Chapter 12

CONFLICTCONFLICT

Conflict

• Traditional Perspectives on Conflict• Interpretive Perspectives on Conflict• Critical Perspectives on Conflict• Ethics in Conflict

Traditional Perspectives on Conflict

• Interpersonal Conflict• Bargaining and Negotiation

Interpersonal ConflictDefinition of Conflict

• The interaction of interdependent people who perceive opposition of goals, aims, and values, and who see the other party as potentially interfering with the realization of these goals [Putnam & Poole, 1987, p. 552]

Positives and Negatives of Conflict

What positive things can come out of conflict?

What negative things can come out of conflict?

What role does communication play in determining positive or negative results?

Interpersonal ConflictStyles of Conflict ManagementBlake and Mouton (1964)Two-Dimensional Model

Concern for Your Personal Goals (1-9 range)Concern for Your Relationship with the Other

Person in the Conflict (1-9 range)

Model Yields Five Styles

Styles of Conflict Management

Conflict Style: a person’s characteristic manner or habitual way of handling a dispute: What are the five styles? (page 320)

Avoiding (1,1) Forcing (9,1)Accommodating (1,9)Collaborating (9,9)Compromising (5,5)

Styles of Conflict Management

Putnam and Wilson’s (1982) Organizational Communication Conflict Instrument [OCCI]

• Non-Confrontation Strategies: avoid disagreements and downplay controversies by approaching conflict indirectly. Reflects a combination of avoidance or accommodation.

• Solution Oriented Strategies: move toward the opposition by using compromise as well as a search for innovation.

• Control Strategies: arguing persistently for positions and using nonverbal behavior to emphasize demands. Moves against the opposition.

A Competence-Based Approach to Conflict

• Impressions: focus on how each person’s behavior is perceived

• Appropriateness: Communication that avoids violation of a relationally or situationally sanctioned rule

• Effectiveness: communication that achieves the valued objectives of the interactant

A Competence-Based Approach to Conflict

• The more appropriate and effective an interactant is, the more competent he or she is likely to be perceived

• When two employees successfully manage a conflict in terms of appropriateness and effectiveness, not only is the immediate conflict issue resolved, the relationship between them is also preserved [Papa & Canary, 1995]

A Competence-Based Approach to Conflict

Competence During Phases of Conflict• Differentiation• Mutual Problem Description• Integration

Competence During Phases of Conflict

Differentiation: the process of coming to terms with differences during conflict

• Behaviors Needed During Differentiation– Information Sharing– Information Seeking

Competence During Phases of Conflict

Mutual Problem Description:• Each party accepts his or her role in creating and

sustaining the conflict • The conflict problem is described clearly so each

party understands what issues need to be negotiated

• Requires that the conflict problem be described as one requiring the efforts of each party to reach a mutually satisfying solution

Competence During Phases of Conflict

Integration: the parties remain focused on the problem and commit themselves to a solution that meets the goals of each party

Behaviors Linked to Successful Integration

• Recognizing and Postponing Attributions• Maintaining Cooperative Tactics• Generating Alternative Solutions• Evaluating Positive and Negative Aspects of

Each Proposed Solution• Selecting and Clarifying the Solutions to be

Implemented• Establishing a Monitoring System to insure the

solution is implemented correctly

Groupthink• Extreme efforts are made to suppress conflict

and stop the input of any information that contradicts an established or dominant view

• Individual group members surrender their own beliefs and begin to see things only from the group perspective

• The group develops a dogmatic commitment to the "moral rightness" of its position and may even believe that it is being persecuted by enemies

Avoiding Groupthink• Critical evaluator role: part of each group member's

role is to critically evaluate all solutions that are suggested

• The leader should avoid stating preferences and expectations at the outset so he or she does not influence how the discussion proceeds

• Each member of the group should discuss the group's deliberations with a trusted colleague (organizational member but not a group member) and report back to the group the colleague's reaction

Avoiding Groupthink• One or more experts should be invited to each

meeting on a staggered basis. These outside experts should be encouraged to challenge the views of the group members

• At least one articulate and knowledgeable group member should be assigned the role of devil's advocate (questioning assumptions and plans that surface during the group's deliberations)

• The leader should set aside a significant block of time to survey warning signals from rivals. The leader and the group should then construct alternative scenarios of their rivals' intentions.

Managing Conflict

• Conflict Dimensions• Desired Outcomes• Conflict Management Strategies

[Jameson, 1999]

Conflict Dimensions

• Content • Relational• Situational

Content Dimension

• Objective or Subjective• Task or Relational• Policy Interpretation or Policy Change

Relational Dimension• The extent to which the parties are interdependent or

independent will influence the degree to which the parties will need to work together to manage their differences.

• Parties of equal status confront different options for action than parties of unequal status.

• If there is high trust between parties conflicts unfold more productively than if there is low trust.

• A high record of success in managing conflict creates a more productive environment for discussion than a low record of success.

• Dyadic conflicts are different than multi-party conflicts because the addition of multiple parties usually adds complexity to the discussion process.

Situational Dimension• High versus low time pressure in managing the

conflict. • Conflicts that have a broad range of impact are

considered with greater care and concern than conflicts with a narrower range of impact.

• Conflicts with low escalation potential cause less apprehension than those with high escalation potential.

• Conflicting parties are confronted with a certain range of conflict management options. This factor deals with the norms or cultural constraints that guide parties' behavior.

Desired Outcomes

• Fairness• Satisfaction• Effectiveness• Efficiency

Conflict Management Strategies

• Interests/Rights/Power

• Formal/Informal

• No Third Party• Intervening Other• External Third Party

Interest-based Conflicts• Focus on attempts to reconcile disputants'

underlying interests in a conflict• When interest-based conflicts surface, the

disputants themselves may confront the problem• If the disputants cannot resolve their problem a

third party may intervene (manager, peer or HR practitioner)

• Third party may play an advisory or problem-solving role or act as a mediator

Mediating Role• The third party guides the discussion process

but allows the disputants control over the outcome

• The mediator may provide information concerning relevant legal issues, help parties engage in perspective taking, guide parties toward a realistic settlement, help improve the relationship between participants, or engage in some combination of these tactics

Rights-based ConflictsFocus on determining which party is right in

accordance with some accepted guidelines for behavior

Informal Strategies• Adversarial intervention: a courtroom style procedure in

which the disputants present their case and a manager determines the appropriate solution

• Inquisitorial intervention: the manager assumes more control over the process by asking the disputants questions rather than allowing them full control over how they present their cases. Then the manager acts as the judge.

Rights-based ConflictsInformal Strategy

Advisory alternative dispute resolution (ADR): • An external third party may set up systems of private

judging, mini-trials, summary jury trials, and advisory arbitration.

• In each of these methods there is some type of presentation of arguments and evidence to a third party who makes a finding.

• The disputing parties then decide how to proceed based on that finding (agree to mediation or pursue formal legal action).

Rights-based ConflictsFormal Strategies

• A fact-finding investigation: The third party investigator has no power to impose a solution. The investigator listens to the employees' problems, conducts an investigation, and then determines the most appropriate course of action.

• Internal adjudication: Typically, the adjudicator is a senior executive or a review board composed of managers and lower-level employees. The adjudicators are then only given the power to interpret right or wrong. They may not change policy or offer alternative solutions to the dispute.

Rights-based ConflictsFormal Strategy

• Binding arbitration: Here the arbitrator is an external third party who makes binding decisions concerning an organization's internal policies. The arbitrator's job is to make an interpretation of the organization's policy, not to judge its fairness or offer a creative solution.

Power-based Conflicts• Power-based strategies attempt to resolve conflict

based on who has the most power • Disputants may use power-based approaches

without the involvement of a third party (e.g., use threats to coerce another party)

• Coalition building may work if disputants builds their power base by connecting with allies who strengthen their position

• Strikes or lockouts are also examples of power-based strategies (often making it necessary for an external third party to mediate or arbitrate the conflict)

Power-based ConflictsWhen third parties use power-based strategies, there

are three major options• The intervening party may act autocratically by

imposing a solution • A third party may restructure the work assignments of

the disputing parties to minimize their interdependence

• Third parties may use the strategy of providing impetus by threatening to punish or promising a reward. By offering the impetus the intervening party hopes to coerce the disputants to solve the conflict on their own.

Bargaining and Negotiation• Bargaining constitutes a unique form of conflict

management in that participants negotiate mutually shared rules and then cooperate within these rules to gain a competitive advantage over their opponent.

• Bargaining differs from other forms of conflict in its emphasis on proposal exchanges as a basis for reaching a joint settlement in cooperative-competitive situations [Putnam & Poole, 1987]

Bargaining and Negotiation• Distributive bargaining: Characterized by the

existence or the appearance of fixed-sum (zero-sum) alternatives; one party must win and the other party must lose

• Integrative bargaining: Situations where the potential outcomes can be expanded; inconsistent goals are combined to create a new alternative, one where neither side sacrifices his or her ultimate aims

Distributive Bargaining• Characterized by deception, withholding of

information, or the use of "disinformation" activities (i.e., directly disclosing information that obscures the negotiator's true objective).

• Bluffs, exaggerated demands, threats, and ambiguous cues are common

• Negotiators conceal the strength of their positions, the outcomes that they really want, and the points that they are prepared to concede.

Integrative Bargaining

• Based on open communication, accurate disclosure of objectives, and sharing of information.

• Information is used for purposes of fact-finding, problem definition, and generation of alternative solutions

Principled Negotiation

• Separate the people from the problem• Focus on interests rather than positions• Generate a variety of options before

selecting an agreement• Insist that the agreement be based on

objective criteria [Fisher & Ury, 1981]

Interpretive Perspective

• Cultural Context: Gender, Race, and National

• Dialogic Culture

Cultural Context: GenderBurrell, Buzzanell & McMillan (1992):• Women participating in their study

overwhelmingly used war/destruction metaphors to depict their experiences with conflict in organizations.

• Conflict was viewed as adversarial, with clear winners and losers.

• They portrayed conflict as an ongoing process that did not necessarily lead to any clear resolution or end points.

Cultural Context: GenderBurrell, Buzzanell & McMillan (1992)• The impact of conflict on their self-image:

emotional distress, helplessness, and vulnerability.

• Although war/destruction metaphors were dominant, the passivity, powerless, and feelings of impotence indicated that these women abhorred a confrontational approach

Cultural Context: Gender and Race

Shuter and Turner (1997)• Studied conflict narratives used by African American

and European American women in managerial and non-managerial roles.

• African American women value more direct approaches to conflict than European American women.

• Also asked their respondents to describe their perception of workplace conflict behaviors for African American women, for European American women, and for themselves personally.

Cultural Context: Gender and Race

• European American women were viewed as more likely to avoid conflict in comparison to African American women

• In comparison to European American women, African American women viewed all women as more likely to choose escalation, were more likely to see themselves as reducing conflict, and were less likely to see European Americans as maintaining conflict

• These findings show that race influences perceptions of women in organizations concerning conflict [Shuter & Turner, 1997]

Cultural Context: NationalKim and Leung (2000) • American culture promotes individualism resulting in

the desirability of direct confrontation in conflict• Many Asian countries cultivate collectivism so

avoidance is used regularly to preserve relational harmony and to save others' face

• Conclusion: the cultural environment in which one lives influences the type of social construction that unfolds with respect to particular communication processes such as conflict management

Cultural Context: NationalOetzel (1998)• Although living in individualistic versus collectivistic

cultures may influence how people act during conflict, it is important that we do not oversimplify this observation

• Examined whether self-construal (independent or interdependent) or ethnicity predicted individual self-reported conflict styles in the small group context

• Respondents included Latinos (collectivistic) and European Americans (individualistic)

• Self-image is a better predictor of conflict styles than ethnicity.

Dialogic CultureBarge (2006) Commitments that characterize a dialogic culture where

collective thinking and respectful relationships are emphasized:

• The recognition that multiple voices, perspectives, and points of view will characterize any large organization

• A dialogic culture values otherness meaning that different people and groups within an organization are honored and engaged, particularly if they articulate positions that are opposed by the majority

Dialogic Culture• Organizational members pursue a richer understanding

of the complexity of a situation, issue, or problem. Specifically, dialogue facilitates the process of seeing the connections that exist among differing positions and interests.

• Dialogue generates new possibilities for meaning and action by allowing for the emergence of new possibilities that may be entirely different than the original ideas that surfaced prior to dialogic interaction.

• Dialogue transcends polarization by moving beyond hostile discourse to seek the commonalities that link people together.

Critical Perspectives• Contradictions Between Capitalism and

Democracy• Coalitions and Intergroup Conflict• Feminist Bureaucracy as Organized

Dissonance

Contradictions between Capitalism and Democracy

• The structural economic pressures embedded in capitalism force nations to act in certain ways regardless of what their populations want or think.

• While the ideological forces linked to capitalism limit the range of political debate, government and market together promote aggressive individualism.

• As aggressive individualists, people feel compelled to compete as consumers and "profit maximizers" rather than relate to one another as citizens [Dryzek, 1996]

Contradictions between Capitalism and Democracy

• Globalization significantly increases the supremacy of big corporations and big government.

• One of the trends of globalization is depoliticization of publics, the decline of the nation state, and the end of traditional politics.

• Globalization is promoted by tremendously powerful economic forces that often undermine democratic movements and decision-making.

• What ultimately happens is growing centralization and organization of power and wealth in the hands of the few.

Inter-Group Conflict• One of the major factors in intergroup conflict is the

perception that groups have of their relationship. • Those that see their relationship as competitive

engage in misrepresentation, withholding of information, minimization of intergroup agreements accompanied by maximization of differences, discourse slanted favorably toward in-group positions and unfavorably toward out-group positions, and even charges of disloyalty against in-group members who support positions taken by the out-group

Inter-Group Conflict• Inter-group conflict can be managed successfully if

two conditions are present: separateness and equal valuation.

• The condition of separateness promotes the existence of separate, positive group identities.

• Organizational members often group together based on demographics (e.g., race, gender, ethnicity, age) and/or attitudinal similarities (e.g., comparable positions on issues).

• These various separate groups need to feel that their presence and contributions are respected within the organization.

Inter-Group Conflict• In order for conflict to be managed

successfully, an environment must be created where different group members recognize that their positions are equally valued in the inter-group environment.

• The conditions of separateness and equal valuation are particularly important for an organization to reap the benefits of an ethnically and racially diverse membership [Thalhofer, 1993]

Coalitions

• A coalition occurs when individuals band together in order to wield influence within the organization

Characteristics of Coalitions

• Interacting Group • Deliberately Constructed • Independent of Formal Organization's Structure • Lack of Formal Internal Structure • Mutual Perception of Membership • Issue Oriented • External Focus • Concerted Member Action

Coalitions• Coalitions are more likely to form in an

organization when there is a major change in the allocation of resources or when some organization members believe that comparable others are receiving more favorable treatment.

• Coalition formation is more likely when there are opportunities for frequent interaction among organization members and organization members have discretion in carrying out their job responsibilities

Coalitions• As the coalition itself becomes more visible, the

issues pursued by the coalition also become more visible

• The likelihood increases that a counter-coalition will form in order to block the aims of the original coalition

Feminist Bureaucracy as Organized Dissonance

• The concept of organized dissonance opposes the assumption of rational organization and shakes faith in unity of direction or in "one head with one plan."

• Irony and paradox within and among organizational groups should be promoted rather than avoided.

• Motivated by strategic incongruity, the dissonance model reflects organizations that employ incompatible forms to meet conflicting objectives and demands [Ashcraft, 2001]

Feminist Bureaucracy as Organized Dissonance

• The shift in perspective promoted by organized dissonance allows one to engage contradiction as deliberate dialectic tension [Ashcraft, 2001]

Ethics in Conflict• When conflicts are over valued resources and a

win-lose approach to resolution is taken, competing sides may be tempted to do anything to win.

• Losing does not build character, it builds frustration, aggression, or apathy [Wilmot & Hocker, 1998]

• When much is at stake and few can be winners, cheating and dishonesty flourish in a hypercompetitive environment [Rothwell, 2001]

Ethics in Conflict• The ethical violation most tempting to commit

is lying to gain a strategic advantage. • Lying is a rule violation because it is a

purposeful attempt to manipulate an outcome to the favor of one party.

• From the perspective of principled negotiation, lying constitutes an ethical violation because it misrepresents the underlying interests of one party to the conflict.

Ethics in Conflict• The harms caused by lying extend beyond an

agreement that is more favorable to one party. • If the lie were uncovered at a subsequent point,

trust between the parties would be difficult to re-establish.

• Simply stated, the price of lying is too high to ignore if an organization wants to function effectively.