LS 603 Chapter 12 - Conflict

Conflict
• Traditional Perspectives on Conflict
• Interpretive Perspectives on Conflict
• Critical Perspectives on Conflict
• Ethics in Conflict

Traditional Perspectives
on Conflict
• Interpersonal Conflict
• Bargaining and Negotiation

Interpersonal Conflict
Definition of Conflict
• The interaction of interdependent people who
perceive opposition of goals, aims, and
values, and who see the other party as
potentially interfering with the realization of
these goals [Putnam & Poole, 1987, p. 552]

Positives and Negatives
of Conflict
What positive things can come out of
conflict?
What negative things can come out of
conflict?
What role does communication play in
determining positive or negative results?

Interpersonal Conflict
Styles of Conflict Management
Blake and Mouton (1964)
Two-Dimensional Model
Concern for Your Personal Goals (1-9 range)
Concern for Your Relationship with the Other
Person in the Conflict (1-9 range)
Model Yields Five Styles

Styles of Conflict
Management
Conflict Style: a person’s characteristic manner
or habitual way of handling a dispute: What
are the five styles? (page 320)
Avoiding (1,1)
Forcing (9,1)
Accommodating (1,9)
Collaborating (9,9)
Compromising (5,5)

Styles of Conflict
Management
Putnam and Wilson’s (1982) Organizational
Communication Conflict Instrument [OCCI]
• Non-Confrontation Strategies: avoid disagreements
and downplay controversies by approaching conflict
indirectly. Reflects a combination of avoidance or
accommodation.
• Solution Oriented Strategies: move toward the
opposition by using compromise as well as a search
for innovation.
• Control Strategies: arguing persistently for positions
and using nonverbal behavior to emphasize demands.
Moves against the opposition.

A Competence-Based
Approach to Conflict
• Impressions: focus on how each person’s
behavior is perceived
• Appropriateness: Communication that avoids
violation of a relationally or situationally
sanctioned rule
• Effectiveness: communication that achieves
the valued objectives of the interactant

A Competence-Based
• The more appropriate and effective an
interactant is, the more competent he or she
is likely to be perceived
• When two employees successfully manage a
conflict in terms of appropriateness and
effectiveness, not only is the immediate
conflict issue resolved, the relationship
between them is also preserved [Papa &
Canary, 1995]

A Competence-Based
Competence During Phases of Conflict
• Differentiation
• Mutual Problem Description
• Integration

Competence During
Phases of Conflict
Differentiation: the process of coming to terms
with differences during conflict
• Behaviors Needed During Differentiation
– Information Sharing
– Information Seeking

Competence During
Phases of Conflict
Mutual Problem Description:
• Each party accepts his or her role in creating and
sustaining the conflict
• The conflict problem is described clearly so each
party understands what issues need to be
negotiated
• Requires that the conflict problem be described
as one requiring the efforts of each party to reach
a mutually satisfying solution

Competence During
Phases of Conflict
Integration: the parties remain focused on
the problem and commit themselves to
a solution that meets the goals of each
party

Behaviors Linked to
Successful Integration
• Recognizing and Postponing Attributions
• Maintaining Cooperative Tactics
• Generating Alternative Solutions
• Evaluating Positive and Negative Aspects of
Each Proposed Solution
• Selecting and Clarifying the Solutions to be
Implemented
• Establishing a Monitoring System to insure the
solution is implemented correctly

Groupthink
• Extreme efforts are made to suppress conflict
and stop the input of any information that
contradicts an established or dominant view
• Individual group members surrender their own
beliefs and begin to see things only from the
group perspective
• The group develops a dogmatic commitment to
the "moral rightness" of its position and may even
believe that it is being persecuted by enemies

Avoiding Groupthink
• Critical evaluator role: part of each group member's
role is to critically evaluate all solutions that are
suggested
• The leader should avoid stating preferences and
expectations at the outset so he or she does not
influence how the discussion proceeds
• Each member of the group should discuss the
group's deliberations with a trusted colleague
(organizational member but not a group member)
and report back to the group the colleague's
reaction

Avoiding Groupthink
• One or more experts should be invited to each
meeting on a staggered basis. These outside experts
should be encouraged to challenge the views of the
group members
• At least one articulate and knowledgeable group
member should be assigned the role of devil's
advocate (questioning assumptions and plans that
surface during the group's deliberations)
• The leader should set aside a significant block of
time to survey warning signals from rivals. The
leader and the group should then construct
alternative scenarios of their rivals' intentions.

Managing Conflict
• Conflict Dimensions
• Desired Outcomes
• Conflict Management Strategies
[Jameson, 1999]

Conflict Dimensions
• Content
• Relational
• Situational

Content Dimension
• Objective or Subjective
• Task or Relational
• Policy Interpretation or Policy Change

Relational Dimension
• The extent to which the parties are interdependent or
independent will influence the degree to which the parties
will need to work together to manage their differences.
• Parties of equal status confront different options for action
than parties of unequal status.
• If there is high trust between parties conflicts unfold more
productively than if there is low trust.
• A high record of success in managing conflict creates a
more productive environment for discussion than a low
record of success.
• Dyadic conflicts are different than multi-party conflicts
because the addition of multiple parties usually adds
complexity to the discussion process.

Situational Dimension
• High versus low time pressure in managing the
conflict.
• Conflicts that have a broad range of impact are
considered with greater care and concern than
conflicts with a narrower range of impact.
• Conflicts with low escalation potential cause less
apprehension than those with high escalation
potential.
• Conflicting parties are confronted with a certain
range of conflict management options. This factor
deals with the norms or cultural constraints that
guide parties' behavior.

Desired Outcomes
• Fairness
• Satisfaction
• Effectiveness
• Efficiency

Conflict Management
Strategies
• Interests/Rights/Power
• Formal/Informal
• No Third Party
• Intervening Other
• External Third Party

Interest-based Conflicts
• Focus on attempts to reconcile disputants'
underlying interests in a conflict
• When interest-based conflicts surface, the
disputants themselves may confront the problem
• If the disputants cannot resolve their problem a
third party may intervene (manager, peer or HR
practitioner)
• Third party may play an advisory or problem-
solving role or act as a mediator

Mediating Role
• The third party guides the discussion process
but allows the disputants control over the
outcome
• The mediator may provide information
concerning relevant legal issues, help parties
engage in perspective taking, guide parties
toward a realistic settlement, help improve the
relationship between participants, or engage
in some combination of these tactics

Rights-based Conflicts
Focus on determining which party is right in
accordance with some accepted guidelines for
behavior
Informal Strategies
• Adversarial intervention: a courtroom style procedure in
which the disputants present their case and a manager
determines the appropriate solution
• Inquisitorial intervention: the manager assumes more
control over the process by asking the disputants
questions rather than allowing them full control over
how they present their cases. Then the manager acts
as the judge.

Informal Strategy
Advisory alternative dispute resolution (ADR):
• An external third party may set up systems of private
judging, mini-trials, summary jury trials, and advisory
arbitration.
• In each of these methods there is some type of
presentation of arguments and evidence to a third
party who makes a finding.
• The disputing parties then decide how to proceed
based on that finding (agree to mediation or pursue
formal legal action).

Formal Strategies
• A fact-finding investigation: The third party investigator
has no power to impose a solution. The investigator
listens to the employees' problems, conducts an
investigation, and then determines the most appropriate
course of action.
• Internal adjudication: Typically, the adjudicator is a
senior executive or a review board composed of
managers and lower-level employees. The adjudicators
are then only given the power to interpret right or
wrong. They may not change policy or offer alternative
solutions to the dispute.

Formal Strategy
• Binding arbitration: Here the arbitrator is an
external third party who makes binding decisions
concerning an organization's internal policies.
The arbitrator's job is to make an interpretation of
the organization's policy, not to judge its fairness
or offer a creative solution.

Power-based Conflicts
• Power-based strategies attempt to resolve conflict
based on who has the most power
• Disputants may use power-based approaches
without the involvement of a third party (e.g., use
threats to coerce another party)
• Coalition building may work if disputants builds their
power base by connecting with allies who strengthen
their position
• Strikes or lockouts are also examples of power-based
strategies (often making it necessary for an external
third party to mediate or arbitrate the conflict)

Power-based Conflicts
When third parties use power-based strategies, there
are three major options
• The intervening party may act autocratically by
imposing a solution
• A third party may restructure the work assignments of
the disputing parties to minimize their
interdependence
• Third parties may use the strategy of providing
impetus by threatening to punish or promising a
reward. By offering the impetus the intervening party
hopes to coerce the disputants to solve the conflict
on their own.

Bargaining and Negotiation
• Bargaining constitutes a unique form of conflict
management in that participants negotiate
mutually shared rules and then cooperate within
these rules to gain a competitive advantage over
their opponent.
• Bargaining differs from other forms of conflict in
its emphasis on proposal exchanges as a basis
for reaching a joint settlement in cooperative-
competitive situations [Putnam & Poole, 1987]

Bargaining and Negotiation
• Distributive bargaining: Characterized by the
existence or the appearance of fixed-sum (zero-
sum) alternatives; one party must win and the
other party must lose
• Integrative bargaining: Situations where the
potential outcomes can be expanded;
inconsistent goals are combined to create a new
alternative, one where neither side sacrifices his
or her ultimate aims

Distributive Bargaining
• Characterized by deception, withholding of
information, or the use of "disinformation" activities
(i.e., directly disclosing information that obscures
the negotiator's true objective).
• Bluffs, exaggerated demands, threats, and
ambiguous cues are common
• Negotiators conceal the strength of their positions,
the outcomes that they really want, and the points
that they are prepared to concede.

Integrative Bargaining
• Based on open communication,
accurate disclosure of objectives, and
sharing of information.
• Information is used for purposes of fact-
finding, problem definition, and
generation of alternative solutions

Principled Negotiation
• Separate the people from the problem
• Focus on interests rather than positions
• Generate a variety of options before
selecting an agreement
• Insist that the agreement be based on
objective criteria [Fisher & Ury, 1981]

Interpretive Perspective
• Cultural Context: Gender, Race, and
National
• Dialogic Culture

Cultural Context: Gender
Burrell, Buzzanell & McMillan (1992):
• Women participating in their study
overwhelmingly used war/destruction metaphors
to depict their experiences with conflict in
organizations.
• Conflict was viewed as adversarial, with clear
winners and losers.
• They portrayed conflict as an ongoing process
that did not necessarily lead to any clear
resolution or end points.

Burrell, Buzzanell & McMillan (1992)
• The impact of conflict on their self-image:
emotional distress, helplessness, and
vulnerability.
• Although war/destruction metaphors were
dominant, the passivity, powerless, and feelings
of impotence indicated that these women
abhorred a confrontational approach

and Race
Shuter and Turner (1997)
• Studied conflict narratives used by African American
and European American women in managerial and
non-managerial roles.
• African American women value more direct
approaches to conflict than European American
women.
• Also asked their respondents to describe their
perception of workplace conflict behaviors for African
American women, for European American women,
and for themselves personally.

and Race
• European American women were viewed as more
likely to avoid conflict in comparison to African
American women
• In comparison to European American women, African
American women viewed all women as more likely to
choose escalation, were more likely to see
themselves as reducing conflict, and were less likely
to see European Americans as maintaining conflict
• These findings show that race influences perceptions
of women in organizations concerning conflict [Shuter
& Turner, 1997]

Cultural Context: National
Kim and Leung (2000)
• American culture promotes individualism resulting in
the desirability of direct confrontation in conflict
• Many Asian countries cultivate collectivism so
avoidance is used regularly to preserve relational
harmony and to save others' face
• Conclusion: the cultural environment in which one
lives influences the type of social construction that
unfolds with respect to particular communication
processes such as conflict management

Cultural Context: National
Oetzel (1998)
• Although living in individualistic versus collectivistic
cultures may influence how people act during conflict,
it is important that we do not oversimplify this
observation
• Examined whether self-construal (independent or
interdependent) or ethnicity predicted individual self-
reported conflict styles in the small group context
• Respondents included Latinos (collectivistic) and
European Americans (individualistic)
• Self-image is a better predictor of conflict styles than
ethnicity.

Dialogic Culture
Barge (2006)
Commitments that characterize a dialogic culture where
collective thinking and respectful relationships are
emphasized:
• The recognition that multiple voices, perspectives,
and points of view will characterize any large
organization
• A dialogic culture values otherness meaning that
different people and groups within an organization
are honored and engaged, particularly if they
articulate positions that are opposed by the majority

Dialogic Culture
• Organizational members pursue a richer understanding
of the complexity of a situation, issue, or problem.
Specifically, dialogue facilitates the process of seeing
the connections that exist among differing positions and
interests.
• Dialogue generates new possibilities for meaning and
action by allowing for the emergence of new possibilities
that may be entirely different than the original ideas that
surfaced prior to dialogic interaction.
• Dialogue transcends polarization by moving beyond
hostile discourse to seek the commonalities that link
people together.

Critical Perspectives
• Contradictions Between Capitalism and
Democracy
• Coalitions and Intergroup Conflict
• Feminist Bureaucracy as Organized
Dissonance

Contradictions between
Capitalism and Democracy
• The structural economic pressures embedded in
capitalism force nations to act in certain ways
regardless of what their populations want or think.
• While the ideological forces linked to capitalism
limit the range of political debate, government and
market together promote aggressive individualism.
• As aggressive individualists, people feel compelled
to compete as consumers and "profit maximizers"
rather than relate to one another as citizens
[Dryzek, 1996]

Contradictions between
Capitalism and Democracy
• Globalization significantly increases the supremacy
of big corporations and big government.
• One of the trends of globalization is depoliticization
of publics, the decline of the nation state, and the
end of traditional politics.
• Globalization is promoted by tremendously
powerful economic forces that often undermine
democratic movements and decision-making.
• What ultimately happens is growing centralization
and organization of power and wealth in the hands
of the few.

Inter-Group Conflict
• One of the major factors in intergroup conflict is the
perception that groups have of their relationship.
• Those that see their relationship as competitive
engage in misrepresentation, withholding of
information, minimization of intergroup agreements
accompanied by maximization of differences,
discourse slanted favorably toward in-group
positions and unfavorably toward out-group
positions, and even charges of disloyalty against in-
group members who support positions taken by the
out-group

• Inter-group conflict can be managed successfully if
two conditions are present: separateness and equal
valuation.
• The condition of separateness promotes the existence
of separate, positive group identities.
• Organizational members often group together based
on demographics (e.g., race, gender, ethnicity, age)
and/or attitudinal similarities (e.g., comparable
positions on issues).
• These various separate groups need to feel that their
presence and contributions are respected within the
organization.

• In order for conflict to be managed
successfully, an environment must be created
where different group members recognize that
their positions are equally valued in the inter-
group environment.
• The conditions of separateness and equal
valuation are particularly important for an
organization to reap the benefits of an
ethnically and racially diverse membership
[Thalhofer, 1993]

Coalitions
• A coalition occurs when individuals
band together in order to wield
influence within the organization

Characteristics of
Coalitions
• Interacting Group
• Deliberately Constructed
• Independent of Formal Organization's Structure
• Lack of Formal Internal Structure
• Mutual Perception of Membership
• Issue Oriented
• External Focus
• Concerted Member Action

Coalitions
• Coalitions are more likely to form in an
organization when there is a major change in the
allocation of resources or when some
organization members believe that comparable
others are receiving more favorable treatment.
• Coalition formation is more likely when there are
opportunities for frequent interaction among
organization members and organization
members have discretion in carrying out their job
responsibilities

Coalitions
• As the coalition itself becomes more visible, the
issues pursued by the coalition also become
more visible
• The likelihood increases that a counter-coalition
will form in order to block the aims of the original
coalition

Feminist Bureaucracy as
Organized Dissonance
• The concept of organized dissonance opposes the
assumption of rational organization and shakes
faith in unity of direction or in "one head with one
plan."
• Irony and paradox within and among organizational
groups should be promoted rather than avoided.
• Motivated by strategic incongruity, the dissonance
model reflects organizations that employ
incompatible forms to meet conflicting objectives
and demands [Ashcraft, 2001]

Feminist Bureaucracy as
Organized Dissonance
• The shift in perspective promoted by organized
dissonance allows one to engage contradiction
as deliberate dialectic tension [Ashcraft, 2001]

Ethics in Conflict
• When conflicts are over valued resources and a
win-lose approach to resolution is taken,
competing sides may be tempted to do anything
to win.
• Losing does not build character, it builds
frustration, aggression, or apathy [Wilmot &
Hocker, 1998]
• When much is at stake and few can be winners,
cheating and dishonesty flourish in a
hypercompetitive environment [Rothwell, 2001]

Ethics in Conflict
• The ethical violation most tempting to commit
is lying to gain a strategic advantage.
• Lying is a rule violation because it is a
purposeful attempt to manipulate an outcome
to the favor of one party.
• From the perspective of principled
negotiation, lying constitutes an ethical
violation because it misrepresents the
underlying interests of one party to the
conflict.

Ethics in Conflict
• The harms caused by lying extend beyond an
agreement that is more favorable to one party.
• If the lie were uncovered at a subsequent point,
trust between the parties would be difficult to re-
establish.
• Simply stated, the price of lying is too high to
ignore if an organization wants to function
effectively.

LS 603 Chapter 12 - Conflict

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Similar to LS 603 Chapter 12 - Conflict

More from BHUOnlineDepartment

Recently uploaded

LS 603 Chapter 12 - Conflict