Conflict Resolution

Organizational Conflict – Constructive Collaboration
SPCH 426

Conflict is a natural phenomenon where interaction between individuals or groups occurs. According to Scott (2000), “They happen because people have different interests, goals, and priorities, or because resources are limited, or because there are communication problems, power struggles, mistaken perceptions and assumptions, and personality clashes” (p. XV). Even as a common occurrence, individuals generally view conflict as negative; a difficult and possibly stressful situation in which there exists a winner and loser. The feeling of negativity regarding conflict is amplified when examined under the added stress of a competitive situation such as the workplace. Although conflict would certainly exist under any circumstance in which we are expected to interact, the workplace in particular can be excessively mired in negative conflict. This research paper will briefly review one possible cause of workplace conflict, competition. It will begin with a definition of conflict, continuing with an origin of conflict resulting from competition, both positive and negative. The research will conclude with a positive view of conflict resulting from collaboration in the workplace, ending with a brief overview. To properly understand conflict we must first define conflict. According to Van Slyke (1999), “Conflict is the competition between interdependent parties who perceive that they must have incompatible needs, goals, desires, or ideas.” He continues by explaining competition as the process of striving for an objective (p. 5). By definition, conflict is created where a competitive situation exists between individuals or groups. A workplace by nature is a competitive place from the onset. We must compete to first gain employment. We also must show ourselves more capable and better at our jobs in order to be promoted and obtain a better position within the organization. It is certainly no wonder that many view their workplace as the most stressful part of their daily lives. But does the natural conflict occurring within our workplace always exist as a negative entity? Are there situations in which the conflict is positive? Biologically, competitiveness is an important part of genetic programming that ensures species survival. Many mammals survive a fight to the death for the right to mate. Sea lions will fight to near death to ensure survival of their genes. Additionally, seals will compete ferociously for secluded inaccessible places for their mates to give birth and raise young seals (Van Slyke 1999, p. 6-7). As mammals, we too are genetically programmed to compete for mates, food and shelter. Charles Darwin believed it was this genetic programming that drove our evolution as human beings. These examples alone are reason to view conflict outside of the negative norm. Conflict and competition can drive us to climb higher, run faster and work smarter. In addition, economic theory and a profitable business model rely on competition as a driving force toward success. Naturally, we are driven toward success, toward survival; this can be translated into the workforce. Businesses fight for survival and compete for the limited number of consumers available to buy their products or services. But fighting for survival as an organization is much different than being engaged in a conflict within that same organization. The idea that scarce resources are a basis for conflict is easily visible in an organization. The numbers of jobs are limited, the amount of money available for employees is limited and opportunities for upward mobility are very limited creating a natural conflict among all employees. These scarce resources create conflicts and are inherent in every organization. Can this conflict be harnessed and used to help it grow and function as a more productive organization? Does the fight for survival help streamline processes spur creativity in an effort toward organizational improvement? In The Journal for Quality and Participation, Bacal (2004) writes, “We generally do not look at conflict as opportunity – we tend to think about conflict as unpleasant, counterproductive, and time consuming. Conflict that occurs in organizations need not be destructive, provided the energy associated with conflict is harnessed and directed toward problem solving and organizational improvement.” He continues by defining his belief that there are three ways to view organizational conflict: the good, the bad, and the ugly. He defines the good as positive, the bad to be avoided and the ugly as an attempt to suppress conflict all together. Positive conflict stimulates growth through innovation by increasing worker knowledge and skills. Bacal believes success lies within an organizations ability to create, respond and adapt. He further explains bad and ugly conflicts as stagnating and in some cases causing an organization to regress. How does an organization move conflict from having negative effects to resulting in positive effects? Numerous researchers have suggested a collaborative style of management is the most effective in positively harnessing conflict. Both compromise and collaboration styles of conflict resolution can result in a favorable outcome for an organization. Collaboration involves all parties working together for a unified and compatible goal. Cahn and Abigail (2007) have said that a compromise results in a situation in which no one person wins and no one person loses; a workable solution is found instead of an optimal one.
Within an organization, the goal of collaboration becomes involving all parties, moving toward success as a whole instead of individually. In some cases, rewards are shared among the group as motivation. According to Scott (2000), in collaborative models among groups, an unbiased mediator is helpful because collaborating can be more difficult than compromise. This person can facilitate the communication and guide the group toward the mutual goal. Scott believes that although collaboration takes more time and energy than other styles of conflict management, is it the best way to arrive at a win-win situation.
The collaborative style of conflict resolution creates an atmosphere where all ideas are shared. The conflict is directed toward the shared goal for the group. In addition to the positive outcome for the organization, individuals within the group are supported. They are left with high feelings of self-worth and satisfaction; they enjoy maximum personal and professional growth, Cahn and Abigail (2007). It is clear that when all members of the group share a goal and are allowed equal participation; both the organization and the individuals involved succeed.
The success of an organization is certainly not limited to the ways in which it manages with inner conflict. But, it may be possible to capitalize on conflict as a motivator and leverage it into innovation, growth and constant improvement. Other strategies such as competition and compromise may be used as successful tools for negotiating conflict within the workplace, but lack the potential for maximum growth among individuals involved. In fact, according to Cahn and Abigail, employing the competitive strategy may give those involved a high sense of self worth and high personal growth, but have a negative effect on the group cohesiveness. In fact, it may encourage the group to grow apart. The compromising strategy is moderately effective and although conflicts may be resolved only moderate feelings of growth and satisfaction will result. Clearly the collaborative approach, where all high feelings of satisfaction and growth result, is the most beneficial to an organization.
Conflict “Exists as a fact of life,” (Cahn and Abigail, 2007 p. 2). The key is positive management of this daily conflict. In business, higher sales and better ideas mean the success of a company, positively managing is imperative for survival. Although there are many successful means of conflict resolution, the collaborative method is most effective. If all members of an organization are working toward a common goal, the organization obviously is in a better position for success. Harnessing conflict and re-directing it toward innovation, growth and constant improvement is the key. Motivating individuals within the organization toward shared success should be the goal of every organization.
Reference list

Bacal, R. (2004). Organizational conflict - the good, the bad and the ugly. The Journal for Quality and Participation, summer 2004, 21-22.

Cahn D. & Abigail R., (2007). Managing conflict through communication. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.

Scott, G.G. (2000). Work with me: Resolving everyday conflict in your organization. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.

Van Slyke, E. J. (1999). Listening to conflict: Finding constructive solutions to workplace disputes. New York, NY: AMA Publications.