Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Managing Conflict (Unitarist:
orgs are seen as harmonious groups that…
Managing Conflict
Unitarist:
- orgs are seen as harmonious groups that exist for common purpose.
- Management provides leadership and represent the whole and their auth is therefore unquestioned
- Conflict is seen as pathological and unnecessary. Viewed as either the result of poor comms or the fault of trouble makers
View has been severely criticised as being an 'ideal' view of orgs rather than reality and views the exercise of power to be purely for the org and not for individual interests
Pluralist:
- This view states that different groups within orgs have individual interests which inevitably causes some conflict.
- They will have different objectives which do not always reflect the goals stated by management.
- Power is the medium through which compromise or conflicts are resolved. Different groups will exercise power in different ways to achieve their interests.
- Collective bargaining is held to be an effective way of reaching mutual concensus between differing groups, such as management and trade unions
This approach fails to recognise that org conflicts may reflect social inequality and conflict and that there are fundamental inequalities in the distribution of power.
Radical perspective
Marxist based belief which views the conflicts between labour and management as reflections of the conflicts between different groups in society, such as the desire of management to increase profit and that of workers to increase wages - therefore the conflicts is an inherently irreconcilable result of capitalism.
Interactionist:
- Conflict is seen as a positive force which is necessary for orgs to perform effectively and should therefore be embraced as it combats groupthink and promotes creativity and innovation.
- Conflict should however be of an appropriate level. For example research has shown that the most effective organisations have situations where task conflict is high but values conflict is low.
Techniques to drive out comfort zones include:
- Communication - deliberately ambiguous communications to create debate
- Restructure of organisational arrangements - changing work groups and responsibility to change interdependencies and stimulate conflict
- Bring in outsiders - adding new members to teams whose values are radically different
- Devils Advocate - deliberately acting critically or identifying problems
- Dialectic methods - exploring opposite opinions to allow debate and produce synthesis
Leadership style - Similar to bringing in outsiders, styles can promote change. So an environ used to an authoritarian management may be challenged by a more participative approach
Outcomes:
Positive:
- better ideas
- People forced to search for new approach
- Hidden problems surfaced
- Clarification of individual views
- Stimulation of interest and creativity
- A chance for capacities to be tested
Negative:
- Some people will feel demeaned and defeated
- distance between people
- Climate of suspicion
- Individual and group narrow agendas
- inhibits teamwork
- can increase turnover
-
- Different Time Horizons - for example differing priorities or deadlines
- Changes in environment - a new competitor product for example
- Role ambiguity - may result in the incumbent defining the role differently to others
- Overlapping Authority - unsure about who is in authority can lead to conflict
- Task interdependency - when there is a concept of another dept letting another down
- Incompatible evaluation/reward systems - for example if interdependent depts are KPId on differing factors
- Scarce Resources
- Status Inconsistencies
A CIPD Survey identified the main causes of work conflict as follows:
- Warring Egos/Personality clash - 44%
- Poor Senior Leadership 30%
- Inadequate Line Managership 21%
- Weak performance Management 17%
- Heavy Workload, bullying and harassment
Intergroup conflict types:
- Relationship conflict
- Task conflict
- Process conflict
Bases of Power:
- Reward
- Coercive - Discipline etc
- Referment - characteristics
- Expert - Specialised knowledge
- Legitimate - a formal position of power
Sources of Power:
- Dependency
- Financial Resources
- Centrality
- Son substitutability
- Coping with uncertainty
The Use Of Power:
- Assertiveness
- Friendliness
- Rationality/Logic
- Sanctions
- Higher Auth
- Bargaining
Competition -
- quick decisive action is necessary
- the popularity of the decision is unimportant
- the matter is essential for organisational success.
Avoidance:
- the issue is trivial
- neither party has a chance of fully satisfying its concerns
- disruption cannot be allowed to continue
- people need time to cool down
- more information is needed for a resolution.
Compromise:
- parties' goals are important but not worth the disruption that could arise from using more assertive approaches
- the parties have equal power and stalemate is likely
- temporary settlements are needed
- time is short.
Accommodation:
- the issue is much more vital to one part than the other
- it is necessary to allow one party to retreat with dignity
- a party needs to learn from its mistakes.
Collaboration:
- time is relatively plentiful
- it's vital that both parties learn from the experience
- gaining commitment of both parties to the decision is vital
- it's necessary to work through feelings that might recreate conflict.
Emphasising Superordinate Goals
Superordinate goals are those that parties share irrespective of their current conditions of conflict. These may serve to focus participants on the 'big picture' and those factors that really matter and that might be undermined due to their present disagreements.
Focusing on the Problem Rather than the People
Even if the conflict has structural sources, there is often the temptation to personalise issues and associate them with individual characteristics and foibles. This can lead to an escalation of the difficulties and push the situation into distributive negotiation. It is difficult to reverse from this position so it is necessary to prevent it occurring in the first place. Parties should therefore concentrate on the substance of the problem and remain respectful of each other's positon.
Focusing on Interests, not Demands
There is a difference between demands and interests. Demands are what a party wants. Interests are why they want them. While demands rarely can be fully met, interests can be. Integrative negotiation is about recognising and meeting interests. Appreciating this will allow demands to be compromised.
Creating New Options for Joint Gain
There is a temptation in negotiation to be confined by the perceived parameters of the current situation. But if the parties work together they might be able to identify creative solutions which will benefit both. In effect, these solutions grow the 'resource pie' so enabling a win-win situation.
Focusing on What is Fair
Negotiations should be based on the principle of distributive justice. This means that outcomes and rewards should be based on and be proportionate to the particular contributions that each party makes. This might not necessarily be easy to identify or agree on in practice, but the principle is a powerful one and if parties recognise its validity it will provide a powerful basis for negotiations.
-
-
