Dealing with Organizational Conflict: Implications from Theory Deborah M Kolb

In organization theory, particularly in its management wing, "conflict" used to be something of a dirty word. Most observers viewed conflict as an inevitable problem or detraction from what otherwise would be cooperative systems; conflict was something that needed to be contained and managed in order for goals and objectives to be attained.

It is true that early theorists always alluded to the positive functions of conflict, particularly the ways that con­flict between groups can enhance intra­group cohesion and energize efforts. Yet these positive functions were often outweighed by perceptions of the neg­ative and wasteful aspects of conflict observed in decreased motivation, diminished flexibility, and psychologi­cal stresses and strains.

Given these perceptions and values, it is not surprising that a considerable body of work in the management liter­ature focuses on ways to assist manag­ers in the diagnosis and management of conflict. Three major themes domi­nate this literature: definition, diagno­sis, and models of resolution.

Definition. If conflict is to be con­tained and managed, we must be able to distinguish it from other similar processes such as competition. In addi­tion, we must clarify whether we are

talking about differences in goals and objectives (a sort of latent conflict) or whether it is only in observable action that conflict exists. '

Diagnosis. Once we recognize a con­flict, diagnosing its cause becomes a preliminary to efforts to manage or resolve it. In this regard, we are advised to distinguish between structural and processual causes of conflict. Disputes rooted in organization structure (e.g., task interdependencies, jurisdictional ambiguities, and competition over com­mon resource pools) are thought to be different in terms of potential and process of resolution from those based on misperception, communication inadequacies, and other interactional dynamics.

Resolution models. Finally, the man­agement literature provides a variety of models to guide a manager in the resolution of conflict. Depending upon cause and severity or intensity of a dispute, a manager is advised to avoid, confront, smoothe, collaborate, or bar­gain over outcomes.

While the logic of these models suggests a contingent approach to con­flict management, the underlying value system that is often revealed implies a preference for two primary techniques: confrontation (the open expression of

Deborah M. Kolb is Associate Director of the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, 500 Pound Hall, Cambridge, Mass., 02138 and Associate Professor of Management at the Graduate School of Management, Simmons College, Boston, Mass. She is the author of The Mediators (Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T Press, 1983).

0748-4526/87/0400-0123 $05.00/0 ~ 1987 Plenum Publishing Corporation Negotiation]ournal Apri/1987 12:i

differences) and problem solving (a collaborative exploration of wide-rang­ing options). Recent developments in organization theory suggest that we may need to revise these models.

The study of decision making in organizations around such issues as acquiring resources, overseeing change, and managing daily interactions sug­gests an expanded concept of conflict. In these new models, organizations are depicted as political entities in which various coalitions vie for con­trol and influence. In such a model conflict is not really managed or con­tained. Rather, conflict is more or less continual and becomes the essence of what an organization is. One of the theoretical questions posed from this viewpoint is not what causes conflict to occur, but how is it that organiza­tion members and groups manage to cooperate and coordinate activities in the face of the ever-present potential for conflict to erupt into open disa­greement? On a more practical side, this focus alerts us to the means that organization members already use to manage their disputes. Interestingly, these means seem to downplay both confrontation and open collaboration in favor of less public techniques.

Recent theory causes us to chal­lenge some of the dominant theories of past works. If conflict is the essence of organization process, then the defi­nition of conflict becomes problem­atic. How do you separate it from other forms of interaction? If conflict is a central fact of organizational life, then what gets defined as a dispute and what it is about becomes a matter of interpretation. And interpretation will tend to differ.

While scholars can erect elaborate criteria to define a conflict and its causes, the fit between the outsider's perspective and that of those directly involved can be considerable. This is

124 Deborah M. Kolb Organizational Conflict

important because mode of resolution in most normative models is presuma­bly linked closely to diagnosis of cause. The ability to apply such models must contend with the implications of this difference in insider-outsider perspec­tive and the often hidden forms that conflict takes. Consider two aspects of this inconsistency:

Most models of conflict manage­ment require the systematic diagnosis of a dispute. Recent research on con­flict in business firms suggest that insid­ers have a rather limited set of explanations for disputes within their domains. In particular, most insiders focus on the personal characteristics of those with whom they have disa­greements. Whereas an outsider might diagnose a dispute as arising from structural or organizational charac­teristics, those involved tend to focus almost exclusively on the individual. As one authority on this topic noted, in organizations marked by a high level of continous conflict, disputes become personalized depending upon who is on stage at a specific time (Pettigrew, 1973). Separating the person from the problem, a prerequisite of col­laborative problem solving (the often preferred method of dealing with dif­ferences) becomes difficult in these settings because those involved tend to see the people as the problem.

Secondly, models of conflict mange­ment tend to presume the existence of a definable dispute.' However, the study of how work gets done in the context of intergroup conflict suggests just the opposite. Overt conflict tends to be repressed in most organization contexts. Norms against troublemaking and toward promoting civility mean that conflict takes other forms, thereby making dealing with disputes directly something of a problem.

From my own work with cross-func­tional task forces, I have observed that

disputes that are expressed privately as ones over responsibility and author­ity occur as seemingly objective cri­tiques of others' work. 1be object of the criticism sees it as unjustified carp­ing while the critic sees it as justified. Or project groups become intention­ally vague about assigning responsibil­ities and deadlines so that people cannot be easily held accountable. Or groups redefine a project mission that has broad implications into one that is narrow, focusing instead on issues the group feels are manageable but rather insignificant.

While outside consultants might see considerable opportunities to inter­vene for the good of these systems, to enable them to manage conflict more effectively, such an interpretation ignores the unspoken (but nonetheless shared) collusion that members have to avoid the direct expression of con­flict. We need to look for quieter and less overt means to enhance the con­flict management potential in organi­zations. Such means must be consistent with our revised theories about com­plex organization conflict.

One way this does occur is through the actions of certain individuals in organizations whq. because of their official position or because of particu­lar circumstance, play a naturally occurring intermediary-like role that bears similarity to mediation type func­tions in others settings. Many different types of mediation-like roles seem to occur on a regular basis. For instance, members take on a mediation-like role because they possess a set of commu­nication or interpretation skills that other organization members need to conduct their affairs. In such roles,

these interpreters hook into a gossip grapevine, and legitimize the expres­sion of conflict and disagreement that the operative norms of civility mask in public forums. Interpreters working behind the scenes may be able to surface conflict and resolve differences in ways that more overt interventions cannot.

Situations also create mediators. Man­agers or others may find themselves in a particular conflict where resolution becomes the requisite to complete a task or project. In resolving these local disputes, organization members act as temporary mediators, often shifting from partisan to person-in-the-middle of the process. There are probably many other forms such activity can take. If this is so, then the further study of such efforts is worthy of our time.

Many of the most successful busi­ness firms today operate on a model that minimizes hierarchy and maxi­mizes the use of teams and project structures. Such organizations have con­flict built into their design. Publicly resolving or managing conflict as epi­sodic events does not conform well to this model of organization. Rather, we need to attend more to the ways that organizations can enhance their con­flict-handling abilities on a regular basis.

Given the observed proclivities to avoid the open expression of dis­putes, it may be crucial for organiza­tions to encourage the quiet efforts of potential mediators. For it may be that their efforts serve to legitimate as well as to channel conflict in complex organizations.

REFERENCE

Pettigrew, A. ( 1973 ). The Politics of Organizatimud Decisionmaking. London: Tavistock Publications.

Negotiation]ournal April/987 125