Case AnalysisConflict is a vexing problem. Organizationalchange leads to conflict, and conflict stimulates or-ganizational change. Heifetz and Laurice describeconflict as the “engine of creativity and learning.”4

In academics, as any other organization, conflictshould be expected. However, successful recognitionof the sources of conflict and the underlying prob-lems is essential in management.5

530 Journal of Dental Education n Volume 66, No. 4A significant potential for conflict exists when-ever people with differing values and expectationsare involved in an organization. Administrators withleadership ability understand the origins of conflict,anticipate its occurrence, and develop skills and tech-niques for managing conflict. They are likely to bemore successful and satisfied with their responsibili-ties and results. This case illustrates key issues andconcepts that interrelate when conflict recognitionand management are needed.In this case, neither the dean, Dr. Markin, northe department chair, Dr. Marino, is aware of theconflict. From their perspective, the problem is de-fined as unacceptable outcomes from Dr. Forester.Therefore, neither is likely to take the leadership ini-tiative to resolve the conflict. Dr. Forester’s perspec-tive, of course, is quite different. She defines the prob-lem as lack of leadership, poor communication, orfailure of administration. If she expects a favorableresolution of her problem, she will need to take theinitiative to lead her superiors into constructive dis-cussions or accept the consequences of their assess-ment of her performance. Regardless of the perspec-tive, the sources of this conflict are ideological andpersonality differences. The type of conflict is inter-personal between Drs. Forester and Marino.

Central Issue #1: UnacceptablePerformanceDean Markin had engineered an organizationalchange that moved Dr. Forester from one departmentto another. There was an ideological difference amongall the players in this scenario. Dr. Forester assessedher own performance as excellent, and it was accept-able as defined by her former chair, Dr. Williams.However, after a performance review, the new chair,Dr. Marino, decided that her accomplishments inservice were unacceptable. Even though her teach-ing and research assessments exceeded expectations,Dr. Marino informed Dr. Forester that her overallcontributions were unacceptable.Relevant Management Concept: Communi-cation and Feedback. Communication and reinforc-ing feedback are essential tools for managing con-flict.3 An administrator’s essential task is to clarifythe institutional goals, identify the importance of the

staff’s role in the organization, and articulate the ben-efits of the organizational expectations and direction.The concept is basic. However, the potential for es-calating conflict is enormous if administrators areunsuccessful. In this case, the communication andgoals relating to Dr. Forester’s transfer were notclearly understood or relayed from Dean Markinthrough the chair (Dr. Marino) to Dr. Forester.Both Drs. Forester and Marino may have sub-consciously resisted the change for several reasons.The source of resistance may have arisen from per-ceptions of fear of the unknown, personal insecurity,failure to see the need for change, threatened self-interests, or changes in working relationships.5 Asuccessful leader, Dean Markin in this case, shouldhave anticipated a resistant response to change andinitiated some proactive measures to ensure conflictwas minimized and the transition was orderly. In theabsence of this preparatory communication, DeanMarkin’s next challenge may be more difficult. Is itimportant to keep Dr. Forester in the organization?If so, how could he maintain a positive attitude andproductive atmosphere? What damage control mea-sures would be necessary to improve the relation-ship between a valuable chair and a valuable facultymember? If one assumes that maintaining an em-ployee is desirable and developing a positive rela-tionship is possible, then the administrator’s chargeshould be clear. The administrator must focus oncommunication. Leaders and managers both haveimportant roles and both could be successful. If theyare effective communicators, each should concen-trate on reinforcing the mission with feedback.

Central Issue #2: VictimizedFacultyDr. Forester exhibited signs that she was frus-trated and had been victimized by the change in herassignments. Her frustration arose from a shift inmanagement styles as a result of the recent reorgani-zation. She was consulted about neither the changein assignment nor the shift in her expected prioritiesby the administration. She was perplexed, leadingher during the course of the meeting to figurativelythrow up her hands and ask, “What do you expect?”This case thus presents the management challengeof balancing the staff member’s expectations with herability and effort. Recognizing this expectancy gapearly simplifies the redirection or resolution of theconflict.Relevant Management Concept: ExpectancyTheory. Interpersonal conflict is evident between Dr.Forester and her chair. Compounding the problem isher intrapersonal (internal) frustration in being un-April 2002 n Journal of Dental Education 531able to define or accept the expectations of Dr.Marino.

Expectancy theory provides some insight intothis dilemma. Expectancy theory addresses relation-ships between performance and satisfaction.5,9 Sat-isfaction for many is internalized as an outcome ofreward and effort expended. This reward:effort ratiodetermines effort. Effort subsequently is influencedby abilities and values, and it determines perfor-mance. Diagrammatically, these relationships are il-lustrated in Figure 2.8 The cycle of performance (start-ing with the right segment of the diagram) may beexemplified by the employee who is satisfied that aneffort of 10 percent yielded a 5 percent reward. Be-cause of the low reward:effort ratio, one might ex-pect the employee to demonstrate the same abilityand values, yet the effort may be proportionally lower.A second scenario is common. Frequently, allemployees in a group receive equal percentage sal-ary increases. The employee may translate this re-ward of effort as average, while assuming individualefforts have been high. Management may interpretthe equal raises as a gesture of fairness for a groupall of whom performed similarly whether excellentor average. In either case, there is a disparity in whichthe employee’s internal reward system reaches a con-clusion of excellence, whereas the external rewardssystem of management judges performance as me-diocre. Employees’ internal assessments may besharply influenced by the internal values of energyexpended and length of a CV, while management’sexternal rewards support the intrinsic value of team-work and outcomes instead of effort or ability. Ineither situation, communication is required to chan-nel the employee’s efforts and abilities to achieve theexternally moderated rewards that are valued to theorganization.The leadership challenges are diverse for theprincipals in this case. Dean Markin should have beenaware of the potential for conflict. She should haveinitiated reinforcing communication to ensure thatDr. Marino understood, communicated, and moti-vated his subordinates. Dr. Marino’s leadership chal-lenge was to recognize and be sensitive to theintrapersonal strife of Dr. Forester. He should thenhave initiated further communication and evaluationsessions for reinforcement. And, finally, Dr. Forestershould have taken the initiative to meet with Dr.Marino with a specific agenda to clarify her role andexpectations.

Action AlternativesThe administrative challenge in this case wasto balance the department’s output in teaching re-search, service, and faculty development. Dr.Marino’s specific alternatives could include the fol-lowing:• Communication. Dr. Marino should have clarifiedthe departmental expectations and presented an

equitable overview of each faculty member’s rolein the organization.• Prompt intercession. Dr. Marino was in a difficultsituation. However, the frustration expressed byDr. Forester had not yet escalated to a complex orcrisis situation. Careful preparation would be es-sential for a follow-up conversation and continu-ing reinforcement of the balance between Dr.Source: Taylor Robert L. Leadership strategies for department chairs and program directors. Lecture at Faculty DevelopmentWorkshop, American Dental Education Association Annual Session, Chicago, IL, March 3, 2001.Figure 2. Expectancy theory532 Journal of Dental Education n Volume 66, No. 4Forester’s expectations and departmental expec-tations. These conversations should demonstratea positive attitude, be brief and clear, and acknowl-edge Dr. Forester’s past accomplishments and fu-ture value.• Reengage promotion and tenure discussions. Fac-ulty need to be informed of the subtle shifts andvague nature of the promotion and tenure system.In this case, apparently the rules had not changed,but the norms were changing. Dr. Marino neededto review the tenure guidelines, negotiate for fa-vorable application of the rules, consult with thefaculty, and explore creative opportunities to getthe faculty to “buy-in” to the process. The facultyneeded to be invited as active participants in thedevelopment process.• Contingency development. Dr. Marino should haveconsidered the benefits or problems that mayevolve from the following possible outcomes:– Dr. Forester may resign.– Dr. Forester may circumvent Dr. Marino andpetition Dean Markin for support.– Promotion and tenure guidelines may change.

ConclusionThe first stage of resolving any conflict is todefine the problem and then to identify the cause.8 Inthis case, the problems of inadequate performance andfrustration of a faculty member are evident. The causearises from administrative reorganization, which pre-cipitates interpersonal conflict between Dr. Foresterand Dr. Marino, even as the sources of conflict haveideological as well as personality influences.The leadership challenge is to create a positiveoutcome for this or any other conflict. The criticaltask is establishing communication so that redirectionor reengaging faculty in early stage conflict becomespossible. The awkward challenge for the administra-tor is to recognize the problem and develop a con-structive environment for communication. These con-versations must be positive, informal, and humane.The expectations of the leadership, the faculty,and the faculty managers must be clear to all partiesso that the sources of conflict will be minimized. Thefaculty and the administrator both must understand

and support the expectations of the institution andthe individuals within it. The manager must demon-strate a caring attitude and assume that a mutuallybeneficial outcome is attainable.