From the discussion on different views on conflict, you could infer that conflict can have both positive and negative impact on individuals, groups and organisations. For example, as a result of inter-group conflict, certain changes occur within groups and between groups. Some changes have positive effects while others may have negative effects. As a result of inter-group conflict,some changes that may occur within the groups involved are:
1) Group cohesiveness increases: The group becomes more closely knit; its members show greater loyalty.
2) The group becomes task-oriented: Group climate changes from informal to task-oriented and helps to deal with the external threat.
3) Leadership becomes more directive: As the group becomes more task-oriented, the leader becomes more authoritarian.
4) Organisational structure becomes more rigid: Authority and responsibility relationships among and between members becomes more
clearly defined.
5) Group unity is stressed: The group demands increasing loyalty and conformity from its membersProlonged group conflicts cause the following changes in relationship between groups:
1) Groups become antagonistic towards each other: Each group sees the other as an enemy who interferes with its goal-oriented behaviour.
2) Perceptions are distorted: Each group develops positive perceptions about its own group and negative perceptions towards the other.
3) Communication ceases to exist: When in conflict, members of one group avoid interaction with members of the other. If they are forced to interact, they tend to show hostility and aggression towards each other.
4) Groups apply a double standard: Each group clearly sees all the vicious acts of the other party while remaining blind to the same acts performed by their own group.
From the above two lists of changes within and between groups in conflict,you can spot a number of negative effects. What about some potential benefits of inter-group conflicts? Here is such a list:
1) Conflict clarifies the real issue: When individuals in a group express their concerns and differences, it helps sharpen the real issue involved in a problem. Without conflict, many organisational problems go unnoticed and remain unresolved.
2) Conflict increases innovation: Conflict generates a greater diversity of ideas and viewpoints. Such diversity can stimulate innovation in organisational practices.
3) Inter-group conflict solidifies the group: When members of a group are faced with an external enemy, they tend to work together more closely todeal with it. A manager may use this new cohesion to reduce internal conflicts.
4) Conflict serves as a catharsis: Conflict can provide an outlet through which organisational members can ventilate their feelings without damaging organisational functioning.
5) Conflict resolution solidifies inter-group relationships: Once group conflict is successfully resolved, it can solidify the relationships between groups and it may even make the groups feel closer to each other.A balanced view of the effects of conflicts leads us to the following conclusion:Conflict is inherently neither good nor bad but simply has the potential to improve or impair an organisation's performance through its consequences.
Conflicts that result in increased organisational performance and help an organisation to attain its goals may be termed as Functional. On the other hand, conflicts that hinder organisational growth and prevent it from achieving its goals can be termed as Dysfunctional. Thus, conflict in certain forms can be functional or dysfunctional depending on its nature, intensity, duration and the manner in which it is handled.You may now like to ask: How does one know whether a conflict is functional or dysfunctional? On what criteria should one base one’s judgment about the value of conflict?
It is true that the demarcation between functional and dysfunctional conflict is neither clear nor precise. Since a group exists to achieve certain predetermined goals, the functionality of a conflict can be measured by the impact it has on group/unit performance, rather than on a single individual.
Fig. shows the relationship between organisational conflict and group or unit performance. You will note that there is an optimal, highly functional level of conflict at which the unit's performance is at the maximum. This can happens internal environment is because at that level of conflict, the group or the unit'characterised by self-criticism and innovativeness. When the conflict level is too low, it is dysfunctional as the unit's performance may be low due to apathy,stagnation, lack of new ideas and non-responsiveness of the unit-members to the demands of change. In such a situation, a manager may have to resort to stimulating conflicts to make the unit more viable. On the other hand, when the conflict level is too high, it is again dysfunctional, as the survival of the group or the unit is threatened owing to diversion of energies away from performance and goal attainment activities of the members. Chaos and disruption prevails. Naturally, the most important managerial task becomes how to resolve the conflict.
Table lists some consequences of conflict.
1) Group cohesiveness increases: The group becomes more closely knit; its members show greater loyalty.
2) The group becomes task-oriented: Group climate changes from informal to task-oriented and helps to deal with the external threat.
3) Leadership becomes more directive: As the group becomes more task-oriented, the leader becomes more authoritarian.
4) Organisational structure becomes more rigid: Authority and responsibility relationships among and between members becomes more
clearly defined.
5) Group unity is stressed: The group demands increasing loyalty and conformity from its membersProlonged group conflicts cause the following changes in relationship between groups:
1) Groups become antagonistic towards each other: Each group sees the other as an enemy who interferes with its goal-oriented behaviour.
2) Perceptions are distorted: Each group develops positive perceptions about its own group and negative perceptions towards the other.
3) Communication ceases to exist: When in conflict, members of one group avoid interaction with members of the other. If they are forced to interact, they tend to show hostility and aggression towards each other.
4) Groups apply a double standard: Each group clearly sees all the vicious acts of the other party while remaining blind to the same acts performed by their own group.
From the above two lists of changes within and between groups in conflict,you can spot a number of negative effects. What about some potential benefits of inter-group conflicts? Here is such a list:
1) Conflict clarifies the real issue: When individuals in a group express their concerns and differences, it helps sharpen the real issue involved in a problem. Without conflict, many organisational problems go unnoticed and remain unresolved.
2) Conflict increases innovation: Conflict generates a greater diversity of ideas and viewpoints. Such diversity can stimulate innovation in organisational practices.
3) Inter-group conflict solidifies the group: When members of a group are faced with an external enemy, they tend to work together more closely todeal with it. A manager may use this new cohesion to reduce internal conflicts.
4) Conflict serves as a catharsis: Conflict can provide an outlet through which organisational members can ventilate their feelings without damaging organisational functioning.
5) Conflict resolution solidifies inter-group relationships: Once group conflict is successfully resolved, it can solidify the relationships between groups and it may even make the groups feel closer to each other.A balanced view of the effects of conflicts leads us to the following conclusion:Conflict is inherently neither good nor bad but simply has the potential to improve or impair an organisation's performance through its consequences.
Conflicts that result in increased organisational performance and help an organisation to attain its goals may be termed as Functional. On the other hand, conflicts that hinder organisational growth and prevent it from achieving its goals can be termed as Dysfunctional. Thus, conflict in certain forms can be functional or dysfunctional depending on its nature, intensity, duration and the manner in which it is handled.You may now like to ask: How does one know whether a conflict is functional or dysfunctional? On what criteria should one base one’s judgment about the value of conflict?
It is true that the demarcation between functional and dysfunctional conflict is neither clear nor precise. Since a group exists to achieve certain predetermined goals, the functionality of a conflict can be measured by the impact it has on group/unit performance, rather than on a single individual.
Fig. shows the relationship between organisational conflict and group or unit performance. You will note that there is an optimal, highly functional level of conflict at which the unit's performance is at the maximum. This can happens internal environment is because at that level of conflict, the group or the unit'characterised by self-criticism and innovativeness. When the conflict level is too low, it is dysfunctional as the unit's performance may be low due to apathy,stagnation, lack of new ideas and non-responsiveness of the unit-members to the demands of change. In such a situation, a manager may have to resort to stimulating conflicts to make the unit more viable. On the other hand, when the conflict level is too high, it is again dysfunctional, as the survival of the group or the unit is threatened owing to diversion of energies away from performance and goal attainment activities of the members. Chaos and disruption prevails. Naturally, the most important managerial task becomes how to resolve the conflict.
 | |||
| Organisational Conflict and Performance |
Table lists some consequences of conflict.
 |
| Consequences of Conflict |
No comments:
Post a Comment