UNDERSTANDING THE PROCESSES

INVOLVED IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION

AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

Prepared by:
Mamta Kerpal – G21083
Vivek Anand – G21112
Apoorva Tripathi – G21067
Kaushik Narayanan Moni – G21081
Shrish Gopal Upadhyay – G21101
Introduction To Conflict
It is difficult to define conflict because it occurs in many different settings. The essence of conflict
seems to be a contradiction, incompatibility, or disagreement. Thus, conflict refers to any situation in
which there are incompatible cognitions, goals, or emotions within or between groups or individuals
that lead to antagonistic or opposition interaction.

There are three basic types of conflict:

1. Goal conflict is a situation in which preferred outcomes or end states appear to be

incompatible.
2. Cognitive conflict is a situation in which thoughts or ideas are inconsistent.
3. Affective conflict is a situation in which emotions or feelings are incompatible; that is,
people literally become angry with one another. Conflict is widespread in a company or
organization settings. This is not necessarily a negative feature ad the resolution of conflict
often leads to constructive problem-solving.

Managers should understand the various ways of conflict resolution as conflict exists in many forms
other than the conflict that results from the competition. Thus conflict is examined from a variety of
viewpoints. First, the negative and positive aspects of the conflict are considered. Next, the
discussion is on the levels of conflict that can occur within organizations. Finally, identification of
some of the basic strategies for managing conflict and resolution of conflict is discussed.

Levels Of Conflict
Different levels of conflict are

 intrapersonal (within an individual),

 interpersonal (between individuals),
 intragroup (within a group),
 intergroup (between groups), and
 Intra-organizational (within organizations).

# Intrapersonal
Intrapersonal conflict often involves some form of goal conflict or cognitive conflict and occurs
within an individual. Goal conflict exists for individuals when their behavior will result in outcomes
that are mutually exclusive or have compatible elements (both positive and negative outcomes).

1. Approach-approach conflict is a situation in which a person has a choice between two or

more alternatives with positive outcomes. For example - a person can choose between two
jobs that appear to be equally attractive.
2. Avoidance conflict is a situation in which a person must choose between two or more
alternatives, and all outcomes are negative. For example - employees may be threatened
with punishment in the form of demotion unless they do something they dislike spend much
time traveling on their job.
 3. Approach-avoidance conflict is a situation in which a person must decide whether to do
something that had both negative and positive outcomes. Example - a good job being
offered in a bad location.

# Interpersonal
Interpersonal conflict involves two or more individuals. Two executives maneuvering for a larger
share of corporate capital, two managers competing for the same promotion are examples of
conflict between individuals and quite familiar ones.

Reasons for the Conflict:

1. Personality differences: Some people have difficulty getting alongside each other. It has
nothing to do with their formal interactions or job requirements, and this is purely a
psychological problem.
2. Perceptions: Varied backgrounds, education, experiences, and training result in individuals
developing different perceptions of similar realities, the result being an increase in the
likelihood of interpersonal conflict.
3. Clashes of interests and values: Conflict that so commonly develops between manufacturing
and engineering personnel shows how differences in values might underlie conflict.
Members of the manufacturing department might value low manufacturing costs and
simplicity, while members of the engineering department might place durability, a premium
on quality, and sophisticated design.
4. Status and Power differences: As pointed out by Abraham Zalenznik, "Organizations are
political structures." They operate by setting a stage for the exercise of power and
distributing authority. Similarly, status inconsistencies lead to conflict.
5. Scarce resource: Interpersonal Conflict is present whenever there is a scarcity. Conflicts over
scarce resources are very common in organizations. Where the scarcity is absolute (the
resource level cannot be increased), it is very difficult to manage interpersonal conflicts. For
example, if three qualified individuals, i.e., for any superior positions in the company, when
only one such position is present, interpersonal conflict may develop to an unmanageable
level.

# Intragroup
A group experiencing Intragroup Conflict allows the group to reach a consensus and may eventually
resolve it. Or the group may not resolve the conflict, and the group discussion may end in
disagreement among the members.

Intragroup conflict falls into two categories:

1. Substantive conflict refers to the conflict based on the nature of the task or on "content"
issues. It is correlated with intellectual disagreements among the group members.
2. Affective conflict derives essentially from the group's interpersonal relations. It is associated
with emotional responses aroused during interpersonal conflicts.

# Intergroup
An organization is a collection of groups and individuals. As the situation demands, the individuals
form various groups. The success of the organization depends upon the harmonial relations among
all interdependent groups, even though some intergroup conflicts in organizations are inevitable.
The idea is to study intergroup behaviors within an organization so that any conflict can be
recognized and dealt with by the management.

# Intra-Organizational
There are four types of intra-organizational conflict that exist:

1. Vertical Conflict refers to any conflict between different levels in a company; One example is
superior-subordinate conflict. It usually arise because superiors attempt to control
subordinates.
2. Horizontal Conflict refers to a conflict between employees or departments at the same
hierarchical level in a company.
3. Line-Staff Conflict: Most companies have staff departments to assist the line departments.
The line-staff relationship frequently involves conflict. Line managers and staff managers
typically have different personal characteristics. Staff employees tend to come from different
backgrounds, have a higher level of education, and are younger than line employees. These
different personal characteristics are often associated with different beliefs and values, and
the surfacing of these different values tends to create conflict.
4. Role Conflict: A role is the bundle of activities that others expect individuals to perform in
their position. A role often involves conflict.

Although these types of conflict overlap, especially with role conflict, each has unique
characteristics.

Sources of Conflicts in an organization

Conflicts in an organization can arise due to several factors under various circumstances.

Robert H Miles, in his book Macro Organizational Behavior (1980), has pointed out the following six
factors that facilitate Organizational Conflicts -

1. Task Interdependencies
2. Status Inconsistencies
3. Communication Problems
4. Dependence on Common Resource Pool
5. Lack of Common Performance Standards
6. Individual Differences

Many a time, such conflicts at the workplace are depicted as Interpersonal Issues. However, the fact
remains that such systematic issues are mostly related to the root of the problems. Often what
seems at first the interpersonal conflict might be because of organizational structure.

CPP Global Human Capital states that more than 85% of the organizations and employees
experience conflicts at various levels and to different degrees. Some Interesting figures brought by
this report are as follows –

 85% of employees at every level experienced conflict at some point

 34% of conflict was observed amongst the front-line employees
 29% of employees experienced the conflict more frequently than others
 27% confessed that conflicts led to various attacks at a personal level
 12% admitted conflicts frequently among those at the senior level
  9% of the employees expressed their view that conflicts cause project failures

We can infer and, more importantly, acknowledge that organizations must accept and embrace
conflicts. The organizations must chalk out a road map on how to address and respond to these
conflicts. The organizations must also understand that there is no practical solution to workplace
conflict management, but just being proactive about it can help organizations use it to their
advantage.

Let us delve deeper into these points and try to understand them better.

# Task Interdependencies
The first roots of the conflicts are task interdependencies. Generally, chances of conflict are higher if
the scope of task interdependence among individuals or groups, i.e., the scope of collaboration to
achieve a particular goal, is significantly high. It's established very well that it becomes exceptionally
daunting to avoid conflicts if the target or expectations of individuals or groups are not aligned. Such
conflicts overgrow to extreme levels almost immediately, even if there are minor disagreements
within the teams.

# Status Inconsistencies
The second factor is inconsistencies in the status of the parties involved. It could be seen in a simple
way as the managers having the authority to take some time off during the office hours to do their
personal chores, and at the same time, the juniors or non-managerial employees being denied of
any such authority. This deteriorates the perception of the junior management level employees
towards the organization. They might even stop believing in the culture and the value system of the
organization.

# Jurisdictional Ambiguities
The third and quite relevant aspect is that of the Jurisdictional Ambiguities – which basically arises
when the deliverable and responsibilities of the individual or group are not clearly defined or
understood. A very simple example of this kind of conflict could be the hiring of a potential
candidate through an evaluation procedure run by two different teams – the HR and the department
or the team for which the candidate would actually work for or with. In such a scenario, imagine
what would happen if the candidate is deemed fit as per one of the evaluating teams and rejected
by the other team.

# Communication Problems
Needless to say, ineffective communication can cause severe damages by creating unnecessary
conflicts just by inducing misunderstandings. The response of an individual or a team would actually
depend upon how the idea or the instruction was communicated to them. If communicated well and
effectively, it could do wonders to solidify the team's trust and bring chaos or disaster if it is
miscommunicated or misunderstood.

# Dependence on Common resource Pool

Another aspect that facilitates the conflict among the individuals or the team is the non-availability
or scarcity of the resources or even dependency on the common resources. It is almost inevitable to
avoid conflicts if multiple teams or departments are competing for scarce resources. It would result
in the tradeoffs between the teams or departments on one party winning or achieving the goal at
the cost of the other.
# Lack of Common Performance Standards
The next potential source of organizational conflict is the difference in the performance evaluation
and reward systems. It is usually observed to be predominantly there in the organizations where the
internal processes have not been standardized among various teams or departments. In such a
situation, it is self-evident that conflicts would arise since each individual, group, or department
would be working to maximize their productivity bars. A straightforward example of this is when an
organization has a different reward system for its production personnel and sales team. While they
reward the production team based on their efficiency facilitated by the long-term productivity, the
sales team is awarded based on their performance to the short-term market changes, which often
comes at the expense of long-term production.

# Individual Differences
Last but not least, interpersonal relations are substantially affected by a gamut of individual
differences, such as personal abilities, traits, and skills. An individual's attitude, response, and ability
to negotiate a conflict are characterized by individual dominance, aggressiveness, authoritarianism,
and tolerance for ambiguity. In fact, these characteristics would determine if the conflict would arise
in the first place or not.

Now that we have understood the sources of conflict within an organization, the next time you face
any interpersonal conflict, try to reflect upon these questions:

 Have we clearly laid out our roles?

 Do our processes and procedures encourage effective collaboration?
 Have we defined SOPs and communicated them clearly?
 Do we have the necessary support and resources?
 Have we clearly set the performance attributes?

As Ms. Wendy Loewen has articulated very well in her book, The Culture Question: How to Create a
Workplace Where People Like to Work, it is important to understand that interpersonal conflict
should not various other organizational factors contributing to other factors to the situation. The
situation can be a symptom, and the root cause can be something different. Just being aware of this
would help the individual, team, and organization understand and address a deeper problem and
establish and maintain a healthy workplace.

Conflict-Management
Conflict management is the process of increasing the positive effects of conflict while limiting the
negative aspects. It aims to teach groups conflict resolution skills that will help them effectively
communicate when in conflict with a team member.

People have different ways of handling conflict. Conflict is sure to arise when people are living
together. It is important to know how one handles stressful situations, but it is also important to
know how the other people living together will react to conflict. For example - one may be ready to
talk about the situation and bring resolution to it immediately, whereas one's roommates may need
an hour to get their thoughts together.

Learning to manage conflict is essential for a high-performance. Conflict might intensify and lead to
non-productive results, or conflicts can be beneficially resolved and lead to final quality products.
Conflict management is based on the principle that all conflicts cannot necessarily be resolved, but
learning how to manage conflicts can decrease the odds of having non – productive escalations.

Conflict management involves acquiring skills related to self-realization about conflict modes,
conflict resolution, conflict communication skills, and establishing a structure for the management of
conflict in your environment.

FIVE STYLES OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

The image below describes the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), used by human
resource (HR) professionals around the world, depicting the five major styles of conflict
management. Knowing when and how to use each style can help control conflict and lead to an
improved working environment. We will now discuss the five main styles of conflict management.

We can see on the X and Y axis that there are two sides of conflict management; assertive and
cooperative. By viewing the diagram, we can see that:

 Avoiding is low on both cooperative and assertive

 Competing is low on cooperative and high on assertive
 Collaborating is high on both cooperative and assertive
 Accommodating is high on cooperative and low on assertive
 Compromising is in the middle of cooperative and assertive

# Accommodating
 People who are accommodating satisfy the concerns of others first and often neglect their
own concerns. Accommodating is the opposite style of competing.
 People who accommodate may be selflessly charitable or generous, and accomodators may
also obey other people when they prefer not to or yield to other's point of view.
 Accomodators may work against their own objectives or goals to reach the desired outcome.
 Accommodating may save future relationships with the conflicting party or person.

# Avoiding
  When someone uses avoidance, they are not assertively pursuing their own, and they are
not helping the other party reach their goals.
 To do so, they may diplomatically postpone or sidestep the discussion till a better time,
withdraw from a threatening situation or divert attention. They regard conflict as hopeless
and, therefore, something to be avoided. They overlook the differences and accept the
disagreement.
 This works when you have no chance of winning or when the issue is trivial. It's also very
fruitful when the atmosphere is emotionally charged, and you need to create some "space."
Sometimes issues will resolve themselves. But avoiding is not a good long-term strategy.
"Hope is not a strategy."

# Collaborating
 People, who collaborate, work together to achieve the goals of both parties by making a
plan to improve a situation. They attempt to work with others to find solutions that fully
satisfy the concerns of both parties.
 This can be effective for complex scenarios where a novel solution is needed. This can also
mean re-framing a challenge to create more room for everybody's ideas. The drawback is
that it requires a high degree of trust and reliability, and reaching a consensus can require a
lot of effort and time. It takes work to get everybody on board and to synthesize a variety of
possible conflicting ideas.
 Collaborators often recognize that there are contrasting viewpoints and tensions in
relationships but want to work through conflicts.

# Compromising
 In compromising concept, there is a "lose-lose" situation which could be confusing. It means
that no party is going to get exactly what they want, but everybody benefits in some way.
Even though collaborating would produce a better solution, one falls into the trap of
compromising since it is an easy way out as collaborating requires more work.
 Compromisers give up more than competitors but less than accommodators. They explore
issues less than collaborators but more than avoiders. Their solutions often involve
exchanging concessions or "splitting the difference". Conflict is a mutual difference best
resolved by compromise and cooperation.
 It may be appropriate for scenarios where one needs a temporary solution or where both
sides have equally crucial goals.

# Competing
 People take a power orientation to compete and even at the expense of the other party, use
whatever power seems appropriate to win. This may include pulling rank, arguing, or
instigating sanctions. Competing may mean defending a position to be correct or simply
trying to win. Another way of viewing competition is Forcing. People who use forcing style
believe that some people are correct while others are not.
 This approach may be appropriate for emergencies when time is of the essence or when you
need quick, decisive action. People should be aware of and support the approach.
 This is not a good conflict management style for handling normal conflict situations due to
the fact that it demands only one person to be completely right and the other completely
 wrong. This is rarely the case. Most of the time, both parties need to be open to changing
part of their behavior.

After getting any test results, people usually ask this question first: "What are the right answers?".,
There are no universal right answers in the case of conflict-handling behavior. Each mode represents
a set of useful social skills, and all five modes are useful in some situations. The effectiveness of a
given conflict mode depends upon the requirements of the particular conflict situation and the skill
with which the conflict-handling mode is used.

Each one of us is capable of using all five conflict-handling modes: few could be characterized as
having a rigid style of dealing with conflict. However, many people use some modes better than
others and, therefore, tend to rely upon those modes more than others.

By knowing our own default patterns, we improve our self-awareness.

When we become aware of our patterns, we can pay attention to whether they are working for us or
we can explore alternatives. By using a scenario-based approach, we can choose more effective
conflict management styles and test their effectiveness for our situations.

Conflict Resolution 
While it might sound seemingly straightforward, conflict resolution needs a more elaborate
structure to go about it. By following a structured resolution, the model removes inconsistencies in
the decision-making and ensures that issues and concerns of both parties are considered while the
conflict is solved. 

A fundamental conflict resolution model can follow the six steps as described in the below chart. 

Establishment Discuss Agree and

Conflict Identify Accept
of Common Possible Test the
Definition Roadblocks Solution
Goal Solutions Solution

# Conflict Definition 

Conflict Definition or Conflict Identification is the phase wherein both the parties identify and agree
upon the heart of the conflict. 

One of the primary reasons for conflict to become an escalated rather than a relatively one is the
misunderstanding between the parties about the very foundation of the conflict. The individual
point of view of the parties often creates a personal bias on how a particular issue is viewed;
thereby, both the concerned parties get themselves into a position of conflict by merely looking at
the core subject of the issue from a subjective lens rather than an objective lens. 

The primary purpose of the step is to identify the core issue from the objective perspective and
come to an agreement about the conflict with all the parties. From a third-party mediator's
perspective, the mediator must collect as much information as possible from both the parties and
continue to ask the right questions to all the parties till the conflict has been identified. 

# Establishment of Common Goal 

Once the conflict is identified, the very next step would be to find the same goal, which is to be
achieved by both parties. 

The very identification of a conflict will have an implied association to an endpoint. It is now the
responsibility of the parties (and the mediator, whenever applicable) to find the common goal. This
common goal might be as complex as the outcome of whatever the conflict was based on. It could
be something as simple as both the parties wanting to come to a common point of view and close
the problem. 

Either way, it involves both parties to come to an understanding of what is the expected outcome.
This identification will help both the parties to see the others' POV more clearly, thereby eliminating
some of the pre-conceived biases and removes specific barriers. 

# Evaluate Possible Solutions to meet the Goals

The next step after identifying the common goal is to find out the possible solutions to achieve the
same. 

This is one of the critical steps of conflict resolution, as this would incorporate the thoughts and
ideas all the parties have towards achieving the common goal. This step involves thorough
brainstorming between the parties and identification of possible paths for reaching the common
goal. 

Through this brainstorming, not only would the parties be able to express their point of view, but
they would also get a clearer picture and understanding of the other party's points. This will further
help to clear any potential misunderstandings between both. Additionally, this will potentially birth
newer ways of achieving the goal, which either of them might not have thought about it by
themselves. 

# Identify Roadblocks 
When the potential solutions are identified, they would have their corresponding roadblocks as
well. 

Now the task for the parties is to evaluate each of the possible paths thoroughly and identify the
potential roadblocks. In real-world scenarios, it is nigh unlikely to find an inch-perfect solution
without any roadblocks. While most roadblocks can be rectified immediately after identification,
there also needs to be a tradeoff between the parties if the identified roadblocks cannot be solved
for that particular solution. 

This, if left unchecked, could lead to another conflict. In situations where both the parties are
assertive, it could boil to another conflict, thereby defeating the entire purpose of the step.
Therefore both the parties and mediator, whenever applicable, must recognize this fact and go
about with the discussion on evaluation of roadblocks in a fair and objective manner. 

# Agree and Test the Solution

Once the solutions to achieve the common goal are evaluated by the parties, it is time to agree upon
the common solution.

This is the step where both the parties must acknowledge the path they are venturing into and keep
aside their differences. Since the agreed-upon solution involved a thorough brainstorming from both
parties, there must be an understanding that this solution is with the consensus of all the parties.
There must be no underlying current of "what if" for either of the parties.

Additionally, the entire process must ensure no inconsistencies in finding an agreement on a

common solution. This will help in the resolution of similar problems in the future, thereby
streamlining the process.

The solution must also be tested so that there is no seeming gap between the formulation of the
solution and the actual implementation of the same. This will reiterate the feasibility of the entire
process and thereby its relevancy in achieving the common goal.

# Accept Solution 
Once the above processes are complete, it is now for both parties to accept the solution and move
ahead with their implementation. Since the solution arrives after much deliberation from both
parties and at the consent of both, it will be accepted by the parties with relative ease.

Once the parties accept the same, it is their responsibility to implement the solution and ensure that
the common goal is achieved. The parties can own their part by acknowledging their roles and
responsibilities, thereby removing ambiguities.

Closing with the given thoughts:

 Conflict is a drama, and how people deal with conflict shows you the kind of people they are
- Stephen Moyer

 In a conflict, being willing to change allows you to move from a point of view to a viewing
point, a higher more expansive place, from where you can see both the sides - Thomas Cru

 If we manage conflict constructively, we harness its energy for creativity & development -
Kenneth Kaye

Citations: -
 Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (2011). Five conflict management styles at a glance.
 http://sourcesofinsight.com/conflict-management-styles-at-a-glance /
 http://peacebuilding.caritas.org/index.php/Conflict_Handling_Styles
 Luthans F, Organisational Behaviour, IRWIN/McGRAW-HILL
 Don Hellriegel, John W.Slocum, Jr., and Richard W.Woodman, Organizational Behaviour,
5th Edition.
 http://fogartyfellows.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/6EKilmann.pdf
 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/017084068200300411?
journalCode=ossa
 https://opentextbc.ca/organizationalbehavioropenstax/chapter/causes-of-conflict-in-
organizations/#ch14rfin-5
 https://www.themyersbriggs.com/-/media/f39a8b7fb4fe4daface552d9f485c825.ashx
 https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/employee-
relations/pages/viewpoint-the-art-and-science-of-conflict-management.aspx
 https://ca.achievecentre.com/blog/six-sources-of-conflict-at-work/
 https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2013/06/24/6-steps-to-conflict-resolution-in-the-
workplace/
 https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/business/for/alumni-and-friends/womens-mentoring-
programme/Conflict%20Resolution%20Model.pdf