716 Chapter 20 Decision making
Hill, A. (2018) ‘The many unhappy returns of group-
think’, Financial Times, 7 May, p.17.
Hill, G. W. (1982) ‘Group versus individual per-
formance: are N + 1 heads better than one?’,
Psychological Bulletin, 91(3): 517–39.
Hsieh, K. Y., Tsai, W. and Chen, M. J. (2015) ‘If they
can do it, why not us? Competitors as reference points
for justifying escalation of commitment’, Academy of
Management Journal, 58(1): 38–58.
Isenberg, D. J. (1986) ‘Group polarization: a critical
review and meta-analysis’, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 50(6): 1141–51.
Janis, I. L. (1982) Victims of Groupthink, second edi-
tion, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Jones, E.E. and Lambertus, D.D. (2014) ‘Expecting less
from groups: a new perspective on shortcomings in
idea generation groups’, Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research and Practice, 18(3): 237–50.
Kahneman, D. (2003) ‘Maps of bounded rationality:
psychology for behavioural economists’, American
Economic Review, 93(5): 1449–75.
Kahneman, D. (2011) Thinking Fast and Slow, London:
Allen Lane.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (eds) (2000) Choices,
Values and Frames, London: Cambridge University
Press.
Kerr, N.I. and Tindale, R.S. (2004) ‘Group performance
and decision making’, Annual Review of Psychology,
55(1): 623–55.
Kerr, N.I. and Bruun, S.E. (1983) ‘Dispensability of
member effort and group motivation losses’, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1): 78–94.
Lamm, H. (1988) ‘A review of our research on group
polarization: eleven experiments on the effects of
group discussion on risk acceptance, probability
estimation and negotiation positions’, Psychological
Reports, 62(3): 807–13.
Lamm, H., and Myers, D. G. (1978) ‘Group induced
polarization of attitudes and behaviour’ in L. Berkowitz
(ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology
Vol.11, New York: Academic Press, pp. 145–95.
Langley, A. (1989) ‘In search of rationality: the purposes
behind the use of formal analysis in organizations’,
Administrative Science Quarterly, 34(4): 598–631.
Lee, J. S., Keil, M. and Wong, K. F. E. (2015) ‘The effect
of goal difficulty on escalation of commitment’, Journal
of Behavioural Decision Making, 28(2): 114–29.
Lindblom, C. (1959) ‘The science of muddling through’,
Public Administration Review, 34(4): 79–88.
March, J.G. and Simon, H.A. (1958) Organizations,
New York: Wiley
March, J. G., and Olsen, J. P. (1976) Ambiguity and
Choice in Organizations, Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
Mintzberg, H. J. (1989) Mintzberg on Management:
Inside Our Strange World of Organizations, New York:
Free Press.
Mullen, B., Anthony, T., Salas, E., and Driskell, J. E.
(1994) ‘Group cohesiveness and quality of decision-
making: an integration of tests of the groupthink
hypothesis’, Small Group Research, 25(2): 189–204.
Navajas, J., Niella, T., Garbulsky, G., Bahrami, B. and
Sigman, M. (2018) ‘aggregated knowledge from a
small number of debates outperforms the wisdom of
large crowds’, Nature Human Behaviour, 2(2): 126–32.
Nemeth, C.J., Personnaz, B., Personnaz, M. and
Goncalo, J.A. (2004) ‘The liberating role of conflict in
group creativity: a study in two countries’, European
Journal of Social Psychology, 34(4): 365–74.
Nigstad, B.A. and Stroebe, W. (2006) ‘How the group
affects the mind: A cognitive model of idea generation
in groups’, Personality and Social Psychology Review,
10(3): 186–213.
Paulus, P. B. and Dzindolet, M. T. (1993) ‘Social influ-
ence processes in group brainstorming’, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 64(4): 575–86.
Rogelberg, S. G., Barnes-Farrell, J. L., and Lowe, C. A.
(1992) ‘The stepladder technique: an alternative group
structure facilitating effective group decision making’,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5): 337–58.
Rosenzweig, P. (2014) ‘The benefits and limits of deci-
sion models’, McKinsey Quarterly, February, pp. 1–10.
Ross, J., and Staw, B. M. (1993) ‘Organizational esca-
lation and exit: lessons from the Shoreham nuclear
power plant’, Academy of Management Journal, 36(4):
701–32.
Ross, J. (1996) ‘Scorsese’s The Age of Innocence: an
escalation interpretation’, Journal of Management
Education, 20(2): 276–85.
Salter, S. B., Sharp, D. J. and Chen, Y. (2013) ‘The
moderating effects of national culture on escalation
of commitment’, Advances in Accounting, 29(1):
161–69.
Sashkin, M. and Morris, W.C. (1987) ‘Decision types’,
Experiencing Management, Addison Wesley, pp. 73–74.
Simon, H. (1957) Administrative Behaviour, second edi-
tion, New York: Macmillan.
Simon, H. (1960) The New Science of Management
Decision, New York: Harper and Row.

Simon, H.A. (1979) ‘Rational decision making in
business organizations’, American Economic Review,
69(4): 493–513.
Simon, H. (1986) ‘Rationality in psychology and eco-
nomics’, Journal of Business, 59(4): 209–24.
Sleesman, D. J., Lennard, A. C., McNamara, G. and
Conlon, D. E. (2018) ‘Putting escalation of commit-
ment in context: a multilevel review and analysis’,
Academy of Management Annals, 12(1): 178–207.
Sleesman, D.J., Conlon, D.E., McNamara, G. and Miles,
J.E. (2012) ‘Cleaning up the big muddy: a meta-analytic
review of the determinants of escalation of commit-
ment’, Academy of Management Journal, 55(3): 541–62.
Staw, B. M. (1976) ‘Knee deep in the big muddy: a
study of escalating commitment to a chosen course
of action’, Organizational Behaviour and Human
Performance, 16(1): 27–44.
Staw, B. M. (1981) ‘The escalation of commitment to
a course of action’, Academy of Management Review,
6(4): 569–78.
Steinkühler, D., Mahlendorf, M. D. and Brettel, M.
(2014) ‘How self-justification indirectly drives escala-
tion of commitment’, Schmalenbach Business Review,
66(2): 191–222.
Stoner, J. A. F. (1961) A Comparison of Individual and
Group Decisions Involving Risk, Unpublished Master’s
degree thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Boston, MA.
Taylor, D. W., Berry, P. C. and Block, C. H. (1958)
‘Does group participation when using brainstorming
facilitate or inhibit creative thinking?’, Administrative
Science Quarterly, 3(1): 23–47.
Thaler, R. and Sunstein, C. (2008) Nudge: The Gentle
Power of Choice Architecture, New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Thompson, J. D. (1967) Organizations in Action, New
York: McGraw Hill.
Thompson, J., and Tuden, A. (1959) ‘Strategies, struc-
tures and processes of organizational decisions’ in
J. D. Thompson, P. B. Hammond, R. W. Hawkes,
B. H. Junker and A. Tuden (eds.), Comparative
Studies in Administration (pp. 195-216). Pittsburgh,
PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
References 717
Tingling, P. and Brydon, M. (2010) ‘Is decision-based
evidence making necessarily bad?’, Sloan Management
Review, 51(4): 71–76.
Turner, M.E. and Pratkanis, A.R. (1998) ‘Twenty-five
years of groupthink theory and research: lessons from
the evaluation of theory’, Organizational Behaviour
and Human Decision Processes, 73(2-3): 105–15.
Van de Ven, A. and Delbecq, A.L. (1971)‘Nominal
versus interacting group processes for committee deci-
sion-making effectiveness’, Academy of Management
Journal, 14(2): 203–12.
Van de Ven, A. and Delbecq, A.L. (1974) ‘The effec-
tiveness of nominal, Delphi, and interacting group
decision making processes’, Academy of Management
Journal, 17(4): 605–21.
Vroom, V.H. (2000) ‘Leadership and the decision mak-
ing process’, Organizational Dynamics, 28(4): 82–94.
Vroom, V. H., and Jago, A. G. (1988) The New
Leadership: Managing Participation in Organizations.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Vroom, V. H., and Yetton, P. W. (1973) Leadership
and Decision Making, Pittsburgh, PA: University of
Pittsburgh Press.
Wallace, P. (2001) The Psychology of the Internet.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weber, C. E. (1984) ‘Strategic thinking – dealing with
uncertainty’, Long Range Planning, 7(5): 60–70.
Werner, A. (2014) ‘Margin Call: Using film to explore
behavioural aspects of the financial crisis’, Journal of
Business Ethics, 22(4): 643–54.
Wieber, F., Thürmer, J. L. and Gollwitzer, P. M. (2015)
‘Attenuating the escalation of commitment to a falter-
ing project in decision-making groups: an implemen-
tation intention approach’, Social Psychological and
Personality Science, 6(5): 587–95.
Wilson, C. E. (2007) ‘Inverse, reverse, and unfocused
methods: variations on our standard tools of the
trade’, Interactions, 14(6): 54–55 and 63.
Williams, A. J. and Smith, W. C. (1990) ‘Involving pur-
chasing in product development’, Industrial Marketing
Management, 19(4): 315–19.
 CHAPTER Conflict

21
Key terms and learning
outcomes 718
Why study conflict? 719
Contrasting conflict frames of
reference 719
Conflict levels and causes 723
Conflict management 735
Organizational justice 743
Organizational work
behaviours 746
Recap, Revision, Research
assignment 749
Springboard, OB cinema 751
Chapter exercises, References 752
Key terms
conflict
frame of reference
unitarist frame of reference
pluralistic frame of reference
interactionist frame of reference
functional conflict
dysfunctional conflict
radical frame of reference
resistance
conflict resolution
negotiation
distributive bargaining
integrative bargaining
conflict stimulation
organizational justice
distributive justice
procedural justice
interactional justice
discretionary behaviour:
organizational citizenship
behaviour
counter-productive work
behaviour

Learning outcomes
When you have read this chapter, you should be able to define those
key terms in your own words, and you should also be able to:

1. Identify the four major frames of reference on conflict.

2. Distinguish between functional and dysfunctional conflict.
3. Distinguish between different conflict levels and conflict causes.
4. Explain the mechanisms of group conflict contagion and how
member differences can be revealed.
5. Explain the relationship between organizing, coordinating and
conflict.
6. Distinguish different organizational coordination devices.
7. List Thomas’ five conflict resolution approaches and Gelfand’s four
conflict resolution cultures.
8. Distinguish between distributive and integrative bargaining.
9. Contrast the three dimensions of organizational justice.
10. Distinguish four classes of counterproductive work behaviour.
11. Contrast employee counterproductive work behaviour with
organizational citizenship behaviour.
 Contrasting conflict frames of reference 719

Why study conflict?

Conflict a process that Conflict is defined as a process that begins when one party perceives that another party has
begins when one party negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something that the first party cares about.
perceives that another It occurs when the interests of one party come up against the different interests of another,
party has negatively and when the achievement of one party’s goals is blocked by another. Conflict:
affected, or is about
• is a state of mind which has to be perceived by both the parties involved – if either of
to negatively affect,
the parties is unaware of a conflict, then none exists
something that the first
party cares about. • possesses both a thinking and a feeling element
• triggers reactions in the form of conflict behaviours, directed at the other party
Organizational conflict occurs within companies, charities, educational institutions, churches,
prisons, hospitals and government departments. The causes of these conflicts may be political,
economic, social, technological, legal or ecological. Every day, the news media report the start
of some new conflict or provide us with an update on an existing, unresolved one. A survey
revealed that the average European worker spent the equivalent of a day a month dealing
with conflicts of different kinds, although this varied between countries. Employees in the
Netherlands spent 0.9 hours a week on conflict-related tasks; 1.8 hours in Denmark, France
and Britain; rising to 3.3 hours in Ireland and Germany. Conflict can lead to project failure,
absenteeism and even personal attacks (CIPD/OPP, 2008).

Watch and listen to today’s TV, radio or website news headlines. How many of the
CRITICAL
stories relate to some kind of conflict? Who are the parties involved in each conflict?
THINKING
What is cause of their disagreement? Why do the media like reporting conflicts?

Contrasting conflict frames of reference

Frame of reference A frame of reference refers to the influences which structure a person’s perceptions and
a person’s perceptions interpretations of events. These involve assumptions about reality, attitudes towards what is
and interpretations of possible, and conventions regarding what is correct behaviour for those involved. The adoption
events, which involve of differing frames of references by opposing sides can impair the effective resolution of conflicts.
assumptions about The literature distinguishes four different frames of reference on conflict based on the
reality, attitudes towards distinctions made by Alan Fox (1966). They are labelled unitarist, pluralist, interactionist
what is possible, and and radical. These frames are neither ‘right’ nor ‘wrong’, only different.
conventions regarding
correct behaviour.
• Unitarist: sees organizations as essentially harmonious and any conflict as bad.
• Pluralist: sees organizations as a collection of groups, each with their own interests.
• Interactionist: sees conflict as a positive, necessary force for effective performance.
• Radical: sees conflict as an inevitable outcome of capitalism.
720 Chapter 21 Conflict
Pronoun test
Robert Reich described the ‘pronoun test’ that he used
to evaluate the nature of the employment relationship in
the companies that he visited as US Secretary of Labour
during the first Clinton Administration, in the following
Unitarist frame of
reference on conflict
a perspective that
regards management and
employee interests as
coinciding and which thus
regards organizational
conflict are harmful and
to be avoided.
Pluralist frame of
reference on conflict
a perspective that
views organizations as
consisting of different,
natural interest groups,
each with their own
potentially constructive,
legitimate interests, which
makes conflict between
them inevitable.
way: ‘I’d say, ‘Tell me about the company’. If the person
said ‘we’ or ‘us’, I knew people were strongly attached
to the organization. If they said ‘they’ or ‘them’, I knew
there was less of a sense of linkage’ (Rousseau, 1999).
The unitarist frame of reference on conflict views
organizations as fundamentally harmonious, cooperative
structures, consisting of committed, loyal, worker-management
teams that promote harmony of purpose. The unitarist frame
of reference:
1. Assumes workplace conflict to be unimportant.
2. Unquestioningly accepts the language, assumptions and
goals of management.
3. Believes managers can sort out disagreements using conflict
resolution techniques.
4. Asserts a commonality of interests between an organization’s
workers and managers.
5. Sees conflict to be the result of communication failures, personality clashes or deviant
individuals.
6. Thinks that economic, technological and political developments have now virtually
eliminated non-sanctioned employee behaviour within organizations.
Pluralist frame of reference on conflict
The pluralist frame of reference on conflict views organizations as a collection of many
separate groups, each of which have their own legitimate interests thereby making conflict
between them inevitable as each attempts to pursue its own
objectives. This frame of reference therefore rejects the view
that individual employees have the same interests as the
management, or that an organization is one big happy family.
The pluralist frame also recognizes that some of the time,
the interests of the different groups will coincide, while at other
times, they will clash and so cause conflict between them. These
differences do not prevent an organization from functioning
since all groups recognize that negotiation and compromise
are essential if they are to achieve their goals even partially.
Hence, the job of management becomes keeping a balance
between different groups and their potentially conflicting goals
and interests. Underlying the pluralist view is the belief that conflict can be resolved through
compromise to the benefit of all.
Interactionist frame of reference on conflict
The interactionist frame of reference on conflict sees it as a requirement for improving
decision making, avoiding poor performance, and stimulating creativity (to avoid stagnation
and groupthink). The interactionist frame not only accepts the inevitability of conflict,
but also contains the notion that there is an optimum level of it, neither too much nor too
little. It sees the way to achieve that optimum conflict level is through the intervention of