Whenever conflict occurs in a firm, firstly, a leader needs to understand causes of organizational conflict in order to approach it with appropriate strategies. Secondly, he/she should realize all parties who involve in the situation such as their status, role, responsibility or even their personality, if necessary. Next, the leader decides whether he/she can be a mediator or a negotiator based on his/her backgrounds affecting on the issue. The final process is to execute the fight to achieve a constructive result. As far as I concern, another factor which should be consider is the time frame in that the more time a leader consume to finalize conflict, the more adverse impacts damage to the company.
Regarding sources of conflict, it may derive from miscommunication or misinformation, differences in needs and priorities, differences in values, beliefs, attitudes and culture as well as differences in structural conditions (Kelsey and Plumb (2001), p.1). People react with conflict differently. By using Hofstede scales, people respond with conflict into five styles: integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding and compromising (Hofstede, (1980) quoted by Rahim, et al, 1994). Leaders should be able to interpret and classify their staff to cope with them properly in various circumstances. Each style will be illustrated and explained below.
Integrating: High concern for Self and Others
That is to say this strategy encourages people to cooperate with each other. Each party confronts with conflict and exchanges relevant information to find out the best solution for the problem. For example, in some cases both parties have different pieces of information so they mention to different data. It results in confusing and misinterpreting. By having more clear conversation and understanding on both sides may lessen suspects. Therefore, a leader may use the integrating style to dissolve conflict while sustain team work.
Obliging: Low concern for Self and High Concern for Others
In case of unimportant issue, obliging person try to reduce conflict by accepting the concern of the other to keep relationship. For example, in a sales department Julie found herself in conflict with Mark by taking his customer unintentionally. In fact it was the customer who desired to buy a product with her. However, Julie considered that this was not a big customer account so she decided to return the customer and keep relation with Mark. This means that for long term benefits Mary concerned prioritizing the relationship with her colleague rather than keeping the customer.
Dominating: High Concern for Self and Low Concern for Others
Hofstede stated that for this style each party tries to defend on what they believe and competes with the other. Thus, it is possible to end up with more conflicts if one of the two parties has a strong self-center attitude and does not willingly accept the result of judgment. Under this circumstance, it may destroy co-operation in a group. It seems that most people, who respond by this style, want to be a winner. So it hardly creates friendly atmosphere between members of the group.
Avoiding: Low Concern for Self and Others
This approach is inappropriate for both interpersonal conflict and group conflict since the issue which causes conflict is not considered but postponed. Hofstede said that “This style has been associated with ignoring, withdrawal, sidestepping or “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” situations. For this reason it still exists and can be reoccurred at any time in the future.
Compromising: Intermediate in Concern for Self and Others
This solution creates a win-win situation if two parties are happy to lessen their requirements by negotiating to the extent that satisfies both sides. So in a condition that people incline to compromise, the leaders have to be capable of negotiating to handle with it.
From the theory of Hofstede, it suggests that leaders should employ integrating and compromising methods to deal with group conflict in order to encourage group work. When leaders come to a conclusion that conflict can be managed by compromising, negotiation may be need and the Mintzberg’s decision making model may be helpful to reach an effective conflict resolution.
According to the Mintzberg’s decision-making model illustrated below:
Phrase 1 Phrase 2 Phrase 3
To begin with recognizing and diagnosing problems, sources of conflict, which are mentioned early, should be considered. Many researchers have addressed to the causes differently. Apart from the main differences in values and goals or personal issues, Mullins also summarized that the potential sources of organizational conflict comes from limited resources in an organization, interdependence between departments (Mullins, (2002), p.815).
The next step is to gather information. It helps the leader to get more ideas about the issue. For example, a marketing group comes into conflict with a financial group in a company, its sales and marketing department wants to inject more budgets on advertising and promotions in an attempt to get a higher sales volume while the financial department prefers to cut this budget to save that cost for other expenses. To diagnose this conflict, it can be seen that both groups have the same goal but different values in advertising so a leader should get more details from each side by their reports or asking questions and give them chances to clarify their point.
Therefore, the leaders needs to understand the situation which he/she is facing with and evaluates impacts of decisions on the involved parties and their company. The leaders should consider on whether compromising would be advantages or disadvantages in a circumstance. In the example, The Executive has an authority to judge this conflict within management group then, after the sales department provides more information and figures to prove or to guarantee the increase in sales by utilizing those advertising expenses and, at the same time, financial department shows expenses needed by other activities. As a result, it enables the leader, an executive, to leverage costs and benefits or to discover options for both sides before making a decision. From the company point of view, solutions from the managers in each department were reasonable to some extent so it is important for the executive to justify his/her final decision to those involved in order to be accepted by all parties. However, it is not necessarily that the leader has to be the decision maker in a situation. He/she is sometimes only a mediator in a negotiation and gives opinions from an outsider’s view
In order to reach a creative solution for conflict, group interaction is essential. Guirdham pointed out in the problem-solving process that during the discussion controversial among ideas, opinions, information and perspectives should be encouraged and accepted (Guirdham (1990), p.341). Mullins suggested the strategies for managing conflict, which leaders can choose and adjust to their situations, that clarification of goals and objectives can reduce misunderstandings and brings about better co-ordinating behaviour. In addition, an organization should have clear human resources policies and procedures such as job evaluation; systems of reward and punishment, job analysis, recruitment and selection (Mullins, (2002), p.817). In case of limited resources, a manager may report to a higher management level and ask for more budgets, if possible.
The most important concern is that the leaders must not take a partial view otherwise he/she may lose creditability and respect from his/her subordinates. According to Jones, in cases where a leader is particularly vulnerable to accusations of bias, he/she might simply acknowledge the possible of perceived conflict of interest and defer the mediator role to another leader in the organization (Dan C. Jones, 1998). The mediator does not have the authority to impose a settlement on the parties, but will attempt to help them to resolve their dispute in a way which is acceptable to each of them. When a solution seems feasible to the mediator, but has not been seen by the parties, the mediator may gently point the way (Hollands 1996). The leaders plays a mediator role to resolve conflict while maintain relationships among group’s members. In the same way, participative and supportive style of leadership is considered as one of the key success factors in handling conflict. This style, a leader tends to show an attitude of respect and trust, create a co-operative working environment.
In conclusion, effectively managed-conflict in an organization requires the leaders to have the capability of identifying and investigating problems of conflict and then determines whether he/she can be a decision maker. However, a leader who defines their role as a judge they have to be neutral otherwise it can advertently destroy their accountability to followers. On the other hand, if they position themselves as an outsider, a third party will be invited. Sometimes leaders set their role as a mediator in a negotiation of group conflict. The main purpose of negotiations is to maintain relationships and to promote collaboration in a group by giving opportunities to relevant parties to discuss and rationalize themselves openly and let them finalize their own outcome. Although no one can assure that the role of the leaders in managing conflict alone will help to achieve a resolution of conflict due to the dependence on co-operations of engaged parties, effective conflict management brings about the reduction in the degree of violence of conflict and enhances work performance by setting right attitudes among colleagues and contributing to company goals.
-------------------------------------------------------
References
Dane C. Jones, VCCA Journal. Volume 3, Fall 1998, p.54-57. Retrieve November 15, 2004 from
David E Hollands (1996), neutral website. Retrieved November 17, 2004 from
Deborah M. kolb and Jean M. Bartunek(1992). Hidden conflict in organizations: Introduction: The Dialectics of Disputing, SAGE Publications, Inc.:p.1-20
Hunt, John(1982). Managing People in Organizations, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Kelsey, Dee and Pam Plumb(2001). Great Meetings. Portland, ME: Hanson Park Press
Laurie J. Mullins(2002). Management and Organizational Behaviour, sixth edition. Prentice Hall: p.813-818.
Maureen Guirddham(1990). Interpersonal skills at work. Prentice Hall:p.331-346
M.Afzalur Rahim and Albert A. Blum(1998). Global Perspectives on Organizational Conflict: Introduction, Prager: p.1-9.
Richard M. Hodgetts(1991). Organizational Behavior: Theory and Practice. Macmillan Publishing Company: Chapter 10.
