Management of Conflicts in Organizations | Commerce & Accountancy Optional Notes for UPSC PDF Download

Introduction

When conflict levels are too low, unit performance tends to suffer, and a skilled manager can actually encourage conflict to improve group performance. Conversely, when conflict levels are too high, it needs to be resolved to restore high performance and an optimal level of conflict. In this section, we'll examine both strategies of conflict management: stimulation and resolution.

Stimulating Productive Conflict

From a young age, many of us have been taught to avoid conflict and disagreement. Phrases like "Don't Argue," "Stop fighting," or "It's better to turn the other cheek" are common. However, this tendency to avoid conflict isn't always productive, and there are times when stimulating conflict can be beneficial. An interesting experiment involved forming groups to solve a problem. Some groups had a planted member who challenged the majority opinion, while others did not. Consistently, the groups with the planted member arrived at more perceptive solutions than those without. However, when the groups were asked to remove a member, those with a planted member chose to drop the dissenting member, despite evidence that the conflict was beneficial. Overcoming this resistance to conflict is what managers must do to stimulate productive conflict. Robbins (1978) suggested several signs that indicate the need for conflict stimulation:

• The organization is filled with "yes men."
• Employees are afraid to admit ignorance.
• Compromise is emphasized in decision-making.
• Managers prioritize harmony and peace.
• People are afraid of hurting others' feelings.
• Popularity is valued more than technical competence.
• People resist change.
• New ideas are lacking.
• There is an unusually low rate of employee turnover.

The presence of one or more of these signs usually indicates a need for conflict stimulation. Once the need has been identified, you can adopt one or more of the following techniques:

Manipulate Communication Channels:

• Deviate messages from traditional channels.
• Repress information.
• Transmit too much information.
• Transmit ambiguous or threatening information.

Alter the Organization's Structure:

• Redefine jobs, alter tasks, reform units, or activities.
• Increase a unit's size.
• Increase specialization or standardization.
• Add, delete, or transfer organizational members.
• Increase interdependence between units.

Alter Personal Behavior Factors:

• Change personality characteristics of the leader.
• Create role conflict.
• Develop role incongruence.

These are just a few suggestions. Depending on your values and the organization's value system, some of these suggestions may even seem unethical. We leave it to you to decide. But if we succeed in helping you understand the important option of conflict stimulation, we consider such conflicts to be functional.

Resolving Interparty Conflict: How and When

• We've seen that stimulating conflict is a necessary mode of conflict management when groups exhibit apathy, complacency, non-responsiveness to needed change, lack of enthusiasm for generating alternatives, etc. Although these symptoms are present in many work units in Indian organizations (and therefore call for appropriate conflict stimulation interventions), heightened manifest conflicts are more common. Therefore, for most practical purposes, you should not only possess knowledge of different conflict resolution strategies but also know when to use each strategy.
• There is a wealth of literature in this area, and different authors have proposed various taxonomies for reviewing possible conflict resolution strategies. Here, we'll consider Feldman's (1985) strategies of intergroup conflict resolution.
• The primary dimension along which intergroup conflict resolution strategies vary is how openly you, as a manager, should address the conflict. Conflict-avoidance strategies attempt to keep the conflict from coming into the open. Conflict-defusion strategies aim to keep the conflict in abeyance and to "cool" the emotions of the parties involved. Conflict-containment strategies allow some conflict to surface but tightly control which issues are discussed and how they are discussed. Conflict-confrontation strategies aim to uncover all the issues of the conflict and find a mutually satisfactory solution.

Conflict-avoidance Strategies

Neglecting the Conflict

• This approach is marked by a lack of action. As a manager, you might have avoided addressing the dysfunctional aspects of conflict. Unfortunately, when the causes of conflict are ignored, the situation often either persists or deteriorates over time. Although neglecting the conflict generally does not resolve significant policy issues, there are situations where it may be a reasonable approach.
• For instance, if the issue seems to be a symptom of more fundamental conflicts, such as conflicts over relative power and status, resolving the immediate issue may not address the underlying concerns. In such cases, it might be more productive to focus on the deeper issues.

Imposing a Solution

• This tactic involves compelling the conflicting parties to accept a solution proposed by a higher-level manager. Imposing a solution typically does not allow much room for the conflict to surface, nor does it provide an opportunity for the participants to voice their grievances. 
• Consequently, it is generally an ineffective conflict-resolution strategy. Any peace achieved through this method is usually short-lived because the root issues remain unaddressed, and the conflict tends to reappear in different forms and contexts.
• However, imposing a solution can be appropriate in situations requiring swift and decisive action. For example, when there is a conflict over investment decisions and delays could be financially costly, imposing a solution may be the best course of action for top management. Similarly, it may be necessary when unpopular decisions must be made, and there is little chance that the parties involved could reach a consensus.

Conflict-defusion Strategies

Smoothing Over

• This strategy involves attempting to downplay the extent or significance of the conflict. As a manager, you might try to convince the groups that their viewpoints are not as different as they perceive, highlight the similarities in their positions, or minimize the importance of the issue. 
• The aim is to reduce the intensity of the conflict and prevent it from escalating into open hostility. However, smoothing over conflicts is generally ineffective because it does not address the root causes.
• Nevertheless, smoothing over can serve as a temporary measure to allow individuals to cool down and regain perspective. In the heat of a conflict, people may make statements that exacerbate the situation, and smoothing over can help bring the disagreement back to a manageable level. This approach may also be suitable for conflicts involving non-work-related issues, such as disagreements between employees of different age groups due to their differing political beliefs and moral values.

Appealing to Superordinate Goals

• This method involves redirecting attention to higher goals or shared long-term aims that the groups have in common. By emphasizing these broader goals, the immediate conflict may appear less significant in comparison. Identifying superordinate goals that are important to both groups can be challenging. 
• Achieving such goals requires cooperation between the groups, and the rewards for achieving them must be significant. For example, one of the most successful superordinate goals is organizational survival, where failure to cooperate could jeopardize the existence of the larger organization itself.

Conflict-containment Strategies

Using Representatives

• This strategy involves using representatives from each group to negotiate an issue instead of dealing with the groups as a whole. The rationale is that representatives are familiar with the problems and can advocate for their groups' positions effectively.
• However, research on the use of representatives in solving intergroup conflicts is largely negative. Representatives may feel constrained from compromising and may be motivated to win or avoid defeat, which can hinder finding a solution. A representative who compromises may face suspicion or rejection from their group, leading them to deadlock a solution or delay defeat.
• Nevertheless, using groups of negotiators from each side can increase the effectiveness of this strategy. Members of each team can support each other when making concessions, and groups of negotiators may have broader support and trust from their respective sides. This approach is more effective before positions become fixed or are made public, as representatives tend to become more intransigent once positions are fixed.

Structuring the Interaction

• Some managers believe that increasing the amount of contact between groups can reduce conflict. However, increased interaction can sometimes exacerbate the conflict as groups may use this time to reinforce negative stereotypes of each other.
• Structuring the interaction between groups can be effective in resolving conflicts. Establishing a framework for discussing issues can facilitate conflict resolution. Effective strategies include decreasing the amount of direct interaction between groups early in the conflict to prevent escalation, reducing the time between problem-solving meetings to prevent backsliding, decreasing the formality of issue presentations to encourage problem-solving, limiting the recitation of historical events to focus on current issues, and using third-party mediators.
• Structuring interactions is particularly useful when previous attempts at open discussions led to conflict escalation or when a respected third party can provide and enforce structure in interactions between groups.

Bargaining

• Bargaining is a process in which concessions are exchanged until a compromise is reached. Although bargaining can lead to conflict resolution, it often does not involve open communication and may not address the underlying issues. Typically, both sides start by demanding more than they expect to get, and concessions are made until a mutually satisfactory agreement is reached. However, this may result in a compromise that does not fully address the problem and may not be in the long-term interests of either party.
• For bargaining to be successful, both parties must have relatively equal power. Otherwise, one party may impose its will on the other, and the weaker party may have no way to obtain concessions. Bargaining is also more likely to be successful if there are several acceptable alternatives that both parties are willing to consider. Otherwise, bargaining may end in a deadlock.

Conflict-confrontation Strategies

Problem Solving

Problem-solving is an attempt to find a solution that meets the needs of both parties. It involves open communication, the exchange of information, and the identification of mutually satisfactory solutions. Alderfer (1977) outlined the critical elements of successful problem-solving:

• The problem should be defined jointly based on shared facts rather than individual perceptions.
• Problems should be stated specifically rather than abstractly.
• Points of agreement and disagreement should be identified.
• Discussions should consist of specific, non-evaluative comments.
• The groups should work together to develop alternative solutions.
• Solutions should be evaluated objectively.
• Agreements should be considered tentative until all issues are resolved.

Successful problem-solving requires a minimal level of trust between the groups and can take time. However, it can be especially beneficial when the organization can benefit from the different perspectives and insights of the groups.

Organizational Redesign

• Redesigning the organization can be an effective conflict-resolution strategy, especially when conflicts arise from the coordination of work among different departments. Organizational redesign can be used to resolve conflicts or stimulate them. One approach is to reduce task interdependence between groups and assign each group clear responsibilities. 
• This can help reduce conflict but may lead to duplication and waste of resources. Another approach is to develop overlapping or joint work responsibilities, which can maximize the use of different perspectives and abilities but may also increase conflict. In some cases, it may be necessary to sustain task-based conflict but develop better mechanisms for managing it, such as integrating teams to facilitate communication and coordination.