Conflict is an essential force governing all aspects of life.

It has always existed

between individuals, groups and organisations. Understanding and managing conflict
is a vital investment to improve organisational performance. Effective conflict
management helps organisations to keep in touch with new developments and create
suitable solutions for new threat and opportunities. Managing conflict like
managing politics, is a way to improve organisational decision making and resource
allocating, ultimately making the organisation more effective (Kabanoff,
1991).Therefore, this paper is an attempt to explore the procedures in managing
both individual and collective conflict in organisations with considering the
advantages and disadvantages of the different procedural approach to managing the
employee relationship.

Conflict can be defined as disagreement between two or more parties as for example,
individuals, groups, departments, organisations, countries – who perceive that they
have incompatible concerns (Bloisi, 2007). Conflicts present whenever an action by
one party is perceived as preventing or interfering with the goals, needs, or
actions of another. Conflict can be regarded as a reality of management and
organisational behaviour which is related to power and politics. According to
Mullins (2005) conflict is a behaviour intended to obstruct the achievement of some
other person’s goals which is based on the incompatibility of goals and arises from
opposing behaviours. Modern theories of conflict emphasize that it is a process
which involves the perceptions, thoughts, feelings and intentions of all
participants (Furnham, 2005). Conflict in organisations stems from both
organisations based and interpersonal factors. Organisational based factors include
competition over scarce resources, uncertainty over responsibility or jurisdiction,
inter-dependence, reward system that pit people or against one another, and power
differentials. Interpersonal factors include attributional errors, faulty
communications and personal characteristics or traits.

Differing perspectives on conflicts

Conflict in the employment relationship has an important influence on theories of

industrial relations. It has been interpreted differently at different times-i.e.
the unitary, pluralist, and interactionist perspectives.

The traditional view of conflict is that it is associated with negative features

and situations which give rise to inefficiency, ineffectiveness or dysfunctional
consequences which is ultimately a bad thing for organisations (Mullins, 2005).
Unitary perspective is the early interpretation of conflict which amounted to a
definition of a process that was harmful and should be avoided. According to this
view conflict was seen as a negative outcome of poor communication, lack of
openness and trust between people, and the inability of superiors to respond to the
needs and aspirations of subordinates.

While conflict often consider as harmful, and thus something to avoid, it can also
sometimes beneficial. A total absence of conflict can lead to apathy and lethargy
(Moorhead and Griffin, 1992). According to the pluralist perspective, conflict is a
natural phenomenon which is inevitable, occasionally even desirable, because it
supports evolutionary change (Furnham, 2005). This outlook claims that conflict is
stimulating and beneficial because it challenges the apathetic, the groups which
are not responding to the change. In fact, pluralists argue that conflict often
brings about necessary change, increase cohesiveness and improves organisational
effectiveness. It is the device which brings change in individual and
organisational life.

According to the interactionist perspective, harmony, peace, tranquility, and

cooperation might create apathy and produce too great a tolerance of the status
quo, with a lack of responsiveness to the need for change and innovation. Hence,
the interactionist ideology is that conflict should not only be tolerated but
encourages the adoption of a minimum level of conflict -that is enough level of
conflict to make sure the group is viable, self critical, and
creative( Mckenna,2003). Interactionists described conflict as functional or
constructive and is said to facilitate the attainment of the group’s goals and to
improve performance. Therefore, organisational conflict can be considered as
legitimate and unavoidable which is a positive indicator of effective
organisational management and conflict within certain limits is essential to
productivity (Rahim, 2001). The interactionist believes that just as the level of
conflict may be too high and requires a reduction and it is also often too low and
in need of increased intensity because organizations that do not stimulate conflict
increase the probability of stagnant thinking, poor decisions, and at the extreme,
organizational failure (Robbins,1974).

According to the radical view, organisation is one of the theatres of war. This
view emphasises the disparity of power between the owners of the means of
production (managers) and the workers. Conflict is about professional values,
limited resources, career progress, and special privileges and so on. Therefore,
Radical frame of reference on conflict views organisational conflict as an
inevitable consequence of exploitative employment relations in a capitalist’s
economy (Huczynski & Buchanan, 2007).

Pondy’s model of organisational conflict

Louis Pondy (1967) developed one of the most widely accepted models of
organisational conflict. According to his view conflict is a dynamic process that
consists of five sequential stages. It is not a matter how or why conflict arises
in an organisation, manager can use Pondy’s model to analyse a conflict and guide
their attempts to manage it (George & Jones, 2005).

Latent conflict, the first stage of Pondy’s model often arises when a change
occurs. Conflict might be caused by a budget cutback, a change in organisational
direction, a change in a personal goal, the assignment of a new project to an
already overload workforce, or an expected occurrence that doesn’t happen.

The stage of perceived conflict begins when one party-individual or group-becomes

aware that its goals are being thwarted by the actions of another party. This is
the point at which members become aware of problem. At this point, however, no one
feels that anything they care about is actually being overtly threatened (Bloisi,
2007). During the stage of felt conflict, the parties in conflict develop negative
feelings about each other. Here the parties become emotionally involved and begin
to focus on differences of opinion and opposing interests, sharpening perceived
conflict.

Figure 1: Pondy’s Model of Organisational Conflict

Stage 1

Latent conflict

Stage 2

Perceived conflict

Stage 3

Felt Conflict

Stage 4
Manifest conflict

Stage 5

Conflict aftermath

Source: Adapted from George & Jones (2005)

In the stage of manifest conflict, one party decides how to react to or deal with
party that it sees the source of the conflict, and both parties try to hurt each
other and frustrate each other’s goals. Manifest conflict also takes the form of a
lack of cooperation between people or functions, a result that can seriously hurt
an organisation. Every conflict episode leaves a conflict “aftermath” that affects
the way both parties perceive and respond to future episodes. If conflict can be
resolved by compromise or collaboration before it progress to the manifest stage,
the conflict aftermath will promote good future working relationships (George &
Jones, 2005).

It is found from the above part of this paper that conflict has many faces and it
is a constant challenge for managers who are responsible for achieving
organisational goal. Given the potentially disruptive effects of conflict, managers
need to be sensitive to how it can be managed. When a potentially harmful conflict
situation exists, a manager needs to engage in conflict resolution. Attention of
this paper now turns to the active management of both functional and dysfunctional
conflict.

Managing conflict

According to management perspective conflict should be avoided at all costs and

ultimately should be managed by the resolution of any conflict (Robbins, 1974).
Managing conflict has now become a complex issue because it involves the
recognition, interpretation, encouragement and/or discouragement of conflict in
order to influence appropriate outcomes whereas resolution simply involves in
reduction and elimination (Amason, 1996; Rahim, Garrett and Buntzman, 1992).
Although conflict enhanced individual, group and organisational effectiveness,
management of conflict cannot be ignoring (Rahim, 2001). In addition, Pawlak (1998)
suggests managing conflict has an important role in private, public and political
organizations, as well as in judicial and work disputes, in military operations and
many other situations.

Stimulating functional conflict

As discussed earlier, the current view is that in certain circumstances stimulating

a degree of conflict within organisation can be beneficial (Amason, 1996). But in
this situation, the matter needs to be handled in a very careful and controlled way
so that the matters do not go beyond control and result in something that is highly
dysfunctional.

Collective conflict management

Collective conflict management is about changing the attitudes and behaviours of

groups and departments in conflict. Bargaining or negotiation is the most common
procedure for resolving organisational conflicts. Third party intervention also can
be helpful in these areas.

Negotiation

Negotiation is a form of problem solving where two groups with conflicting

interests exchange things in order to reach a mutually agreeable resolution
(Bloisi, 2007). Hence, negotiation involves an element of power, as each party
involved in negotiation will want to exert some influence or pressure on the other.
Negotiation experts distinguish negotiation between two types- distributive and
integrative. Distributive negotiation involves traditional win-lose thinking,
whereas integrative involves win-win strategy (Fisher and Ury, 1981).

According to Thomas (1992) there are five forms that negotiation may take as a
group handle conflict with others: compromise, collaboration, accommodation,
avoidance and competition. Compromise usually involves bargaining and negotiation
to reach a solution that is acceptable to both parties. Compromise may be the best
hope for leaving the both parties in relatively satisfactory positions when a
manager is dealing with an opponent of equal power who is strongly committed to a
mutually exclusive goal. It is also wise when a temporary settlement needs to be
achieved. It can be useful for gracefully getting out of mutually destructive
situations. But on the other hand, too much compromising might cause to lose sight
of principles that are more important, values and long term objectives and can also
create a cynical climate of gamesmanship (Bloisi, 2007). Sometimes the parties in
dispute use collaboration to find a solution, which means each side tries to
satisfy not only its own goals but also the goals of other side. Collaboration is a
necessary when the concerns of both parties are too important to be compromised.

Accommodation is a style for handling conflict in which one party allows the other
to achieve its goals. It consists of unassertive and co-operative behaviour. It is
an appropriate strategy when the issue at stake is much more important to the other
person. It helps to maintain a co-operative relationship, building up social
credits for use in later conflicts. However, too much accommodation can deprive
others of someone’s personal contributions and viewpoint. Avoidance is unassertive
and uncooperative behaviour. In this conflict management style, both parties refuse
to recognise the real source of the problems and act as there were no problems. It
is appropriate when the issue involved is relatively unimportant. In addition, if
one party has little power or in a situation that is very difficult to change,
avoiding may be the best choice.

Figure 2: Interpersonal conflict management styles

Competing Collaborative

Avoidance Accommodating

Assertive

Compromising

Unassertive

Unco-operative co-operative

Source: adapted from Thomas (1992).

Competition is assertive and uncooperative behaviour where each party is looking

out for its own interests and has little interest in understanding the other’s
positions or taking the other’s needs in to account. It can be beneficial when
quick, action is vital, as in emergencies. But sometimes this style illuminates the
source of important information.

According to George & Jones (2005), there are five specific tactics which help
managers to structure the negotiation and bargaining process to make compromise and
collaboration more likely: emphasise common goals; focus on the problem, not the
people; focus on interests, not demand; create opportunities for joint gain; and
focus on what is fair. They also suggest that if a manager pursue those five
strategies and encourage other members of the organisation to do so, they are more
likely to resolve their conflicts effectively through negotiation and bargaining.
Then managers can use conflict to help increase a company’s performance and avoid
destructive fights that harm the people involved in conflict as well as the
organisation.

Collective bargaining

Collective bargaining is specifically an industrial relations mechanism or tool,

and is an aspect of negotiation and applicable to the employment relationship
(Silva, 1996).

Bratton & Gold (2007) define collective bargaining as an institutional system of

negotiation in which the making, interpretation and administration of rules, as
well as the application of statutory controls affecting the employment
relationship, are decided within union-management negotiating committees. The
structure of collective bargaining is the frame work within which negotiations take
place and defines the scope of employers and employees covered by the collective
agreement. Collective bargaining is

Figure 3: Strategic model of collective bargaining

Economy

Ideologies

Issues

Bargaining process

Union Management

Agreement

Outline pressures

Precedent

Law

Public Sentiment

Source: Miner & Crame (1995).

conducted at several levels: at the workplace, corporate or industry level. The

collective bargaining structures are closely linked with business structures and
“profit centres” (Bratton & Gold, 2007). It has the advantage of settlement through
dialogue and consensus rather than through conflict and confrontation.

Third- party intervention

Third- party interventions are necessary when conflicting parties are unwilling or
unable to engage in conflict resolution or integrative negotiation. Integrative or
added value negotiation is most appropriate for intergroup and inter-organisational
conflict. The two most common forms of third party assistance are mediation and
arbitration (Bloisi, 2007). Mediation is a process in which a neutral third party
to the conflict assist in the achievement of a negotiated solution by using reason,
persuasion and the presentation of the alternatives and on the other hand
arbitration is a process in which a third party to a conflict has the authority to
impose an agreement that is binding on the parties in conflict (Huczynski &
Buchanan, 2007). Which approach is best depends upon the specific conflict
situation. Mediation provides the greatest potential when dealing with minor
conflicts because it allows the parties more responsibility in determining the
outcome. Arbitration is usually most appropriate when the parties are at a definite
stalemate because its structured rules and processes provide the best sense of
fairness.

Individual level conflict management

Individual level conflict management is aimed at changing the attitudes or

behaviours of those in the conflict. Disciplinary and grievance are formal
mechanisms for resolving individual conflict and represent positive opportunities
for corrective action and concern resolution. If the conflict is due to a clash of
personalities and the parties in conflict do not understand one another’s point of
view, the organisation can help the people involved by bringing in outside help to
give advice and counsel and if the clash is due to workforce diversity, the
organisation can use education and training to help employees appreciate the
differences in their attitudes and avoid or successfully resolve conflict (George &
Jones, 2005).

Discipline

When employee voice mechanisms fail to create or reinforce desirable employee

attitudes and behaviours, manager may resort to disciplinary action (Bratton &
Gold, 2007). According to ACAS (1987), “Discipline is about maintaining standards
of behaviour and performance. The best way to do this is to: agree standards and
make sure all staff know what these are; have rules and procedures in place to
enable employer to deal with unacceptable behaviour and unsatisfactory performance
within the workplace. The emphasis is on maintaining standards, not punishment.”
Disciplinary practices, ranging from oral warning to termination of the employment
relationship, aim to make worker’s behaviour acceptable. But according to Mabey,
Skinner and Clark (1998), workers had negative perceptions of total quality
management because of a culture incorporating the excessive use of disciplinary
actions against individuals.

Grievance

According to ACAS (1987), “Grievance is a problem or concern somebody may have

about their work, working conditions or relationships with colleagues. Therefore,
it is important that organisation has.” Grievance is a formally presented complaint
to a management representative or to a union official (Pigors and Myers, 1977). If
there were no procedure for raising and resolving grievances, it would be likely
that employees would grumble to colleagues, and as a result not only their work but
the work of the department would be suffer (Foot & Hook,2005).

According to the above discussion, disciplinary action is normally initiated by

management to express dissatisfaction with, and bring about changes in, employee
behaviour; grievance, on the other hand, is normally initiated by employees for
similar reasons, but in respect of management’s, or perhaps co-workers’, behaviour.
But fairness and justice is essential in both procedures although they are
initiated by different parties.

Conclusion

This paper tried to analyse the procedures in managing both individual and
collective conflict in organisations with considering difference frame of
references. As noted earlier, conflict is natural to any organisation and as
according to some researchers like Bloisi (2007), Amason (1996) it can never be
completely eliminated, nor should it be, if conflict not manage properly, conflict
can be dysfunctional and lead to undesirable consequences like hostility, lack of
cooperation, violence, destroyed relationships and even organisation failure. On
the other hand, when conflict managed effectively, conflict can stimulate
creativity, innovation and change, and build better relationship. Therefore, it is
very essential for an organisation to manage conflict effectively. A variety of
conflict management techniques have been developed to help resolve conflicts and
deal with the kinds of negative effects just described in this paper. In general,
Bargaining or negotiation is the most common procedure for resolving organisational
conflicts and disciplinary and grievance are two main mechanisms for resolving
individual conflict in organisations. A positive approach to resolving conflict is
possible if discipline is viewed as opportunity for corrective action and grievance
is viewed as an opportunity for the resolution of employee concerns (Pilbeam &
Corbridge, 2002).