Organizational conflicts:

Classical views
• Classical organizational theories namely Fayol,
Gulick, Urwick, Tylor, Weber etc did not seem to
appropriate appreciate different impacts that
conflict can have on organization they assumed that
conflict was detrimental to organizational efficiency
and therefore, should be minimized in the
organization. They prescribed organization
structures, ruses and procedures, hierarchy, channel
of command and so on, so that organizations
members would be unlikely to engage to conflict.
 Classical views
• F.W Taylor: Taylor and his associates believed
that the functioning of an organization would
improve if the principles of scientific
management were implemented. Taylor
particularly insisted that the conflicts between
labor and management would disappear is
those principles were applied.
 Classical views
• Henri Fayol: Fayol advocated for some
principles which could minimized
organizational conflict. Fayol and others
classicist prescribed meschanisue organization
structure with clear line of authority, division
of labor, and so on. Which would encourage
harmony and cooperation and suppress or
eliminate conflict among members.
 Classical views
• Max Weber: Max Weber a distinguished German sociologist,
proposed a structure of organization that he called bureaucracy.
• Bureaucratic organizations must follow several fundamental
principles:
• A well-defined hierarch of authority
• Division of work based on functional specialization
• A system rules covering the rights and duties of employees
• A system of procedures of dealing with work situations
• Impersonality in international relationships
• Selection of employees and their promotion based on technical
competence
 Neo-Classical views:
• The studies of Elion Mayo led to the human
relations movement, also emphasize the need
for minimization or elimination of conflict for
increasing organizational conflict. Lwwin,
Likers and whyet supported the theory
whereas Taylor, Fayol and Weber attempted to
accomplish this by altering its social system.
 Modern views:
• Organizational conflict as its stands presently is
considered legitimate and inevitable and a
positive indicator of effective organizational
management. It is now recognized that conflict
with certain limits is essential to productivity.
Conflict can be functional to the extent to which it
results in the creative solution to problems or the
effective attainment of subsystem or
organizational objectives that otherwise would
not have been possible.
 Modern views:
• Little or no conflict in organizations may lead to stagnation, poor
decisions and infectiveness on the other hand, organizational left
uncontrolled may have dysfunctional outcomes. Therefore, the central
theme is that too little conflict may encourage stagnancy, meritocracy
and groupthink, but too much conflict may lead to organizational
disintegration, therefore, too little or two much conflict are both
dysfunctional for an organizations effectiveness. A moderate amount of
conflict, handled in constructive manner, is essential for attaining and
maintaining an optimum level of organizational effectiveness. A
moderate amount substantive or task-related conflict, but not affective
or emotional conflict is appropriate or attaining in optimum level of
organization effectiveness.
•Litterrer, Kerr, Miles, Whyte, Vickers Robinns
 Outcomes of conflict:

• Two opposing viewpoints of the outcome of

conflict were presented. A realistic view of
conflict is that it has produced as well as
destructed potential as well as destructed
potentials. The functional and dysfunctional
outcomes of conflict in organization are as
follows:
•  Functional Outcomes
• Dysfunctional outcome
 Functional Outcomes:
• Conflict may stimulate innovation, creativity and growth
• Organizational decision making may be improved
• Alternative solutions to a problem may be found
• Conflict may lead to synergetic solutions to common
problem
• Individual and groups performance maybe enhanced
• Individual and groups may be forced to search for new
approaches
• Individual and groups may be required to articulate and
clarify their positions
  
Dysfunctional outcome:

• Conflict may cause job stress, burnout, and

dissatisfaction
• Communication between individuals and groups
may be reduced
• A climate of distrust and suspicion can be developed
• Relationships may be damaged
• Job performance maybe reduced
• Resistance to change can increase
• Organizational commitment and loyalty may be
affected
 A model of conflict:

• Outcomes of conflict as well as its resolution can be

represented by ammonal which is shown below:

• In the above figure, we see four different situations

and outcomes of conflict. It also shows the
strategies to overcome conflicts in different
situations.
• Lose-lose situation: a situation in which a conflict
deteriorates to the point that both parties are worse
off than they were before. An extreme example is
the case of an executive who firs the prison who
knows the secret formula for the organizations most
successful product.
• Lose-win situation: A situation in which one person
is defeated while the others one is victorious. In a
game two teams engage in playing may lose the
match or win it.
• Win- lose situation: A situation in which one
person wins while the other person is defeated.
It is the natural desire to both the parties.
• Win-Win situation: A situation in which both
the parties perceive that they are in a better
position that they were before the conflict
began. This perfect outcome to try to achieve in
ongoing relationships, such as with suppliers,
customers and employees.