Organizational Conflict

Conflict can be defined as a difference that exists between needs, values,

and interests of individuals or groups in an organization.
Conflict can be constructive, and it can be destructive. The distinction is
based on how the conflict is managed. Conflict cannot always be
avoided. Many positive outcomes can result from working through
conflict. Properly managed conflict can help in bringing constructive
change.
Conflict is any situation in which two or more parties feel themselves in
opposition. It is an interpersonal process that arises from
disagreements over the goals or the methods to accomplish those goals.
ADVERTISEMENTS:

Therefore, conflict may be defined as an expressed struggle between at

least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals,
scarce resources, and interference from the other party in achieving
their goals.
According to S. R. Robbins defines conflict as “a process in which an
effort is purposefully made by a person or unit to block another that
result in frustrating the attainment of others goals or furthering of his
or her interests.”

Contents:

1. Meaning and Definition of Organizational Conflict

2. Features of Organizational Conflict
3. Types of Organizational Conflict
4. Levels of Organizational Conflict
5. Stages of Organizational Conflict
6. Factors of Organizational Conflict
 7. Patterns of Organizational Conflict
8. Causes of Organizational Conflict
9. Approaches of Organizational Conflict
10. Guidelines of Organizational Conflict
11. Conflict Handling Models of Organizational Conflict
12.Advantages of Organizational Conflict
13.Disadvantages of Organizational Conflict
14.Conflict Resolution of Organizational Conflict

Organizational Conflict – Meaning and

Definitions: Suggested by Eminent Thinkers S. R.
Robbins, Morton Deutsch, Chung and Meggison and
Pondy
In simple words organizational conflicts may be defined as “a situations
in which there is a breakdown in decision making, just because of
irrational and incompatible stand taken by one or all concerning parties
to decision making.”
According to S. R. Robbins defines conflict as “a process in which an
effort is purposefully made by a person or unit to block another that
result in frustrating the attainment of others goals or furthering of his or
her interests.”
ADVERTISEMENTS:

According to Morton Deutsch, conflict as a “situation whenever

incompatible activities occur.” James D. Thompson defines, conflict as
organizational conflict is that behaviour by the organizational members
which is expanded in opposition to other members.
It is observed from the above definitions that if the individual employee,
managers, department heads, top managerial people, trade union
leaders opposes certain issue the smooth running of business
organization gets obstructed and moreover it disturbs the routine work
of the organization.
It is called as a conflict situation. Strike, lockout, slow tactics, high rate of
absenteeism, labour turn over etc. are the example of conflicting
situations in an organization. It is necessary to handle these
situations carefully and tactfully.
Conflict can be defined as a difference that exists between needs, values,
and interests of individuals or groups in an organization.
ADVERTISEMENTS:

According to Chung and Meggison, “Conflict is the struggle between

incompatible or opposing needs, wishes, ideas, interests, or people.
According to them conflict arises when individuals or groups encounter
goals that both parties cannot attain satisfactorily”.
According to Pondy, “Conflict has been defined as the condition of
objective incompatibility between values and goals; as the behavior of
deliberately interfering with another’s goal achievement; and as
emotionally in terms of hostility. Descriptive theorists have explained
conflict behavior in terms of objective conflict of interest, personal styles,
reactions to threats, and cognitive distortions.”
People at work vary in their ideas, skills and thinking. These differences
may lead to individual and group differences. Such differences are the
basis of organizational conflict. Conflict is inevitable in an organisation.
In any business or personal relationship of any depth, conflict will occur
at times. The seriousness of the conflict is dependent on the nature of
conflict. Not all workplace conflicts are bad.
Conflict has three elements. The first element of conflict is the existence
of a struggle of some type. Secondly, the involved parties must have, or
think they have, incompatible goals. Lastly, there must be some degree
of interdependence between the people who are involved.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Conflict can be constructive, and it can be destructive. The distinction is
based on how the conflict is managed. Conflict cannot always be avoided.
Many positive outcomes can result from working through conflict.
Properly managed conflict can help in bringing constructive change.
Organizations have people with different interests, perceptions,
personalities, attitudes, values and views. This leads to difference of
opinion in the organization. Disagreement is the basis of conflicts in the
organisation. This happens mainly because of the conflicting interests of
the individuals or groups.
Conflict is any situation in which two or more parties feel themselves in
opposition. It is an interpersonal process that arises from disagreements
over the goals or the methods to accomplish those goals. Therefore,
conflict may be defined as an expressed struggle between at least two
interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce
resources, and interference from the other party in achieving their goals.

Organizational Conflict – 5 Important Features: It

Helps in Analytical Thinking, It Helps in Increased
Cohesion and a Few Others
Some of the important features of conflict are:
ADVERTISEMENTS:

1. It Helps in Analytical Thinking:

Conflict may induce challenge to views, opinions, rules, policies, goals,
plans etc., which would require critical analysis in order to justify these
as they are or make changes as required. As H. M. Carlisle has put it –
“No situation is more detrimental to an organisation than letting poor
decisions go unchallenged”.
2. It Helps in Increased Cohesion:
Conflict between different organisations develops loyalty and cohesion
within an organisation and a greater sense of group identify in order to
compete with outsiders. It helps in dedication and commitement to
organizational goals.
ADVERTISEMENTS:

3. Conflict Promotes Competition and Hence it Results in

Increased Efforts:
It has been observed that some individuals are highly motivated by
conflict and severe competition. For instance, a professor who has been
denied promotion due to conflict within the department may work
harder to prove that he is more capable and deserves a promotion. Thus,
it may lead to high level of effort and output.
4. It Serves as a Foundation for Organisational Development:
Conflict with the status quo is a pre-requisite to change. Creative and
innovative people are always looking for grounds to challenge the status
quo. These challenges lead to search for alternatives to existing patterns
which leads to organizational change and development.
5. It Reduces Tensions:
Some disagreements if unexpressed can lead to imaginative distortions
of truth, sense of frustration and tension, high mental exaggerations and
biased opinions resulting in fear and distrust.
ADVERTISEMENTS:

However, when it is expressed, it may show the cause of conflict to be

minor, resulting in co-operation and compromise.

Organizational Conflict – 6 Main Types: Task, Role,

Process, Directional, External and Relationship
Task, roles, process, organisational direction, external pressure, and
relationship issues, all create conflict.
The types of organizational conflict are discussed as below:
Type # 1. Task Conflict:
Task conflict relates to the content and goal of the work. According to
Graves, task conflict arises among members of team and affects the goals
and tasks they are striving to achieve. It can be based on differences in
vision, intention, and quality expectation. It is essential to focus and
channel any task conflict so that these differences become collaborative
and lead to improvements in the way and go about accomplishing
current and future task. Converting conflict to friendly competition
might be one way of taking the best from both sides.
Type # 2. Role Conflict:
Conflict surrounding roles and responsibilities are especially common
during or immediately following organisational change, particularly
restructurings. People may be unclear on who is responsible for which
decisions and outputs.
For example, after an international strategic business consulting firm
restructured its managerial staff, an individual who formerly managed
two key customer segments was unwilling to relinquish all the
responsibility to the new manager. He continued to question staff and
issue orders while his replacement was trying to set a new direction.
With two managers giving input, employees were stuck in the middle,
which created conflict among them as well as between the managers.
ADVERTISEMENTS:

To identify the root cause of a role conflict, each party needs to examine
his or her responsibilities as well as the other persons. One or both may
need to change their perception, and then they will need to collaborate to
clarify who will handle what.
Type # 3. Process Conflict:
This is related to how the work gets done. This form of conflict centres
around, the process, procedures, steps or methods used to reach goal.
One person might like to plan many steps ahead while others might like
to dive in headfirst. These differences in approaches or processes can
lead to communication break downs and ultimately conflict. Healthy
differences in approaches to process will often lead to improved way of
doing job.
Process conflict commonly arises when two departments, teams, or
groups interact on a process. They may view the process differently and
disagree on how it should be accomplished or point fingers rather than
communicating effectively when problems arise.
For example, at a global manufacturer of heavy lifting equipment, three
shifts were involved in the production of a machine, which often suffered
from poor quality or low production rates. No standard process existed
to build the machine, and each shift believed its approach was best. If
one shift ended before the product was completed, the next group would
either send the machine through without completing it – which resulted
in poor quality – or take it apart and rebuild it – which slowed
production.
To identify the root cause of process conflict, examine the process
controls in place and how employees interact with them. Get teams or
individuals to collaborate to define the process more effectively and
establish communication channels to address problems.
Type # 4. Directional Conflict:
Directional conflict arises when organisations are forced to rethink their
strategies and focus on shorter-term activities, as many did during the
economic downturn. Employees may not know how to prioritise long-
term versus short-term needs, or one department may work tactically
while another remains strategic.
ADVERTISEMENTS:

For example, a regional insurance brokerage, representing several

prominent insurance providers, was developing a succession plan and
selected several managers to be groomed as next- generation leaders.
This action resulted in directional conflict because the managers were
unclear whether to focus on meeting their short- term goals or on the
longer-term succession efforts.
To identify the root cause of directional conflict, individual employees
should ask themselves-What do I believe our direction is or should be? Is
that aligned with what others are saying? What are senior managers
saying? Answering these questions will enable individuals to change
their own direction if necessary and help others change theirs.
Type # 5. External Conflict:
External conflict arises when pressures from customers or other
stakeholders impact internal decisions. Recent economic challenges
compelled organisations to adjust and adapt, for example, by lowering
prices while providing enhanced customer service. Sales or customer
service personnel advocating for customers’ needs may have come into
conflict with operations trying to meet internal goals.
For example, a health care software company was pushing to bring a new
product to market. Sales and customer service employees continued to
bring customer input to the programming group, which did its best to
incorporate the ideas into the product. As the requests continued to
come in, it extended the development process beyond the planned
release date. When management finally decided to release the product
without further enhancements, additional conflict arose because
customers now complained that their inputs are not incorporated.
To identify the root cause of external conflict, ask if anyone internally
has the control to resolve the problem. It may be possible to create a can-
do list, which may answer questions such as-What can we do to address
the external demand? The solution might involve collaboration among
several departments to adjust to the external pressures more effectively.
Type # 6. Relationship Conflict:
It focuses on interpersonal relationship. They are directly between
people and may be over roles style, resources or even personalities. This
conflict can penetrate and damage all aspect of an organisation.
Relationship conflict can quickly demand all the attention and energy.
ADVERTISEMENTS:

Although poor chemistry between individuals can exist, most

interpersonal conflict tends to grow from the other five sources of
conflict. For instance, when two managers attempt to direct the same
department or when employees see external circumstances differently,
interpersonal conflict builds.
However, at times, genuine interpersonal conflict may exist. For
instance, a national business services firm hired a new vice-president
whom the divisional personnel disliked because they felt he was not as
open and direct as his predecessor. This created conflict between the
leader and the team, which affected performance.
To find the root cause of interpersonal conflict, look for a particular bias
or prejudice. Can negative emotions be overcome? An open, direct
conversation is always the best way to bring issues out in the open and
begin working on a resolution.
Organizational Conflict – 3 Main Levels: Individual-
Level, Group-Level and Organizational-Level
Conflicts  
Conflict may arise at any level in an organization starting from individual
level to organizational level.
Three main levels of conflict are discussed below:
1. Individual-Level Conflict:
Individual-level conflict indicates that human behavior is directed by
needs, which guide the activities of an individual. Before joining an
organization, the individuals try to match their needs with the
organization’s offerings in terms of salary packages or other benefits.
However, if they observe any inequity with their colleagues in the
organization, then it may result in a conflict at the individual level. Such
a conflict may lead to tension, frustration, and unpleasant behavior in
individuals.
ADVERTISEMENTS:

The individual-level conflict can be bifurcated into two

categories, which are as follows:
a. Intra-Individual Conflict:
Arises within the individual and is considered psychological in nature.
It can be of two types:
i. Goal Conflict – Refers to a conflict where an individual or a group has
to compromise its goals for the achievement of organizational goals. In
goal conflict, the individual or group goals are not aligned with the
organizational goals.
ii. Role Conflict – Occurs when individuals realize that their expected
roles are different from actual roles.
b. Inter-Individual Conflict:
Refers to a type of conflict that occurs between two individuals.
Generally, this conflict arises due to availability of scarce resources or
rewards. It can also occur because different people have different
opinions, attitude, value system, and style of working.
2. Group-Level Conflict:
Group-level conflict refers to the divergence, competition, or clash
between two groups of the organization, such as management and staff.
Group-level conflict can be categorized into intra-group
conflict and inter-group conflict, which are mentioned as
follows:
i. Intra-Group Conflict – Refers to a conflict that occurs within a single
group.
ii. Inter-Group Conflict – Refers to a conflict that occurs between two or
more groups. Intergroup conflicts are frequently seen within an
organization when two departments are in conflict with each other to get
scarce resources.
3. Organizational-Level Conflict:
Organizational-level conflict refers to the conflict which occurs at the
level of the entire organization.
It is of two types, which are as follows:
i. Intra-Organizational Conflict:
Refers to the conflict occurring within an organization.
Intra-organizational level conflict can be of three types, which
are as follows:
a. Horizontal Conflict:
Indicates that there can be conflict between two functional groups at the
same hierarchical level. It can happen because of various reasons, such
as shared resources and interdependency, and goal incompatibility. For
example, at times, the resources, such as printers, may be used by
different departments at the same time, leading to a long queue of
documents to be printed.
This may result in delay in operations. Similarly, any mismatch in data
and figures of the reports that are shared by two interdependent
departments may also lead to conflict. Likewise, the goals of one
department may interfere with the goals of another department, leading
to goal incompatibility and conflict.
b. Vertical Conflict:
Refers to the conflict between different hierarchical levels, such as
between a superior and subordinates. Vertical conflict can occur because
of inadequate or ineffective communication and distorted perceptions.
For example, if a superior delegates some responsibilities to the
subordinates but fails to give clear instructions then a conflict may arise
between the subordinates and the supervisor regarding the
responsibilities.
ii. Inter-Organizational Conflict:
Refers to the conflict occurring between two or more organizations.
Organizations belonging to same industry may indulge in unethical
practices and unhealthy competition because of inter-organizational
conflict.

Organizational Conflict – Top 5 Stages given by Louis

R. Pondy: Latent, Perceived, Felt, Manifest and
Conflict Aftermath
Louis R. Pondy in his book Conflict, “Organisational Concepts
and Models” has written that there are five stages of a conflict
and they may be mentioned as follows:
1. Latent conflict;
2. Perceived conflict;
3. Felt conflict;
4. Manifest conflict; and
5. Conflict Aftermath.
1. Latent Conflict:
In this kind of conflict, competition forms the basis, when the aggregate
demands of participants for resources exceed the resources available to
the organisation. There are four basic types of latent conflicts and they
are – (a) competition for scarce resources, (b) drive for autonomy, (c)
divergence of sub-unit goals, and, (d) role conflict.
Autonomy needs form the basis of conflict when one party either seeks to
exercise control over some activity that another party regards as its own
province or seeks to insulate itself from such control. Goal-divergence is
the source of conflict when two parties which must co-operate on some
joint activity are unable to reach a consensus on the concerted action.
Two or more types of latent conflicts may also be present at the same
time.
2. Perceived Conflict:
Another are of his view that perceived conflict occurs due to the parties
misunderstanding of each other’s true position. Conflict may sometimes
be perceived when no conditions of latent conflict exists and latent
conditions may be present in a relationship without any of the
participants perceiving the conflict. Such a conflict can be resolved by
improving communication between the parties.
3. Felt Conflict:
The important distinction between perceiving conflict and feeling
conflict is that x may be aware that he is in serious disagreement with y
over some policy. But this may not make x tense or anxious and it may
have no effect whatsoever in x’s affection toward y’. The personalisation
of conflict is the mechanism which causes many people to be concerned
with dysfunctions of conflict. In other words, it makes them feel the
conflict.
There are two explanations for the personalisation of conflict – (i) The
inconsistent demands of efficient organisation and individual growth
create anxieties within the individual. Anxieties may also result from
identity crisis or from extra-organisation pressures. Individuals need to
vent these anxieties in order to maintain internal equilibrium, (ii)
Conflict becomes personalised when the whole personality of the
individual is involved in the relationship.
4. Manifest Conflict:
By manifest conflict we mean any of several varieties of conflictful
behaviour such as open aggression, apathy, sabotage, withdrawal and
perfect obedience to rules except for prison riots, political revolutions
and extreme labour unrest, violence as a form of manifest conflict is rare.
The motives towards violence may remain, but they tend to be expressed
in less violent forms.
5. Conflict Aftermath:
The aftermath of a conflict may have either positive or negative
repercussions for the organisation depending on how the conflict is
resolved. If the conflict is genuinely resolved to the satisfaction of all
participants, the basis for a more co-operative relationship may be laid;
or the participants in their drive for a more ordered relationship may
focus on latent conflicts not previously perceived and dealt with.
On the other hand, if the conflict is merely suppressed but not resolved,
the latent conditions of conflict may be aggravated and explode in a
more serious form until they are rectified. This conflict is called “Conflict
aftermath”.
Organizational Conflict – 6 Major Factors:
Heterogeneity amongst Members, Incongruence in
Status Hierarchy, Role Dissatisfaction and a Few
Others
The following six factors help in surfacing conflict in an
organisation:
1. Heterogeneity amongst members
2. Incongruence in status hierarchy
3. Role dissatisfaction
4. Defective formalisation
5. System of decision making, and
6. Merging conflicting units.
Factor # 1. Heterogeneity amongst Members:
In large organisations heterogeneity amongst members is distinctly seen
due to cultural and religious background, values and beliefs, educational
level, age factor etc. In due course of time, heterogeneity is likely to be
replaced by homogeneity.
Factor # 2. Incongruence in Status Hierarchy:
Conflict also occurs due to work place or ignored feelings of different
departments and units and not being given the requisite status in the
organisational structure. Thus, it becomes a status and ego problem of
the personnel.
Factor # 3. Role Dissatisfaction:
This does occur to individuals and departments due to not allotting them
the desired roles they would like to perform. At the same time, these
roles have been allotted to some other individuals and departments by
the organisation as per their decision. This role conflict normally occurs
when the formal authority in the organisation ceases to function or
becomes ineffective. Resolution of conflict in such a condition is only
possible when a proper formal activity is allotted.
Factor # 4. Defective Formalisation:
Formalisation means the form of rules and regulations, standardising
the behavioural pattern of individuals in an organisation. If the roles of
individuals and the units are well-defined in a manner reducing the
chance of conflict. In any case, if formalisation is defective, the chances
of conflict over roles, function and jurisdiction are likely to increase.
Factor # 5. System of Decision Making:
In an organisation, decision making is an important aspect of
management. This system needs to be streamlined in a department.
Those who are authorised to take important decisions on administrative,
financial and discipline matters, etc., be specified and let known to the
departments, sub-sections and units.
At the same time, authority for routine decisions for smooth functioning
has to be delegated to all in charge of departments and units as per the
administrative requirements. This will avoid confusion and conflicts.
Factor # 6. Merging Conflicting Units:
In an organisation, where one or more units are in the habit of
conflicting on various issues and which they care not to resolve, is not a
healthy situation. In such cases, role conflicts, ego problems, inadequate
performance data, etc., ought be evaluated by the management and if
necessary, merger of such units be recommended in the appropriate
manner keeping in view the best interests of the organisation to avoid
conflict.

Organizational Conflict – 3 Different Patterns:

Behavioural and Structural
Different patterns of conflicts in an organisation can be
mainly considered under the following heads:
1. Behavioural Pattern
2. Structural Conflict, and
3. Resource.
1. Behavioural Pattern:
In most of the organisations, it has been noticed that the problems are
mainly related to human beings. For example, individual conflicts
manifest due to various causes like unacceptability, uncertainty and
incompatibility. When an individual aspires for the result and does not
get it, it becomes incompatible with an aspiration to achieve.
Therefore, there is no satisfaction. Unacceptability and uncertainty are
always seen amongst the individuals due to various reasons.
A conflict between individuals can come up because of:
(i) Frustration, and
(ii) Goal conflict.
(i) Frustration:
This takes place in an individual’s behavioural pattern, when his
motivational drives are prevented prior to reaching the desired goal.
Frustration leads to many other psychological problems like decision
making and subjective uncertainty to find proper alternatives. The
remedy for such situations is appropriate motivation of the individual to
accept the alternatives to avoid conflicts.
(ii) Goal Conflict:
Wherever a state of competing goals exists, it creates conflict between
individuals, for one is not in a position to select from appropriate agenda
to strike collaboration acceptable to all.
In the same way, there may be a number of unions having their own
ideologies. The views of these unions and the management may not be
similar. Therefore, in the best interest of the organisation, the
management and unions may have to collaborate for smooth
functioning. Collaboration is quite essential when partners are dedicated
to different commitments and a compromise may adversely affect their
interests.
2. Structural Conflict:
Structural conflict in an organisation can be divided into four
main heads:
i. Hierarchical
ii. Functional
iii. Line and staff, and
iv. Formal and informal.
i. Hierarchical conflict – It is that conflict, which exists among different
levels of management of an organisation. For example, the top
management may conflict with the middle management.
ii. Functional conflict – This surface between various functional
departments of the organisation. For instance production department
having conflict with the marketing department.
iii. Line and staff conflict – This may be stated as the conflict between
members of line and members of the staff. This normally takes place, for
the staff members have no authority over the line management.
iv. Formal and informal conflict – This, as a matter of course, occurs
between formal organisation and informal organisation existing in an
establishment.
Formal Organisations are structured to provide, the organisational
interest. They are normally formed to achieve specific task of an
organisation. They are formed under formal rules and regulations.
Whereas informal organisations are created for satisfying the various
social needs if individual. Here the conflict occurs at times when
‘Organisational Needs’ and ‘Social Needs’ clashes each other.
Organizational Conflict – 3 Major Causes:
Interdependence among Departments and Groups,
Difference in Goals and Differences in Perceptions
The causes of conflict within an organisation may be divided
under the following heads:
Cause # 1. Interdependence among Departments and Groups:
Whereas interdependent is the genesis of the modern systems approach,
it causes more often, among departments and groups. Mutual
interdependence causes conflict when resources are limited within the
organisation. With limited resources every department or group tries to
project its need as indispensable.
The department or the group which manages greater share by
manipulation causes dissatisfaction in the department, which may have
been deprived of even its legitimate needs. It is not possible to evolve a
foolproof method of distributing equally or even equitably the limited
resources of the organisation in the form of money, personnel and
equipment among different departments of organisations. Hence,
conflict will automatically arise till the resource position improves. As
the dependence on the resources increases, the incidence of conflict is
ought to increase unchecked.
The other source of conflict is the interdependence in timing of the
activities. Sometimes the performance of one department / group
depends on the completion of the task by another department / group
within the schedule. If one fails to complete the task in time, the other
department cannot start and complete its activities. Time is also limited
at the hands of individuals. Within the limited time factor, different
activities are expected to be performed within the time constraint. The
root cause of conflict is interdependence, which occurs due to
specialization.
Greater specialization, greater the interdependence and greater causes of
conflict internally within the organisation.
The conflict arising out of specialization becomes all the more acute if
the external environments are not properly predicted.
Cause # 2. Difference in Goals:
Difference in goals among different subunits or departments may cause
conflict.
This difference among subunit goals is related to four
characteristics of the organisations:
a. Mutual dependence on limited resources.
b. Competitive reward systems.
c. Differences in individual goals.
d. Differences in organisational operating goals.
When resources are limited and the operating level workers demand
high wages, a conflict may arise between the operating force and the
management. The management considers the demand as illegitimate
and untimely in the context of the resource constraint. Competitive
reward system also generates conflict among different units and groups.
Any group, which presses hard, rewards more and succeeds in getting. It
will cause conflict among other members of the group.
Difference in individual goals also brings in conflict in the organisation.
Persons having heterogeneous individuals depending on their different
life styles, socio political background and attitudinal developments are
ought to have differing individual goals. This difference is manifested
even in the departmental or group goals. No uniformity could be arrived
at on account of latent heterogeneity.
Inter group conflict also arises when operational goals of the
organisation are not objectively and clearly laid down. The conflicting
groups justify their differences on the alibi of subjectivity in operational
goals. It enjoys on the planners to lay down even the operation goals
specifically and objectively.
Cause # 3. Differences in Perceptions:
Perceptions may be stated as the process of receiving information though
different senses which is interpreted and put in an organised pattern on
the basis of past experience. Perception is a psychological element of
human personality, which depends on the information and
communication system on one hand and the personality development of
the people on the other.
Personality, having psycho – physical elements, is cast in the world of
the environments in which the person has been brought up. Hence,
different people and groups have different perceptions about certain
events and activities in the organisation. People having perception of
callous attitude towards work, are apt to conflict with people having
perception of work as worship.
Perception also depends on the source of flow of information. Time
horizon also contributes to difference in perceptions. Difference in the
time horizon is also related to position occupied by the person in the
organisation and the tasks performed by people in different units,
sections and departments.

Organizational Conflict – Top 2 Approaches:

Traditional and Modern
Traditional and Modern Approaches to Conflicts:
When an individual knows about a conflict, he straightaway thinks that
an untoward thing has happened. It is a phenomenon that cannot be
avoided in any organisation. Conflict may or may not be advantageous to
the organisation. In the recent past this perspective of conflict in the
global organisations has come out with thinking that there is a cultural
difference in the approach to the conflict.
The researchers conducted by management experts have expressed the
opinion that the people with Eastern culture like China, Korea, Japan,
Taiwan and other Asian countries and the Western countries such as
USA, Canada, etc., have different approaches to find conflict solutions.
The main difference in Western culture seems to be highly
Individualistic’ valuing individual needs, achievements, etc., over group
needs and achievements. Whereas Eastern culture seems to be highly
‘collectivistic’, valuing group needs and achievements over and above
individual needs and achievements.
This does not indicate fully that the conflict perspectives are to be taken
always on the cultural background alone. However, cultural background
appears to form an important factor while understanding and
approaching conflict situations.
Approach # 1. Traditional:
In traditional approach to conflict, there are two types of
thinking:
i. Classicists (based on classical common opinion)
ii. Neoclassicists (emphasis on individual psychology).
i. Classicists:
This approach is based on common opinion.
The approaches or ways of thanking are given below:
a. Not to permit the conflict to appear.
b. If at all the conflict still manifests, it should be eliminated without any
delay.
c. Source of conflict is to be identified and it be prevented forever.
Classicists feel that these methods could be achieved purposefully
through a well-defined authority structure, responsibility and
accountability of the concerned personnel in the hierarchy.
ii. Neoclassicists:
This is the traditional approach focusing on individual psychology.
They have the following specific views:
a. Understanding the individual psychology and behavioural pattern.
b. Developing and encouraging informal participative leadership.
c. Avoid individual dissatisfaction and bring about harmony in the
organisation.
d. Informal groups are to be encouraged to reconcile the deficiencies of
formal organisation.
e. Job enrichment and enlargement in an organisation can alter job
satisfaction to individual as well as groups.
f. They are also of the opinion that a participative democratic approach
to a decision making system may be a key to success.
Approach # 2. Modern:
Modernists have the view that conflict is a natural phenomenon. Conflict
is a part of the structure without which there is no possibility to have
‘change’, innovations and progress.
Some of the modern views in respect of conflict are given
below:
i. Conflict is inherent in an organisation.
ii. Conflict always is not negative or distinctive in nature.
iii. It occurs, when a change in the organisational structure is required.
iv. Conflict manifests, when there is a problem for an individual or a
group in decision making.
v. Conflict in an organisation is known as a healthy attitude to bring
changes and innovations for progress provided the intentions positive.
vi. Differences of opinion among the knowledgeable individuals and
work group bring new ideas. When it comes to arguments, the
individuals, group and organisation understand the pros and cons of the
issue, and it is beneficial in such cases to accept the best view.
vii. Conflicts need to be taken in good spirit and properly handled by the
management, since they have positive and negative consequences.
viii. Modern management must study thoroughly the conflict and come
to a decision, whether advantageous or otherwise.

Organizational Conflict – 4 Main Guidelines Suggested

by S.R Robbins 
Conflict stimulation might be required in organisations where there is
too much lethargy, people turn into ‘yes men’ and do not ask any
questions, when there is no competitive spirit between groups
/individuals, when everyone tries to arrive at a consensus at any cost etc.
S. R Robbins had offered certain guidelines to stimulate
conflict in an organisation thus:
i. Communication:
Managers can manipulate messages in such a way as to stimulate
conflict. Ambiguous or threatening messages encourage conflict.
Information that a plant will close, that a department is to be wiped out
or that a lay-off is certain can reduce apathy and force members to
confront their differences to stimulate new ideas and force re-evaluation
of current practices etc. Sometimes, a manager can also redirect
messages and alter channels to encourage conflict. Intelligently planted
rumours in the informal channels can also serve a useful purpose.
ii. Bringing in Outsiders:
A commonly used method of ‘shaking up’ a stagnant unit or organisation
is to bring in people whose backgrounds, attitudes, values and
managerial styles vary significantly from the prevalent norms.
Introduction of heterogeneous people into the organisation helps in
disturbing the status quo (for example, suggesting innovative ideas,
offering divergent options, demonstrating originality etc.) bringing back
life a stagnant organisation.
iii. Restructure the Organisation:
Changing the structure of an organisation is an excellent way of creating
conflict. Breaking up old work groups and departments to reorganise
them so that they have new entrants or responsibilities will create
uncertainties that call for readjustments immediately. Conflict that
develops during this period may ultimately lead to improved methods of
operation as members try to adjust to new circumstances.
iv. Encouraging Competition:
The use of bonuses, incentive pay and awards for excellent performance
will stimulate competition. Such incentives, when administered
properly, foster a competitive spirit among individuals and groups.
Conflict will be productive as one group struggles hard to outdo the
other.

Organizational Conflict – 2 Important Conflict

Handling Models: Pondy’s Conflict Episode Process
and Thomas – Kilmann Conflict Handling Model
I. Pondy’s Conflict Episode Process:
Pondy developed a conflict process model, which is useful to understand
how a conflict starts.
He has delineated five steps that he calls as ‘conflict episode’
as discussed below:
1. Latent Conflict:
It is the first stage of conflict-promoting situations appears on the scene
between individuals arid groups. In this stage potential conflict inducing
forces exit. For example, demand for various resources by departments
when some may get and be satisfied and others may not get and be
dissatisfied. Hence there may exist, a situation between two groups. At
this stage the seed of dissatisfaction have been sown.
2. Felt Conflict:
When one party frustrates the desire of other party, people perceive that
a conflicting situation exists. For example, sales department may need
additional budget for promotional activities which finance department
may not release. The sales department may attribute lack of finance as
potential cause for fall in scales. Thus, a conflict between the two may
brew. At this stage the conflict does not surface.
3. Manifest Conflict:
At this stage, there is not only recognition or acknowledgement of
conflict but also manifestation of conflict by covert or overt behaviour. It
is a stage of open dispute. Both parties devise their strategies to face each
other. Sales department may make the point for additional funds for
promotional activities especially during festival season.
Finance department may openly turndown the request since they misfit
have allots additional funds for procurement of better raw materials for
production department. Sales department may argue that better raw
materials have no meaning unless the facts are brought to the notice of
costumers, which can only be done through promotional campaign. The
debate may be unending and frustrating.
4. Conflict Resolution:
There can be resolution of conflict and once the conflict is resolved
between two parties, there is always a party, which is looser because the
resolution is the outcome of win-lose or the compromise strategy, a stage
is set for subsequent conflict episode.
5. Conflict Aftermath:
A party, which feels defeated, may start preparations and be on the
lookout for the assault to take the revenge. Conflict aftermath is a direct
function of the results of the conflict resolution style adopted and
exercised in any given situation.
II. Thomas – Kilmann Conflict Handling Model:
Whenever we face a problem related with organisational conflict the
solution are there in the form of conflict management strategies.
Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann developed their model of how we
deal with conflict whilst working together at the University of Pittsburgh.
Their ideas are based on research observations and on well-respected
psychological theory (Jung, Blake, and Mouton, etc.). The model
describes how individuals behave when faced with conflict- a situation in
which the concerns of two people appear to be incompatible.
Like many such models, there is no one right style- to handle conflict
effectively requires both parties to be versatile. But we will each have our
preferred style(s), and it helps to be aware which ones these are, and how
to extend into the other boxes on the grid.

The strategies commonly adopted by the organisation are as

follows:
1. Avoidance:
In this the conflicting parties may either withdraw or conceal the
incompatibility. Organisation uses avoiding strategies. Where there is
clear advantage of waiting to resolve the conflict. Avoiding is appropriate
if companies are too busy with more important concern.
We don’t pursue our position, or that of the other person, and so don’t
address the conflict. We might simply not talk about it, postpone the
issue, or withdraw from the situation. Avoidance is effective when the
situation is charged with emotion that will prevent rational discussion,
when you have no prospect of satisfying your concerns, (e.g., company
policy) or when other people might be better placed to resolve the
problem.
2. Competition:
It is a kind of win-lose approach in which a person seeks to satisfy his or
her own interest, regardless of the impact on the other parties to the
conflict. Organisational strategies are used when they deal with strong
personalities. In this senior person use their power to diffuse the conflict.
We aim to assert or ‘win’ our position with no concern for the needs of
the other person. We use whatever power (rank, intellect, etc.), we can to
achieve this goal. Competing behaviour can be effective in emergency
situations, or where tough actions are required that are not in the
interests of the other person, e.g., cost reductions, redundancies, rules,
and discipline.
3. Collaboration:
In collaborating, the intention of the parties is to solve the problem by
clarifying differences rather than by accommodating various points of
view. It is a kind of win-win solution that allows both parties to achieve
their goals. The use of collaborations is inappropriate when time is of the
essence, issues are unimportant, and goals of other party are wrong or
illegal.
Collaborating is considered to the one of the best strategies, especially
when the organisation interest are at the stake, this strategies is
generally used when organisation feel that the concern is important. This
strategies is used mostly in all the organisations, where we have to solve
interpersonal conflict. It promotes creative problem-solving. It takes
more time than other strategies.
We actively work with the other person to satisfy fully the concerns of
both parties. We analyse and gather data, seek out underlying causes,
and try to see the issue from both sides, so that neither side has to give
ground.
Collaboration helps to merge very different insights on a problem, (e.g.,
the solution is one that neither person would have produced alone), to
gain commitment from others who will have to implement the solution,
and to build long-term partnerships.
4. Accommodation:
It is a kind of lose-win situation in it one party seeks to appease an
opponent, that party may be willing to place opponents interest above
his or her own, i.e., in short, one party willing to be self-sacrificing.
When conflict is upon fairly unimportant issue, organisation in order to
resolve the conflict uses accommodating strategies.
We neglect our own concerns for the interests of the other person. We
tend towards selfless generosity – even charity – and are entirely non-
competitive. Accommodation is useful for the longer-term, e.g., giving in
on this point will build better relations in the future, or when harmony is
more important than this particular issue.
5. Compromising:
It is a well-accepted strategy for resolving conflict. In it there is no clear
winner or loser. It is a kind of situation in which each party is willing to
give up something. Its use is appropriate when cooperation is important
but time/resources are limited or finding an outcome, even less than best
is better than being without any solution. It is not suitable when creative
solution is essential.
Compromising strategies come under the second choice by the
organisation. Organisation use compromising strategy when they are
dealing the moderately important issues. It can often lead to quick
solution. We aim for a solution that both parties can accept, which
partially satisfies their concerns.
It requires willingness to give and take, and assumes both sides are able
to give ground. Compromise is useful for achieving a temporary
settlement to a complex issue, or an expedient solution under time
pressure, and when satisfying your concerns, whilst important, is not
worth the effort or disruption of more assertive styles.
It is the role of the manager to have a view about his unit activities. The
employees must be keenly viewed frequently. Unfortunately, when
coworkers are unhappy with each other or their work situation, they are
not always upfront about what is bothering them. Instead, they may be
filled with angry but never try to show it.
The classic ‘Win-Win’ outcome that we often seek when resolving a
disagreement by negotiation should really be achieved through
Collaboration, but is often the result of compromise. A compromise Win-
Win will resolve the immediate conflict, but may not address underlying
disagreements or differing attitudes.

Organizational Conflict – 9 Main Advantages

More often conflicts lead to positive or functional outcome
such as:
1. Provide chance for self-determination through analysing the situation.
2. Helps to seek clarification.
3. Generates challenging spirit among individuals/managers.
4. Develops spirit of unity even among heterogeneous group when
sources of conflicts are common.
5. Indicates the situation calls for improvement.
6. Long-standing problems can be dealt through creativity of people in
resolving situation.
7. Sometimes conflicting situations are created to divert the attention
from many other problems in the organisation.
8. Leads to personal growth and change.
9. Acts as major stimulant for change.
Organizational Conflict – 13 Major Disadvantages
Conflicts are sometimes very disastrous and needs certainly
elimination due to following reasons:
1. Wastage of time and efforts, affects productivity of individuals.
2. People work for their own defects/interests rather than organisational
objective.
3. Creates suspicion in the mind against individual, organisation or
management.
4. Increase employee’s turnover.
5. Creates disloyalty and rebellious attitude and loses creativity.
6. Unresolved anger among people.
7. Increased personality clashes.
8. Less self-esteem among people.
9. Psychological well-being is threatened.
10. Creates negative climate.
11. Group cohesion is disrupted.
12. Create stress in people.
13. Leads to frustration.

Organizational Conflict – 5 Different Ways of Conflict

Resolution: The Competing Style, The Avoiding Style,
The Compromising Style, The Collaborating Style and
a Few Others
There are five different ways in which conflict is resolved:
Way # 1. The Competing Style:
The competing style is used when a person has to take quick action,
make unpopular decisions, handle vital issues, or when one needs
protection in a situation where non-competitive behaviour can be
exploited. To develop this style, one must develop the ability to argue
and debate, use his rank or position, assert his opinions and feelings, and
learn to state his position and stand his ground.
Overuse of this style can lead to lack of feedback, reduced learning, and
low empowerment. This can result in being surrounded by “Yes-Men”.
People who overuse the competing style often use inflammatory
statements due to lack of training on interpersonal skills.
When overuse is taken to an extreme, the person will create errors in the
implementation of the task by withholding needed information, talking
behind another person’s back (or “back-stabbing”), using eye motions
and gestures designed to express disapproval, and creating distractions
by fiddling or interrupting. Overuse of this style can be exhibited through
constant tension or anger and occasional outbursts of violent temper.
Under use of the competing style leads to a lowered level of influence,
indecisiveness, slow action, and withheld contributions.
Way # 2. The Avoiding Style:
This style is used when you do not satisfy your concerns or the concerns
of the other person. This style is low assertiveness and low co-
operativeness. The goal is to delay. It is appropriate to use this style
when there are issues of low importance, to reduce tensions, or to buy
time. Avoidance is also appropriate when you are in a low power position
and have little control over the situation, when you need to allow others
to deal with the conflict, or when the problem is symptomatic of a much
larger issue and you need to work on the core issue.
Overuse of the avoidance style can result in a low level of input, decision-
making by default, and allowing issues to fester, which can produce a
breakdown in communication between team members. This can inhibit
brainstorming sessions from being productive and can prevent the team
from functioning. People who overuse avoidance, feel they cannot speak
frankly without fear of repercussions. The overuse of conflict avoidance
can often be a result of childhood experiences, past work-related
incidents, and negative experiences with conflict resolution.
Behaviours associated with the overuse of avoidance include being silent,
gloomy, and untruthful. A milder form of avoidance behaviour is when
the team member procrastinates about getting work done and
deliberately takes an opposing point of view inappropriately during a
decision-making situation, or is timid, withdrawn, or shy. Extreme
behaviours can occur when avoidance is overused. A person begins to be
negative, critical and sarcastic.
Underuse of the avoidance style results in unfriendliness and hurt
feelings. In addition, work can become overwhelming because too many
issues are taken on at once, resulting in an inability to prioritize and
delegate. When avoidance is underused, a team member may deny that
there is a problem and allow their hurt feelings to prevent
communication.
Way # 3. The Compromising Style:
This style is moderately assertive and moderately co-operative. The
compromising style is used with issues of moderate importance, when
both parties are equally powerful and equally committed to opposing
views. This style produces temporary solutions and is appropriate when
time is a concern, and as a backup for the competing and collaborating
styles when they are unsuccessful in resolving the situation.
Compromising skills include the ability to communicate and keep the
dialogue open, the ability to find an answer that is fair to both parties,
the ability to give up part of what you want, and the ability to assign
value to all aspects of the issue.
Overuse of the compromising style leads to loss of long-term goals, lack
of trust, creation of a cynical environment, and being viewed as having
no firm values. Overuse of compromise can result in making concessions
to keep people happy without resolving the original conflict.
Underuse leads to unnecessary confrontations, frequent power struggles,
and ineffective negotiation.
Way # 4. The Collaborating Style:
The Collaborating Style is when the concern is to satisfy both sides. It is
highly assertive and highly co-operative. The goal is to find a “win/win”
solution. Appropriate uses of the collaborating style include integrating
solutions, learning, merging perspectives, gaining commitment, and
improving relationships. Using this style can support open discussion of
issues, task proficiency, equal distribution of work amongst the team
members, better brainstorming, and development of creative problem-
solving.
This style is appropriate to use frequently in a team environment.
Collaborating skills include the ability to use active or effective listening,
confront situations in a non-threatening way, analyse input, and identify
underlying concerns.
Overuse of the collaborating style can lead to spending too much time on
minor matters, diffusion of responsibility, being taken advantage of, and
being overloaded with work.
Underuse can result in using quick fix solutions, lack of commitment by
other team members, disempowerment, and loss of innovation.
Way # 5. The Accommodating Style:
The Accommodating Style is foregoing your concerns in order to satisfy
the concerns of others. This style is low assertiveness and high co-
operativeness. The goal is to yield. The accommodating style is
appropriate to use in situations when you want to show that you are
reasonable, develop performance, create goodwill, keep peace, retreat, or
for issues of low importance. Accommodating skills include the ability to
sacrifice, the ability to be selfless, the ability to obey orders, and the
ability to yield.
Overuse of the accommodating style results in ideas getting little
attention, restricted influence, loss of contribution, and chaos. People
who overuse the accommodating style exhibit a lack of desire to change
and usually demonstrate anxiety over future uncertainties.
Underuse of the accommodating style can result in lack of rapport, low
morale, and an inability to yield. When the accommodating style is
underused, a person may display indifference as a way of not addressing
the anger or hurt.