Conflict is a natural disagreement amongst individuals or groups that differ in attitudes, beliefs, values or needs. It has both positive and negative sides.Conflict may be needed at times; it helps to raise and address problems, helps people to “Be Real” and learn how to recognize and benefit from being different. But in general, conflict is perceived as a problem which hampersproductivity, lowers morale, causes more and continued conflict resulting into inappropriate behaviour. Basically, there are some common managerial actions which result into workplace conflicts like poor communication,insufficient resources, inter-personal relationship, leadership problems and so on. There is no one way to deal with all conflicts because these are situational.
Conflict is an inseparable part of personal, organisational and societal life.Conflicts can also arise due to competition, differences in values, attitudes,experiences, goals. For example, your spouse wants you to make a visit to your in-laws’ place on a holiday but you have plans of organizing a picnic on that day with your office colleagues. Or in your office you may not agree with your boss on the amount of budget a project requires. Or you and your colleagues could have different ideas on how to implement new performance management system.
Conflict has been defined in as many ways as it can arise. However, a few themes are common: competing goals, ideas, attitudes, beliefs, values, etc.Conflict may be defined “as a process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected or is about to negatively affect,something that the first party cares about.”At this stage, you might be tempted to ask quite a few questions about the role of conflict in groups and organisations: Can you avoid all conflicts? Are conflicts inevitable? Is it at all good to have any conflict? Who is primarily responsible for allowing a conflict to take place? What should be the role of a manager once it arises? These are very important questions which people tend to answer in one way or the other depending on the views they hold about the situation giving rise to conflict. Even the views about conflict are "conflicting". In this section, we shall examine these views and their impact on management practices.
The Traditional View
The traditional view, prevalent in the 1930s and 1940s, regarded all conflicts as harmful. Conflict was invariably viewed negatively and was associated with violence, turbulence, agitation, destruction and irrationality. It was believed that conflict indicated a malfunctioning within the organisation and that the appearance of conflict was the consequence of the management's failure to bind the employees and the organisation together. It could also arise due to failure to communicate the commonality between the individual and organisational interests. Had the management corrected those lapses, according to the traditionalists, there would have been no conflict, and the organisation would have been able to function as a smooth integrated whole. In fact, Frederick Taylor, the father of "Scientific Management" was of the opinion that if the principles of scientific management were properly applied, the age-old conflict between labour and management would have disappeared. The traditionalist view offers a simplified approach to conflict.Since conflict in any form is bad and is to be avoided, we need to isolate and eliminate the factors that cause conflict. Research studies have, however,provided evidence contrary to this viewpoint, yet many of us continue to believe that conflict is unnecessary and is to be always avoided.
The Behavioural View
The behavioural school of thought argues that conflict is the logical and inevitable outcome in any organisation and as such should be accepted. The conflict theory was dominated by the behaviouralist approach from the late 1940s through the mid-1970s.The behaviouralists maintained that since an organisation has individuals having different perceptions of goals and differing values, conflict was bound to arise. For instance, managers of various departments could have separate priorities and conflicting ideas about resource allocation. Hence conflict was the unavoidable outcome. Subordinates might clash with the manager overwhether a given work can be accomplished in the given period of time or not.They might even argue with subordinates at their own level over the best possible way to do a given job.Thus, according to the behaviouralists, conflict was an unavoidable outcome but at the same time they believed that conflict need not always be detrimental. Under some circumstances, it could bring forth the problems and inspire a search for better and more innovative solutions. Though the behaviouralists conceded that conflict could lead to greater creativity in problem solving and could be beneficial to organisations under certain conditions, yet they perceived conflict as harmful— something to be resolved as soon as it arose. They considered that by nature, people were basically good; trust, cooperation and goodness are given in human nature. According to the behaviouralist, the major antecedent conditions which induce aggressiveness and conflict in people are the faulty policies and structure resulting in distortion and breakdown in communication. Hence, the manager's role in resolving conflict is to restore understanding, trust and openness between parties. This is particularly true where one has public dealing as in power utilities where perceptions of customers and management may differ vastly on a number of issues and the way problems could be resolved.
The Interactionist View
The thinking currently prevalent about conflict has been labelled as the interactionist view. In contrast to the behaviouralist view, which considers conflict as inevitable, the interactionists not only accept conflict but also encourage it. However, they maintain that conflict must be regulated so that it does not get out of control producing dysfunctional consequences. The inevitability of conflict results from the interaction between organisationally imposed struggle for limited rewards (e.g., status, responsibility or power) and innate aggressive and competitive instincts in people. Against this perspective, the interactionists maintain that if harmony, peace, tranquillity and cooperationprevail in a situation for a long time, the group is prone to become non- responsive to innovation and change. To shake the group out of its complacency and to make it proactive, self-critical and creative, an ongoing
minimum level of conflict should be maintained. Advocates of interactionist view emphasise that the mission of management is effective goal attainment rather than creation of harmony and cooperation. So as a manager, your task is not to eliminate or reduce conflict but to manage it in such a manner that its beneficial effects are maximised and its negative or harmful aspects are minimised. Such a conflict management practice may even include stimulation of conflict to give impetus to innovation and creativity.
Conflict is an inseparable part of personal, organisational and societal life.Conflicts can also arise due to competition, differences in values, attitudes,experiences, goals. For example, your spouse wants you to make a visit to your in-laws’ place on a holiday but you have plans of organizing a picnic on that day with your office colleagues. Or in your office you may not agree with your boss on the amount of budget a project requires. Or you and your colleagues could have different ideas on how to implement new performance management system.
Conflict has been defined in as many ways as it can arise. However, a few themes are common: competing goals, ideas, attitudes, beliefs, values, etc.Conflict may be defined “as a process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected or is about to negatively affect,something that the first party cares about.”At this stage, you might be tempted to ask quite a few questions about the role of conflict in groups and organisations: Can you avoid all conflicts? Are conflicts inevitable? Is it at all good to have any conflict? Who is primarily responsible for allowing a conflict to take place? What should be the role of a manager once it arises? These are very important questions which people tend to answer in one way or the other depending on the views they hold about the situation giving rise to conflict. Even the views about conflict are "conflicting". In this section, we shall examine these views and their impact on management practices.
The Traditional View
The traditional view, prevalent in the 1930s and 1940s, regarded all conflicts as harmful. Conflict was invariably viewed negatively and was associated with violence, turbulence, agitation, destruction and irrationality. It was believed that conflict indicated a malfunctioning within the organisation and that the appearance of conflict was the consequence of the management's failure to bind the employees and the organisation together. It could also arise due to failure to communicate the commonality between the individual and organisational interests. Had the management corrected those lapses, according to the traditionalists, there would have been no conflict, and the organisation would have been able to function as a smooth integrated whole. In fact, Frederick Taylor, the father of "Scientific Management" was of the opinion that if the principles of scientific management were properly applied, the age-old conflict between labour and management would have disappeared. The traditionalist view offers a simplified approach to conflict.Since conflict in any form is bad and is to be avoided, we need to isolate and eliminate the factors that cause conflict. Research studies have, however,provided evidence contrary to this viewpoint, yet many of us continue to believe that conflict is unnecessary and is to be always avoided.
The Behavioural View
The behavioural school of thought argues that conflict is the logical and inevitable outcome in any organisation and as such should be accepted. The conflict theory was dominated by the behaviouralist approach from the late 1940s through the mid-1970s.The behaviouralists maintained that since an organisation has individuals having different perceptions of goals and differing values, conflict was bound to arise. For instance, managers of various departments could have separate priorities and conflicting ideas about resource allocation. Hence conflict was the unavoidable outcome. Subordinates might clash with the manager overwhether a given work can be accomplished in the given period of time or not.They might even argue with subordinates at their own level over the best possible way to do a given job.Thus, according to the behaviouralists, conflict was an unavoidable outcome but at the same time they believed that conflict need not always be detrimental. Under some circumstances, it could bring forth the problems and inspire a search for better and more innovative solutions. Though the behaviouralists conceded that conflict could lead to greater creativity in problem solving and could be beneficial to organisations under certain conditions, yet they perceived conflict as harmful— something to be resolved as soon as it arose. They considered that by nature, people were basically good; trust, cooperation and goodness are given in human nature. According to the behaviouralist, the major antecedent conditions which induce aggressiveness and conflict in people are the faulty policies and structure resulting in distortion and breakdown in communication. Hence, the manager's role in resolving conflict is to restore understanding, trust and openness between parties. This is particularly true where one has public dealing as in power utilities where perceptions of customers and management may differ vastly on a number of issues and the way problems could be resolved.
The Interactionist View
The thinking currently prevalent about conflict has been labelled as the interactionist view. In contrast to the behaviouralist view, which considers conflict as inevitable, the interactionists not only accept conflict but also encourage it. However, they maintain that conflict must be regulated so that it does not get out of control producing dysfunctional consequences. The inevitability of conflict results from the interaction between organisationally imposed struggle for limited rewards (e.g., status, responsibility or power) and innate aggressive and competitive instincts in people. Against this perspective, the interactionists maintain that if harmony, peace, tranquillity and cooperationprevail in a situation for a long time, the group is prone to become non- responsive to innovation and change. To shake the group out of its complacency and to make it proactive, self-critical and creative, an ongoing
minimum level of conflict should be maintained. Advocates of interactionist view emphasise that the mission of management is effective goal attainment rather than creation of harmony and cooperation. So as a manager, your task is not to eliminate or reduce conflict but to manage it in such a manner that its beneficial effects are maximised and its negative or harmful aspects are minimised. Such a conflict management practice may even include stimulation of conflict to give impetus to innovation and creativity.
No comments:
Post a Comment