понравиться