When conflict level is too low, the unit performance is also
likely to be low and there is a scope for a perceptive manager to stimulate
conflict in order to enhance the performance of the group.
Similarly, when the
level of conflict is too high, conflict needs to be resolved so as to restore
high performance and optimal level of conflict. So, we shall examine both the
strategies of conflict management-stimulation as well as resolution.
Tendency to avoid conflict is not always productive
and there are times when there is a need to stimulate conflict. Stimulating conflict is a required mode of conflict
management when groups are characterized by apathy/lethargy, complacency,
non-responsiveness to needed change, lack of enthusiasm for generating
alternatives, etc.
How to detect the need for Productive Conflict: Robbins (1978)
suggested the following as signs where conflict stimulation is
needed:
1 The organization is filled with "yes
men".
2 Employees are afraid to admit ignorance.
3 Managers put too much emphasis on harmony and
peace.
4 People are afraid of hurting the feelings of
others.
5 “Popularity” is given more importance than “technical
competence”.
6 People show great resistance to change.
7 New ideas are not forthcoming.
9 There is an unusually low rate of employee turnover
Techniques to create the conflict: Once the need has been identified you may adopt one or more
of the following techniques:
I. Manipulate Communication Channels
Deviate messages from traditional channels
Repress information
Transmit too much information
Transmit ambiguous or threatening information
II. Alter the Organization’s Structure
(redefine jobs, alter tasks, reform units or activities)
Increase a unit's size
Increase specialization or standardization
Add, delete or transfer organizational members
Increase interdependence between units
III. Alter Personal Behavior Factors
Change personality characteristics of leader
Create role conflict
Ignoring the Conflict: This strategy is represented by the absence of action. You, as a manager, have often avoided dealing with dysfunctional aspects of conflict. Unfortunately, when you avoid searching for the causes of the conflict, the situation usually continues or becomes worse over time.
Resolving Inter party Conflict: How and When
We consider Feldman's (1985) strategies of intergroup
conflict-resolution. The primary dimension along which intergroup
conflict-resolution strategies vary is how openly you as a manager should
address the conflict.
I. Conflict-avoidance Strategies: The chief characteristic of conflict-avoidance strategies is that they attempt to keep the conflict from coming into the open.
I. Conflict-avoidance Strategies: The chief characteristic of conflict-avoidance strategies is that they attempt to keep the conflict from coming into the open.
Ignoring the Conflict: This strategy is represented by the absence of action. You, as a manager, have often avoided dealing with dysfunctional aspects of conflict. Unfortunately, when you avoid searching for the causes of the conflict, the situation usually continues or becomes worse over time.
Imposing a Solution: This strategy consists of forcing the
conflicting parties to accept a solution devised by a higher-level manager.
Imposing a solution does not allow much conflict to surface, nor does it leave
room for the participants to air their grievances, so it also generally is an
ineffective conflict-resolution strategy.
II. Conflict Diffusion Strategies: The goal of conflict de-fusion strategies is to keep the
conflict in abeyance and to "cool" the emotions of the parties
involved.
Smoothing:
One way you can deal with conflict is to try to "smooth it
over" by playing down its extent or importance. By smoothing the conflict,
you can hope to decrease its intensity and avoid escalation or open hostility.
Like forcing a solution, smoothing generally is ineffective because it does not
address the key points of conflict.
Appealing
to Superordinate Goals: You can defuse conflicts by focusing attention
on the higher goals that the groups share or the long-range aims that they have
in common. This tends to make the current problem seem insignificant beside the
more important mutual goals.
III. Conflict-containment Strategies:
These strategies allow some conflict to surface, but
tightly control which issues are discussed and the manner in which they are
discussed.
Using Representatives: In order to decide an issue, you can meet with representatives of the opposing groups rather than deal with the groups in their entirety. The rationale is that the representatives know the problems and can argue the groups' points of view accurately and forcefully. Although this seems to be a logical way of proceeding, the research on the use of representatives as a means of solving intergroup conflict is fairly negative. Represntatives are not entirely free to engage in compromise; rather, they must act out of loyalty and are motivated to win (or at least avoid defeat). A representative who "gives in" is likely to face suspicion or rejection from group members. So if a representative cannot win, he or she will try to deadlock a solution.
Using Representatives: In order to decide an issue, you can meet with representatives of the opposing groups rather than deal with the groups in their entirety. The rationale is that the representatives know the problems and can argue the groups' points of view accurately and forcefully. Although this seems to be a logical way of proceeding, the research on the use of representatives as a means of solving intergroup conflict is fairly negative. Represntatives are not entirely free to engage in compromise; rather, they must act out of loyalty and are motivated to win (or at least avoid defeat). A representative who "gives in" is likely to face suspicion or rejection from group members. So if a representative cannot win, he or she will try to deadlock a solution.
Structuring the Interaction: Structuring the interaction between the groups can be
effective in resolving conflict. Providing a framework on how many issues are
discussed and the manner in which they are discussed can facilitate conflict
resolution. There are many ways to structure the interaction between groups to
deal with conflict; some of the most effective strategies include:
- Decreasing the amount of direct interaction between the groups in the early stages of conflict resolution
- Decreasing the amount of time between problem-solving meetings;
- Decreasing the formality of the presentation of issues;
- Limiting the recitation of historic events and precedents and focusing instead on current issues and goals and
- Using third-party mediators.
IV. Conflict-confrontation strategies: These strategies are
designed to uncover all the issues of the conflict and try to find a mutually
satisfactory solution.
Problem Solving: Problem solving is an attempt to find a
solution that reconciles or integrates the needs of both parties who work
together to define the problem and to identify mutually satisfactory solutions.
In problem solving, there is open expression of feelings as well as exchange of
task-related information.
Alderfer (1977) summarises the most critical ingredients in
successful problem solving:
- Definition of the problem should be a joint effort based on shared fact finding rather than on the biased perceptions of the individual groups.
- Problems should be stated in terms of specifics rather than as abstract principles.
- Points of initial agreement in the goals and beliefs of both groups should be identified along with the differences.
- Discussions between the groups should consist of specific, non-evaluative comments. Questions should be asked to elicit information, not to belittle the opposition.
- The groups should work together in developing alternative solutions. If this is not feasible, each group should present a range of acceptable solutions rather than promoting the solution that is best for it while concealing other possibilities.
- Solutions should be evaluated objectively in terms of quality and acceptability to the two groups. When a solution maximises joint benefits but favours one party, some way should be found to provide special benefits to the other party to make the solution equitable.
- All agreements about separate issues should be considered tentative until every issue is dealt with, because issues that are inter-related cannot be settled independently in an optimal manner.
Organizational Redesign: Redesigning or restructuring the organization
can be an effective, inter-group conflict-resolution strategy. This is
especially true when the sources of conflict result from the coordination of
work among different departments or divisions. Unlike the other strategies
discussed so far, you may note, organizational redesign can be used both to
resolve the conflict and to stimulate it.