Definition Of Conflict

Conflict is a process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively
affected, or is about to negatively affects, something that the first party cares about. In other
words conflict is a disagreement through which the parties involved perceive a threat to
their needs, interests or concerns.

Conflict can be substantive or emotional. Substantive conflict is any disagreement over
goals, resources, rewards, policies, procedures, and job assignments. Emotional conflict results
from feelings of anger, distrust, dislike, dislike, fear and resentment, as well as relationship
problems.

Conflict - Meaning
Conflict is a process in which an effort is purposefully made by one person or unit to block
another that results in frustrating the attainment of the others goals or the furthering of his
interests.

Definition Of Conflict
A process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively
affected, or is about to negatively affects something that the first party cares about
- K.W.Thomas
The struggle between incompatible or opposing needs, wishes, ideas, interests, or
people. Conflict arises when individuals or groups encounter goals that both parties cannot
obtain satisfactorily.
- Chung and Megginson

Conflict has been defined as the condition of objective incompatibility between
values and goals.
- Kilmann and Thomas

Good human relations can prevent conflicts, whether they are between Individual
and organisational objectives, between line and staff personnel, between ones ability and
authority etc
- William R. Scott











Within this simple definition there are several important understandings that emerge:
Disagreement - Generally, we are aware there is some level of difference in the positions of
the two (or more) parties involved in the conflict. But the true disagreement versus the perceived
disagreement may be quite different from one another. In fact, conflict tends to be accompanied
by significant levels of misunderstanding that exaggerate the perceived disagreement
considerably. If we can understand the true areas of disagreement, this will help us solve the
right problems and manage the true needs of the parties.
Parties involved - There are often disparities in our sense of who is involved in the conflict.
Sometimes, people are surprised to learn they are a party to the conflict, while other times we are
shocked to learn we are not included in the disagreement. On many occasions, people who are
seen as part of the social system (e.g., work team, family, and company) are influenced to
participate in the dispute, whether they would personally define the situation in that way or not.
People very readily "take sides" based upon current perceptions of the issues, past issues and
relationships, roles within the organization, and other factors. The parties involved can become
an elusive concept to define.
Perceived threat - People respond to the perceived threat, rather than the true threat, facing
them. Thus, while perception doesn't become reality per se, people's behaviors, feelings and
ongoing responses become modified by that evolving sense of the threat they confront. If we can
work to understand the true threat (issues) and develop strategies (solutions) that manage it
(agreement), we are acting constructively to manage the conflict.
Needs, interests or concerns - There is a tendency to narrowly define "the problem" as one of
substance, task, and near-term viability. However, workplace conflicts tend to be far more
complex than that, for they involve ongoing relationships with complex, emotional components.
Simply stated, there are always procedural needs and psychological needs to be addressed within
the conflict, in addition to the substantive needs that are generally presented. And the durability
of the interests and concerns of the parties transcends the immediate presenting situation. Any
efforts to resolve conflicts effectively must take these points into account.
Although conflict is a normal part of organization life, providing numerous opportunities for
growth through improved understanding and insight, there is a tendency to view conflict as a
negative experience caused by abnormally difficult circumstances. Disputants tend to perceive
limited options and finite resources available in seeking solutions, rather than multiple
possibilities that may exist 'outside the box' in which we are problem-solving.
Different Views Of Conflict
Conflict is normally defined in terms of incompatibility and frustration. Gordons (1991)
definition outlines conflict as; the result of incompatible potential relationships. The process
begins when one party perceives that another party has impeded, or will frustrate, one or more of
its concerns. The definition is suitably broad so that it will be flexible enough to encompass all
types of conflict. As with all elements of organizational behavior, conflict, and its position within
organizations, has gone through a myriad of theories relating to the suitable course of action to
quell its negative effects. However, there have been three main theories that have stood the test
of time relating to conflict within the organization.
1. Traditional View: The view survived from the 1930s into the 1940s. This theory claims
that all forms of conflict holds negative effects for an organization and that it is brought about by
a lack of communication between the staff. It claims that conflict could be avoided by focusing
on the causes of the conflict and by attempting to correct these elements. As with most
traditional theories this method is widely disputed but its acceptance is still relatively strong
within some organizations. The view that all conflict is bad certainly offers a simple approach to
looking at the behavior of people who create conflict. Since all conflict is to be avoided, we need
merely direct our attention to the causes of conflict and correct these malfunctioning in order to
improve group and organizational performance. Although research studies now provide strong
evidence to dispute that this approach to conflict reduction results in high group performance,
many of people still evaluate conflict situations utilizing this outmoded standard. So, too, do may
senior executives and boards of directors.
2. Human Relations View: The view is become popular from the 1940s up to the 1970s.
This view encompasses some of the more positive aspects of conflict. The theory recognizes that
conflict is an inevitable outcome of any organization and that there may be intrinsic positive
value by determining group performance. The human relations position argued that conflict was
a natural occurrence in all groups and organizations. Since conflict was inevitable, the human
relations school advocated acceptance of conflict. Proponents rationalized its existence: It can
not be eliminated, and there are even times when conflict may benefit a groups performance.
3. The Interactionist View: The theory that is generally accepted today is the Interactionist
view. This theory actively encourages certain types of conflict within the organization on the
grounds that a completely cooperative, harmonious group of yes-men may lead the
organization into a static, non-responsive entity, which is unable to deal with change and
advances in the market. From this, it is suggested that managers with the organization should
maintain a level of controlled conflict within the organization which may keep the organization
active, creative and capable of dealing with adversity in their environment. However, the theory
does not suggest that all conflict is good either. To say all conflict is good or bad is
inappropriate and nave. Whether a conflict is good or bad depends on the type of conflict.
Functional Vs. Disfunctional Conflict
The good or bad conflicts are due to the functional and dysfunctional conflict. At this point it
is useful to differentiate between the two forms. These are relatively new concepts that integrate
with the Interactionist view of conflict.
Functional conflict supports the goals of a group and its presence within the
organization actually improves performance. Outcomes of functional conflict;
When properly managed, conflict can have beneficial consequences.
Motivate individual to do better and to work harder. Ones abilities and talents come to
the forefront in a conflict situation
Satisfy certain psychological needs like dominance, aggression, esteem and ego, and
thereby provide an opportunity for the constructive use and release of aggressive urges
Provide creative, constructive and innovative ideas
Add variety to ones organizational live
Provide diagnostic information that can generate cues for better organization and
management to prevent occurrence of similar problems
Facilitate an understanding of the problem, people and interrelationships between
people, better co-ordination among individuals and departments, in addition to strengthening
intra group relationships
Dysfunctional conflict, by comparison, acts as a barrier to the performance of the group
and frustrates the objectives of the organization.
Conflicts affect individual and organizational performance. Resolving conflicts
consumes a considerable amount of managerial time and energy which could more productively
spent in the absence of conflicts
In a conflict situation people may promote their self-interests or personal gains at the
cost of others in the organization
Intense conflicts over a prolonged period affect individuals emotionally and physically
and give rise to psychosomatic disorders.
Time spent on conflicts, if costly, could mean considerable amount of money wasted
Conflicts may lead to work sabotage, employee morale problems, and decline in the
market share of product / services and consequent loss of productivity.
The Conflict Process
The conflict process can be seen as comprising five stages: potential opposition of
incompatibility, cognition and personalization, intentions, behavior, and outcomes. The process
is diagrammed in table.








The Conflict Process (Robbins, 1998)
Stage I: Potental Opposton Or Incompatblty
The potential oppositions or incompatibility relates to the conditions necessary for conflicts to
arise. Communication, or rather the lack of it, is seen as one of the major obstacles, serving as an
opposing force, which creates a level of misunderstanding. The structure of the organization is
also viewed as a possible opposition block as conflicts evolve between departments. Personal
variables are probably the most likely to cause conflict on and individual bases, as there are
invariably clashes in personality types within an organization. The first step in the conflict
process is the presence of conditions that create opportunities for conflict to arise. They need not
lead directly to conflict, but one of these conditions is necessary if conflict is to arise. For
simplicitys sake, these conditions (which also may be looked at as causes or sources of conflict)
have been condensed into three general categories: communication, structure, and personal
variables.
Communication: A review of the research suggests that differing word connotations, jargon,
insufficient exchange of information, and noise in the communication channel are all barriers to
communication and potential antecedent conditions to conflict. Evidence demonstrates that
semantic difficulties arise as a result of differences in training, selective perception, and
inadequate information about others. Research has further demonstrated a surprising finding: The
potential for conflict increases when either too little or too much communication takes place.
Apparently, an increase in communication is functional up to a point, where upon it is possible to
over communicate, with a resultant increase in the potential for conflict. Too much information
as well as too little can lay the foundation for conflict. Furthermore, the channel chosen for
communicating can have an influence on stimulating opposition. The filtering process that
occurs as information is passed among members and the divergence of communications from
formal or previously established channels offer potential opportunities for conflict to arise.

Structure: Research indicates that size and specialization act as forces to stimulate conflict. The
larger the group and the more specialized its activities, the greater the likelihood of conflict.
Tenure and conflict have been found to be inversely related. The potential for conflict tends to be
greatest when group members are younger and when turnover is high.

The greater the ambiguity in precisely defining where responsibility for actions lies, the
greater the potential for conflict to emerge. Such jurisdictional ambiguities increase intergroup
fighting for control of resources and territory. Groups within organizations have diverse goals.
For instance, purchasing is concerned with the timely acquisition of inputs at low prices,
marketings goals concentrate on disposing of outputs and increasing revenues, quality controls
attention is focused on improving quality and ensuring that the organizations products meet
standards, and production units seek efficiency of operations by maintaining a steady production
flow. This diversity of goals among groups is a major source of conflict.

There is some indication that a close style of leadershiptight and continuous observation
with general control of others behaviorsincreases conflict potential, but the evidence is not
particularly strong. Too much reliance on participation may also stimulate conflict. Research
tends to confirm that participation may also stimulate conflict. Research tends to confirm that
participation encourages the promotion of differences. Reward systems, too, are found to create
conflict when one members gain is at anothers expense. Finally, if a group is dependent on
another group (in contrast to the two being mutually independent) or if interdependence allows
one group to gain at anothers expense, opposing forces are stimulated.

Personal Variables: Personal variables include the individual value systems that each value
systems that each person has and the personality characteristics that account for individual
idiosyncrasies and differences. The evidence indicates that certain personality types -- for
example, individuals who highly authoritarian and dogmatic, and who demonstrate low esteem
lead to potential conflict. Most important, and probably the most overlooked variable in the study
of social conflict, is differing value systems. Value differences, for example, are the best
explanation of such diverse issues as prejudice, disagreements over ones contribution to the
group and the reward one deserves.
Stage I: Cognton And Personalzaton
This relates to the personalization of the conflict. In this phase, the potential for conflict becomes
actualized. Perceived conflict relates to the individual or group actually seeing the conflict arise
and affect them. It creates the awareness of the problem. A felt conflict arises when individuals
become emotionally charged due to the conflict, creating hostility with the opposing party. It is
in this phase that the conflict is defined and each party envisions what they believe to be the
solution.
If the conditions cited in Stage 1 negatively affect something that one party cares about,
then the potential for opposition or incompatibility becomes actualized in the second stage. The
antecedent conditions can only lead to conflict when one or more of the parties are affected by,
and aware of, the conflict.
As we noted in our definition of conflict, perception is required. Therefore, one or more
of the parties must be aware of the existence of the antecedent conditions. However, because a
conflict is perceived dose not mean that it is personalized. In other words, A may be aware that
B and A are in serious disagreement but it may not make A tense or anxious , and it may have
no effect whatsoever on As affection toward B. It is at the felt level, when individuals become
emotionally involved, that parties experience anxiety, tension, frustration, or hostility.
We must keep in mind two points. First, Stage 2 is important because its where conflict
issues tend to be defined. This is the place in the process where the parties decide what the
conflict is about. And, in turn, this sense making is critical because the way a conflict is defined
goes a long way toward establishing the sort of outcomes that might settle it. The second point is
that emotions play a major role in shaping perceptions. For example, negative interpretations of
the other partys behavior. In contrast, positive feelings have been found to increase the tendency
to see potential relationships among the elements of a problem, to take a broader view of the
situation, and to develop more innovative solutions.
Stage III: Intentons
Intentions intervene between peoples perceptions and emotions and their overt behavior. These
intentions are decisions to act in a given way. Using two dimensions-cooperativeness (the degree
to which one party attempts to satisfy the other partys interests) and assertiveness (the degree to
which one party attempts to satisfy his or her own concerns)-five conflict handling intentions can
be identified. The schedule below shows the position of each conflict handling intention on the
cooperativeness and assertiveness dimensions.

Assertive









Unassertive

Uncooperative Cooperative

Competing: When one party seeks to satisfy his or her own interests, regardless of the impact on
the other parties to the conflict, he or she is competing. This means overpowering other groups in
the conflict and promoting the concerns of ones own group at the expense of the other group.
One way to accomplish this aim is by resorting to authority to satisfy the concerns of ones own
group. Thus, the head of a group of a group of account executives may appeal to the director of
advertising to protect the groups turf from the intrusions by other account execs.
Collaborating: This strategy attempts to satisfy the concerns of all groups of all groups by
working through differences and seeking solutions so that everyone gains as a result. A
marketing department and a manufacturing department that meets on a regular basis to plan
mutually acceptable production schedules are collaborating.
Avoiding: This approach requires staying neutral at all costs or refusing to take an active role in
conflict resolution procedures. The finance department that sticks its head in the sand and hopes
that dissension about budgetary allocations will blow over is exhibiting avoidance.
Accommodating: This allows other groups to satisfy their own concerns at the expense of ones
own group. Differences are smoothed over to maintain superficial harmony. A purchasing
Competing

Collaborating



Compromising


Avoiding

Accommodating

department that fails to meet budgetary guidelines because it deliberately overspends on raw
materials to satisfy the demands of production groups is trying to use accommodation to cope
with the conflict.
Compromising: It is in the mid-range of both cooperativeness and assertiveness. This approach
seeks partial satisfaction of all groups through exchange and sacrifice, settling for acceptable
rather than optimal resolution. Contract bargaining between union representatives and
management involves significant compromise by both sides.


When Different Styles of Intentions Should Be Applied
Style Application
Competing
When quick, decisive action is required; to cope with crises. On important
issues where unpopular solutions must be implemented, such as cost cutting
or employee discipline.
On issues vital to organizational welfare when your group is certain that its
position is correct.
Against groups who take advantage of noncompetitive behavior.
Accommodating
When your group is wrong and wants both show reasonableness and to
encourage the expression of a more appropriate view. When issues are more
important to groups other than yours, to satisfy others and maintain
cooperation.
To build credits or bank favors for later issues. To minimize losses when
your group is outmatched and losing. When harmony and stability are
especially important.
Avoiding
When a conflict is trivial or more important conflicts are pressing.
When there is no chance that your group will satisfy its own needs.
When the costs of potential disruption outweigh the benefits of resolution.
To let groups cool down and gain perspective.
When others can resolve the conflict more effectively.
Collaborating
To find an integrative solution when conflicting concerns are too important
to be compromised.
When the most important objective is to learn.
To gain commitment through the development of consensus.
To work through conflicting feelings in individuals and between groups.
Compromising
When group concerns are important but not worth the disruption of more
assertive styles.
When equally powerful groups are committed to pursuing mutually exclusive
concerns.
To achieve temporary or transitional settlements.
To arrive at expedient resolutions under time pressure.
As a backup when neither competing nor problem-solving styles are
successful

As indicated in the table above, the appropriateness of each of the five approaches depends on
the situation surrounding the conflict and often, the time pressure for a negotiated settlement.

Stage Iv: Behavor
When most people think of a conflict situation, they tend to focus on that stage. Why? Because
this is where conflict becomes visible. The behavior stage includes the statements, actions, a
reactions made by the conflicting parties.

These conflict behaviors are usually overt attempts to implement each partys intentions.
But these behaviors have a stimulus quality that is separate from intentions. As a result of
miscalculations or unskilled enactments, overt behaviors sometimes deviate from original
intentions. In that stage, it is very apparent to non-involved parties a problem exist. Although it is
still possible to successfully resolve conflict at this stage, it is far better to deal with it at an
earlier stage.
Every conflict situation leaves a conflict aftermath that affects the way both groups
perceive and act upon subsequent conflicts. Generally the earlier conflicts can be resolved, the
more likely the aftermath will facilitate positive future interactions.
Stage V: Outcomes
The action-reaction interplay between the conflicting parties result in consequences. These
outcomes may be functional in that the conflict results in an improvement in the groups
performance, or dysfunctional in that it hinders group performance.
Conflict Management

It is said that a conflict is managed within an organization when the conflict does not
interfere in a negative manner with the relationships or the performance of the organization.
Conflict management is not an easy task, as leaders not only have to manage the conflict and
reach a solution, but they also have to manage emotions as well. This can prove very difficult,
especially if the parties believe the conflict is based on a matter of principle, and therefore
they are unwilling to negotiate with emotions running high. A principle is often said to be
either upheld, or integrity is lost.

One objective of conflict management is to get both parties to understand the differing
positions but still believe in their own, or, as is more generally known, agree to disagree. Once
this point has been reached the process can move along from arguing to problem solving.
Conflict management also integrates the stimulation of conflict in a positive manner, preventing
stale attitudes to engulf the organization.

Strategic decision making is of fundamental importance to an organization. Leaders and
employees alike must have a vision of where the organization needs to be heading so that they
can identify tangible goals for the organization. The conflict arises however when the strategies
to implement these goals are implemented. According to Gordon (1991),

Conflict management is the process of removing cognitive barriers to agreement.
Agreement does not mean the conflict has gone away, it means that people are committed to a
course of action that serves some of their interests.

Power is also an important element in conflict management. It is useful to anticipate how
the use of power will create a conflict relationship. This type of activity provides enormous
advantages in the ability to achieve desired levels of control with minimal dysfunctional side
effects.

There are numerous forms of conflict management, each one suited to different situations,
individuals and organizations. As theories have progressed relating to conflict management, a
useful approach has been devised in relation to conflict management. This strategy may lead the
way for todays more progressive and detailed forms of conflict management. The guidelines are
as follows,

Determine how important the issue is to all people involved.
Determine if all people involved are willing and able to discuss the issue in a positive
manner.
Select a private place where the issue can be discussed confidently by everyone
involved.
Make sure that both sides understand that they are responsible for both the problem and
the solution.
Solicit open comments from both sides. Let them express their concerns, feelings,
ideas, and thoughts, but in a non-accusatory manner.
Guide participants toward a clear and specific definition of the problem.
Encourage participants to propose solutions. Examine the problem from a variety of
different perspectives and discuss any and all solutions proposed.
Evaluate the costs verses the gains (cost-benefit analysis) of all proposed solutions and
discuss them openly. Choose the best solution.
Reflect on the issue and discuss the conflict resolution process. Encourage participants
to express their opinions as how the process may be improved.

Conflict management is also about creating conflict in the right environment. Traditionally,
many people got to the top of the organizational ladder because they were conflict evaders, but
now companies are specifically creating systems within the organization that actively encourages
conflict and criticism. Companies such as Hewlett Packard and IBM encourage a free flow of
information within their organization, be that information a criticism or otherwise. A third party
council is provided for any disputes that may arise. This form of conflict management has been
proven successful, stimulating new ideas and allowing for continuous improvement in the
organization. However, for this system to work it requires proper leadership, support from top
management and employees who feel secure enough in their capabilities to encourage criticism.
It is generally accepted that communication lies at the crux of most conflict. The conflict can
have either functional or dysfunctional effects within the organization. But the most important
factor in conflict management is trust. It is essential that the third party be trusted by both sides.
Trust can be maintained by keeping promises made to both parties. Trust is very difficult to win,
and very easy to lose. Conflict can never be managed by someone who cannot be trusted.

Since managers must live with conflict, they must confront the problem of managing it.
In this section we will examine several different approaches to managing conflict.