organizational conflict
In an organizational context, Costantino & Merchant (1996) describe conflict as “an expression of dissatisfaction or disagreement with an interaction, process, product or service.” When organizations or even groups within a larger organization disagree, they say, the resulting interactions are conflict. However, this description of organizational conflict by itself seems to deal too lightly with the intensely personal nature of the conflict. Managing and resolving conflict in organizational settings requires recognition of the tendency of individuals to act selfishly, and the nurturing of other-centered action and communication.
Even within organizations, conflict is an individual matter. Inter-group conflicts are acted out by individuals from the group, although they may act in a manner condoned organizationally. It is the dissatisfaction at the individual level – even if it is a dissatisfaction born out of unfulfilled cultural norms and expectations that causes the dissatisfaction. The creation of this social reality or the organization has a dynamic internal dimension, in which individuals themselves are in a dynamic tension with the organization, and with other individuals.
Organizational structures are not just collections of individuals, and organizational behavior is not just an extension of individual behavior. The construction of a social reality that is greater than (or perhaps more accurately, beyond) the sum of the individuals is evident in the corporate culture, values, beliefs and behaviors (Kriger & Hanson, 1999) (Lederach, 1999).
In this dual context of a social reality constructed by individuals, and the interpersonal interactions that interweave to generate group and intergroup interactions – conflict is, as Augsburger describes, the construction of a special type of reality. It is a reality in which we individually assume that our own perspectives, values and definitions of a given situation are shared with others – at least enough to enable us to act in a coordinated manner. These assumptions are, and the reality of shared values, perspectives and definitions are what has built the organization. But even within the organization, and certainly between organizations, “there are times, however, when our definitions clash, when suddenly we come to realize that what we assumed and took-for-granted (sic) was not shared by others” (Lederach cited in Augsburger, 1992).
Manifestations of conflict in an organization
Costantino & Merchant describe a variety of expressions of conflict (1996) within and between organizations, all of which ultimately point back to individual self-orientation.
Disputes, the most visible expression of conflict, are very explicit expressions of the dissatisfaction that Costantino & Merchant describe. Disputes are probably what is most often meant or intended when the terms conflict and conflict management are used. Disputes include everything from dissonant individual verbal exchanges to formal grievances, strikes, and legal action.
Competition is essentially the disagreement about who (what individual, what group, what organization) should have primacy in certain aspects. Costantino & Merchant (1996) wrongly say “healthy” competition is not conflict, although the authors say earlier that conflict is neither good nor bad in and of itself. All competition is conflict, since the primary end of competition is the advancement of an individual or group at the expense of another’s attainment of the same or similar goal.
Sabotage or what is sometimes called “throwing someone under the bus”, is an expression of conflict that is disingenuous on its face: while hiding signs of conflict, or even feigning support, one entity (individual or group) seeks to destabilize, discredit, or deactivate another. Again, the use of sabotage within and between organizations is an intensely personal action, despite its organizational implications.
Inefficiency is a more subtle sign of conflict, and one that I do not believe is always linked to conflict. When delays or inefficiency in work are related to conflict, it is essentially a subtle form of sabotage – and attempt by an entity to impair the accomplishments of another. In this case however, the sabotage is performed by members within the group, usually to discredit or destabilize others within the group who will bear responsibility for group performance.
Low Morale is an even more subtle self-centeredness that may indicate conflict. Low morale occurs when an entity believes no viable action is available to express the disagreement. A feeling of powerlessness yields lethargy and inaction.
Withholding knowledge is the most personal of the manifestations Costantino & Merchant describe, and is really yet another form of sabotage. It is the close gathering of an entities asset: knowledge. By keeping the knowledge within the individual or group, this self-centered action at once arrogantly elevates self on the basis of the value of the knowledge, and disparages the other by withholding this perceived asset.
(Costantino & Merchant, 1996)
Root causes of conflict: self-centeredness
Although Slaikeu & Hasson (1998) provide a varied list of root causes of conflict, most of their list can be traced to one primary root: selfishness. Far from being a serious analysis of root causes of conflict, their list is really simply a list of either faces of selfishness, or external factors that encourage selfish behavior. For example, each of these “root causes” are based in a self-centered pursuit by individuals
• Denial: in Slaikeu & Hasson list, this is not really a cause of conflict, but rather a response to conflict. However, the basis of denial is a self-centered vision of reality: assuming that the world is as I see it.
• Skill deficits, as described by Slaikeu & Hasson are inadequate skills in other-directed communication; i.e., selfish communication and behavior patterns that may need to be addressed with training.
• Lack of information is only a factor because individuals are inherently self-centered and do not seek understanding.
• Conflicting interests or values are obviously self-centered issues, as are scarce resources – which only become an issue when self-centered individuals believe that their own access to resources is more important than others’.
• By segregating selfishness & evil intent, the authors wrongly imply that selfishness is not a universal human tendency, and suggest that evil intent is a rare sociopathic occurrence. Neither of these assumptions is true. Sabotage, gossip, backbiting, deliberate withholding of knowledge – all are expressions of self-elevation and other-destruction.
The following group of “root causes” is really contextual influences that nurture self-centered strategies by individuals and groups.
Organizational deficiencies, like scarce resources, leave self-centered individuals and groups reacting like the proverbial Skinnerian mouse: “high and to the right”. In response to these circumstances, self-centered behavior is the default behavior. While psychopathology and personality style may seem to be immutably outside the context of self-centeredness, upon closer examination it’s not difficult to see that these again are contextual influences that exacerbate selfishness. Depression draws a person more inward, and while behaviors may be self-destructive, they are still self-centered behaviors. Addictive behaviors and substance abuse are also self-centered, albeit self-destructive. Personality styles are simply that: styles in which we individually express our self – and our self-centeredness. (Slaikeu & Hasson, 1998)
As Augsburger says, conflict is rooted in the dynamic of same and other – “when those who are the same attempt to control the other” (Augsburger, 1992)
Managing organizational conflict: directing self toward others
If the manifestations of conflict are really manifestations of selfishness, how then can an organization hope to manage or resolve conflict? Hicks suggests that in any given conflict the parities would like to find a solution and that there usually is a solution (Hicks, 2000). What the parties really want to find is a satisfaction of their own perceived goals. The process of mediation and negotiation is the process of finding actions that can satisfy all the parties. This satisfaction does not come by simply convincing the parties that they should drop their respective self-centeredness. Instead, it is primarily brought about by convincing the parties that satisfaction of the other can happen without unreasonable dissatisfaction of self. In some cases, the mediator may be able to demonstrate that satisfaction of the other results in greater satisfaction for the self.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) systems have grown in popularity because traditional paths of resolution are unwieldy (overloaded courts, legal due process), expensive (litigation, diversion of resources), exposing, and often simply ‘uncivil’ (Costantino & Merchant, 1996). ADR may also have a greater chance for success in that typically arbitrators and conflict resolution consultants do not join one side or the other in their self-centered pursuit, but instead focus on the commonality of the interests of both parties.
Within the corporation, conflict management systems are required because of the chronic and systemic nature of self-centered behavior. Hicks points out that conflict prevention is the first goal of a corporate conflict management system (Hicks, 2002). However, not all conflict should be prevented. In spite of its self-centered root, or because of its self-centered root, conflict has great value – if the resolution process is a learning process. The inherent dissatisfaction that generates conflict is the same dissatisfaction that generates innovation. Dissatisfaction is a cry for change, and in change there is always opportunity for betterment and detriment.
Conflict management should focus not on conflict prevention, but conflict redemption – or as Augsburger describes it: transformation (Augsburger, 1992). In this context, and with this one modification, Hicks’ basic principals for conflict management systems make sense. With conflict redemption as the first goal, then conflict management systems should encourage redemption of conflicts as rapidly as possible. Long periods without redemption rob the organization of the innovation of change, and sap energy from individuals and groups (Hicks, 2002).
Conflicts should be redeemed by those involved in the conflict, and if possible without undue organizational formalities (Hicks, 2002). The more organizational structures are interjected into the process, the less redemptive and more “resolving” the attempt becomes. Resolution retains an element of win-lose mentality in it, and organizational structures tend to exist primarily to keep an account of who should eventually be expelled from the organization.
The redemption, or transformation, of conflict can occur when the processes for managing conflict promote transformation of attitudes towards other-centeredness, transformation of behavior toward the satisfaction of others, and transformation of conflict itself into a learning process (Augsburger, 1992).
“Like sex, conflict should happen between persons committed to be present with continuity, occur with appropriate frequency, be mutually exciting to both, activate both parties equally to contribute their best selves, and be prolonged until mutually satisfactory climax is possible for each. When it is over, both should feel better as a result. And its energy should then empower other areas of live with vitality and creativity. Like sex, conflict is a source of joy fulfillment, empowerment and celebration.” (Augsburger, 1992)
Collaborative communication is the cultural standard that organizations must attain and maintain to create effective conflict management systems. Collaborative communication in a learning organization is the key to transforming the “high cost of conflict” into a “worthwhile investment in change and innovation”.
The process of conflict within an organization is complex and as multifaceted as the myriad of personality combinations among all the individuals within the organization. While conflict may be seen as a process that produces both favorable and unfavorable manifestations and consequences, it is an organizational process whose value can only be realized through proper management. Building the systems to effectively manage, shape and even nurture conflict requires not only an organizational, but also an individual commitment to collaborative communication. That then, is the rub: our success in organizational communication depends on our individual success in believing and behaving selflessly.
The job prospects for mediators, arbitrators and conflict managers are rosy.
Works Cited
Augsburger, D. W. (1992). Conflict Mediation Across Cultures: Pathways & Patterns. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
Costantino, C., & Merchant, C. S. (1996). Designing Conflict Management Systems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hicks, T. (2000, July). What Is Mediation And How Does It Fit Into The Workplace? In Mediate. Retrieved 05/10/2004, from Resourceful Internet Solutions: http://mediate.com/articles/hickst4.cfm.
Hicks, T. (2002, September). Steps for Setting up an Effective Conflict Management System. In Mediate. Retrieved 05/10/2004, from Resourceful Internet Solutions: http://mediate.com/articles/hickst4.cfm.
Kriger, M. P., & Hanson, B. J. (1999). A value-based paradigm for creating truly healthy organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(4), 302-317.
Lederach, J. P. (1999). The journey toward reconciliation. Scottsdale, AZ: Herald Press.
Slaikeu, K. A., & Hasson, R. H. (1998). Controlling the Costs of Conflict: How to Design a System for Your Organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Even within organizations, conflict is an individual matter. Inter-group conflicts are acted out by individuals from the group, although they may act in a manner condoned organizationally. It is the dissatisfaction at the individual level – even if it is a dissatisfaction born out of unfulfilled cultural norms and expectations that causes the dissatisfaction. The creation of this social reality or the organization has a dynamic internal dimension, in which individuals themselves are in a dynamic tension with the organization, and with other individuals.
Organizational structures are not just collections of individuals, and organizational behavior is not just an extension of individual behavior. The construction of a social reality that is greater than (or perhaps more accurately, beyond) the sum of the individuals is evident in the corporate culture, values, beliefs and behaviors (Kriger & Hanson, 1999) (Lederach, 1999).
In this dual context of a social reality constructed by individuals, and the interpersonal interactions that interweave to generate group and intergroup interactions – conflict is, as Augsburger describes, the construction of a special type of reality. It is a reality in which we individually assume that our own perspectives, values and definitions of a given situation are shared with others – at least enough to enable us to act in a coordinated manner. These assumptions are, and the reality of shared values, perspectives and definitions are what has built the organization. But even within the organization, and certainly between organizations, “there are times, however, when our definitions clash, when suddenly we come to realize that what we assumed and took-for-granted (sic) was not shared by others” (Lederach cited in Augsburger, 1992).
Manifestations of conflict in an organization
Costantino & Merchant describe a variety of expressions of conflict (1996) within and between organizations, all of which ultimately point back to individual self-orientation.
Disputes, the most visible expression of conflict, are very explicit expressions of the dissatisfaction that Costantino & Merchant describe. Disputes are probably what is most often meant or intended when the terms conflict and conflict management are used. Disputes include everything from dissonant individual verbal exchanges to formal grievances, strikes, and legal action.
Competition is essentially the disagreement about who (what individual, what group, what organization) should have primacy in certain aspects. Costantino & Merchant (1996) wrongly say “healthy” competition is not conflict, although the authors say earlier that conflict is neither good nor bad in and of itself. All competition is conflict, since the primary end of competition is the advancement of an individual or group at the expense of another’s attainment of the same or similar goal.
Sabotage or what is sometimes called “throwing someone under the bus”, is an expression of conflict that is disingenuous on its face: while hiding signs of conflict, or even feigning support, one entity (individual or group) seeks to destabilize, discredit, or deactivate another. Again, the use of sabotage within and between organizations is an intensely personal action, despite its organizational implications.
Inefficiency is a more subtle sign of conflict, and one that I do not believe is always linked to conflict. When delays or inefficiency in work are related to conflict, it is essentially a subtle form of sabotage – and attempt by an entity to impair the accomplishments of another. In this case however, the sabotage is performed by members within the group, usually to discredit or destabilize others within the group who will bear responsibility for group performance.
Low Morale is an even more subtle self-centeredness that may indicate conflict. Low morale occurs when an entity believes no viable action is available to express the disagreement. A feeling of powerlessness yields lethargy and inaction.
Withholding knowledge is the most personal of the manifestations Costantino & Merchant describe, and is really yet another form of sabotage. It is the close gathering of an entities asset: knowledge. By keeping the knowledge within the individual or group, this self-centered action at once arrogantly elevates self on the basis of the value of the knowledge, and disparages the other by withholding this perceived asset.
(Costantino & Merchant, 1996)
Root causes of conflict: self-centeredness
Although Slaikeu & Hasson (1998) provide a varied list of root causes of conflict, most of their list can be traced to one primary root: selfishness. Far from being a serious analysis of root causes of conflict, their list is really simply a list of either faces of selfishness, or external factors that encourage selfish behavior. For example, each of these “root causes” are based in a self-centered pursuit by individuals
• Denial: in Slaikeu & Hasson list, this is not really a cause of conflict, but rather a response to conflict. However, the basis of denial is a self-centered vision of reality: assuming that the world is as I see it.
• Skill deficits, as described by Slaikeu & Hasson are inadequate skills in other-directed communication; i.e., selfish communication and behavior patterns that may need to be addressed with training.
• Lack of information is only a factor because individuals are inherently self-centered and do not seek understanding.
• Conflicting interests or values are obviously self-centered issues, as are scarce resources – which only become an issue when self-centered individuals believe that their own access to resources is more important than others’.
• By segregating selfishness & evil intent, the authors wrongly imply that selfishness is not a universal human tendency, and suggest that evil intent is a rare sociopathic occurrence. Neither of these assumptions is true. Sabotage, gossip, backbiting, deliberate withholding of knowledge – all are expressions of self-elevation and other-destruction.
The following group of “root causes” is really contextual influences that nurture self-centered strategies by individuals and groups.
Organizational deficiencies, like scarce resources, leave self-centered individuals and groups reacting like the proverbial Skinnerian mouse: “high and to the right”. In response to these circumstances, self-centered behavior is the default behavior. While psychopathology and personality style may seem to be immutably outside the context of self-centeredness, upon closer examination it’s not difficult to see that these again are contextual influences that exacerbate selfishness. Depression draws a person more inward, and while behaviors may be self-destructive, they are still self-centered behaviors. Addictive behaviors and substance abuse are also self-centered, albeit self-destructive. Personality styles are simply that: styles in which we individually express our self – and our self-centeredness. (Slaikeu & Hasson, 1998)
As Augsburger says, conflict is rooted in the dynamic of same and other – “when those who are the same attempt to control the other” (Augsburger, 1992)
Managing organizational conflict: directing self toward others
If the manifestations of conflict are really manifestations of selfishness, how then can an organization hope to manage or resolve conflict? Hicks suggests that in any given conflict the parities would like to find a solution and that there usually is a solution (Hicks, 2000). What the parties really want to find is a satisfaction of their own perceived goals. The process of mediation and negotiation is the process of finding actions that can satisfy all the parties. This satisfaction does not come by simply convincing the parties that they should drop their respective self-centeredness. Instead, it is primarily brought about by convincing the parties that satisfaction of the other can happen without unreasonable dissatisfaction of self. In some cases, the mediator may be able to demonstrate that satisfaction of the other results in greater satisfaction for the self.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) systems have grown in popularity because traditional paths of resolution are unwieldy (overloaded courts, legal due process), expensive (litigation, diversion of resources), exposing, and often simply ‘uncivil’ (Costantino & Merchant, 1996). ADR may also have a greater chance for success in that typically arbitrators and conflict resolution consultants do not join one side or the other in their self-centered pursuit, but instead focus on the commonality of the interests of both parties.
Within the corporation, conflict management systems are required because of the chronic and systemic nature of self-centered behavior. Hicks points out that conflict prevention is the first goal of a corporate conflict management system (Hicks, 2002). However, not all conflict should be prevented. In spite of its self-centered root, or because of its self-centered root, conflict has great value – if the resolution process is a learning process. The inherent dissatisfaction that generates conflict is the same dissatisfaction that generates innovation. Dissatisfaction is a cry for change, and in change there is always opportunity for betterment and detriment.
Conflict management should focus not on conflict prevention, but conflict redemption – or as Augsburger describes it: transformation (Augsburger, 1992). In this context, and with this one modification, Hicks’ basic principals for conflict management systems make sense. With conflict redemption as the first goal, then conflict management systems should encourage redemption of conflicts as rapidly as possible. Long periods without redemption rob the organization of the innovation of change, and sap energy from individuals and groups (Hicks, 2002).
Conflicts should be redeemed by those involved in the conflict, and if possible without undue organizational formalities (Hicks, 2002). The more organizational structures are interjected into the process, the less redemptive and more “resolving” the attempt becomes. Resolution retains an element of win-lose mentality in it, and organizational structures tend to exist primarily to keep an account of who should eventually be expelled from the organization.
The redemption, or transformation, of conflict can occur when the processes for managing conflict promote transformation of attitudes towards other-centeredness, transformation of behavior toward the satisfaction of others, and transformation of conflict itself into a learning process (Augsburger, 1992).
“Like sex, conflict should happen between persons committed to be present with continuity, occur with appropriate frequency, be mutually exciting to both, activate both parties equally to contribute their best selves, and be prolonged until mutually satisfactory climax is possible for each. When it is over, both should feel better as a result. And its energy should then empower other areas of live with vitality and creativity. Like sex, conflict is a source of joy fulfillment, empowerment and celebration.” (Augsburger, 1992)
Collaborative communication is the cultural standard that organizations must attain and maintain to create effective conflict management systems. Collaborative communication in a learning organization is the key to transforming the “high cost of conflict” into a “worthwhile investment in change and innovation”.
The process of conflict within an organization is complex and as multifaceted as the myriad of personality combinations among all the individuals within the organization. While conflict may be seen as a process that produces both favorable and unfavorable manifestations and consequences, it is an organizational process whose value can only be realized through proper management. Building the systems to effectively manage, shape and even nurture conflict requires not only an organizational, but also an individual commitment to collaborative communication. That then, is the rub: our success in organizational communication depends on our individual success in believing and behaving selflessly.
The job prospects for mediators, arbitrators and conflict managers are rosy.
Works Cited
Augsburger, D. W. (1992). Conflict Mediation Across Cultures: Pathways & Patterns. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
Costantino, C., & Merchant, C. S. (1996). Designing Conflict Management Systems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hicks, T. (2000, July). What Is Mediation And How Does It Fit Into The Workplace? In Mediate. Retrieved 05/10/2004, from Resourceful Internet Solutions: http://mediate.com/articles/hickst4.cfm.
Hicks, T. (2002, September). Steps for Setting up an Effective Conflict Management System. In Mediate. Retrieved 05/10/2004, from Resourceful Internet Solutions: http://mediate.com/articles/hickst4.cfm.
Kriger, M. P., & Hanson, B. J. (1999). A value-based paradigm for creating truly healthy organizations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 12(4), 302-317.
Lederach, J. P. (1999). The journey toward reconciliation. Scottsdale, AZ: Herald Press.
Slaikeu, K. A., & Hasson, R. H. (1998). Controlling the Costs of Conflict: How to Design a System for Your Organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Comments