Organizational development AKA Group Dynamics As defined by Richard Beckhard, "Organizational development" (OD) is a planned, top-down, organization-wide effort

to increase the organization's effectiveness and health. OD is achieved through interventions in the organization's "processes," using behavioural science knowledge. According to Warren Bennis, OD is a complex strategy intended to change the beliefs, attitudes, values, and structure of organizations so that they can better adapt to new technologies, markets, and challenges. Warner Burke emphasizes that OD is not just "anything done to better an organization"; it is a particular kind of change process designed to bring about a particular kind of end result. OD involves organizational reflection, system improvement, planning, and self-analysis. The term "Organization Development" is often used interchangeably with Organizational effectiveness, especially when used as the name of a department or a part of the Human Resources function within an organization. Organization Development is a growing field that is responsive to many new approaches including Positive Adult Development. Definition of Organizational Development At the core of OD is the concept of organization, defined as two or more people working together toward one or more shared goals. Development in this context is the notion that an organization may become more effective over time at achieving its goals. OD is a long range effort to improve organization's problem solving and renewal processes, particularly through more effective and collaborative management of organizational culture, often with the assistance of a change agent or catalyst and the use of the theory and technology of applied behavioral science. Organization development is a contractual relationship between a change agent and a sponsoring organization entered into for the purpose of using applied behavioral science in a systems context to improve organizational performance and the capacity of the organization to improve itself. Contractual Relationship: Although neither the sponsoring organization nor the change agent can be sure at the outset of the exact nature of the problem or problems to be dealt with or how long the change agents' help will be needed, it is essential that some tentative agreement on these matters be reached. The sponsoring organization needs to know generally what the change agent's preliminary plan is, what its own commitments are in relation to personal commitments and responsibility for the program, and what the change agent's fee will be. The change agent must assure himself that the organization's, and particularly the top executives', commitment to change is strong enough to support the kind of self-analysis and personal involvement requisite to success of the program. Recognizing the uncertainties lying ahead on both sides, a termination agreement permitting either side to withdraw at any time is usually included.

Change Agent A change agent in the sense used here is not a technical expert skilled in such functional areas as accounting, production, or finance. He is a behavioral scientist who knows how to get people in an organization involved in solving their own problems. His main strength is a comprehensive knowledge of human behavior, supported by a number of intervention techniques (to be discussed later). The change agent can be either external or internal to the organization. An internal change agent is usually a staff person who has expertise in the behavioral sciences and in the intervention technology of OD. Beckhard reports several cases in which line people have been trained in OD and have returned to their organizations to engage in successful change assignments. In the natural evolution of change mechanisms in organizations, this would seem to approach the ideal arrangement. Qualified change agents can be found on some university faculties, or they may be private consultants associated with such organizations as the National Training Laboratories Institute for Applied Behavioral Science (Washington, D.C.) or University Associates (San Diego, California), and similar organizations.

The change agent may be a staff or line member of the organization who is schooled in OD theory and technique. In such a case, the "contractual relationship" is an in-house agreement that should probably be explicit with respect to all of the conditions involved except the fee.

Sponsoring Organization: The initiative for OD programs comes from an organization that has a problem. This means that top management or someone authorized by top management is aware that a problem exists and has decided to seek help in solving it. There is a direct analogy here to the practice of psychotherapy: The client or patient must actively seek help in finding a solution to his problems. This indicates a willingness on the part of the client organization to accept help and assures the organization that management is actively concerned. Applied Behavioral Science: One of the outstanding characteristics of OD that distinguishes it from most other improvement programs is that it is based on a "helping relationship." The change agent is not a physician to the organization's ills; he does not examine the "patient," make a diagnosis, and write a prescription. Nor does he try to teach organizational members a new inventory of knowledge which they then transfer to the job situation. Using theory and methods drawn from such behavioral sciences as psychology, sociology, communication, cultural anthropology, administrative theory, organizational behavior, economics, and political science, the change agent's main function is to help the organization define and solve its own problems. The basic method used is known as action research. This approach, which is described in detail later, consists of a preliminary diagnosis, collecting data, feedback of the data to the client, data exploration by the client group, action planning based on the data, and taking action.

Systems Context: OD deals with a total system the organization as a whole, including its relevant environment or with a subsystem or systems departments or work groups in the context of the total system. Parts of systems, for example, individuals, cliques, structures, norms, values, and products are not considered in isolation; the principle of interdependency, that is, that change in one part of a system affects the other parts, is fully recognized. Thus, OD interventions focus on the total culture and cultural processes of organizations. The focus is also on groups, since the relevant behavior of individuals in organizations and groups is generally a product of group influences rather than personality. Improved Organizational Performance: The objective of OD is to improve the organization's capacity to handle its internal and external functioning and relationships. This would include such things as improved interpersonal and group processes, more effective communication, enhanced ability to cope with organizational problems of all kinds, more effective decision processes, more appropriate leadership style, improved skill in dealing with destructive conflict, and higher levels of trust and cooperation among organizational members. These objectives stem from a value system based on an optimistic view of the nature of man that man in a supportive environment is capable of achieving higher levels of development and accomplishment. Also essential to organization development and effectiveness is the scientific method inquiry, a rigorous search for causes, experimental testing of hypotheses, and review of results. Finally, the democratic process is viewed as having a legitimate, and perhaps dominant, role in the highly effective organization. Organizational Self-Renewal: The ultimate aim of the outside OD practitioner is to "work himself out of a job" by leaving the client organization with a set of tools, behaviors, attitudes, and an action plan with which to monitor its own state of health and to take corrective steps toward its own renewal and development. This is consistent with the systems concept of feedback as a regulatory and corrective mechanism. Case history of Organizational Development The Cambridge Clinic found itself having difficulty with its internal working relationships. The medical director, concerned with the effect these problems could have on patient care, contacted an organizational consultant at a local university and asked him for help. A preliminary discussion among the director, the clinic administrator, and the consultant seemed to point to problems in leadership, conflict resolution, and decision processes. The consultant suggested that data be gathered so that a working diagnosis could be made. The clinic officials agreed, and tentative working arrangements were concluded. The consultant held a series of interviews involving all members of the clinic staff, the medical director, and the administrator. Then the consultant "thematized", or summarized, the interview data to identify specific problem areas. At the beginning of a workshop about a week later, the consultant fed back to the clinic staff the data he had collected.

The staff arranged the problems in the following priorities:

1. Role conflicts between certain members of the medical staff were creating tensions that interfered with the necessity for cooperation in handling patients. 2. The leadership style of the medical director resulted in his putting off decisions on important operating matters. This led to confusion and sometimes to inaction on the part of the medical and administrative staffs. 3. Communication between the administrative, medical, and outreach (social worker) staffs on mutual problems tended to be avoided. Open conflicts over policies and procedures were thus held in check, but suppressed feelings clearly had a negative influence on interpersonal and intergroup behavior. Through the use of role analysis and other techniques suggested by the consultant, the clinic staff and the medical director were able to explore the role conflict and leadership problems and to devise effective ways of coping with them. Exercises designed to improve communication skills and a workshop session on dealing with conflict led to progress in developing more openness and trust throughout the clinic. An important result of this first workshop was the creation of an action plan that set forth specific steps to be applied to clinic problems by clinic personnel during the ensuing period. The consultant agreed to monitor these efforts and to assist in any way he could. Additional discussions and team development sessions were held with the director and the medical and administrative staffs. A second workshop attended by the entire clinic staff took place about two months after the first. At the second workshop, the clinic staff continued to work together on the problems of dealing with conflict and interpersonal communication. During the last half-day of the meeting, the staff developed a revised action plan covering improvement activities to be undertaken in the following weeks and months to improve the working relationships of the clinic. A notable additional benefit of this OD program was that the clinic staff learned new ways of monitoring the clinic's performance as an organization and of coping with some of its other problems. Six months later, when the consultant did a follow-up check on the organization, the staff confirmed that interpersonal problems were now under better control and that some of the techniques learned at the two workshops associated with the OD programs were still being used. Modern development of Organizational Development In recent years, serious questioning has emerged about the relevance of OD to managing change in modern organizations. The need for "reinventing" the field has become a topic that even some of its "founding fathers" are discussing critically.

Action research Wendell L. French and Cecil Bell define organization development (OD) at one point as "organization improvement through action research". If one idea can be said to summarize OD's underlying philosophy, it would be action research as it was conceptualized by Kurt Lewin and later elaborated and expanded on by other behavioral scientists. Concerned with social change and, more particularly, with effective, permanent social change, Lewin believed that the motivation to change was strongly related to action: If people are active in decisions affecting them, they are more likely to adopt new ways. "Rational social management", he said, "proceeds in a spiral of steps, each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action, and fact-finding about the result of action". Figure Systems Model of Action-Research Process Kurt Lewin's description of the process of change involves three steps: Unfreezing: Faced with a dilemma or disconfirmation, the individual or group becomes aware of a need to change. Changing: The situation is diagnosed and new models of behavior are explored and tested. Refreezing: Application of new behavior is evaluated, and if reinforcing, adopted.

The figure summarizes the steps and processes involved in planned change through action research. Action research is depicted as a cyclical process of change. The cycle begins with a series of planning actions initiated by the client and the change agent working together. The principal elements of this stage include a preliminary diagnosis, data gathering, feedback of results, and joint action planning. In the language of systems theory, this is the input phase, in which the client system becomes aware of

problems as yet unidentified, realizes it may need outside help to effect changes, and shares with the consultant the process of problem diagnosis.The second stage of action research is the action, or transformation, phase. This stage includes actions relating to learning processes (perhaps in the form of role analysis) and to planning and executing behavioral changes in the client organization. As shown in Figure 1, feedback at this stage would move via Feedback Loop A and would have the effect of altering previous planning to bring the learning activities of the client system into better alignment with change objectives. Included in this stage is action-planning activity carried out jointly by the consultant and members of the client system. Following the workshop or learning sessions, these action steps are carried out on the job as part of the transformation stage. The third stage of action research is the output, or results, phase. This stage includes actual changes in behavior (if any) resulting from corrective action steps taken following the second stage. Data are again gathered from the client system so that progress can be determined and necessary adjustments in learning activities can be made. Minor adjustments of this nature can be made in learning activities via Feedback Loop B. Major adjustments and reevaluations would return the OD project to the first, or planning, stage for basic changes in the program. The action-research model shown in Figure 1 closely follows Lewin's repetitive cycle of planning, action, and measuring results. It also illustrates other aspects of Lewin's general model of change. As indicated in the diagram, the planning stage is a period of unfreezing, or problem awareness. The action stage is a period of changing, that is, trying out new forms of behavior in an effort to understand and cope with the system's problems. (There is inevitable overlap between the stages, since the boundaries are not clear-cut and cannot be in a continuous process). The results stage is a period of refreezing, in which new behaviors are tried out on the job and, if successful and reinforcing, become a part of the system's repertoire of problem-solving behavior. Action research is problem centered, client centered, and action oriented. It involves the client system in a diagnostic, active-learning, problem-finding, and problem-solving process. Data are not simply returned in the form of a written report but instead are fed back in open joint sessions, and the client and the change agent collaborate in identifying and ranking specific problems, in devising methods for finding their real causes, and in developing plans for coping with them realistically and practically. Scientific method in the form of data gathering, forming hypotheses, testing hypotheses, and measuring results, although not pursued as rigorously as in the laboratory, is nevertheless an integral part of the process. Action research also sets in motion a long-range, cyclical, self-correcting mechanism for maintaining and enhancing the effectiveness of the client's system by leaving the system with practical and useful tools for self-analysis and self-renewal. Important figures related to Organizational Development * W. Edwards Deming, Chris Argyris, Richard Beckhard, Kenneth Benne, Robert R. Blake, Leland Bradford, W. Warner Burke, Tom Cummings, Fred Emery, Charles Handy, Elliott Jaques Kurt Lewin (1898 - 1947) is widely recognized as the founding father of Organizational Development (OD), although he died before the concept became current in the mid-1950s. From Lewin came the ideas of group dynamics, and action research which underpin the basic OD process as well as providing its collaborative consultant/client ethos. Institutionally, Lewin founded the Research Center for Group 6

Dynamics at MIT, which moved to Michigan after his death. RCGD colleagues were among those who founded the National Training Laboratories (NTL), from which the T-group and group-based OD emerged. In the UK, working as close as was possible with Lewin and his colleagues, the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations was important in developing systems theories. Important too was the joint TIHR journal Human Relations, although nowadays the Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences is seen as the leading OD journal. Organizational Development interventions This section describes some of the principal learning processes or interventions in the "action" stage of organization development. Interventions are structured activities used individually or in combination by the members of a client system to improve their social or task performance. They may be introduced by a change agent as part of an improvement program, or they may be used by the client following a program to check on the state of the organization's health, or to effect necessary changes in its own behavior. "Structured activities" mean such diverse procedures as experiential exercises, questionnaires, attitude surveys, interviews, relevant group discussions, and even lunchtime meetings between the change agent and a member of the client organization. Every action that influences an organization's improvement program in a change agent-client system relationship can be said to be an intervention. There are many possible intervention strategies from which to choose. Several assumptions about the nature and functioning of organizations are made in the choice of a particular strategy. Beckhard lists six such assumptions: 1. The basic building blocks of an organization are groups (teams). Therefore, the basic units of change are groups, not individuals. 2. An always relevant change goal is the reduction of inappropriate competition between parts of the organization and the development of a more collaborative condition. 3. Decision making in a healthy organization is located where the information sources are, rather than in a particular role or level of hierarchy. 4. Organizations, subunits of organizations, and individuals continuously manage their affairs against goals. Controls are interim measurements, not the basis of managerial strategy. 5. One goal of a healthy organization is to develop generally open communication, mutual trust, and confidence between and across levels. 6. People support what they help create. People affected by a change must be allowed active participation and a sense of ownership in the planning and conduct of the change. Interventions range from those designed to improve the effectiveness of individuals through those designed to deal with teams and groups, intergroup relations, and the total organization. There are interventions that focus on task issues (what people do), and those that focus on process issues (how people go about doing it). Finally, interventions may be roughly classified according to which change mechanism they tend to emphasize: for example, feedback, awareness of changing cultural norms, 7

interaction and communication, conflict, and education through either new knowledge or skill practice. One of the most difficult tasks confronting the change agent is to help create in the client system a safe climate for learning and change. In a favorable climate, human learning builds on itself and continues indefinitely during man's lifetime. Out of new behavior, new dilemmas and problems emerge as the spiral continues upward to new levels. In an unfavorable climate, in contrast, learning is far less certain, and in an atmosphere of psychological threat, it often stops altogether. Unfreezing old ways can be inhibited in organizations because the climate makes employees feel that it is inappropriate to reveal true feelings, even though such revelations could be constructive. In an inhibited atmosphere, therefore, necessary feedback is not available. Also, trying out new ways may be viewed as risky because it violates established norms. Such an organization may also be constrained because of the law of systems: If one part changes, other parts will become involved. Hence, it is easier to maintain the status quo. Hierarchical authority, specialization, span of control, and other characteristics of formal systems also discourage experimentation. The change agent must address himself to all of these hazards and obstacles. Some of the things which will help him are: 1. A real need in the client system to change 2. Genuine support from management 3. Setting a personal example: listening, supporting behavior 4. A sound background in the behavioral sciences 5. A working knowledge of systems theory 6. A belief in man as a rational, self-educating being fully capable of learning better ways to do things. Change An alteration of an organization s environment, structure, technology, or people  A constant force  An organizational reality  An opportunity or a threat Change agent  A person who initiates and assumes the responsibility for managing a change in an organization A change agent in the sense used here is not a technical expert skilled in such functional areas as accounting, production, or finance. He is a behavioral scientist who knows how to get people in an organization involved in solving their own problems. His main strength is a comprehensive knowledge of human behavior, supported by a number of intervention techniques (to be discussed later). The change agent can be either external or internal to the organization. An internal change agent is usually a staff 8

person who has expertise in the behavioral sciences and in the intervention technology of OD. Beckhard reports several cases in which line people have been trained in OD and have returned to their organizations to engage in successful change assignments. In the natural evolution of change mechanisms in organizations, this would seem to approach the ideal arrangement. Qualified change agents can be found on some university faculties, or they may be private consultants associated with such organizations as the National Training Laboratories Institute for Applied Behavioral Science (Washington, D.C.) or University Associates (San Diego, California), and similar organizations. The change agent may be a staff or line member of the organization who is schooled in OD theory and technique. In such a case, the "contractual relationship" is an in-house agreement that should probably be explicit with respect to all of the conditions involved except the fee.

Categories of change Forces For Change External forces  Marketplace competition  Government laws and regulations  New technologies  Labor market shifts  Cycles in the economy  Social change Internal forces  Strategy modifications  New equipment  New processes 9

 Workforce composition  Restructured jobs  Compensation and benefits  Labor surpluses and shortages  Employee attitudes Two Views Of The Change Process Calm waters metaphor  A description of traditional practices in and theories about organizations that likens the organization to a large ship making a predictable trip across a calm sea and experiencing an occasional storm White-water rapids metaphor  A description of the organization as a small raft navigating a raging river What Makes a Good Change Agent? Change processes and change projects have become major milestones in many organizations history. Due to the dynamics in the external environment, many organizations find themselves in nearly continuous change. The scope reaches from smaller change projects in particular sub business units up to corporation-wide transformation processes. Unfortunately, not every change process leads to the expected results. There are multiple reasons for potential failure: Typical barriers to change are unexpected changes in the external conditions, a lack of commitment in implementation, resistance of people involved, or a lack of resources. The implications of failed change projects go beyond missed objectives. More important is the negative symbolism and the de-motivation of people involved. People within the change team may become dissatisfied with their own performance or with the lack of support they received. In the result, some of them will probably never again be willing to commit themselves to change initiatives. Similarly, people affected by the (failed) change effort will develop growing skepticism. They might perceive future change projects as another fancy idea from management , which brings a lot of work and few benefits. In the light of the many problems and risks associated with change projects, the change agent1 has a very important function. The change agent s or change leader s capabilities have a major impact on success or failure of the project, and on the extent of potential unwanted side-effects. The following article describes required capabilities of good change agents. Readers should keep in mind, however, that there is no ideal change agent. Particular requirements normally relate to the actual situation in the organization (e.g. corporate culture, strategic relevance of the project, acceptance of the project among management and staff, timeframe, resources etc). Depending on these factors, change agents either may need good project management capabilities in order to guarantee timely progress, or they should be good leaders with the ability to motivate 10

people. Jim Canterucci defines change leaders on five levels. Although he mainly focuses on leadership capabilities and qualifications, his system can easily be transferred to change projects with varying importance. The leader of an organization-wide restructuring project will need different capabilities than the one who is responsible for clearly defined project on departmental level. Levels of Change Leadership Skills, derived from Jim Canterucci: Level I Accepts the need for change, communicates and defends the need for change throughout the organization, creates an open and receptive environment. small change initiatives with clear direction Level II Defines and initiates change, identifies leverage points for change in processes and work habits change projects at local level Level III Leads change, translate the vision of the organization into the context of a specific change initiative and bring this message to the entire organization, redirects approaches in the face of new opportunities transformation of a central vision into change initiatives and organization-wide communication Level IV Manages complex change, understands the cultural dynamics of the current state of an organization, creates a strategic practical course, balancing the current reality with the need for rapid adoption of the desired future reality generates change with a high degree of transformation

Level V Champions change, challenges the status quo by comparing it to an ideal or a vision of change, causes crisis in order to support dramatic actions and change efforts, transforms the organization Ability to revolutionize organizations

11

Change agents always need the ability to get all people affected by the project involved, to ensure their support and commitment. This requires a high competency as the basis for acceptance as well as soft skills, which are often summarized as emotional intelligence. This includes the ability to communicate, to understand and to take into account opinions and doubts of others. Change projects involve a great variety of factors and forces. These factors do not only comprise the reasons and objectives for change, but also the existing state of the organization, values, beliefs and routines of the people there. Many change projects challenge the existing cultural framework of an organization. Efforts to change such lasting values, however, lead to resistance and denial. More than in technology-related projects (e.g. implementation of new software), it takes the acceptance and the support of all people affected by such projects to make them succeed. It is the change agent s task to generate this acceptance in order to implement change with the people, not against them. 15 Key Competencies of Change Agents Objectives 1. Sensitivity to changes in key personnel, top management perceptions and market conditions, and to the way in which these impact the goals of the project. 2. Setting of clearly defined, realistic goals. 3. Flexibility in responding to changes without the control of the project manager, perhaps requiring major shifts in project goals and management style. Roles 4. Team-building abilities, to bring together key stakeholders and establish effective working groups, and to define and delegate respective responsibilities clearly. 5. Networking skills in establishing and maintaining appropriate contacts within and outside the organization. 6. Tolerance of ambiguity, to be able to function comfortably, patiently and effectively in an uncertain environment. Communication 7. Communication skills to transmit effectively to colleagues and subordinates the need for changes in the project goals and in individual tasks and responsibilities. 8. Interpersonal skills, across the range, including selection, listening, collecting appropriate information, identifying the concerns of others, and managing meetings. 9. Personal enthusiasm in expressing plans and ideas. 10. Stimulating motivation and commitment in others involved.

12

Negotiation 11. Selling plans and ideas to others by creating a desirable and challenging vision of the future. 12. Negotiating with key players for resources, for changes in procedures, and to resolve conflict. Managing up 13. Political awareness in identifying potential coalitions, and in balancing conflicting goals and perceptions. 14. Influencing skills, to gain commitment to project plans and ideas form potential skeptics and resisters. 15. Helicopter perspectives, to stand back from the immediate project and take a broader view of priorities.

Rosabeth Moss Kanter also mentions many emotional components among the most important characteristics of change agents.4 In addition to the factors described above, she stresses the need to question the knowledge of the organization. According to Moss Kanter, existing patterns of thinking and existing assumptions about the organization, its markets, customers and relationships have to be challenged. Thus, change agents should realize that there is more than one right solution. The change agent has to be able to evaluate facts from different points of view, e.g. from the customer s or competitor s perspective. Furthermore, Moss Kanter stresses the importance of coalition building, which she describes as an often-ignored step in change processes. Change agents should identify and involve opinion leaders, decision makers on resources, functional experts and other important persons as early as possible in the project-planning phase. The importance of the factor motivation is well described with the phrases transferring ownership to a working team and making everyone a hero. In my opinion, Moss Kanter gives the most important preconditions for successful change management the involvement of the people with these two phrases. Members of the change team and other employees affected by the change initiative must not feel like as if they are just the tools for change or the subject of change. In my experience, it is not enough to have a convincing vision. Real commitment can only be gained by giving people the chance to become actively involved, to contribute their own experiences. Every employee needs to know that his contribution to the project is important and is valued. Thus, people will develop a sense of ownership for the project, which, in turn may serve as a major source of motivation when it comes to the inevitable problems and barriers. Rosabeth Moss Kanter provides a great summary of the characteristics of a good change agents when she writes that the most important things a leader can bring to a changing organization are passion, conviction, and confidence in others.

13

Managing Conflict
The ability to manage conflict is undoubtedly one of the most important interpersonal skills a manager needs. Over the years, three differing views have evolved regarding conflict in organizations. One view argues that conflict must be avoided, that it indicates a malfunctioning within the organization. We call this the traditional view of conflict. A second view, the human relations view of conflict, argues that conflict is a natural and inevitable outcome in any organization and that it need not be negative, but rather, has the potential to be a positive force in contributing to an organization's performance. The third and most recent perspective proposes not only that conflict can be a positive force in an organization, but also that some conflict is absolutely necessary for an organization to perform effectively. We label this third approach the interactionist view of conflict.

Definition
Perceived differences resulting in interference or opposition While no single definition of conflict exists, most definitions seem to involve the following factors: that there are at least two independent groups, the groups perceive some incompatibility between themselves, and the groups interact with each other in some way (Putnam and Poole, 1987). Two example definitions are, process in which one party perceives that its interests are being opposed or negatively affected by another party" (Wall & Callister, 1995, p. 517), and the interactive process manifested in compatibility, disagreement, or dissonance within or between social entities (Rahim, 1992, p. 16). There are several causes of conflict. Conflict may occur when: y y y y A party is required to engage in an activity that is incongruent with his or her needs or interests. A party holds behavioral preferences, the satisfaction of which is incompatible with another person's implementation of his or her preferences. A party wants some mutually desirable resource that is in short supply, such that the wants of all parties involved may not be satisfied fully. A party possesses attitudes, values, skills, and goals that are salient in directing his or her behavior but are perceived to be exclusive of the attitudes, values, skills, and goals held by the other(s). Two parties have partially exclusive behavioral preferences regarding their joint actions. Two parties are interdependent in the performance of functions or activities.

y y

Functional conflict: Conflict that supports and organizations goals Dysfunctional conflict: Conflict that prevents and organization from achieving its goals It is important to recognize the difference between resolving conflict and managing conflict. The goal of conflict resolution is conflict elimination. Conflict resolution is often an impossible task and not always a desirable goal. Department chairs who accept conflict resolution as their ultimate objective will undoubtedly fail. Conflict management is directed toward reducing destructive conflict but allows for the existence of constructive conflict. Department chairs who accept conflict management as the objective realize that all conflict cannot or should not be eliminated. It will help to understand some basic facts about conflict.
14

Conflict is inevitable. Conflict is a natural outcome of human interaction. Conflict exists whenever there is disagreement and derives from differences in attitudes, beliefs, and expectations. Conflict can result from differences in perception as to what has happened or what needs to be done. Whenever two or more people disagree about a decision or action, conflict exists. Conflict is inevitable because not all persons think alike. Not all persons hold the same values or priorities. Not all persons react to situations in the same manner. Those facts make conflict resolution virtually impossible. Conflict can be positive. It is important to remember that conflict is not inherently destructive. In fact, some conflict is desirable. In a constructive mode, conflict can improve problem solving, clarify issues or expectations, increase participant involvement and commitment, and result in a better decision or outcome. If all faculty held the same views on every issue, final decisions and recommendations would not account for the full range of ramifications. If all faculty thought alike, departments would experience little change. Change that results in improvement typically grows out of conflict. Conflict can be managed. Conflict that is allowed to run its own course is more likely to be destructive. Department chairs need to be ready to manage conflict. However, two precautions must be noted. First, how a department chair responds to a conflict affects the conflict. Even when a department chair opts to ignore an existing conflict, his or her silence affects the conflict. Second, the department chairs response is never static in that a chair brings to each conflict a personal set of beliefs, perceptions, and expectations. Chairs need to remember that their perception of the persons involved or the situation may not be congruent with reality. Everyone, including department chairs, views conflict from his or her own biases despite the best of intentions. Conflict resolution is not always the goal. Conflict management, unlike conflict resolution, acknowledges that human interaction is dynamic and that people do not always think or act alike. Because conflict results from differences in attitudes, beliefs, and expectations, a conflict-free environment would be one that is so homogeneous that it could not be optimally innovative or productive. The goal becomes maximizing constructive conflict and minimizing destructive conflict. Conflict management includes those times when chairs need to initiate or encourage conflict to achieve a positive outcome.

Views on conflict
Traditional view of conflict: Assumed that conflict was bad and would always have a negative impact on an organization. Human relations view: Argued that conflict was a natural and inevitable occurrence in all organizations; rationalized the existence of conflict and advocated its acceptance. Interactionist view: Encourages mangers to maintain ongoing minimum level of conflict sufficient to keep organizational units viable, self-critical, and creative.

15

Conflict and organizational performance

The Five Most Common Types of Conflict In The Workplace

Interdependence Conflicts: A person's job depends on someone else's co-operation, output or input. For example a sales-person is constantly late inputting the monthly sales figures which causes the accountant to be late with her reports. Differences in Style: People's style for completing a job can differ. For example, one person may just want to get the work done quickly (task oriented), while another is more concerned about having it done a particular way e.g. artistic or by including other people in the project. Differences in Background/Gender Conflicts can arise between people because of differences in educational backgrounds, personal experiences, ethnic heritage, gender and political preferences. Differences in Leadership: Leaders have different styles. Employees who change from one supervisor to another can become confused, for example one leader may be more open and inclusive whilst another may be more directive. Personality Clashes: These types of conflict in the workplace are often fueled by emotion and perceptions about somebody else's motives and character. For example a team leader jumps on someone for being late because she perceives the team member as being lazy and inconsiderate. The team member sees the team leader as out to get him.

16

Sources of Conflict
Communication differences: Arising from semantic difficulties, misunderstandings, and noise in the communication channels. Structural differences: Horizontal and vertical differentiation creates problems of integration leading to disagreements over goals, decision alternatives, performance criteria, and resource allocations in organizations. Personal differences: Individual idiosyncrasies and personal value systems create conflicts.

Conflict Resolution (how do effective managers address conflicts)

Five basic ways of addressing conflict were identified by Thomas and Kilmann in 1976: Accommodation surrender one's own needs and wishes to accommodate the other party. Avoidance avoid or postpone conflict by ignoring it, changing the subject, etc. Avoidance can be useful as a temporary measure to buy time or as an expedient means of dealing with very minor, non-recurring conflicts. In more severe cases, conflict avoidance can involve severing a relationship or leaving a group. Collaboration work together to find a mutually beneficial solution. While the Thomas-Kilmann grid views collaboration as the only win-win solution to conflict, collaboration can also be timeintensive and inappropriate when there is not enough trust, respect or communication among participants for collaboration to occur. Compromise bring the problem into the open and have the third person present. The aim of conflict resolution is to reach agreement and most often this will mean compromise. Competition assert one's viewpoint at the potential expense of another. It can be useful when achieving one's objectives outweighs one's concern for the relationship. y y y y y Competing (assertive but uncooperative) Collaborating (assertive and cooperative) Avoiding (unassertive and uncooperative) Accommodating (unassertive but cooperative) Compromising (midrange on assertiveness and cooperativeness

The Thomas Kilmann Instrument can be used to assess one's dominant style for addressing conflict. Conflict-handling techniques derived from Thomas cooperative and assertiveness dimensions: Cooperativeness: The degree to which an individual will attempt to rectify a conflict by satisfying the other persons concerns. Assertiveness: The degree to which an individual will attempt to rectify the conflict to satisfy his or her own concerns.

17

Conflict Management What Works Best and When

Stimulating Conflict Convey to employees the message that conflict has its legitimate place. Use hot-button communications while maintaining plausible deniability. Issue ambiguous or threatening messages. Centralize decisions; realign work groups, increase formalization and interdependencies between units. Appoint a devils advocate to purposely present arguments that run counter to those proposed by the majority or against current practices.

Negotiation
A process in which two or more parties who have different preference must make a joint decision and come to an agreement Negotiation is a dialogue between two or more people or parties, intended to reach an understanding, resolve point of difference, or gain advantage in outcome of dialogue, to produce an agreement upon courses of action, to bargain for individual or collective advantage, to craft outcomes to satisfy various interests of two people/parties involved in negotiation process. Negotiation is a process where each party involved in negotiating tries to gain an advantage for themselves by the end of the process. Negotiation is intended to aim at compromise.

18

Approaches/strategies to negotiation
Negotiation typically manifests itself with trained negotiator acting on behalf of a particular organization or position. It can be compared to mediation where a neutral third party listens to each side's arguments and attempts to help craft an agreement between the parties. It is also related to arbitration which, as with a legal proceeding, both sides make an argument as to the merits of their "case" and then the arbitrator decides the outcome for both parties. There are two opposite types of negotiation: Integrative and Distributive.
Distributive Bargaining/Negotiation

Negotiation under zero-sum conditions, in which the gains by one party involve losses by the other party The term distributive means; there is a giving out; or the scattering of things. By its mere nature, there is a limit or finite amount in the thing being distributed or divided amongst the people involved. Hence, this type of negotiation is often referred to as 'The Fixed Pie'. There is only so much to go around, but the proportion to be distributed is limited but also variable. A distributive negotiation usually involves people who have never had a previous interactive relationship, nor are they likely to do so again in the near future. Simple everyday examples would be buying a car or a house.
Integrative bargaining/Negotiation

Negotiation in which there is at least one settlement that involves no loss to either party The word integrative means to join several parts into a whole. Conceptually, this implies some cooperation, or a joining of forces to achieve something together. Usually involves a higher degree of trust and a forming of a relationship. Both parties want to walk away feeling they've achieved something which has value by getting what each wants. Ideally, it is a twofold process. Integrative negotiation process generally involves some form or combination of making value for value concessions, in conjunction with creative problem solving. Generally, this form of negotiation is looking down the road, to them forming a long term relationship to create mutual gain. It is often described as the win-win scenario. There are many different ways to segment negotiation to gain a greater understanding of the essential parts. One view of negotiation involves three basic elements: process, behavior and substance. The process refers to how the parties negotiate: the context of the negotiations, the parties to the negotiations, the tactics used by the parties, and the sequence and stages in which all of these play out. Behavior refers to the relationships among these parties, the communication between them and the styles they adopt. The substance refers to what the parties negotiate over: the agenda, the issues (positions and - more helpfully - interests), the options, and the agreement(s) reached at the end. Another view of negotiation comprises 4 elements: strategy, process and tools, and tactics. Strategy comprises the top level goals - typically including relationship and the final outcome.
19

Processes and tools include the steps that will be followed and the roles taken in both preparing for and negotiating with the other parties. Tactics include more detailed statements and actions and responses to others' statements and actions. Some add to this persuasion and influence, asserting that these have become integral to modern day negotiation success, and so should not be omitted. Skilled negotiators may use a variety of tactics ranging from negotiation hypnosis, to a straight forward presentation of demands or setting of preconditions to more deceptive approaches such as cherry picking. Intimidation and salami tactics may also play a part in swaying the outcome of negotiations. Another negotiation tactic is bad guy/good guy. Bad guy/good guy tactic is when one negotiator acts as a bad guy by using anger and threats. The other negotiator acts as a good guy by being considerate and understanding. The good guy blames the bad guy for all the difficulties while trying to get concessions and agreement from the opponent. When a party pretends to negotiate, but secretly has no intention of compromising, the negotiator is considered to be negotiating in bad faith. Determining the Bargaining Zone

Developing Effective Negotiation Skills

Research the individual with whom youll be negotiating. Begin with a positive overture. Address problems, not personalities. Pay little attention to initial offers. Emphasize win-win solutions. Create an open and trusting climate. If needed, be open to accepting third-party assistance.

20