The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1044-4068.htm
IJCMA
21,2
186
Received 7 May 2008
Accepted 25 May 2009
International Journal of Conflict
Management
Vol. 21 No. 2, 2010
pp. 186-201
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1044-4068
DOI 10.1108/10444061011037404
A re-evaluation of conflict theory
for the management of multiple,
simultaneous conflict episodes
James Speakman
IESEG School of Management, Catholic University of Lille, Lille, France, and
Lynette Ryals
Cranfield School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK
Abstract
Purpose – This conceptual paper aims to draw upon recent complexity and organizational
psychology literature to examine conflict episodes, exploring the limitations of the predominant
research paradigm that treats conflict episodes as occurring in sequence, as discrete isolated incidents.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper addresses a long-standing issue in conflict
management research, which is that the predominant typology of conflict is confusing. The
complexity perspective challenges the fundamental paradigm, which has dominated research in the
conflict field, in which conflict episodes occur in sequence and in isolation, with managers using one
predominant form of conflict resolution behavior.
Findings – The findings are two-fold: first, the behavioral strategies adopted in the management of
these conflicts will be highly complex and will be determined by a number of influencing factors; and
second, this moves theory beyond the two dimensional duel concern perspective, in that the adaptable
manager dealing with these multiple, simultaneous conflicts will also need to consider the possible
implications of their chosen strategy along with the changing micro environment in which they
operate.
Originality/value – This paper adds value to the field of conflict theory by moving beyond two
dimensions and exploring a sequential contingency perspective for conflict management within the
organization. It argues that multiple conflict episodes can occur simultaneously, requiring managers to
use differing behaviors for successful conflict management.
Keywords Conflict management, Conflict resolution, Organizational conflict, Individual behaviour,
Interpersonal relations
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
It is now over 40 years since Louis Pondy (1967) wrote his seminal article on conflict
within the organization and its management and almost 20 years since his reflections on
his earlier work were published (Pondy, 1989)[1]. In 1967 Pondy established what was for
two decades the generally accepted paradigm of conflict: that conflict episodes occur as
temporary disruptions to the otherwise cooperative relationships which make up the
organization (Pondy, 1967). In his subsequent reflections on his earlier work and that of
others, Pondy proposed that conflict is an inherent feature of organizational life, rather
than an occasional breakdown of cooperation (Pondy, 1989). This radically challenged
the previous paradigm. Indeed, Pondy (1989) even suggested that research into the
phenomenon of cooperation within the organization could be beneficial in providing
further insight into conflict within the organization, implying that it was cooperation, not
conflict, which was the anomalous state requiring investigation. Yet, for almost two A re-evaluation
decades, Pondy’s conceptualization of conflict as a natural state for the organization has of conflict theory
remained largely unexplored despite the emergence of a complexity perspective which
explores multiple elements of the conflict situation or cooperative state.
One possible reason why Pondy’s challenge has not been answered is that some
confusion has arisen over the terms and typologies used for the classification of conflict
episodes. Consequently, debates about conflict structure or composition have tended to 187
dominate the research agenda. The potential for confusion arising from these various
conflict classifications will be discussed in this paper. Where conflict management
behaviors have been studied, researchers have tended to focus on a two-dimensional
approach or “dual concern theory” model (Thomas, 1976) which suggests that
individuals adopt conflict management behaviors based on their perceived self
interests and those of others; i.e. concern for self (competitive behaviors) versus
concern for other (accommodating behaviors). Although this approach to the research
of conflict and its management fits well with Pondy’s (1967) original paradigm, it is
challenged by the complexity perspective that has emerged in psychology research.
The complexity perspective of intraorganizational conflict maintains that
interpersonal relationships are more complex than hitherto thought, and that the
unfolding conflict is influenced by a wide variety of conditions. Moreover the
complexity perspective encourages the consideration of simultaneous complexity
(more than one event occurring simultaneously) and of how the mode of conflict
management affects the outcomes (Munduate et al., 1999). This fresh perspective has
enabled researchers to examine the point at which behavioral style is changed and the
effect on the conflict episode (Olekalns et al., 1996) and to look at how different
behaviors are combined (Janssen et al., 1999).
With the recent developments in the complexity perspective of conflict management
research (Van de Vliert et al., 1997; Munduate et al., 1999), the time has come to further
explore the possible consequences of the complexity perspective: whether it is in fact
the case that conflict is an inherent condition within the organization (Pondy, 1989);
whether conflict episodes do not occur in isolation but occur frequently and
simultaneously (Euwema et al., 2003); and whether complex sequences of adaptive
behaviors are required to continually manage the constantly changing
intraorganizational, conflict environment. Before we can do this, and to provide a
common ground for discourse, we first need to examine some of the theories around
conflict typology that have arisen in the psychology and management literature and
which may be the cause of some confusion.

Conflict terms and typologies

“Conflict” is a broad construct that has been studied extensively across several
disciplines covering a wide range of social interactions. Previous conflict research has
identified four main levels of conflict in the context of human behavior and
relationships as summarized by Lewecki et al. (2003):
(1) Intergroup conflicts between groups of individuals which can range in size and
complexity due to the many relationships involved, including international
conflict between nations.
(2) Intragroup or intraorganizational conflicts arising within smaller groups which
comprise the organization.
IJCMA (3) Interpersonal conflict; that is, conflict at an individual level, conflict between
21,2 individuals, or conflict between an individual and a group.
(4) Intrapersonal conflict on a personal level, where the conflict occurs in one’s own
mind.

Although these four levels of conflict all appear across both the psychology and
188 management literature, it is the third level (interpersonal conflicts within the
organization or the reactions an individual or group has to the perception that two
parties have aspirations that cannot be achieved simultaneously) that has become the
central field of research within the organization (Putnem and Poole, 1987). In 1992,
Thomas proposed a simplified definition of interpersonal conflict as the process which
begins when an individual or group feels negatively affected by another individual or
group. The conflict consists of a perception of barriers to achieving one’s goals (Thomas,
1992). More recently, interpersonal conflict has been defined as an individual’s
perceptions of incompatibilities, differences in views or interpersonal incompatibility
(Jehn, 1997). Conflict at this level has mostly been seen as adversarial and as having a
negative effect upon relationships (Ford et al., 1975). These definitions presuppose that
an opposition or incompatibility is perceived by both parties, that some interaction is
taking place, and that both parties are able to influence or get involved – that is. that
there is some degree of interdependence (Medina et al., 2004). Interpersonal conflict could
arise within organizations where, for example, customer-facing departments such as
Sales make promises to customers that other departments then have to deliver. In this
domain of intraorganizational, interpersonal conflict, both Pondy’s (1966, 1967) work and
recent developments adopting the complexity perspective are of particular interest
This broad area of intraorganizational, interpersonal conflict has been further
subdivided into two types: relationship conflict and task conflict. Relationship conflict
arises between the actors through their subjective emotional positions, whereas task
conflict relates primarily to the more objective tasks or issues involved (Reid et al.,
2004). A series of studies confirmed this duality between relationship and task. Wall
and Nolan (1986) identified “people oriented” versus “task oriented” conflict. In the
early to mid-1990s Priem and Price (1991), Pinkley and Northcraft (1994), Jehn (1995)
and Sessa (1996) all identified “relationship” and “task” as discrete aspects of conflict.
The picture became rather more complicated in the late 1990s. In 1995 Amason et al.
redefined conflict types as “affective” and “cognitive” and in 1999 Van de Vliert further
redefined these types as “task” and “person” conflict. In working toward a more
comprehensive model of intraorganizational, interpersonal conflict, Jameson (1999)
suggested three dimensions for conflict:
(1) content;
(2) relational; and
(3) situational.

The content dimension encompasses the previously discussed conflict types (affective,
cognitive, relationship etc) while the relational dimension considers the subjective,
perceived variables within the relationships of the actors involved:
.
trust;
.
status;
 .
seriousness; A re-evaluation
.
degree of interdependence; of conflict theory
.
record of success; and
.
the number of actors involved.

The situational dimension examines the variables which may be most relevant in
selecting an appropriate conflict management strategy. These include time pressure,
189
the potential impact of the conflict episode, the degree of escalation and the range of
options available in the management of the conflict episode (Jameson, 1999).
Meanwhile, Sheppard (1992) criticized the multiplicity of terms that were being used
to describe types of interpersonal conflict, and the needless confusion that this caused.
The result of the many approaches described above is that there is no general model for
the typology of interpersonal conflict within the organization. In the absence of such a
model, other researchers have taken different approaches, using the antecedents of the
conflict episode to describe conflict types. Examples of this proliferation include role
conflict (Walker et al., 1975), gender conflict (Cheng, 1995) and goal conflict (Tellefsen
and Eyuboglu, 2002). This proliferation of terms or typologies has unsurprisingly led to
confusion, most noticeably with the term “interpersonal conflict” being used to describe
purely relationship or emotional conflict (Bradford et al., 2004) or conflict being defined in
terms of emotion only, adding to the wide range of terms already used (Bodtker and
Jameson, 2001). Thus, at a time when international, interorganizational,
intraorganizational, interpersonal and intrapersonal conflicts are being extensively
studied with conflict defined and operationalized in a variety of ways, no widely
accepted and consistent model has emerged to shape conflict research (Reid et al., 2004).
Table I summarizes the many different conflict typologies that have been proposed.
Table I illustrates that relationship and task conflict are almost universally accepted
as distinct types of interpersonal conflict by psychology and management researchers.

Date Author(s) Conflict typology

1986 Wall and Nolan People oriented, task oriented

1991 Priem and Price Relationship, task
1994 Pinkley and Northcraft Relationship, task
1995 Jehn Relationship, task
1995 Amason et al. Cognitive, affective
1996 Sessa Task, person oriented
1996 Amason Affective, cognitive
1997 Amason and Sapienza Affective, cognitive
1999 Jameson Content, relational, situational
1999 Janssen et al. Task, person oriented
2000 Friedman et al. Relationship, task
2000 Jehn and Chatman Task, relationship, process
2002 Tellefsen and Eyuboglu Goal conflicts
2003 Bradford et al. Interpersonal, task
2003 De Dreu and Weingart Relationship, task
2004 Reid et al. Relationship, task Table I.
2004 Tidd et al. Relationship, task A summary of the
2005 Guerra et al. Relationship, task typologies of conflict
IJCMA In addition, many researchers have identified a third type of conflict which relates to
21,2 the environment in which managers operate, described as situational conflict
( Jameson, 1999) or process conflict ( Jehn and Chatman, 2000).
We believe that a consistent conflict typology is called for, to aid future research
into the complex nature of intraorganizational conflict. In this paper, we propose that
future researchers should recognize three types of interpersonal conflict. However,
190 since the terms “relationship” and “task” are vulnerable to misinterpretation we
advocate using the terms affective and cognitive (following Amason, 1996 and Amason
and Sapienza, 1997), in conjunction with process (Jehn and Chatman, 2000), to describe
the three types of interpersonal conflict. These terms, which reflect the more specific
terminology used in the psychology literature, are defined in Table II.
As Table II shows, the typology we propose is as follows. Affective Conflict is a
term describing conflicts concerned with what people think and feel about their
relationships including such dimensions as trust, status and degree of interdependence
(Amason and Sapienza, 1997). Cognitive Conflict describes conflicts concerned with
what people know and understand about their task, roles and functions. Process
Conflict relates to conflicts arising from the situational context, the organization
structure, strategy or culture (Amason and Sapienza, 1997; Jehn and Chatman, 2000).
Using this typology for conflict between individuals or groups of individuals within
the organization avoids confusion over the use of the terms “interpersonal”, “person” or
“relationship” often used when referring to affective conflict, while task conflict is
clearly distinguished from process conflict, addressing all the issues previously
outlined. These terms will therefore be used throughout the remainder of this paper.
Having argued that taxonomic confusion has hindered conflict research through the
misuse of existing taxonomies (Bradford et al., 2004) or where language has resulted in
the use of different terms to describe the same conflict type (see Table I), we now move
on to consider the implications or consequences of intraorganizational conflict and
whether it is always negative or can have positive consequences (De Dreu, 1997).

Consequences of conflict: functional or dysfunctional?

Some researchers exploring attitudes towards conflict have considered the
consequences of conflict for individual and team performance (Jehn, 1995) and have
found that interpersonal conflict can have either functional (positive) or dysfunctional
(negative) outcomes for team and individual performance (e.g. Amason, 1996).
Moreover, the consequences of conflict can be perceived and felt in different ways by
different actors experiencing the conflict episode (Jehn and Chatman, 2000). Thus,
conflict is situationally and perceptually relative.

Conflict type Definition

Affective Conflicts concerned with what people think and feel about their relationships with
other individuals or groups
Cognitive Conflicts concerned with what people know and understand about their task
Table II.
A proposed taxonomy of Process Conflicts arising from the situational context, the organization structure, strategy or
conflict culture
The traditional view of conflict takes the view that conflict exists in opposition to A re-evaluation
co-operation and that conflict is wholly dysfunctional, putting the focus on resolution of conflict theory
rather than management (e.g. Pondy, 1966). This perspective can be traced forward to
more recent work. Where conflict is defined as the process which begins when one
person or group feels negatively affected by another (Thomas, 1992), there is an
implication of obstruction to either party achieving their goals, which is readily
interpreted negatively. This can result in conflict avoidance or suppression of conflict 191
management behavior, leading to perceived negative consequences on team or individual
performance (De Dreu, 1997). Negatively-perceived conflict episodes can increase tension
and antagonism between individuals and lead to a lack of focus on the required task
(Saavedra et al., 1993; Wall and Nolan, 1986) while avoidance and suppression can also
have long term negative consequences such as stifling creativity, promoting groupthink
and causing an escalation in any existing conflict (De Dreu, 1997). Not surprisingly,
where interdependence is negative (where one party wins at the expense of the other
although they have some dependency in their relationship) any conflict will be viewed
negatively (Janssen et al., 1999). The perception of conflict will also be negative where the
conflict is personal, resulting in personality clashes, increased stress and frustration.
This type of relationship conflict can impede the decision-making process as individuals
focus on the personal aspects rather than the task related issues (Jehn, 1995).
In contrast to the somewhat negative perception of intraorganizational conflict
outlined above, more recent conflict management theory has begun to suggest that
certain types of conflict can have a positive effect upon relationships and that the best
route to this outcome is through acceptance of, and effective management of, inevitable
conflict, rather than through conflict avoidance or suppression (De Dreu, 1997). When
individuals are in conflict they have to address major issues, be more creative, and see
different aspects of a problem. These challenges can mitigate groupthink and stimulate
creativity (De Dreu, 1997). Naturally, where there is high positive interdependence (an
agreeable outcome for both parties), the conflict episode will be viewed much more
positively (Janssen et al., 1999). Moreover, Jehn (1995) has suggested that task- and
issue-based cognitive conflict can have a positive effect on team performance. Groups
who experience cognitive conflict have a greater understanding of the assignments at
hand and are able to make better decisions in dealing with issues as they arise (Simons
and Peterson, 2000). For example, research has shown that, when individuals are
exposed to a “devil’s advocate”, they are able to make better judgments than those not
so exposed (Schwenk, 1990). Schulz-Hardt et al. (2002) suggested that groups make
better decisions where they started in disagreement rather than agreement. In these
examples, conflict has a functional (useful and positive) outcome.
We have argued that the notion of functional conflict has shifted the field of conflict
research away from conflict resolution and towards consideration of the management
behaviors which can be adopted in dealing with conflict in order to gain the best possible
outcome (De Dreu, 1997; Euwema et al., 2003). Next, we examine research into conflict
management behaviors and explore some of the managerial tools that have been
developed to help managers to deal with intraorganizational, interpersonal conflict.

Conflict management behaviors

Conflict management can be defined as the actions in which a person typically engages,
in response to perceived interpersonal conflict, in order to achieve a desired goal
IJCMA (Thomas, 1976). Demonstrably, conflict management pays off: previous research has
21,2 indicated that it is the way in which conflict episodes are addressed which determines
the outcome (Amason, 1996). However, there is disagreement between researchers as to
the degree to which managers can and do adopt different conflict management
behaviors. Previous research has considered three different approaches: the “one best
way” perspective (Sternberg and Soriano, 1984); the contingency or situational
192 perspective (Thomas, 1992; Munduate et al., 1999; Nicotera, 1993); and the complexity or
conglomerated perspective (Van de Vliert et al., 1999; Euwema et al., 2003).
Arguably the simplest perspective on conflict management behavior is the “one best
way” perspective (Sternberg and Soriano, 1984), which agues that one conflict
management style or behavior (collaboration) is more effective than any other.
However, it argues that individuals have a particular preferred behavioral
predisposition to the way in which they handle conflict. Thus, from the “one best
way” perspective, the conflict-avoiding manager may have a behavioral predisposition
to avoidance strategies, whereas the accommodating manager may prefer
accommodating solutions. In this paradigm, the most constructive solution is
considered to be collaboration, since collaboration is always positively interdependent
– it has a joint best outcome, generally described as “win/win” (Van de Vliert et al.,
1997). The “one best way” approach suggests that a more aggressive, competitive,
negatively interdependent approach (in fact, any conflict management approach other
than collaborative) can result in suboptimal outcomes (Janssen et al., 1999). However,
the “one best way” perspective raises more questions than it answers. It does not
explain how managers are able to collaborate if they have a different behavioral
predisposition, nor does it provide evidence that collaboration always produces the
best outcome (Thomas, 1992). A more general problem with the “one best way”
approach is that it may not be very useful: if managers truly have little or no control
over their approach to conflict management, the practical applications are limited. The
“one best way” perspective does not consider the passage of time, that behaviors could
be changed or modified during any interaction, nor the effect any previous encounters
may have on the current experience (Van de Vliert et al., 1997).
Moving beyond the “one best way” perspective, in which only collaborative
behaviors are considered to provide the most desirable outcome, the contingency
perspective maintains that the optimal conflict management behavior depends on the
specific conflict situation, and that what is appropriate in one situation may not be
appropriate in another (Thomas, 1992). In this paradigm, the best approach is
dependent upon the particular set of circumstances. The implications, which are very
different to the “one best way” perspective, are that individuals can and should select
the conflict management behavior that is most likely to produce the desired outcome.
Thus, conflict management behaviors are regarded as a matter of preference (rather
than innate, as in the “one best way” view), and the outcome is dependent on the
selection of the most appropriate mode of conflict management behavior.
Until recently, conflict research has been heavily influenced by the “one best way”
and contingency perspectives, focusing on the effectiveness of a single mode of conflict
management behavior (primarily collaboration) during a single conflict episode
(Sternberg and Soriano, 1984). Thus the “one best way” and contingency perspectives
do not necessarily offer a real-world view in which managers both can and do change
their behaviors: adapting to the situation; perhaps trying different approaches to break
a deadlock or to improve their bargaining position; taking into account changing A re-evaluation
circumstances in the microenvironment; and the subsequent influence upon the actions of conflict theory
of individuals involved in any conflict episode (Olekalns et al., 1996).
A fresh approach is provided by the complexity perspective, which characterizes
conflicts as being dynamic and multi-dimensional. In such circumstances, the best
behavioral style in dealing with any one conflict episode may vary during, or between,
conflict episodes (Medina et al., 2004; Nicotera, 1993). For conflict in a complex world, 193
neither the “one best way” nor the contingency perspective would necessarily produce
optimal results. If conflict does not occur discretely and individually (Pondy, 1992a),
existing approaches may not describe the world as managers actually experience it.
Arguably, these approaches have artificially limited conflict research to a flat,
two-dimensional model. To address the shortcomings of traditional research and to
incorporate the complexity perspective into conflict management theory, we need to
move beyond two dimensions (Van de Vliert et al., 1997).

Beyond two dimensions of conflict management theory

Recent work by Van de Vliert et al. (1997) and Medina et al. (2004) has expanded
current theory through consideration of the complexity perspective. The
complexity perspective argues that any reaction to a conflict episode consists of
multiple behavioral components rather than one single conflict management
behavior. In the complexity perspective, using a mixture of accommodating,
avoiding, competing, compromising and collaborating behaviors throughout the
conflict episode is considered to be the rule rather than the exception (Van de
Vliert et al., 1997).
To date, studies taking a complexity approach to conflict management have
adopted one of three different complexity perspectives. The first examines
simultaneous complexity and how different combinations of behaviors affect the
outcome of the conflict (Munduate et al., 1999). The second complexity approach
focuses on the point of behavioral change and the outcome, examining either the
behavioral phases through which the participants of a conflict episode pass, or apply
temporal complexity to look at the point at which behavioral style changes and the
effect on the conflict episode (Olekalns et al., 1996). The third approach is the sequential
complexity or conglomerated perspective, which is concerned with the different modes
of conflict management behavior, how they are combined, and at what point they
change during the interaction.
The application of the complexity perspective to conflict management research has
revealed that managers use more than the five behaviors suggested by the “one best
way” perspective to manage conflict. In their study of conglomerated conflict
management behavior, Euwema et al. (2003) argued that the traditional approach
under-represents the individual’s assertive modes of behavior and have as a result
added “confronting” and “process controlling”, making seven possible behaviors:
(1) competing;
(2) collaborating;
(3) avoiding;
(4) compromising;
(5) accommodating;
IJCMA (6) confronting; and
21,2 (7) process controlling.

Weingart et al. (1990) identified two types of sequential pattern: Reciprocity,

responding to the other party with the same behavior; and Complementarity,
responding with an opposing behavior. Applying a complexity perspective, the
194 effectiveness of complementarity or reciprocity behaviors will be contingent upon the
situation, the micro-environment, the number of conflict episodes, and the types of
conflict present. The sequential pattern may in itself be complex, being dependent both
upon the current situation and on varying behaviors throughout the interaction.
A further, often unrecognized implication of complexity in conflict is that each
conflict episode could be unique, being composed of different proportions of each of the
affective, cognitive and process conflict types (Jehn and Chatman, 2000). The
implication for conflict management strategy and the choice of the most appropriate
behavior is immense. Therefore, a new perspective is needed, in which conflict and the
response to conflict is viewed as dynamic and changing over time, with each conflict
episode having a unique composition requiring a specific but flexible approach in order
to obtain the best possible outcome. We propose that this might result in a manager
changing behavior during a conflict episode, or indeed a manager adopting different
behaviors for a number of conflict episodes occurring simultaneously. In the next
section, we take all these complex factors into account and propose a single, dynamic
and comprehensive model of conflict management behavior.

Multiple, simultaneous conflict episodes

We have shown that the field of conflict has become entangled in multiple terms and
that research into conflict management is struggling to reconcile two-dimensional
models with the more complex situation encountered in the real world. A model is
needed which considers the complexity of conflict episodes and separates conflict
antecedents from conflict types, recognizing that conflict can relate to emotions and
situations which have common antecedents. We propose that the way forward is to
expand the conglomerated perspective into a sequential contingency perspective, in
which the sequence of conflict management behaviors adopted is dependent upon a
number of influencing factors in the micro-environment, the number of conflict
episodes being dealt with, their composition, and changes in the behaviors of the actors
involved.

A sequential contingency perspective

The sequential contingency perspective for intraorganizational, interpersonal conflict
proposes the adoption of an alternative paradigm which is that conflict is ever-present
and ever-changing in terms of its nature or composition; and that it is the way in which
these continuous conflicts is managed which determines the outcome of any conflict
episode and the nature of any subsequent conflicts. Figure 1 provides a visualization of
Pondy’s (1992b) postmodern paradigm of conflict and provides a foundation for the
investigation of complex, multiple, simultaneous, intraorganizational conflicts.
This conceptual visualization of conflict within the organization provides a
three-dimensional representation of conflict from the paradigm that conflict is an
inherent feature of organizational life. It shows how, at any one given point in time,
 A re-evaluation
of conflict theory

195

Figure 1.
A conceptual visualization
of multiple, simultaneous
conflict

there can be a number of conflict episodes experienced (y axis), each with different
intensities (z axis) and duration (x axis). In addition, we have argued that each conflict
episode will have a unique composition, being made up of different proportions of
cognitive, affective and process elements.
The implications for conflict management theory are twofold: first, the behavioral
strategies adopted in the management of these conflicts will be highly complex and
will be determined by a number of influencing factors; and second, this moves theory
beyond the two dimensional duel concern perspective, in that the adaptable manager
dealing with these multiple, simultaneous conflicts will also need to consider the
possible implications of their chosen strategy along with the changing micro
environment in which they operate. Using this three-dimensional conceptual
visualization of conflict within the organization we propose a sequential contingency
model for managing interpersonal conflict within the organization (Figure 2).
The basic elements of the framework in Figure 2 consider all the dimensions of
conflict and its management as previously discussed:
.
the conflict episode characteristics, the type and composition of any conflict
episode encountered (Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1995; Jehn, 1997; Pinkley and
Northcraft, 1994);
.
the characteristics of the relationship(s) (Jehn, 1995);
.
the characteristics of the individuals involved;
.
the conflict management behaviors; and
.
the outcome of previous conflict episodes (Van de Vliert et al., 1997).
IJCMA
21,2

196

Figure 2.
A sequential contingency
model for managing
intra-organizational,
interpersonal conflict

The basic postulate of the model is that conflict is a constant and inherent condition of
the organization (that is, that conflict episodes do not occur as isolated, anomalous
incidents). Additionally, the effectiveness of the conflict management behaviors in
terms of its functionality or dysfunctionality is contingent upon, and moderated by, the
nature of the conflict, the characteristics of the individuals and relationships involved,
and experience of previous conflict. Thus, this model provides a framework for dealing
with multiple, simultaneous conflict episodes moving beyond the tradition
two-dimensional approach.

Future research
To date there has been little empirical research into the degree to which individuals are
able to adapt their behavior during an interaction, or on the value of the complexity
perspective in dealing with complex intraorganizational conflict. The future research
agenda needs to explore conflict through Pondy’s (1992b) alternative paradigm and
expand on these theoretical findings by investigating intraorganizational,
interpersonal conflict in a number of ways. We therefore set out a research agenda
framed in terms of four research propositions.
First, taking the sequential contingency perspective and adopting Pondy’s (1989)
alternative paradigm for conflict within the organization, research is needed to
establish the occurrence of conflict. Pondy (1992b) argues that, rather than a sequence
of discrete isolated incidents, conflict is an inherent condition of social interaction
within the organization and that conflict episodes occur simultaneously not
sequentially. This would imply that:
 P1a. Conflict is a constant condition of interorganizational, interpersonal A re-evaluation
relationships. of conflict theory
P1b. Multiple conflict episodes occur simultaneously.
P1c. Conflict episodes are complex, having differing compositions of affective,
cognitive and process elements which change over time.
The complexity perspective recognizes that different conflict situations call for
197
different management behaviors (Van de Vliert et al., 1997). This implies that
managers can call upon a much wider range of approaches to conflict management
than previously thought. Moreover there is a further implication, which is that
managers are able to adapt their behavior during conflict episodes. Thus:
P2a. Managers use different behaviors to manage multiple conflicts at any one
time.
P2b. Managers change their behavior over time during the same conflict episode.
A substantial branch of recent conflict management research has focused on the
outcomes of conflict and has suggested that not all conflict is negative (De Dreu, 1997;
Simons and Peterson, 2000; Schultz-Hardt et al., 2002; Schwenk, 1990). Given this, we
need a greater understanding of the effect that the behavior adopted has on the conflict
experienced, whether it mitigated or agitated the situation, and the consequences for
any subsequent conflict (Amason, 1996). Thus:
P3a. The behaviors that managers use affect the outcome of the conflict.
P3b. The behaviors that managers use affect subsequent conflicts.
Finally, re-visiting Pondy’s (1989) alternative paradigm and incorporating the
additional perspectives that come from consideration of conflict outcomes and the
application of the complexity perspective, we argue that more research is needed into
the relationship between the behaviors that managers adopt and whether these
behaviors represent the conscious adaptation of an optimal approach to conflict
management. Thus:
P4. Conflict management involves adapting a set of behaviors through which a
degree of co-operation is maintained, as opposed to the use of behavior(s)
which resolve(s) discrete isolated incidents of conflict.
Our purpose in setting out a new model and research agenda for conflict management
research, together with a set of detailed research propositions, is to move the field
beyond the consideration of conflict episodes as discrete, isolated incidents and to
encourage the investigation of different behaviors in different circumstances and their
effectiveness. Future research needs to consider the complexity of conflict and adopt a
research paradigm which considers the behavioral strategies within long term complex
interpersonal relationships.

Conclusion
This paper has offered four contributions to the field of conflict and conflict
management. The first is the clarification of conflict typologies set out in Table II. The
IJCMA second contribution is the notion that business managers handle multiple and
21,2 simultaneous conflict episodes that require different approaches to resolving them, so
that the existing models proposed for conflict management are unlikely to chime with
their actual experience. The third contribution is to map this in the form of a new
theoretical model for conflict management (Figure 2). The fourth contribution is to use
this theoretical model to set out a set of research propositions to shape research that
198 will shed light on the real conflicts that managers have to face.
Just 40 years on, and intraorganizational conflict theory itself appears to be in
conflict. In order to resolve the apparent differences in research approach and
perspective researchers need to establish some common ground upon which new
theory can be empirically tested, allowing conflict management theory to move beyond
two dimensions and to explore complexity whilst adding clarity.

Note
1. First presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, August 14, 1986.

References
Amason, A. and Sapienza, H. (1997), “The effects of top management team size and interaction
norms on cognitive and affective conflict”, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 4,
pp. 495-516.
Amason, A.C. (1996), “Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on
strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 123-48.
Bodtker, A.M. and Jameson, J.K. (2001), “Emotion in conflict formation and its transformation:
application to organizational conflict management”, International Journal of Conflict
Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 259-75.
Bradford, K.D., Stringfellow, A. and Weitz, B.A. (2004), “Managing conflict to improve the
effectiveness of retail networks”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 181-95.
Cheng, C. (1995), “Multi-level gender conflict analysis and organizational change”, Journal of
Organizational Change Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 26-39.
De Dreu, C.K.W. (1997), “Productive conflict: the importance of conflict management and conflict
issue”, in De Dreu, C.K.M. and Van de Vliert, E. (Eds), Using Conflict in Organizations,
Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 9-22.
Euwema, M.C., Van de Vliert, E. and Bakker, A.B. (2003), “Substantive and relational
effectiveness of organizational conflict behavior”, International Journal of Conflict
Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 119-39.
Ford, N.M., Walker, O.C. Jr and Churchill, G.A. (1975), “Expectation specific measures of the
intersender conflict and role ambiguity experienced by salesmen”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 95-112.
Jameson, J.K. (1999), “Toward a comprehensive model for the assessment and management of
intraorganizational conflict: developing the framework”, International Journal of Conflict
Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 268-94.
Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E. and Veenstra, C. (1999), “How task and person conflict shape the
role of positive interdependence in management teams”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25
No. 2, pp. 117-42.
Jehn, K.A. (1995), “A multi-method examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup A re-evaluation
conflict”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 256-82.
of conflict theory
Jehn, K.A. (1997), “A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational
groups”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 530-57.
Jehn, K.A. and Chatman, J.A. (2000), “The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict
composition on team performance”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 56-73. 199
Lewicki, R., Saunders, D., Barry, B. and Minton, J. (2003), Essentials of Negotiation, 3rd ed.,
McGraw Hill, Singapore.
Medina, J.M., Dorado, M.A., de Cisneros, I.F.J., Arevalo, A. and Munduate, L. (2004), “Behavioral
sequences in the effectiveness of conflict management”, Psychology in Spain, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 38-47.
Munduate, L., Ganaza, J., Peiro, J.M. and Euwema, M. (1999), “Patterns of styles in conflict
management and effectiveness”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 5-24.
Nicotera, A.M. (1993), “Beyond two dimensions: a grounded theory model of conflict-handling
behavior”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 282-306.
Olekalns, M., Smith, P.L. and Walsh, T. (1996), “The process of negotiating: strategy and timing
as predictors of outcomes”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 68-77.
Pinkley, R.L. and Northcraft, G.B. (1994), “Conflict frames of reference: implications for dispute
processes and outcomes”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 193-205.
Pondy, L.R. (1966), “A systems theory of organizational conflict”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 246-56.
Pondy, L.R. (1967), “Organizational conflict: concepts and models”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 296-320.
Pondy, L.R. (1989), “Reflections on organizational conflict”, Journal of Organizational Change
Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 94-8.
Pondy, L.R. (1992a), “Historical perspectives and contemporary updates”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 253-5.
Pondy, L.R. (1992b), “Reflections on organizational conflict”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 257-61.
Priem, R.L. and Price, K.H. (1991), “Process and outcome expectations for the dialectical inquiry,
devil’s advocacy, and consensus techniques of strategic decision making”, Group &
Organization Studies, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 206-25.
Putnem, L. and Poole, M.S. (1987), “Conflict and negotiation”, in Jablin, F.M., Putnam, L.L.,
Roberts, K.H. and Porter, L.W. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Communication, Sage,
Newbury Park, CA, pp. 549-99.
Reid, D.A., Pullins, E.B., Plank, R.E. and Buehrer, R.E. (2004), “Measuring buyers’ perceptions of
conflict in business-to-business sales interactions”, The Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 236-49.
Saavedra, R., Earley, P.C. and Van Dyne, L. (1993), “Complex interdependence in task-performing
groups”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 61-73.
Sessa, V. (1996), “Using perspective taking to manage conflict and affect in teams”, The Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 101-15.
IJCMA Schwenk, C.R. (1990), “Effects of devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry on decision making: a
meta-analysis”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 47 No. 1,
21,2 pp. 161-77.
Sheppard, B.H. (1992), “Conflict research as Schizophrenia: the many faces of organizational
conflict”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 325-34.
Schulz-Hardt, S., Jochims, M. and Frey, D. (2002), “Productive conflict in group decision making:
200 genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased information seeking”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 563-86.
Simons, T.L. and Peterson, R.S. (2000), “Task conflict and relationship conflict in top
management teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 102-11.
Sternberg, R.J. and Soriano, L.J. (1984), “Styles of conflict resolution”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 115-21.
Tellefsen, T. and Eyuboglu, N. (2002), “The impact of a salesperson’s in-house conflicts and
influence attempts on buyer commitment”, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 157-72.
Thomas, K.W. (1992), “Conflict and conflict management: reflections and update”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 265-74.
Thomas, K.W. (1976), “Conflict and conflict management”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 889-935.
Van de Vliert, E., Nauta, A., Euwema, M.C. and Janssen, O. (1997), “The effectiveness of mixing
problem solving and forcing”, Using Conflict in Organizations, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 38-52.
Van de Vliert, E., Nauta, A., Giebels, E. and Janssen, O. (1999), “Constructive conflict at work”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 475-91.
Walker, O.C., Churchill, G.A. Jr and Ford, N.M. (1975), “Organizational determinants of the
industrial salesman’s role conflict and ambiguity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 1,
pp. 32-9.
Wall, V.D. Jr and Nolan, L.L. (1986), “Perceptions of inequity, satisfaction, and conflict in
task-oriented groups”, Human Relations, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 1033-52.
Weingart, L.R., Thompson, L.L., Bazerman, H.H. and Caroll, J.S. (1990), “Tactical behavior and
negotiation outcomes”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 7-31.

Further reading
Amason, A.C., Hochwarter, W.A., Thompson, K.R. and Harrison, A.W. (1995), “Conflict: an
important dimension in successful management teams”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 24
No. 2, pp. 20-35.
Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1964), The Managerial Grid, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, TX.
De Dreu, C. and Weingart, L.R. (2003), “Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and
team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4,
pp. 741-9.
Deutsch, M. (1973), The Resolution of Conflict, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.
Friedman, R., Tidd, S., Currall, S. and Tsai, J. (2000), “What goes around comes around: the
impact of personal conflict style on work conflict and stress”, International Journal of
Conflict Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 32-55.
Guerra, M.J., Martinez, I., Munduate, L. and Medina, F.J. (2005), “A contingency perspective on A re-evaluation
the study of the consequences of conflict types: the role of organizational culture”,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 157-76. of conflict theory
Lewicki, R.J. and Sheppard, B.H. (1985), “Choosing how to intervene: factors affecting the use of
process and outcome control in third party dispute resolution”, Journal of Occupational
Behavior, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 49-64.
Tidd, S.T., McIntyre, H. and Friedman, R.A. (2004), “The importance of role ambiguity and trust 201
in conflict perception: unpacking the task conflict to relationship conflict linkage”,
International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 364-84.

About the authors

James Speakman is Assistant Professor of International Negotiation at IÉSEG Business School,
a member of Catholic University of Lille, where his attentions are focused on sales and
negotiation. After working for 16 years in key account management sales he completed his PhD
research at Cranfield School of Management, where, using the Critical Incident Technique with
an Interpretive Framework for coding to investigate intraorganizational, interpersonal conflict
and the behavioral sequences adopted in the management of these complex interpersonal,
intraorganizational conflict episodes. Other research interests include personal selling, past,
present and future, where he conducted the US research for a multinational study on the future of
personal selling and negotiation in context where his research interests include multi-cultural
negotiation. James Speakman is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
I.Speakman@IESEG.FR
Lynette Ryals specializes in key account management and marketing portfolio management,
particularly in the area of customer profitability. She is a Registered Representative of the
London Stock Exchange and a Fellow of the Society of Investment Professionals. She is the
Director of Cranfield’s Key Account Management Best Practice Research Club, Director of the
Demand Chain Management community and a member of Cranfield School of Management’s
Governing Executive.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints