Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
i
PAN AFRICAN INSTITUTE FOR DEVELOPMENT – WEST AFRICA
P.O. BOX 133, BUEA, CAMEROON
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS STUDIES
A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Business Studies, in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of a Master of Science (M.Sc.)
degree in Strategic Human Resource Management
By
KOMBEM RIDEL NKESAGHA
PAIDWA00061
Supervisors Dr. UWEM ESSIA
Mr. KUM LIVINGSTONE AWAH
BUEA, JULY 2016
THE FORCES AND INTENSITY OF DYSFUNCTIONAL
CONFLICTS IN NON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS: A
STUDY OF SELECTED NGOS IN THE SOUTH-WEST REGION
The author reserves total responsibility for meeting the requirements set by Copyright Laws for the inclusion
of any materials that are not the author’s creation or in the public domain.
ii
iii
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my sister Kombem Alvine Fienyou
iv
v
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the people who helped me in bringing this work together. My special
thanks to God Almighty for life, initiative, sustenance, protection and courage to write this
thesis.
To my supervisors, Dr. Uwem Essia and Mr. Livingstone Kum Awah of the Pan African Institute
for Development- West Africa Buea, I say a big thank you for the time you put in to guide me
throughout this work. I am grateful Sir.
Thanks also go to the management of the various NGOs; Food and Rural Development
Foundation (FORUDEF), People Empowering People Africa (PEP Africa), Environmental
Governance Institute (EGI) and the Assembly of Youths for Sustainable Environment and
Development (ASYOUSED) for giving me the opportunity to carryout research in their
organizations. Especially to Mr.Takang John from EGI, Mr. Appella Magellan from FORUDEF,
Mr. Acamduwu Emmanuel from PEP Africa, for their kind and friendly assistance given to me
during my period of research in their various organizations.
My heart felt gratitude to my lovely parents, Mr. Kombem Eric Andrew and Mrs. Kombem
Henrietta Neng for their relentless effort of support and commitment to sponsor me to this level
of my academic pursuit. It is my prayer that God would keep you safe and that you would enjoy
the fruits of your labour.
Thanks to my brothers and sisters, Kombem Cyril, Derrick, Alvine, Henry, Bernice and Ntam
Bibiana. Not forgetting my friends, Lakbub Judith, Ebob Caroline, Sone Thelma and Tamungang
Lydia, who gave me courage throughout my period of study. You have been so wonderful to me.
vii
ABSTRACT
Studies conducted by the Pan African Institute for Development – West Africa (PAID-WA) in
2014 found the institutional capacity of NGOs to manage conflicts to be frail. Consequently, the
current research seeks to measure the intensity of conflicts in selected NGOs and investigate the
deep rooted sources of conflicts in these organizations. Three critical research questions are
raised in the study: What are the main determinants of conflicts in the selected Non-
governmental Organizations? What are the intensity levels of conflict in the selected Non-
governmental Organizations? How effective are the various approaches used by the selected
NGOs to manage conflicts? To investigate these questions, the research adopts a hybrid of
qualitative and quantitative research methods. Sixty four (64) participants (board members and
staff) were selected from four NGOs. Interviews and semi structured questionnaires were used to
collect data from the participants. The researcher applied the t-test and a non-parametric test to
investigate the hypothesis of the study. The research found that conflicts in NGOs are triggered
more by poor organizational systems and interpersonal relations among employees than by the
quality of leadership. The study equally observed that the current level of conflicts in the selected
NGOs is high. This is attributed to the fact that the conflict management approach currently
adopted by most of the NGOs is largely ineffective. The researcher recommends training on
communicative styles, interpersonal relationships, emotional intelligence, as well as a
restructuring of the four NGOs.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ................................................................................................................................ ii
CERTIFICATION ......................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
DECLARATION ........................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... vii
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................. vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS …………………………………………………………………..…. viii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ xii
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... xii
LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................................................................................. xiiii
ABBREVIATIONS ..................................................................................................................... xiv
CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background to the study ........................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ...................................................................................................... 4
1.3. Objectives of the Study ................................................................................................... 5
1.3.1. Main Objective ............................................................................................................ 5
1.3.2. Specific Objectives ...................................................................................................... 5
1.4. Research Questions .............................................................................................................. 6
1.5. Hypothesis ............................................................................................................................ 6
1.6. Significance of Study ........................................................................................................... 6
1.7. Organization of the Study .................................................................................................... 7
1.8. Scope of the Study................................................................................................................ 8
1.9. Description of Study Areas .................................................................................................. 9
1.10. Definition of Terms .......................................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................ 12
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ........................................ 12
2.1 Literature review ................................................................................................................. 12
2.1.1 Conceptualizing Conflict and Dysfunctional Conflict ................................................. 12
2.1.2. Understanding Dysfunctional Conflict ........................................................................ 14
2.2. Empirical Literature ........................................................................................................... 15
ix
2.2.1. Potential Sources and Triggers of Conflict in Organizations ...................................... 15
2.2.2. Levels of Conflict ........................................................................................................ 19
2.2.3. Measuring Conflict Intensity ....................................................................................... 19
2.2.4 The Impact of Conflict on Employee and Organizational Performance ...................... 23
2.2.5 Conflicts and Dilemmas in Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations in
Cameroon: Causes and Impact .............................................................................................. 25
2.3 Approaches to Conflict Management in Organizations ...................................................... 27
2.5. Summary of Literature ....................................................................................................... 36
2.6 Gaps Identified in the Literature and how the work shall attempt to fill them ................... 37
CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................... 38
METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY ....................................................................................... 38
3.1. Model Specification ........................................................................................................... 38
3.2. Description of Variables ..................................................................................................... 39
3.3. Research Approach ............................................................................................................ 40
3.4. Sample Size and Techniques .............................................................................................. 41
3.5. Sources of Data Collection ................................................................................................. 41
3.6. Data Collection Tools ......................................................................................................... 41
3.6.1 Book Review ................................................................................................................ 42
3.6.2 Interview Guides........................................................................................................... 42
3.6.3 Questionnaires .............................................................................................................. 42
3.7. Data Collection Process ..................................................................................................... 42
3.8. Data Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 43
3.9. Data Presentation ................................................................................................................ 43
3.10. Validity and Reliability .................................................................................................... 43
CHAPTER FOUR ....................................................................................................................... 44
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA .................................................................... 44
4.1. Personal characteristics of respondents .............................................................................. 44
4.1.1. Age Distribution of Respondents ................................................................................ 44
4.1.2 Gender Distribution of Respondents ............................................................................ 45
4.1.3. Marital Status of Respondents ..................................................................................... 46
4.1.4. Educational Level of Respondents .............................................................................. 46
4.2. Determinants of Conflicts in NGOs ................................................................................... 47
x
4.2.1. Determinants of Conflicts Relating to Personal Rule (leadership) .............................. 47
4.2.2. Determinants of Conflicts Relating to Board Members/Employees. .......................... 48
4.2.3. Organization-Wide Causes .......................................................................................... 49
4.2.4 Testing Hypothesis 1 .................................................................................................... 51
4.3. Intensity of Conflicts in NGOs ........................................................................................... 52
4.3.1. Test of Hypothesis 2 .................................................................................................... 56
4.4. Implications of results ........................................................................................................ 62
4.5 Limitations of the Study ...................................................................................................... 65
CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................................................ 66
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................... 66
5.1 Summary of Findings .......................................................................................................... 66
5.2. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 68
5.3. Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 68
5.4 Further research ................................................................................................................... 71
5.5. Final words ......................................................................................................................... 71
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 73
APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 78
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Description of variables ………………………………………………………. 40
Table 2: Age distribution of respondents ………………………………………………..44
Table 3: Gender distribution of respondents …………………………………………….45
Table 4: Marital Status of respondents …………………………………………………..46
Table 5: Educational level of respondents ……………………………………………….47
Table 6: Percentage of Personal Rule in NGOs ………………………………………….48
Table 7: Percentage of Board member/Employee Contribution to Conflict ……………..49
Table 8: Organization Wide Sources of Conflict ………………………………………...50
Table 9: Observed Scores per Category ………………………………………………….51
Table 10: Nonparametric Test of Hypothesis 1 ………………………………………….52
Table 11: Conflict Intensity Scores ………………………………………………………53
Table 12: How often conflicts occur in various organizations …………………………...54
Table 13: The parties most frequently involved in conflict in the various organizations…55
Table 14: Descriptive Statistics …………………………………………………………...57
Table 15: The most frequent methods used by managers/superiors to resolve conflicts in
the various organizations ………………………………………………………................58
Table 16: The effectiveness of the conflict resolution approaches used by the leaders of
the various organizations ………………………………………………………………….59
Table 17: The stakeholders (leaders, employees and board members) rating of the
conflict resolution process in various organizations ……………………………………...60
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Conflict Intensity Continuum by Robbins (2005)……………………………………20
Figure 2: Conflict Intensity Continuum by Andra Medea (1996) ……………………………..21
Figure 3: Conflict intensity Continuum by Runde and Flanagan (2007) ………………………22
Figure 4: Model Specification ………………………………………………………………….38
xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix I: Questionnaire ………………………………………………………………78
Appendix II: Interview guide ………………………………………………………………82
Appendix III: The intensity of conflicts in various organizations ………………………….83
Appendix IV: Crosstabs……………………………………………………………………..85
xiv
ABBREVIATIONS
ADR : Alternative Dispute Resolution
ASYOUSED: Assembly of Youths for Sustainable Environment and Development
CEO : Chief Executive Officer
CSOs : Civil Society Organizations
EGI : Environmental Governance Institute
FORUDEF : Food and Rural Development Foundations
HIV/AIDS : Human Immune Virus/ Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
INGOs : International Non-Governmental Organizations
NGOs : Non-Governmental Organizations
PAID-WA : Pan African Institute for Development – West Africa
PEP Africa : People Empowering People Africa
SPSS : Statistical Package for Social Scientists
SWR : South- West Region
USAID : United States Agency for International Development
WWF : World Wide Fund
1
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the study
Conflict is an integral part of organizations. Hence it is inevitable. For this reason, managing
conflicts have become an essential, if not the most important part of the manager’s job.
(Azamosa, 2004). Consequently, a huge chunk of literature has been generated on the subject
matter. This notwithstanding, the numerous prescriptions on how managers should manage
conflict seem not to be achieving the desired result, as there is very little evidence to suggest a
drop in organizational conflict. Rather, the increasing complexity of the business environment
and diversity of workforce is raising concern over the intensity of organizational conflicts. Thus
in this era of globalization, marked by intense cross-fertilization of ideas, research on the forces,
intensity, and management of conflict is fundamental to the success of modern organizations.
(Badler, 2008).
Conflict studies as a discipline have its root from sociology and political science (Bercovith,
2009).Social psychological research and political research on conflict, during the past 35 years or
so, has primarily addressed the following principal issues;
The conditions which give rise to a constructive or destructive process of conflict resolution, the
circumstances, strategies, and tactics which lead one party to do better than another in a conflict
situation, the nature of the agreement between conflicting parties. It also addresses issues such
as; how third parties can be used to prevent conflicts from becoming destructive, how people
can be educated to manage their conflicts more constructively, how and when to intervene in
prolonged, intractable conflicts. In addition to that, it addresses how to understand why ethnic,
religious, and identity conflicts frequently take an obstinate, destructive course, and how
applicable it is in various cultural context. In recent years, there has been much discussion in the
literature of the differences that exist in how people from varying cultural backgrounds deal with
negotiations and, more generally, manage conflict. These issues mentioned above, are pertinent
2
issues and questions which needs answers in our organizations of today, to bring about desirable
outcomes in the organizational sector concerning conflict (Bercovith, 2009)
Thus conflict is currently recognized as one of the most topical issues in organizational success.
The frequent variations in international, political, economic, technological, social and cultural
environment are a necessitating change in organizations with diverse opinions and responses to it
(Karatepe, 2006). Adjusting to all these situations is observed to be challenging for both
employers and employees. In some cases, change of policy or work processes results in heated
debates or disagreement between employees and management. On the other hand, rapid change
in lifestyle is prompting workers to demand better treatment from management. These
phenomena breed tension in organizations with varying degrees of consequences. Workplace
conflict spillover creates disturbance in both domains (work and employee). So if the
organizations and its employees are disturbed or if employees have conflicting roles to be
performed, then the ultimate performance of the employee and organization is affected (Aslam,
2011). Quite often, conflict is viewed as negative and as such should be avoided. Nevertheless,
no matter how one looks at conflict, it is essential to realize that in some circumstances, conflict
can be constructively managed to improve unsatisfactory conditions in organizations. Thus
conflict may become dysfunctional only if it is poorly managed and results in tension, distrust,
dissatisfaction, and distraction of employees from organizational goals. To enhance growth in
modern enterprises, efforts must be invested in investigating the forces and understanding the
intensity of conflicts in organizations.
While it may be easy to develop strategies for reducing conflicts in profit making organizations,
minimizing conflicts in the non-profit sector is more complex. This is because the stakeholders
of business organizations all understand the fundamental objective of the organization: profit
maximization. On the other hand, the goals and objectives of non-profit organizations are
significantly determined by the funders of these organizations. This is glaring in African NGOs
as they continue to be at the mercy of foreign governments despite the recognition of their
overwhelming support to development in the continent, as there is no concerted effort among
African governments and African regional institutions towards providing concrete mechanisms
for NGO funding in the continent. Thus aid has increasingly been channeled through
international NGOs by bilateral and multilateral agencies fearful of African government
3
bureaucracies and inefficiencies. This approach has placed African NGOs in a very
disadvantaged position as control remains firmly in the hands of Northern NGOs. Funds are
distributed to NGOs in Africa but with conditions laid down in the Northern NGO’s funders’
strategic plans (PAID, 2014). This further breeds tension in these NGOs as managers realize that
their source of finance is external and thus not grounded and moreover, with laid down
conditions by INGOs. Thereby, these NGOs need to work twice as hard to encourage these
funders and thus ensure the sustainability of these organizations and the consistent remuneration
of all workers.
Thus it is possible to find highly intensified conflicts in the non-profit sector than in the profit-
making sector. Consequently, this study probes into the non-profit making sector to investigate
the triggers and intensity of conflicts. The essence is to understand the extent to which conflicts
impact on the activities of non-profit making organizations and obstruct the attainment of their
goals.
The phenomenal growth of NGOs on the world scene has been aptly described as "a global
associational revolution". The accelerated growth and development of NGOs worldwide attest to
their growing crucial role in the development. At the international level, non-governmental
organizations are regarded as channels for implementing democratization and commercial
growth in Third World nations. Within Third World countries, NGOs are frequently considered
suitable replacements for weak states and businesses, in the promotion of economic advancement
and the provision of essential services to most people. NGOs are seen by their advocates as a
catalyst for societal change because they are sensitive to the needs and predicaments of their
clients, usually the poor, women and children. Because of targeting and being sensitive to
marginalized groups in society, NGOs are being publicized as important channels for
empowerment, democratization, and economic development. In fact, some NGOs are driven by
high values and interests, geared toward empowering communities that have been traditionally
disempowered. The biggest potential NGOs have is to create self-help solutions to address the
difficulty of scarcity and powerlessness in society. This is based on the viewpoint of NGOs as
self-sufficient, effective, less bureaucratic, grassroots oriented, participatory and contributing to
sustainable expansion in grassroots communities (Makoba, 2002).
4
In Cameroon, the catastrophic effects of the economic crisis and the harsh adjustment measures
that later followed, amongst other factors, encouraged the emergence of many NGO’s in
Cameroon. In Cameroon, the governments’ influence towards developmental activities has
diminished. Thus community groups, village development associations and NGO’s have been
closing ranks to reduce the development gap created (Fonchingong and Fonjong, 2002). Their
survey showed that the developmental activities of NGO’s constituted health, education and
training, environment, democracy and human rights, women’s development, urban and rural
development, capacity building and research, HIV sensitizations and community development in
partnership with community-based organizations (Fonchingong and Fonjong 2002).
For NGOs to be sustainable and remain relevant in contemporary society, the intensity of
conflicts must be reduced to the minimum. This is because the survival and success of NGOs
rely primarily on the degree of concentration, participation, involvement and unity of all
stakeholders of the NGO. This study attempts to measure the forces and intensity of conflicts
among selected environment-focused NGOs in the South West Region of Cameroon.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
NGOs are widely considered as the leading actors for joint and collaborative development. This
approach to development relies primarily on the extent to which members of these NGOs can
minimize differences and work towards a common goal. In fact, the effectiveness of non-
governmental organizations as actors in development and change depends on successful
engagement with both internal and external management issues. Evidence suggests that the
ability of NGOs, particularly African NGOs, to manage conflicts is frail. Studies conducted on
the institutional capacity of NGOs to manage conflicts reveals that most non-governmental
organizations in Cameroon currently have very limited ability to handle differences among
stakeholders. Measuring the dispute management position of the four NGO's understudy in the
SWR of Cameroon, in line with the World Wide Fund project of 2014, it was observed that the
ability of NGOs to manage conflicts is 60% below the desired level of 100%. The study equally
found that all the NGOs included in the research had no policy guide or a protocol to resolve
conflicts among its stakeholders (PAID-WA, 2014).
There is no gainsaying that when two or more people meet, there is bound to be differences and
misunderstandings. The challenge is that NGOs in the country do not yet have the appropriate
5
mechanism to manage these disputes when they occur. An indication that limited attention is
given to managing conflicts in home based NGOs. The result is that most non-governmental
organizations in the country function below capacity and some situations are accused of poor
delivery in project assignments, corruption, mismanagement, and many NGOs turn to exist only
on paper. In the end, most non-governmental organizations in the country and continent at large
seize to exist because of poor management of conflicts. This is supported by the findings of
USAID’s (2014) CSO Sustainability Index, which suggests that the rate at which African CSO's
rise and fall is alarming.
Despite these disturbing revelations, empirical studies of the causes and intensity of conflicts in
African NGOs are difficult to come by. Consequently, it is hard to propose an appropriate
mechanism to address conflicts in these NGOs when the causes and intensity are not well
established. This study, therefore, investigates the causes of conflicts in non-governmental
organizations and attempts a measure of the intensity of battles towards proposing a framework
for conflict management in NGOs.
1.3. Objectives of the Study
1.3.1. Main Objective
The primary aim of this study is to investigate the forces and intensity of dysfunctional conflict
among selected Non-Governmental Organizations in the South West Region of Cameroon.
1.3.2. Specific Objectives
Clearly, this study seeks to accomplish the following:
1) Investigate the main determinants of conflicts in the selected Non-governmental
Organizations.
2) Determine the intensity levels of conflict in the selected Non-governmental Organizations.
3) Critically evaluate the effectiveness of the different conflict management approaches used by
the selected Non-governmental Organizations.
6
1.4. Research Questions
Based on the specific objectives mentioned above, this study intends to respond to the following
research questions:
1) What are the main determinants of conflicts in the selected Non-governmental Organizations?
2) What are the intensity levels of conflict in the selected Non-governmental Organizations?
3) How effective are the various approaches used by the selected NGOs to manage conflicts?
1.5. Hypothesis
1) H0: Conflict in Non-governmental Organizations is triggered by poor organization systems
and internal stakeholder relations
H1: Conflict in Non-governmental Organizations is triggered by personal rule of the leaders or
founders (claim)
2) The intensity of conflict in Non-governmental Organizations is above 60%
H0: = 60
H1: > 60
1.6. Significance of Study
The researcher anticipates that this study will be very relevant for the leaders, employees and
members of CSOs, as well as to the society at large.
To leaders and funders of NGOs, understanding the forces, intensity and management of
conflicts will provide relevant information on how to promote success and enhance the
sustainability of NGOs. The study will inform stakeholders of non-governmental organizations
on the dimensions of conflicts and avail them with available/up-to-date techniques of handling
conflicts. Knowledge on how to manage dysfunctional conflict constructively and successfully
unite the team towards a common objective is one of the essential skills for a manager to hold.
This study will enhance the knowledge of conflict literacy, measuring conflict styles, building
conflict management skills and using conflict-focused team building and interventions. It is
hoped that results of the study will be used to formulate good employees and management
relationship. The study provides an option for response by funders of NGOs in enhancing the
7
institutional development of the NGOs as a means of ensuring goal attainment, particularly in the
design and implementation of development projects.
To the employees of NGOs, this study will enable them to understand the impact of intense
conflicts on goal attainment and propose strategies for managing peer relationships in the
organization. By measuring and providing information on the intensity of conflicts in NGOs, it
is hoped that this study will encourage NGO practitioners and stakeholders to sit together for
effective conflict negotiation.
To individual NGO members, this study will serve as a guide to managing conflicts within the
NGO as well as in their homes. Conflict management is a vital skill for all successful long-term
relationships. Understanding conflict dynamics is an absolute prerequisite for being an effective
helper to others--children, friends, family, and work associates.
To the author and other researchers, this study aims to be part of the author's growth in the
management of people when it comes to leadership, communicative skills and the ability to
foresee and manage conflicts constructively
1.7. Organization of the Study
The study is structured into five chapters. Chapter one is the introductory section of the survey
and gives a background to the research before presenting the statement of the problem,
objectives of the study, research questions, hypotheses, significance of the study, organization of
the study and the definition of terms. The chapter concludes by presenting a brief description of
the NGOs under study.
Chapter two critically analyzes literature that is relevant to the subject of this study. The essence
is to identify trends, patterns of discussions and main contemporary themes occupying discourse
on organizational conflicts. It includes different ideas, debates, controversies, consensuses,
theoretical models aimed at understanding the concept of conflict management. The chapter
begins by evaluating the concept of conflicts and the different dimensions of conflict. This is
followed by a review of empirical findings related to the forces and impact of conflicts on
organizations. The chapter ends with a display of the theoretical framework adopted for the
study.
8
Chapter three is made up of the methodology of the study which begins by examining the model
to be used to investigate the forces, the intensity and the effectiveness of approaches used in
these selected NGOs. This is followed by specifying the research design, the sample size, and the
methods of collecting and the reasons for employing such methods. This chapter also elaborates
on the manner in which the findings from the field will be analyzed and presented, as well as
proof of the validity of this research work.
Chapter four presents and analyzes the results of the study based on the research questions raised
in the introductory chapter. This chapter begins by presenting demographic information of the
respondents, before delving into the responses to the research questions and testing of the two
hypothesis generated in the study.
Chapter five on its part summarize the findings of the study, draws conclusions from the
findings, and make recommendations based on these findings. Recommendations are addressed
to the members of the NGOs, as well as to future researchers in the field of conflict management
in organizations.
1.8. Scope of the Study
This study focuses on examining the causes of conflicts in NGOs as well as to measure the depth
of clashes in these organizations. While an attempt is made to generalize the findings of NGOs in
the country, the study focuses on four NGOs:
Food and Rural Development Foundations (FORUDEF), People Empowering People Africa
(PEP-AFRICA), Environmental Governance Institute (EGI), and the Assembly of Youths for
Sustainable Environment and Development (ASYOUSED). These NGOs have been chosen on
the basis that they are currently the most active CSOs in the region and now receive funding
from a number of international funding bodies. The researcher posits that conflicts turn to
increase in CSOs when funding is frequently available. Also, these NGOs are partners with a
committed funder (World Wide Fund for Nature) who may be willing to use the findings of the
study to improve the state of conflict management in the selected NGOs. The four organizations
are located in Limbe and Buea. The focus is on the conflict between the leader and employee, as
well as on director and board members.
9
1.9. Description of Study Areas
The NGO’s under study are located in the South West Region of Cameroon. The South-West
Region of Cameroon is a province of Cameroon and constitutes part of the territory of Southern
Cameroons. Its capital is Buea. Simultaneously with the Northwest Region, it is one of the two
anglophone (English-speaking) regions of Cameroon. The area is divided into six districts or
departments: Fako, Koupé-Manengouba, Lebialem, Manyu, Meme, and Ndian. These are in turn
divided into subdivisions. Presidentially appointed senior divisional officers and sub-divisional
officers govern each respectively.
Amongst the numerous NGOs in the region, this study focuses on four environment or non-
governmental organizations which are conservation-focused: Food and Rural Development
Foundation (FORUDEF), People Empowering People Africa (PEP Africa), Environmental
Governance Institute (EGI) and the Assembly of Youths for Sustainable Environment and
Development (ASYOUSED).
The Food and Rural Development Foundation (FORUDEF) is a Cameroonian based NGO
founded in 1998 with the mission of improving the standards of living in the southwest region of
Cameroon. Besides the engagement in the struggle against HIV/AIDS, FORUDEF has been
carrying out activities in different areas, such as training communities in the participatory
process for the fight against HIV/AIDS and other health-related issues, such as malaria
prevention and general health and sanitation, providing attention to children either infected with
HIV/AIDS or who have become orphans due to deaths in their family units, caused by
HIV/AIDS.
Its main office is situated in Buea, while most of its activities are being executed in the
neighboring areas, such as Mamfe, Limbe, and Akwaya. FORUDEF is a registered NGO in
Cameroon since 1998 as evidenced by their registration document in accordance with
NGOs/CSOs registration by the Government of Cameroon under the Law on Freedom of
Association (Law No. 90/053 of 19 December 1990) or/and the Law Relating to Co-operative
Societies and Common Initiative Groups (Law No 92/006 of 14 August 1992). The management
structure of FORUDEF is embodied by the board of directors, a manager, and individual staff
members.
10
The Assembly of Youths for Sustainable Environment and Development (ASYOUSED),
Cameroon, was created and registered in 2007 to carry out activities in the domains of
Governance, Environmental Conservation and Community Health within the South-West and
North-West Regions of Cameroon. It is located in Limbe. The 1994 law of freedom of
association provides a legal base on which ASYOUSED operates. ASYOUSED exists in
conformity with section 7 of the act №90/053 of 19 December 1990, giving the liberty to the
formation and existence of associations. As a registered association, the organization can operate
in any region of Cameroon. ASYOUSED has a governing body made up of board members. The
organization also has a management team made up of the Director, program manager,
administration and finance officer, as well as two project officers in charge of environmental
conservation.
People Empowering People (PEP) Africa is an international initiative that involves young people
and empowers them with skills and tools needed to create positive change in communities. It
was founded in 2000 with the unique objective of leading and responding to the needs of young
people and to make a substantial contribution to the acquisition of competencies through non
formal learning as well as the promotion of youth’s active participation, active engagement,
social inclusion and solidarity in the society. It is located in Limbe. PEP Africa exists in
conformity with article 7 of law №90/053 of 19 December 1990, giving the liberty to the
formation and existence of associations. The CEO plays an active role in providing strategic
direction, oversight or accountability; there also exist managers and individual staff members in
the organization.
The Environmental Governance Institute (EGI) is a non-denominational, politically unaffiliated
organization with headquarters in Molyko, Buea. EGI has as purpose to reform environmental
governance in Cameroon as a means to ensure that people have equitable access to essential
natural resources and the benefits accrued from them by research, science-policy interaction,
sustainable livelihoods activities, and Education for sustainable development. It went
operational in July 2011, with an official recognition in October 2012 (No.
541/G.37/D14/1/Vol5/SAAJP) as stipulated by Cameroon law of associations. EGI has a
governing body made up of board members and a management structure comprised of the
Executive Director and individual staff members.
11
1.10. Definition of Terms
Conflict
Conflict is a state of opposition between ideas, interests which lead to a struggle, clash,
disagreement and even a battle between two or more opposing persons (Merriam-Webster
Dictionary).
Dysfunctional conflict
Dysfunctional conflict is a conflict that hinders the employees and the organizational
performance and leads to decreased productivity (Robbins, 2005).
Conflict Intensity
In this study, conflict intensity is defined as the depth of conflict (Runde and Flanagan, 2007).
Conflict resolution
Conflict resolution is the practice of recognizing and dealing with disputes in a comprehensive,
rational, balanced and sustainable manner which leads to increased productivity immediately and
in the long run (Victor, 2012).
Non-Governmental Organization
A Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), is an aspect of civil society, it is a legally constituted
non-state organization created by natural or legal persons which have no participation or
representation of any government (Mukasa, 2006).
12
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This chapter attempts a review of literature related to the subject matter. The essence is to situate
the study within the context of ongoing discussions on organizational conflict and dysfunctional
conflict. The chapter begins by explaining the concept of conflict and dysfunctional conflict from
diverse perspectives. This is followed by a review of empirical findings on the forces, intensity,
and management of organizational conflicts. The chapter concludes with a display of the
theoretical framework adopted for the study.
2.1 Literature review
2.1.1 Conceptualizing Conflict and Dysfunctional Conflict
Attempting to arrive at an accepted definition of conflict has not been successful owing to the
diversity in views on the subject matter. Hence, defining conflict is complex, as it is hard to
come to a consensus concerning the definition of the concept (Borisoff, Victor, 1998). The
easiest way to know the term “conflict” is to examine the common aspects in the definitions of
conflict by prominent authors.
Folger (1997), defined conflict as the interaction between interdependent people who perceive
incompatible goals and the interference from each other in accomplishing those goals. This
approach introduces two important concepts: Interdependence and Perception. Interdependence
is correlated to such situations where one party’s future actions depend on another individual’s
actions.
Rahim (2001) on his part opined that conflict might be interpersonal or intergroup with
interpersonal conflicts occurring between a supervisor and his subject or between two individuals
at the same level of the organizational hierarchy. The author, therefore, attempted to define
conflict based on the different levels at which it occurs: individual and group levels. However,
understanding the levels at which conflicts occur does not give us a precise meaning of the
concept of conflict.
13
Schramm-Nielsen’s (2002) definition of conflict perhaps gives us a somewhat clearer view of
what may constitute a conflict. The author contends that conflict is a state of severe disagreement
and dispute about something regarded to be significant by at least one of the parties involved.
This definition is corroborated by Azamosa (2004) who observed that conflicts include the total
range of behaviors and attitudes that are in an opposition between owners/managers on the one
hand and workers on the other. It is a state of dispute over issues of substance or emotional
antagonism and may arise due to anger, mistrust or personality clashes.
Meanwhile, Mullins (2005) sees conflict as a deliberate attempt by an individual to obstruct the
achievement of some other person’s intentions. According to this scholar, battle is based on the
opposition of targets and arises from opposing behaviors. Confirming Rahim’s (2001) studies,
Mullins (2005) observed that conflict occurs at an individual, group or organizational levels.
Mullins (2005) however gives a better understanding of conflict by stating that it exists whenever
an action by one party is regarded as hindering or interfering with the goals, needs, or actions of
another party. Conflict can arise over a multiple of organizational experiences, such as
contradictory goals, discrepancies in the interpretation of facts, negative feelings, differences of
preferences and philosophies, or arguments over shared resources.
From the above definitions, it is evident that there is no just one practical definition of conflict.
But these explanations have much in common. First, they designate the inevitability of conflict in
human affairs. Second, they reveal key features of conflict situations such as struggle,
opposition, scarcity, goals, incompatibility, interference, interdependence and perception. Many
of the definitions, for example, stress that conflicts involve interdependent parties who perceive
some incompatibility between them. Each person has an individualized way of thinking and
behaves differently from others in related situations. It can be presumed that conflict can affect
everyone to varying extent (Leung, 2010).
Another specific way to understand and conceptualize the word “conflict” is to separate the
theories of conflict into functional, situational, and interactive. The followers of the practical
method think that a conflict assists a social function and those who survey a conflict as
situational, suggest that conflict as an illustration under certain situations. The third theory sees
conflict as interactive. Functionalists regularly ask the question: “Why is there a conflict? What
purpose does it serve?”, while situationalists ask: “When do we have conflict? Under what
14
circumstances does it occur?” Interactionists’ questions are: “How is there a conflict? What
methods and mechanisms are used to express it?” the answers to these simple questions will give
a basic understanding of the concept of conflict in any particular conflict situation.
2.1.2. Understanding Dysfunctional Conflict
The old view of conflict is that it is negative and as such should be avoided. However, research
has found that not all conflicts have negative consequences for organizations. Hence current
literature on organizational conflict reveals the existence of functional and dysfunctional
conflicts. While almost all scholars of organizational conflict agree on the existence of positive
(functional) and negative (dysfunctional), distinguishing the two has been problematic. One
group of scientists headed by (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2008) argue that the distinction between
functional and dysfunctional conflict lies in the manner in which each of them is expressed.
They observed that the conflict orientation is characterized by competing for individual interests
overriding the business’s overall interests and describes a situation in which managers withhold
information from one another, employees sabotage others’ work, either intentionally or through
subtle means, and conflict- motivated disinterest in teamwork, (Kinicki and Kreitner, 2008). The
authors describe such a situation as dysfunctional conflicts. In contrast to the above situation, a
constructive or functional conflict describes a situation in which each party resists attacking the
other. Instead, both sides take part in a thoughtful discussion. They listen to each other’s point of
view and try to find mutually beneficial solutions (Whetten& Cameron, 2012). In this sense,
people may disagree but work together to achieve a common goal.
On the other hand, some researchers are of the opinion that the distinction between functional
and dysfunctional conflict is based on whether a conflict is suppressed or not and the productive
nature of the conflict. According to these scholars, conflict forces leaders to be creative problem-
solvers, makes them benefit from differences, and challenges managers to broaden their skills
(Sloboda, 2010). This set of researchers see dysfunctional conflict as an unproductive force
while functional conflict is regarded as a productive force, one that stimulates members of the
organization to improve their learning and skills, and their contribution to organizational
modernization and productivity (Fay, 1999). This more modern approach to functional conflict
considers that the key to organization progress lie not in structure, transparency and orderliness,
but in creativity, responsiveness and flexibility. Their central argument is that successful teams
15
need conflict so that diverging views can be put on the table, and brand-new ways of doing
things can be created. They also suggest that conflict provides people with feedback about how
things are going and that cases of personality conflicts may carry information to the manager
about what is not working in an organization, affording the opportunity to improve. Their
primary conclusion, therefore, is that rather than trying to avoid conflict or suppress it, leaders
should focus on managing it in a way that enhances people and organizational success (Caras &
Associates, 2012).
Meanwhile, another set of scholars argues that the distinction between functional and
dysfunctional conflict rest on whether the organization's interests are served and the extent to
which it contributes to employee improvement. In trying to distinguish between functional and
dysfunctional conflicts, Robbins (2005) contends that useful conflicts are those that encourage
the accomplishment of organizational goals and improvement of work performance, whereas
conflicts which obstruct the attainment of targets are destructive or dysfunctional.
Another set of conflict scholars observes that the differences between functional and
dysfunctional conflict rest on whether the conflicts in the organization are managed effectively
or not. People who work in environments where conflict is not managed effectively tend to
exhibit both low job satisfaction and reduced productivity.
The fact that functional conflicts exist in organizations cannot, therefore, be undermined.
However, operational conflicts are rarely discussed owing to the limited visibility of its
contribution to organizations. On the other hand, the persistence of dysfunctional conflict can be
devastating for an organization. It is by this that the current study focuses on dysfunctional
conflicts, seen in the research as practical actions that promotes disagreements between members
of NGOs.
2.2. Empirical Literature
2.2.1. Potential Sources and Triggers of Conflict in Organizations
Ohbuchi et al. (2003) observe that conflict can be triggered by the diversity of influence, views,
and values. He claims that research points out that gain/loss issues encourage “conflict of
interest” while correct/incorrect issues demand collaboration and right/wrong issues encourages
16
participants to confront the problem. According to Ohbuchi conflict is exclusively triggered by
personal interest.
Kurtzberg et al. (2005) opine that conflict may arise from work processes, interaction, and
interpersonal relationships, as well as the nature of the task to be performed. Process-based
conflicts are caused by the manner in which work is performed and obligation of team roles and
responsibilities. On the other hand, relationship-based conflict disagreements occur during
interactions between members of the organization. Task-based conflicts are caused by
disagreements about work task assigned to individuals or groups in an organization. According
to Kurtzberg (2005), conflict is mostly triggered by difficulty in managing relationships owing to
conflicting interests.
According to Starks (2006), the primary cause of conflict in organizations is the frequently
changing, often uncertain environment, in which they operate. His study, however, focused on
environmental factors that cause conflicts in an organization. This is mostly contested by Aycan
(2010) and Shyman (1999) who argue that the causes of conflicts in an organization are
primarily internal and rely on the extent of parallel interest between individual and
organizational objectives.
Shyman (1999) points out that, lack of information fuels problems in the workplace and that
groups that are interdependent on one another to achieve goals must communicate effectively to
meet their aims. Information sharing and task coordination are vital. The author adds that
miscommunication creates conflict even when there are no differences in goals or values and that
valuable information that does not get to every employee in a company can lead to serious
conflict (Starks, 2006).
Armstrong (2006) observes that discrimination in employment and occupation constitutes a
crucial source of organizational conflict. The author finds that workplace discrimination takes
many forms, and occurs in all kinds of work settings. It entails treating people differently or with
partiality because of differences in race, color, sex, appearance, etc. Armstrong argues that
discrimination results in, and reinforces inequalities and that hinder the freedom of human beings
to develop their capabilities, choose and pursue their professional and personal aspirations are
restricted, without regard for ability. Hence generates conflicts in organizations.
17
Studies conducted by Sengati (2012) reveal that the quest for power and power relations in
organizations is a major source of conflict. The author conceptualizes power as “a measure of an
individual's ability to get others to do what he or she requires them to do, as well as to evade
being pressured by others to do what he or she seems not to want to do”. The manner in which
managers acquire and use power may be a potential source of organizational conflict (Amstrong,
2006). Allan (2006) opines that when managers use their power sparingly and wisely, allowing
others to have some influence over what happens to them and the organization, conflict is
minimized. Conversely, when managers misuse their power, by insisting that they and they alone
make all decisions, conflict is multiplied since the abuse of authority adversely affects
subordinates, groups, organizations and the managers themselves (Allan, 2006). Power-needy
managers themselves report a higher incidence of stress, poor physical and psychological health,
deteriorating interpersonal relations and reduced effectiveness at making decisions.
Organizations that have a power culture likely receive reports of inconsistent or poor quality
services or products (Allan, 2006).
However, some scholars attempt to identify forces of conflict from individual and groups in
organizations. Griffen (2006) for instance argues that variations in employee perception may be a
potential source of conflict. Different departments can get the perception that they are more
useful than others. Even performance reviews, memos or office rumors can be looked at with
differing perspectives and in a negative light (Griffen, 2006). Still at the level of employees,
Netemeyer, et al. (2005) contends that stress can be a potential source of conflicts among
workers in organizations. The authors argue that combined pressures may be too much that it
forces employees to vent their frustration on the job.
Meanwhile, scholars like Richard (1996) claim that conflicts may be caused by inadequate
available skills by workers to handle tasks and relationships, as well as the limited conflict
management skills of managers. The author observes that without effective conflict resolution
techniques, it becomes difficult to diffuse problems.
It is noted that the scholars mentioned earlier focused more on examining some personal-related
and organization-wide factors that may trigger conflict in organizations: power, discrimination,
differing perceptions, lack of skills, behavioral problems, stress and accountability environment
of the organization, task, and work processes.
18
Aycan (2010) identify sources of conflicts among groups or departments in organizations. The
author argues that, when the goals of one group do not agree with those of another, conflicts will
often arise and that the achievement of one department's goals often interferes with another
department's goals, leading to conflict.
Brian (2003) posits that poor organizational systems may place unnecessary stress and conflict
on employees. The author observes that workers may become frustrated at the diminished
productivity that occurs from having to pass through a long chain of command.
Clashes in the workplace may also arise when the goals of a company are not clear. The issue
here is that workers and managers, without clear goals, have no ability to give or receive precise
directions, and staff may not be sure what managers expect from them. With everyone
interpreting what the aims and needs of the company are individual, there is no consistency
within the enterprise (Johnson, 2008). Thus incompatible goals, task interdependence, unclear
responsibilities, goals, and vision are sources of conflicts in organizations.
Christina (2006) argues that conflict may result in the workplace due to the amount or type of
work that the employees are compelled to perform. The author is of the opinion that at some
point, employees will either feel underappreciated or overworked. Both circumstances create an
environment in which the employees may clash with managers and one another (Christina,
2006). Some organizations have inadequate machinery and facilities which make it difficult for
employees to accomplish work in time. Thereby weak organizational systems, workloads,
unclear distribution of duties and lack of resources are essential sources of organizational
conflict.
Investigating the causes and impact of conflicts on private sector organizations in South Africa,
Havenga (2002) indicated that, the source of conflict is not always from management, but
management is liable to act in a racially informed manner, which manifests in managerial
practices that are perceived as abuses of power and appear as a source of conflict. Similarly, it is
not rationalization or staff layoffs that are recognized a cause of conflict, but rationalization/staff
layoffs that are perceived as a misuse of managerial power (Tonder, 2000).
Typical organizational issues also breed conflicts, such as poor lines of communication, lack of
effective leadership, and conflicting priorities (Starks, 2006). Disputes happen when two or more
19
contradictory perspectives have not been agreed on, but it is not certainly a dangerous thing. In
fact, when handled well, conflict pushes us to be imaginative problem-solvers, to avoid errors,
and to learn how to profit from our differences, all while stimulating us to increase our skills
(Sloboda, Rick, 2010).
From the available literature, therefore, it is observed that conflict arises mainly from personal
and organizational related sources. Hence Kim and Ling (2001) demonstrate that the causes of
dysfunctional conflict in workplaces are either corporate or individual, and have an impact on
organizations and its employee performance. Personal related sources include communication
problems, discrimination, misuse of power, differing perception, stress, accountability, lack of
skills and abilities, behavioral problem and personal problems. Organizational related sources
include incompatible goals, task interdependence, unclear responsibility, purpose, and vision,
poor organization systems, workload, and imprecise distribution of duties and lack of resources.
2.2.2. Levels of Conflict
Although on average, all organizations encounter almost all categories of conflicts Gareth, and
Jennifer (2008) believes that organizations and individuals suffer at different levels. Such levels
may be interpersonal (caused by personal dislikes or personality differences), intergroup (two
groups in an organization do fail to agree), intragroup (two or more persons within a group do
not get along), and inter-organizational conflicts (disagreement between organizations which are
dependent on one another). The potential for conflict exists whenever and wherever people have
contact. As people are organized into groups to seek a common goal, the probability of conflict
greatly increases. Since only the most severe conflicts make headlines, a conflict has a negative
connotation for many people. All conflicts are not the same. We face conflicts on all levels
(Kinemo, 2012).
2.2.3. Measuring Conflict Intensity
The intensity of organizational conflicts has been measured from different perspectives. Some
researchers have explained the concept of conflict intensity using various conflict intensity
continuums while other researchers such as Runde and Flanagan (2007) explained the intensity
of conflict based on their understanding of the concept of conflict. A conflict continuum is a
model or concept used by various social science researchers in modeling conflict, usually going
20
from little "irritations" to high "explosiveness" intensity. These models facilitate discussion on
the extent of conflict in any organization.
The first Conflict-intensity Continuum was that developed by Robbins (2005) who established a
five-point measurement of conflict intensity. The author developed an orderly scale of conflict
ranging from minor disagreements or misunderstandings to overt efforts to destroy the other
party as shown in figure 1 below:
Figure 1: Conflict Intensity Continuum by Robbins (2005)
Source: Based on S. P. Robbins, Managing Organizational Conflict: A Nontraditional Approach
(Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1974), pp. 93–97
The lower part of the scale that is 1 and below is considered to have little or no conflict. The top
of the scale that is 6 and above is deemed to have annihilatory or high conflict. According to the
conflict intensity continuum, conflict intensity level is low at one and it likely results to
functional conflicts and the intensity of conflict gets higher as it ascends through stage 2-3- 4-5-
6. The conflict intensity level is highest at 6 and above which results in dysfunctional or
Minor disagreements or misunderstandings
Overt questioning or challenging of others
Assertive verbal attacks
Threats and ultimatums
Aggressive physical attacks
Overt efforts to destroy the other party Annihilatory conflict
No conflict
21
destructive conflicts to the organization. According to the continuum even though the lower part
of the scale is likely to cause functional conflicts and the top of the scale is likely to result in
dysfunctional conflicts (Robbins, 2005), each stage of conflict has it outcomes which may be
exclusively dysfunctional or functional or partially functional and dysfunctional.
In her study of conflict, Andra Medea (1996) developed a continuum for measuring conflict
aimed at explaining how individuals, small groups, organizations, families, ethnicities, and even
whole nations function when disagreements arise among them. She asserts that there are four
types or levels of conflict, each working under clear rules as shown in figure 2 below:
Figure 2: Conflict Intensity Continuum by Andra Medea (1996)
Adapted from Andra Medea (1996) The Conflict Continuum
Andra Medea (1996) posits that moving from first to fourth levels is characterized by increasing
degrees of separation from reality, and decreasing levels of maturity, in this context, defined as
the capacity to control anger and settle differences without brutality or destruction. Problem-
solving behavior is based on reality and maturity, and is, therefore, more intelligent and mature
than domination. Domination is more smart and mature than blind action, which is more
intelligent and mature than the Rogue Messiah. However, each level moving from the fourth to
first is less capable than the one below it at forcing victory in a conflict. So according to her, the
intensity of conflict is lowest at 1, and it is high at 2, higher at 3 and highest at 4. According to
Rogue Messiah
Blind Behavior
Domination
Problem-Solving 1
2
3
4
22
this conflict continuum, the functional and dysfunctional level of conflict depends on the degrees
of separation from reality and the degrees of maturity.
Runde and Flanagan (2007) developed another perspective of measuring the conflict intensity
levels in organizations. The authors developed a five-level conflict continuum ranging from
differences at the first level and polarization at the last level as shown in figure 3 below.
Figure 3: Conflict intensity Continnum by Runde and Flanagan (2007)
Source: Adapted from Runde and Flanagan (2007) “Becoming a conflict competent leader.”
The authors observe that the first level in the continuum, differences, is found when individuals
or groups look at a situation from different perspectives but are at the same time aware of the
other party’s mindset and interests. Runde and Flanagan (2007) explain that it is very rare that
this kind of conflict brings adverse effects on relationships and productivity. On the other hand,
misunderstanding (level two) is generated when two or more parties interpret a situation
differently. Meanwhile, disagreements occur when two people see a situation differently, and
regardless of how well they understand the others’ position and interests, feel discomfort that the
other party disagrees. Runde and Flanagan (2007) opines that the fourth level (discord) is noticed
Polarization
Discord
Disagreements
Misunderstandings
Differences
23
when conflicts begin to have adverse effects on relationships between the parties. According to
Runde and Flanagan (2007), typical signs of discord are when the parties’ starts to criticize,
avoid and block each other. When the fourth level is not properly corrected, the author posits that
it will degenerate into polarization (the fifth level) which is a critical level characterized by
severe damage. Runde and Flanagan (2007) explain that at this stage the parties’ starts to recruit
others to join their cause. In the worst case scenario the involved parties’ starts to use destructive
behaviors, war is one example of extreme polarization. According to Runde and Flanagan
(2007), the intensity of conflict is low at the ‘differences’ stage, and it becomes higher through
the stages of ‘misunderstandings’, ‘disagreements’, ‘discord’ and ‘polarization’. The intensity of
conflict is highest at the polarization stage. The authors are of the conclusion that the first three
steps could result in functional conflicts while the last two stages mostly result in dysfunctional
conflicts.
According to the different scholars, measuring conflict intensity is very relevant as it enables
leaders to observe how well their organization is faring. It helps managers to monitor conflict
and take steps to correct them when still at the initial stages. It is argued that a leader who spots
only conflicts that are at the higher intensity levels may find that these conflicts are harder to
handle and may have an impact on more people than originally thought (Runde and Flanagan,
2007). Also, understanding the intensity levels can be helpful to leaders in assessing their
responses to conflict situations. As managers encounter conflict in the organizations, they will
find themselves involved in some of them as members. Knowing the signs of intensity can assist
them in monitoring their responses and reactions so they can choose to calm, or de-intensify the
conflict through their words and actions (Runde and Flanagan 2007).
2.2.4 The Impact of Conflict on Employee and Organizational Performance
As earlier observed in the conceptual literature, an organizational conflict has positive or
negative consequences. Functional conflict may encourage greater work effort, give members of
the organization a chance to identify the problems and see them as opportunities, as well as
inspires new ideas, learning, and growth among individuals. When individuals engage in
productive conflict, they can learn more about themselves and others. Also, it can help to
enhance relationships among members, because when two sides work on resolving a
disagreement together, they feel that they have mutually accomplished something. This type of
24
conflict leads to improvement in decision making, building group cohesion and readjustment of
values and norms (Kinicki, A.Kreitner, 2008).
Dysfunctional conflicts, on the other hand, have adverse effects on teams or groups and the
organization, these negative aspects include, worker division, violence, mental health, litigation,
grievances, absenteeism, employee turnover, loss of productivity, sabotage and family harm
(Kinicki, A. Kreitner, 2008).
The most significant impact of conflict in an organization is how the conflict influences
employee and organizational performance as a whole. Constructive and progressive performance
indicates the growth and success of the organization. Performance means both behaviors and
results. Behaviors spring from the performer and transform performance from thought to action
(Amstrong, 2006). It focuses people on doing the right things by clarifying their goals. Amstrong
(2006) posits that, managers are responsible for improving organizational performance by
developing the performance of individuals and teams in the workplace and that unwanted
disruption generated by conflict can lead to long-term problems. This is primarily supported by
Barry, et al. (2009).
The manager can change dysfunctional conflict to functional conflict, and still, worsen the state
of the dysfunctional conflict in an organization. The place of executives in this is to stimulate
substantive conflict as much as possible and resolve the dispute which is dysfunctional or as
soon as it arises, in line with the improvement of the employee and the organizational
performance.
A study of conflict and conflict management carried out in developed countries by Jennifer
(2010), observed that, the effects of conflict between two employees at the workplace, and
reduces the productivity level and morale of doing the work. The author concludes that conflict
leads to poor organizational performance particularly regarding effectiveness and efficiency of
production.
Lebedun (1998) also conducted a study on the impact of organizational conflicts in Virginian
based company. The author found that when properly managed, conflicts provide the chance for
employees and organizations to learn from each other, to improve work methods and to build
team solidarity.
25
Havenga’s (2002) studies reveal that employees from both public and private organization
experience the impact of conflict at the workplace. This is confirmed by analysis carried out by
the Research and Education Development Organization in Tanzania (REDET, 2003) on conflict
management which suggested that conflict management should emphasize on prevention of
conflicts from erupting.
According to Robbins (1978), some types of conflict support the goals of an organization and
improve performance. The author describes this kind of conflict as functional or constructive
forms of conflict. Kinemo (2012) on his part examined those conflicts which have the potential
of hampering the achievement of organizational goals. He used the word dysfunctional to
describe this type of conflict. This is demonstrated by open confrontations, a decline in
communication or reduction in performance.
2.2.5 Conflicts and Dilemmas in Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations in
Cameroon: Causes and Impact
Some challenges are facing Cameroonian environmental NGOs in meeting their goals. Based on
theories of civil society, public systems patterns of institutions, and existing literature about
Cameroon and its NGOs, we distinguished five key difficulties facing these organizations:
raising adequate funds to support programming, employing and maintaining technically qualified
staff, attracting volunteers, developing mutually supportive relationships with government, and
cooperating with other environmental NGOs. Interview with leaders of 52 non-governmental
organizations in five ecologically, politically, and economically different regions revealed that
the first two hurdles were the most severe. Focusing on them, we classify three main types of
environmental NGOs: a) moderately well-funded international NGOs with services in Cameroon
and highly professionalized staffs and models of service; b) Cameroonian NGOs that are
successful in obtaining ample funding from foreign sources and able to employ the experts
required to maintain required budget records and undertake elaborate, scientifically-based
projects; c) Cameroonian NGOs that lack sufficient funding and expertise to write proposals and
conduct projects that attract international funding and are therefore forced to rely on very small
amounts of funds raised locally and perform operations on a limited scale. This situation results
both from the operating procedures of international funders and from structural characteristics of
Cameroonian society that make private fundraising difficult. The latter include a government
26
with relatively scant resources and a history of corruption, a relatively small upper middle class,
and technical obstacles to raising funds by mail or telephone. Under this circumstance, NGOs in
the third category must rely on small projects, especially in the area of public education, funded
by small donations from supporters or small subcontracts from the first two types of
organizations. Increasing the competitiveness of Cameroonian NGOs for foreign funds and
developing more efficient models of private fundraising are thus key challenges facing the sector
(Fonjong, 2002)
Research on conflicts in Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) has focused exclusively on
identifying the causes of conflicts in such organizations. It is universally recognized in the
research that conflicts in NGO’s are mostly linked to the decision-making processes and that
tensions and subsequent conflicts often occurred between staff and senior managers because of
the team expectations that they would be equal partners in the decision-making process (Mukasa,
2006).
Mukasa (2006) also observed that organizational governance and relations between board
members and staff are a potential source of conflict in NGOs. The author argued that conflicts
stem mainly from the boards’ inability or unwillingness to carry out their responsibilities of
governing the organizations. Board members often lack the time or the expertise to be able to
perform these duties efficiently. As a result, senior staff was often left to make policy decisions
with little or no support from board members (Mukasa, 2006).
In trying to identify the leading causes of conflicts in NGOs, Mukasa (2006) opines that the
governance view of many NGOs is quite complex. The author observed that most nonprofits are
governed by self-perpetuating, mainly self-appointing boards of directors.
Power relations are also considered to be one of the sources of conflicts in NGOs. Mukasa
(2006) contends that quite often, conflicts arise between field staff and headquarter staff because
of the perception by field staff that decisions are dictated from the headquarter, inability of
management to define precise lines of autonomy on policy issues, and that field staff often felt
isolated, unsupported and lack understanding of the issues they are dealing with at field level.
Different views on approaches to structural growth equally constitutes a source of conflicts in
organizations (Moore and Stewart, 1998). Moore and Stewart (1998) observed that small
27
organizations worldwide commonly face the problems of replacing one-person management (or
family management) with a more traditional structure. The authors argued that founders of small
organizations usually have total control and turn to do things their way. Their ways, ethos, and
values are often severely confronted by the conventionality and the bureaucratic discipline that is
commanded by this volume and variety of external funding from public organizations (Moore &
Stewart, 1998).
It is observed that employees of Non- Governmental Organizations regularly initiate and
implement development projects in teams. And that these project teams include individuals with
different backgrounds. Consequently, it is a belief in NGOs that teamwork enables the
organization to draw more knowledge from various fields in the course of project design and
implementation. However, Boddy (2002) is of the opinion that conflicts in NGOs are inevitable
owing to the diversity of views from the different team members. This is corroborated by
Tuckman and Jensen (1977) who argues that differences in values and norms between project
team members becomes more apparent and forces the team to deal with the differences and
issues within the team.
2.3 Approaches to Conflict Management in Organizations
The dysfunctional nature of conflicts in organizations has generated enormous literature on the
methods and approaches to addressing it. Thus some authors have identified approaches to
managing dysfunctional conflicts. Samuel (2005) posits that conflict management begins with
the identification, acceptance, and assessment of the conflict situation. According to the author,
the most important element of conflict management strategy is the early recognition of the
conflict and keeping attention to the conflicting parties.
Huseman (1977) observed that successful management of conflict begins with identifying the
differences between useful conflicts and conflicts that should be eliminated. The essence is
therefore to debunk the traditional view that conflicts are always harmful.
It is argued that in some circumstances, managers do stimulate conflicts to improve the
performance of the organization. Kinicki and Kreitner (2008) studied situations under which a
manager can encourage conflicts. The authors observed that program conflicts could be
introduced to minimize the impact of dysfunctional conflict. In such situations, the authors
argued, the manager plays the devil’s advocate and use rational inquiry to improve and clarify
28
opposing points of view. The devil’s advocate, in this case, is assigned the role of a critic with
communication skills and emotional intelligence and who have the ability to initiate and engage
in a structured debate of opposing viewpoints to make a decision.
Huseman (1977) however posits that stimulating useful or functional conflicts requires less
energy than handling dysfunctional conflicts. He argued that conflict management should
involve the ability to develop, to work under stress and being continuously productive. The
author, however, agrees with Samuel (2005) that conflict management should begin with an
early identification of the conflict, initial evaluation of the influence of it on the performance of
employees, and establishing a conflict management plan.
The simplistic view presented by the previous scholars permits us to assume that handling
conflicts have a ready-made approach. However, Shyam (1999) argues that managing
dysfunctional conflicts is complex and requires managers to have critical managerial skills.
These skills are identified by Therkildsen and Tidemand (2007) who contend that mobilizing all
parties to understand the nature of the conflict in the workplace is key to addressing conflicts.
The authors however corroborate the argument that identifying conflicts at an early stage help
the manager to accept the conflict, and work towards resolving conflict, with the aim of
improving the employee and organizational performance.
Managing dysfunctional conflict is, therefore, complex and requires a variety of practical
approaches than just giving guidelines as presented by the other authors. Consequently, Thomas
and Kilmann (2007) identified five conflict management styles based on two dimensions:
assertiveness and cooperativeness. The authors defined assertiveness as the motivation to achieve
individual goals, objectives, and outcomes, while cooperativeness is seen as assessing the desire
to help the other party to meet its aims or outcomes.
Victor (2012) on his part examines another conflict management style referred to as “avoiding”
or “withdrawing”. The author observed that people who fear conflict, use the avoiding style to
escape from conflict situations and that when this form of conflict management is used, everyone
loses. The biggest disadvantage is that the issue is never directly addressed or resolved. The
approach is therefore appropriate to use only in situations where there is no prospect of gaining
or when disruption would be very costly, when the issue is trivial, when it takes too much time to
deal with it, when it is not the right time or place to discuss the issues as well as when time is
29
needed to think and collect information in order to be prepared for dealing with the issue (Victor,
2012).
Some authors have equally identified the competing or forcing style, also known as “win-loss
approach” as a primary technique for managing conflicts. It is seen by Thomas and Kilmann
(2007) as a conflict management style with high assertiveness and low cooperativeness. A person
seeks to reach his/her preferred outcomes at the expense of a partner. This approach may be
appropriate when quick actions are needed, for example during emergencies. It can be useful
when an unpopular solution must be applied, and a deadline is near. This style is inappropriate in
an open and participative climate. Its strength is speed, and the weakness is that it creates
offenses of one of the parties that didn’t win anything (Victor, 2012). This style is best employed
in situations where competing for style may be appropriate, when less forceful methods do not
work or are not effective, when a person needs to fight for his/her rights, when a quick resolution
is required, in case of a life-threatening situation, or aggression, or when it is seen as a last
option.
Another commonly used conflict management style identified by scholars is accommodation or
obliging (Victor, 2012). This form is believed to have a high degree of cooperativeness by
Thomas and Kilman (2007). A manager using this style tries to get his/her goals, objectives and
desired outcomes to allow partners to achieve their goals and the results. This conflict resolution
method is necessary for saving future relations between the parties. Obliging can be a very useful
conflict-handling strategy if it is possible to get something in return from the other party. This
approach encourages cooperation. The accommodating approach may help individuals to
strengthen their future negotiating position. Accommodating behavior is appropriate when a
person who knows that he/she was wrong or when the relationship is significant (Victor, 2012).
It is more useful in situations where it is necessary to have a temporary relief from the conflict or
to have time until a person is in a better position and is prepared to respond, when the issue is
more important for a partner, when a person accepts that he/she is wrong, when there is no
choice or when continued competition would be harmful.
Both accommodating and avoiding conflict resolution styles do not resolve a conflict but
temporarily slow down its progress. Supervisors must remember that if the conflict is not
30
handled and resolved in quickly, it can lead to more complicated conflict in the future (Victor,
2012).
Meanwhile, scholars like Victor (2012) contends that another suitable approach to resolving
dysfunctional conflicts is by compromising. The author describes the style as a “give-and-take”
approach with moderate levels of both assertiveness and cooperativeness. This method can be
applied when the goals and the power of both sides are of equal importance and when it is
necessary to find a temporary, timely solution (Victor, 2012). It is also applied in cases where the
goals are moderately important, and there is no need to use more assertive or more involving
approaches, for example forcing or collaborating
A similar technique that is not very different from compromise is collaboration. (Victor, 2012)
Argue that this style can be characterized by high levels of assertiveness and cooperativeness and
often describes a “win-win” scenario. Both sides creatively work together to achieve the goals
and desired outcomes benefitting all involved parties. It can be difficult to implement this style
as the process of collaborating mandates sincere effort by all sides, and it may take a lot of time
to reach a consensus (Victor, 2012). It is best applied in cases where consensus and commitment
of other parties is important, when a conflict happened in a collaborative environment, when
there is a high level of trust, when it is necessary to build long-term relationships, when an
individual needs to work through hard feelings, and when a person does not want to have full
responsibility (Victor, 2012). In this approach, the conflict itself is seen as a managerial tool that
provides the opportunity for management to collaborate with employees by applying creative
ideas to find innovative answers to old problems.
While each of these styles has their strength and weaknesses, it is widely observed that each of
these five conflict resolution styles are appropriate and useful in different situations. The
implementation of the techniques depends on personality styles, the desired outcomes, and the
time available. To be prepared in deciding what method should be chosen, it is important to
understand the advantages and disadvantages of each approach (Victor, 2012). Jeffrey & Pinto,
(1998) contend that managers must analyze the situation and select the most appropriate style for
managing conflict in the organization to achieve a constructive outcome. They argue that for
each conflict management approach, there is the most appropriate conflict situation in which the
different management styles would be most suitable and applicable to yield outstanding results.
31
Using the best suitable approach for the most appropriate conflict situation is thus a great
approach towards conflict management.
While many scholars of organizational conflict focuses on identifying specific and practical
styles: avoiding, compromising, accommodating, and collaborating, that may be adopted by each
party to address conflicts (Jeffrey & Pinto, 1998; Victor, 2012), another set of scholars devotes
their studies on third party intervention techniques of managing conflicts. The most commonly
applied third party approaches identified by researchers are facilitation, conciliation, peer review,
mediation, and arbitration. Facilitation describes a situation or process where a neutral person
helps groups to deal directly with each other in a positive manner. Facilitators can work with
small groups from one organization, or with representatives of different organizations who are
working together in a collaborative process. The facilitator may be internal or external (from an
outside organization). Facilitation is extremely useful in helping members of large groups to
develop consensus on issues (Spangler, 2003).
On the other hand, conciliation is described by Corby (2003) as a process where a neutral third
party informally acts as a communication channel between disputing parties. In this way, he/she
helps them to reach a settlement. The primary goals are to establish direct communication and
find a constructive solution. The essential rules of conciliation are that an agreement can only be
reached if both parties accept it and that the process should be private. Conciliation can be useful
when conflicting parties refuse to meet face to face. Collective conciliation can be distinguished
from individual conciliation. In the case of mutual conciliation; an individual maintains the right
to have the complaint heard by an employment tribunal if conciliation is not successful (Corby,
2003).
On the other hand, peer review is observed by (Caras and Associates, 2011) as another great
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) system. It can be used for resolving day-to- day
workplace disagreements. A panel of selected trustworthy co-workers hears both parties of a
dispute in informal and private way. Peer review helps to develop trust, understanding, fairness,
and consistency. One of the benefits of such approach is that individuals who have taken disputes
to the Peer Review are satisfied with the process even when they lose (Kinicki &Kreitner, 2008).
Kinicki & Kreitner (2008) studied the process of mediation as a third party technique for solving
conflicts. In this case, a mediator is seen as a trained, neutral third-party who helps disputing
32
parties in search of innovative solutions to resolve the conflict. In this way, the mediator
provides an opportunity for negotiation between two sides in the conflict situation. Companies
prefer to have in-house mediators in their organizations who have received adequate training on
conflict resolution. However, many organizations hire external mediators who play an active and
influential third party role in the organization. These mediators not only lead discussions, but
they usually decide about structure and process of the discussion which is designed to help the
parties to get mutual understanding and to reach win-win agreements. The goal of intervention is
to develop a common understanding of the conflict situation which leads to solution and satisfies
the interests of all parties (Kinicki &Kreitner, 2008)
Another important third party approach identified by scholars is arbitration described by
Kinicki&Kreitner (2008) as a court like sitting with evidence and witnesses held in a confidential
manner and conducted by arbitrators often drawn from outside agencies. The arbitrator is the
most dominant type of third-party intervention as his decision cannot be appealed. Arbitration is
especially useful when the parties simply want a solution to resolve an issue, and they don’t care
about losing control of the process or the outcome (Victor, 2012).
Combinations of these techniques are ranked from easiest and least expensive to most
complicated and very expensive: with the easiest and less costly approaches considered as the
tremendous approaches to conflict management using the third- party intervention technique.
While the complicated and very expensive approaches are mediocre approaches to conflict
management using the third- party intervention method. This is due to the loss of time and cost to
the organizations using this technique. Third-party intervention is proved to be a useful way
when there is a potential for violence (Victor, 2012).
Another set of scholars focuses on highlighting the different dimensions of negotiation that can
be adopted in resolving conflicts. Brett (2007) defined negotiation as a process where parties
with competing interests determine how they are going to distribute resources or work together
in the future. Negotiators are interdependent. Thus one person wants to influence what the other
one can get and vice versa (Brett, 2007). The process is equally seen as describing a give-and-
take situation in which the decision-making process includes interdependent parties with
different preferences. Negotiation in the workplace can be centered on wages, working hours and
conditions.
33
Some terminologies are used by scholars to describe the outcome of conflict negotiation. The
first of these are distributive and integrative negotiations employed by (Thakur, 2011).
Distributive negotiation explains cases where one person reaches its goal at the expense of the
other while integrative negotiation describes a situation with win-win conclusions on both sides.
However, parties in the negotiations usually think that what is good for the other party is not
good for them. In this case, people do not find a beneficial solution for both of them. A situation
described by the author as a mythical “fixed-pie” (Thakur, 2011).
The integrative approach is also described by Kinicki &Kreitner (2008) as Added-Value
Negotiation (AVN) which involves a series of stages including:
Clarify - Identify options - Design alternative deal packages- Creating multiple deals- Perfect
the deal.
According to some authors, a practical approach to conflict resolution is to respond to conflict in
a healthy manner (Segal & Smith, 2011). These authors clarified this point by distinguishing
between the healthy and unhealthy responses to conflict. Healthy responses to conflict include
the capacity to recognize and respond to the things that matter to the other person, Calm, non-
defensive, polite reactions, A willingness to forgive and forget and to move past the fight without
holding resentments or anger. The ability to seek compromise, avoid punishing and a belief that
facing conflict head is the best thing for both sides. (Segal & Smith, 2011)
Unhealthy responses to conflict include the inability to identify and respond to the things that
matter to the other person, Explosive, angry, dangerous and resentful reactions, The withdrawal
of love, resulting in rejection, isolation, shaming and fear of abandonment, An inability to
compromise or see the other person’s side, the fear and avoidance of conflict and the
expectations of adverse outcomes. (Segal & Smith, 2011). Some negative attitudes and
communication patterns can worsen the conflict situation in relationships. They include;
avoiding conflict altogether, being defensive, overgeneralizing, being right psychoanalyzing or
mind-reading, forgetting to listen, playing the blame game, trying to "win" the argument, making
character attacks and stonewalling. (Scott, 2011).
According to some authors emotional intelligence is the key to an effective conflict resolution
process. The concept of “emotional intelligence” was discovered by two psychologists, Peter
34
Salovey, and John D. Mayer, in 1990. They defined emotional intelligence as “the capacity to
observe one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to segregate among them and to use this
information to guide one’s thinking and action. People who have a high degree of emotional
intelligence know themselves very well and are also able to sense the emotions of others
(Mersino, 2007). Emotional Intelligence is one of the most critical skills for managers as it has a
strong connection with Conflict Management (Goleman, 1995) It is important to identify a
relationship between the emotional intelligence and conflict management strategy to choose an
appropriate conflict management plan.
2.4 Theoretical Framework
The main theoretical guide for this study is Deutch determinants theory of conflict developed in
1991. In this theory, Deutch discusses three determinants of conflicts among individuals and
groups in organizations. The primary determinants of conflict include contact and visibility of
differences, perceived incompatibility, and perceived utility of the conflict. Contact is necessary
because people need to interact to have conflicts. For conflicts to emerge, visibility of differences
is needed, because you need the perception of differences between self and others. These two
characteristics are required conditions for conflicts but are not sufficient to give rise to a conflict.
(Deutch, 1991)
Deutch (1991) emphasizes that the differences only lead to fights when they are perceived as
conflicting. It is not the objective oppositions which give rise to conflicts, but the perceived
incompatibilities (subjective). These discrepancies only lead to conflicts if a party perceives the
utility of the conflict. When an employer is having no cooperation with the employee, it indicates
perceived utility of the conflict. Deutch concluded that not all determinants might lead to
conflict, some determinants gives an indication about perceived incompatibilities, but not about
perceived utility. Deutsch’ determinants’ theory of conflict is justified because the conflict
related determinants are evidenced in some ways. Examples are employee frustration,
deteriorating interpersonal relationships, low morale, poor performance, disciplinary problems,
increased employee desertion, withdrawal of employee goodwill and opposition to change. This
part of Deutsch’ theory relates to this study by attempting to explain the varying intensity nature
of conflict from the stage of differences, which is not a significant cause of conflict but an
opening for conflict (stage 1 of the conflict intensity continuum) until there is perceived utility of
35
conflict (no cooperation between employees) which further gives rise to conflicts of increasing
intensities (minor disagreements, misunderstandings and so on)
A part of the Deutch theory suggests that there is a model which discusses the factors that relate
to the causes of these conflicts. This theoretical model written by Punyasiri (2009) explained
that work-family conflict results from three factors that relate to time, organizational and
personal domains. The model proposes that time-related factors, organization-related factors, and
personal-related factors contribute to work-family conflict and reflect on the well-being of
managers on improving performance. Time sub- factors have been developed to measure how
insufficient time can contribute to work and family conflict. Organizational-related-factors
involve organization initiatives which appear to be motivated by work/family considerations.
The supportive behavior of family members can help to buffer work-family conflict experienced
by employees. The support can be either be or all of the following: attitudinal, emotional or
instrumental. These supportive behaviors are personal related factors. The level of work and
family disputes is exercised to show the total impact of all three precursors to the work and
family conflict. The highest mean from each sub-factor will show the most important factor
which influenced the work and family conflict of managers. The causes of conflict related to
organizational included: goal incompatibility, task interdependence, undefined areas of
responsibilities, poor organization system, and workload. The organizational cause of conflict
can be hampered by aligning the objectives of employees with those of organization. Conflict
causes related with persons is another aspect of the model of this study. The personal related
cause included: lack of information and communication, discrimination of employees, misuse of
power, differing perceptions, and stress. The well managed personal cause can help people at the
organization to avoid the occurrences of conflict at the workplace. These two causes if not
resolved strategically can lead to serious effects of conflict at the workplace. The effects can
either be negative, positive or both depending on the way management resolve that conflict.
Adverse outcomes hurt work relationship between employees or groups at organization while
positive could be productive to the organization (Netemeyer, et al., 2005).
This theory relates to my study by indicating the possible sources of conflict in an organization
under the category of organizational causes : goal incompatibility, task interdependence,
undefined areas of responsibilities, poor organization system, and workload and personal related
36
cause included: lack of information and communication, discrimination of employees, misuse of
power, differing perceptions, and stress.
This theory also indicates the importance of the effectiveness of the conflict resolution approach
to bring about positive outcomes to the organization. This is because according the Deutch
theory; if these two causes of conflict (organizational and personal) are not resolved strategically,
it can lead to serious effects of conflict at the workplace. The effects can either be negative,
positive or both depending on the way management resolve that source of conflict. Adverse
outcomes hurt work relationship between employees or groups at organization while positive
could be productive to the organization (Netemeyer, et al., 2005).
2.5. Summary of Literature
The first part of this chapter, 2.1 brings forth the various definitions of conflict by some authors;
these definitions portray the similar nature of conflict from varying points of view of these
authors. The section of 2.1.2 attempts to distinguish between the functional and dysfunctional
nature through controversies, discussions and opinions brought forth by various authors. The
section of 2.2 is empirical which has several sub-sections which are thus; 2.2.1 bring forth the
sources of conflict in organizations by different authors which mainly fall under the three
categories personal rule, by organizational rule or both personal and organizational rule.
Subsection 2.2.2 discusses the various levels of conflict in organizations which include
interpersonal, intragroup, intergroup and organizational conflict. Subsection 2.2.3 discusses the
different methods by which the intensity of conflicts are measured, either using conflict intensity
continuums as used by (Robbins, 2005) and (Medea,1996) or by the authors’ understanding of
the concept of conflict, that is, the model of measuring conflict intensity developed by (Runde
and Flanagan, 2007). The subsection of 2.2.4 discusses the impact of conflict on employees and
organizational performance. This subsection discusses the negative and positive effects of
conflicts on the performance of employees and the performance of organizations in general. The
subsection 2.2.5 discusses the causes and the impact of conflict particularly in NGOs. Section 2.3
discusses the various approaches used to resolve conflicts which include avoiding, collaborating,
compromising, obliging and accommodating. This section further discusses different situations
when the conflict management styles mentioned above are most appropriate to be used. This
section also looks into the utilization of the third party intervention techniques (facilitation,
37
conciliation, peer review, mediation and arbitration and the method of negotiation in conflict
resolution. Section 2.4 discusses a theoretical framework for this study, which relates to the
sources of conflict, the conflict intensity and the importance of an effective conflict resolution.
2.6 Gaps Identified in the Literature and how the work shall attempt to fill them
Firstly, there are many definitions to conflict posed by several authors, but there is not a single
definition presented by any author which incorporates all the key features(reveal key features of
conflict situations such as struggle, opposition, scarcity, goals, incompatibility, interference,
interdependence, and perception) of a conflict by definition.
The most famous Conflict-intensity Continuum elevated by ((S.P. Robbins, 2005) indicates the
intensity of conflict in organization on a scale of 1-5 as follows 1-Minor disagreements or
misunderstandings, 2- Overt questioning or challenge of others 3- Assertive verbal attacks 4-
Threats and ultimatums 5- Aggressive physical attacks 6- Overt efforts to destroy the other party.
The lower part of the scale that is considered to have little or no conflict and the upper part of the
scale is found to have annihilatory or high conflict. The gap identified in this diagram is that the
part of the scale below 1 which represents little or no conflict, should have been separated into
both little conflict and no conflict and more so the scale extended into 0-(no conflict) which
represents differences and perceived incompatibilities which are not a conflict but it is the base
for all conflict occurrences, and thereby indicate the generation of conflict from its roots.
Furthermore the first scale level(1) of the conflict intensity continuum portrays two differing
aspects as being alike , that is ,1- Minor disagreements or misunderstandings, these two aspects
have different meanings and should be separated on the scale, secondly misunderstandings occur
before a minor disagreement , but whereas the author portrays the scale 1 as Minor
disagreements or misunderstandings.
38
CHAPTER THREE
METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY
This chapter expresses the methodology used in the research. The chapter begins by highlighting
the model used in interpreting the findings of the survey. It then proceeds by stating clearly the
research approach and design, the sample size and technique, sources of data and procedure for
data collection, as well as the method used by the researcher to analyze results.
3.1. Model Specification
The model constructed as a tool for interpretation of the study embodies the assumptions of the
researcher and how these assumptions will be measured. The model indicates that dysfunctional
conflict in NGOs is a function of personal rule, the inappropriate attitude of board members/staff
and unfavorable organization-wide sources expressed as DF (PR x BE x OW) where PR
represents Personal Rule; BE represents Board/Staff members and OW stands for Organizational
Wide Sources. This relationship is indicated diagrammatically in figure 4 below:
Figure 4: Model Specification
Source: Constructed by the researcher as interpretive model for the study
PERSONAL RULE OF LEADER
Poor communication
Misuse of power
Poor accountability
Poor leadership
SOURCES OF
CONFLICT
ORGANIZATION WIDE SOURCES
Scarcity of resources
Poor distribution of duties
Poor Organization System
Unclear responsibility, goal, and vision
High conflict
intensity and
low performance
Low conflict
intensity and high
performance
ATTITUDE OF BOARD /STAFF
MEMBERS
Poor communication
Lack of skills and abilities
Poor accountability
Discipline
High conflict
intensity and
low performance
39
As seen in figure 4 above, the model assumes that conflict in NGOs is triggered by three broad
factors: personal rule, the attitude of board/staff members and extensive organizational sources.
The researcher posits that observed increase of personal rule and inappropriate attitude of
board/staff members ‘results in affective conflicts whose outcome is high conflict intensity in the
organization On the other hand; conflicts from organization-wide sources can lead to a cognitive
conflict whose outcome is a reduction of conflict intensity. It is also assumed that high conflict
intensity reduces the performance level of an NGO while low intensity increases performance
levels. Conflict intensity in the study is measured using the conflict intensity continuum
developed by Robbins (1974).
3.2. Description of Variables
Three broad variables are expressed in the survey to investigate the sources of conflicts in the
selected NGOs: personal rule, the attitude of board/staff members and organization-wide
sources. These three variables are dependent variables while conflict itself is an independent
variable. The argument here is that increase in the personal rule may result in increased
dysfunctional conflict while conflict intensity may also be influenced by the attitude of
board/staff members and organization-wide sources. The indicators for measuring these variables
are presented in Table 1 below.
40
Table 1: Description of Variables
Variable Indicators
Board members Staff members
Personal rule Degree of communication between
leader and subordinates
Degree of communication
between leader and subordinates
How power is used (number of abuses)
by leader
How power is used (number of
abuses) by leader
Level of accountability by leader Level of accountability by leader
Dominant leadership style Dominant leadership style
Attitude of board/staff
members
Communication among board members Communication among staff
members
Interpersonal skills and abilities among
board members
Interpersonal skills and abilities
among staff members
Level of accountability of board
members
Level of accountability of staff
members
Discipline of board members Discipline of staff members
Organization wide
sources
Resource availability Resource availability
Distribution of duties Distribution of duties
Organizational system Organizational system
Clarity of goals and vision Clarity of goals and vision
Source: Adopted from Deutchs' Determinants Theory of Conflict
3.3. Research Approach
The study adopts a hybrid of qualitative and quantitative approaches. The quantitative tools are
to investigate the sources of conflicts in the selected NGOs and to measure the depth of clashes
in these organizations. An attempt is equally made to relate the approaches currently used in
managing conflict with the observed conflict intensity levels using some quantitative techniques.
However, relying principally on quantitative methods may not give a comprehensive
understanding of the causes of conflicts in NGOs. Hence, perceptions of board members,
employees, and volunteers of the given NGO’s are investigated using qualitative tools to
understand the reason behind their choices. The researcher thus employs qualitative tools to have
an in-depth understanding of conflict triggers in the selected NGOs.
41
On the other hand, the study uses a descriptive design. This design is considered ideal for the
research because the study focuses on describing the characteristics of those forces that trigger
conflicts in NGOs and uses a variety of techniques to describe the state of conflicts in the
selected NGOs. It is concerned with the simple narration of facts on the levels of conflicts,
sources, the parties’ involved, the frequency of occurrences, intensity levels of conflict in NGOs.
3.4. Sample Size and Techniques
To investigate the research questions raised in the study, a total population of 64 (constituting
employees, volunteers and board members) from the four selected organizations is examined.
This is due to the limited number of stakeholders in these NGOs so as to obtain a standard
general picture of these NGOs. Proportional sampling is used to determine the number of
research participants per NGO. This is because the number of staff and members of the NGOs
are not the same. The formula for determining members per NGO is:
n (P1/N) where:
n: the total sample
P1: the total population of each NGO
N: the total population of the four NGOs
Following this calculations, 17 participants were selected from FORUDEF, 18 from
ASYOUSED, 17 from PEP-Africa, and 12 from EGI. The sample for each NGO is made up of
the leader(s), employees, volunteers and board members. The researcher ensured that each group
is represented in the study.
3.5. Sources of Data Collection
Data for this study was collected from both primary and secondary sources. Primary data was
generated from questionnaires, interviews and essential documents from the selected NGO’s.
Meanwhile, secondary data was obtained from books and review of journal articles related to the
subject under study.
3.6. Data Collection Tools
Some tools were used to collect data for this study. The researcher started by gathering
information from published materials by reviewing books and journal articles. This is followed
by design of questionnaires and interview guides.
42
3.6.1 Book Review
The literature from books and journal articles provides grounded knowledge where the secondary
data was collected and critically evaluated in line with the objectives of the study. The
documentary highlights facts and models from renowned professors and researchers which
provide good background knowledge of conflict such as types of conflicts, sources of conflicts,
intensity measurements of conflict and the various conflict resolution approaches.
3.6.2 Interview Guides
A structured interview guide was designed to collect information from some purposefully
selected board members and leaders of the four NGOs. This was to encourage leaders and board
members to express themselves freely and elaborate their answers and explanations further. Also,
the researcher holds the flexibility to make clarifications and obtain additional information
during the interview through follow-up questions. The interviews will give a broader description
of the triggers of conflict, the intensity of conflict and the approaches to conflict resolution in the
selected NGO’s from an experienced point of view. The guide consists of three questions
directed towards addressing the objectives of the study.
3.6.3 Questionnaires
The questionnaire method was chosen in addition to interviews because it brings a balance to the
experience and ideas obtained from managers by giving an equal chance to all the board
members, staff members and volunteers in these NGO’s to give their opinions on the research
study. Therefore this method of data collection is free from bias and gives respondents adequate
time to reflect and answer these questions. The questionnaires are made up of multiple choice
questions whereby more than one answer is required so as to obtain the exact varying ideas of
conflict triggers, conflict intensity, and conflict resolution. The questionnaires also employed
semi-structured questions to provide elaborate answers to some pertinent issues which need
clarifications. The questionnaires also applied questions which will best rate the effectiveness of
managers in resolving the conflict. The structure of this questionnaire helps the researcher to
obtain exact, sufficient, measurable and relevant information for this study.
3.7. Data Collection Process
To collect secondary data, the researcher conducted desk research and undertook rigorous library
search. Meanwhile, primary data was collected by administering the research tools to the sample
43
population in the field. The researcher visited all the NGOs under study and took the time to
administer questionnaires and conduct interviews.
3.8. Data Analysis
The Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) respectively was used for this study. Since
this study is primarily descriptive and quantitative, means, percentages, ratios and proportions
constitute its principal analytical tools. These tools are chosen because they are unambiguous,
explicit and simple to understand by readers. SPSS is very special to this research as it has the
advantage of providing analytical instructions on multiple responses given.
3.9. Data Presentation
By analyzing and interpreting the data, a conclusion is formed, built up by facts, theories,
experiences and views. The findings from the field are collected and analyzed, interpreted,
reviewed and examined with the use of frequency distribution tables. The conclusions are then
presented and recommendations made in line with the research questions.
3.10. Validity and Reliability
The validity and reliability of this research work lies in the following facts; the questionnaires
were administered to target NGO’s, only one persons’ opinion was accepted for each question
posed in each questionnaire, interviews and questionnaires were carried with board president and
managers to self-rate their effectiveness in conflict resolution, the sources used for this study are
current. The validity of this research work lies in the fact that, the researcher was on-site to
administer the data collection tools personally.
44
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
This chapter presents and analysis data obtained from the field using the research tools
mentioned above. The results have been grouped under findings from the personal characteristics
of workers and findings that answer the research questions. The central hypothesis raised by the
researcher is equally tested in the chapter. This information is presented in frequency distribution
tables.
4.1. Personal characteristics of respondents
Describing the individual features of the respondents is necessary for proper understanding of the
research participants and how their particular features may impact their responses to the research
issues. Consequently, respondents of the study are described based on age groups, gender,
education levels and marital status in the respective Non-Governmental Organizations.
4.1.1. Age Distribution of Respondents
Table 2: Age distribution of Respondents
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid <25 5 9.8 9.8 9.8
26-35 12 23.5 23.5 33.3
36-45 22 43.1 43.1 76.5
46-55 6 11.8 11.8 88.2
>56 6 11.8 11.8 100.0
Total 51 100.0 100.0
Source: Data from fieldwork, 2015
The results indicate the age distribution of participants in the selected NGOs. In these NGOs, the
highest percentage (43.1%) of the respondents range between 36-45 years, (23.5%) of the
respondents ranged between 26-35years, the same proportion of those surveyed (11.8%) varied
between 46-55years and 56years and above, the least percentage of respondents (9.8%) ranged
between 25years and below. In these NGOs, most of the workers are within the age range of (36-
45), this implies that most of these workers are at the peak of their carriers, and they are highly
45
ambitious. According to this study, the researcher realizes that by cross-tabulating the age
distribution of respondents and the intensity of conflict (conflict intensity continuum) there is a
significant relationship between the age range of those surveyed (36-45) and the intensity of
conflicts because at that this age group there is an increasing intensity of the conflict. These
findings concur with the observations made by other researchers such as Baddar, et al., (2006)
and Avery, et al. (2007) who concluded that demographic variables such as age have significance
influence on employee performance if a conflict occurs in the workplace.
4.1.2 Gender Distribution of Respondents
Mark and William (2005) suggest that, gender moderates the relationship between individual
initiative and work conflict, and that relationships are stronger among women than among men.
To verify the role of gender in the study, we present the gender composition of the respondents
and test if gender is a determinant of conflict intensity in the selected organizations. Table 3
below describes the respondents’ gender
Table 3: Gender distribution of respondents
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Male 30 58.8 58.8 58.8
Female 21 41.2 41.2 100.0
Total 51 100.0 100.0
Source: Data from fieldwork, 2015
In the selected NGOs, a higher proportion of the respondents is male (58.8%) compared to
female (41.2%). In FORUDEF, the percentage of males (73.3%) is higher than that of females
(26.7%). In EGI, the percentage of males (54.5%) is greater than that of females (45.5%). In
ASYOUSED, there are equal percentages of male (50%) and female (50%). In PEP, there are a
higher proportion of females (57.1%) than males (42.9%). According to this study, there is a
relationship between gender and conflict intensity because by cross-tabulating these variables the
researcher realizes that there is a high intensity of conflict in PEP and ASYOUSED which has a
significant proportion of females in the NGOs as compared to FORUDEF and EGI, which have a
higher proportion of males. This result conforms to the study by Punyasiri (2003) in Thailand
who argues that females in developing countries are weaker in economic, political and social
46
position about males as they find it challenging to balance their home and working
commitments, rather than concentrating on their occupation.
4.1.3. Marital Status of Respondents
The civil status of an employee or member of an organization may directly affect his/her
behavior. This is supported by Punyasiri (2003) who observed that conflict in organizations is
triggered mostly by married people. Hence, the researcher investigated the marital status of the
respondents and attempted to verify if NGOs with the married people have lesser or more
conflicts than those with the smaller number of married people. The marital state of the
respondents is shown in table 4 below.
Table 4: Marital Status of respondents
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Married 27 52.9 52.9 52.9
Unmarried 24 47.1 47.1 100.0
Total 51 100.0 100.0
Source: Data from fieldwork, 2015
In the selected NGOs, a higher proportion of the respondents is married (52.9%) compared to the
unmarried (47.1%). In FORUDEF (53.3%) EGI (54.5%) and PEP Africa (57.1%), there is a
higher percentage of married workers to unmarried members. In ASYOUSED there are a higher
percentage of unmarried members (54.5%) to married members. According to this study, the
researcher realizes that by cross-tabulating the marital status of respondents and the intensity of
conflict (conflict intensity continuum) there is no significant relationship between the marital
status and the intensity of conflicts which contrasts the observations made by Punyasiri (2003)
that conflict in organizations is triggered mostly by married people.
4.1.4. Educational Level of Respondents
Cynthia and David, (2006) opines that education in the organization has the influence on conflict
occurrences. Consequently, the researcher tests the educational level of the respondents and
observes the relationship between educational attainment and conflict intensity. The educational
level of the respondents is shown in table 5 below.
47
Table 5: Educational level of respondents
Frequency Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid B.Sc. 29 56.9 56.9 56.9
P.G.D 7 13.7 13.7 70.6
M.Sc. 11 21.6 21.6 92.2
P.H.D. 1 2.0 2.0 94.1
H.N.D 3 5.9 5.9 100.0
Total 51 100.0 100.0
Source: Data from fieldwork, 2015
The highest percentage distribution of the educational level of respondents in the four NGOs is
the Bachelors’ degree. According to this study, the researcher realizes that by cross-tabulating
the educational level of respondents and the intensity of conflict (conflict intensity continuum)
there is a significant relationship between the educational level of respondents and the intensity
of conflicts because there is the significant proportion of Bachelors’ degree holders in all these
NGOs which is considered to be a high educational level, and a corresponding high intensity of
conflict in PEP, ASYOUSED, and FORUDEF . These findings concur with the observations
made by (Baddar, et al., 2006) who argue that high educational levels lead to dysfunctional
conflict because these people know their rights and responsibilities of their job.
4.2. Determinants of Conflicts in NGOs
The first goal of this research is to examine the primary determinants of conflicts in the selected
Non-Governmental Organizations. To attain this, the researcher observed the triggers of conflict
at three levels: leadership, employees/board members, and organization levels.
4.2.1. Determinants of Conflicts Relating to Personal Rule (leadership)
Since leadership quality affects conflicts, respondents were asked to rate the quality of
communication, leadership style, accountability, and use of power by the leader on a five-point
scale (1: Very Poor, 2: Poor, 3: Average, 4: Good and 5: Very Good).The results indicate that
poor leadership communication, poor leadership style, limited accountability and misuse of
power constitute the main sources of tension in the four NGOs under study. The researcher,
therefore, assumes that higher levels of the observed sources (communication, leadership style,
accountability, and use of power) of conflicts denote personal rule by leaders. Using the scale (1-
48
5), the researcher multiplies the assigned score with the number of respondents to obtain a
percentage of poor communication, accountability, leadership style and use of power in the four
organizations. A score below 60 indicates that the leader is doing poorly in that domain while a
score above 60 is assumed to be good. The result is presented in Table 6 below.
Table 6: Percentage of Personal Rule in NGOs
FORUDEF EGI ASYOUSED PEP TAS
B S Av. B S Av. B S Av. B S Av.
Leadership
communication
43.7 50 48.3 43.3 40 41.7 60 56.7 58.4 60 60 60 52.1
Leadership style 44.4 50 47.2 63.3 60 61.7 80 70 75 56.
7
42.5 49.6 58.4
Leadership
accountability
62.2 73.3 67.8 73.3 64 68.7 80 63.3 71.7 60 55 57.5 66.7
Use of power 31.1 66.7 48.9 76.7 88 82.4 80 60 70 60 52.5 563 64.4
Average Scores 53.3 63.6 68.8 55.9 60.4
Source: Data from fieldwork, 2015
B: Board members S: Staff members Av.: Average TAS: Total Average Score
As observed in Table 6 above, there is a high degree of personal rule in FORUDEF (53.3%) and
PEP Africa (55.9%) while there is a lower degree of personal rule in EGI (63.6%) and
ASYOUSED (68.8%). This may explain why overt efforts to destroy the other party, which is
the highest level of conflict intensity, is higher in FORUDEF (33.3%) and PEP Africa (42.9%)
than in EGI (27.3%) and ASYOUSED (18.2%) as seen in Appendix III. Thus perceived personal
rule results in affective conflicts whose outcome is open attacks among stakeholders of the
organization.
4.2.2. Determinants of Conflicts Relating to Board Members/Employees.
Though the behavior of the leader can greatly determine the intensity of conflict in an
organization, the attitude of board members and staff can equally be a major determinant of
conflict in NGOs. Hence, the researcher observes key issues that cause conflict in the selected
organizations. The results point to the fact that among board members and staff, the degree of
49
cohesion is low. The researcher observes that limited communication across the board (board
members and staff), poor interpersonal skills and poor accountability are key determinants of
conflicts in the four NGOs. However, to better observe the extent to which board member and
employee level factors causes clashes in the organizations, we compute scores of each of the
variables found. Using the scale (1-5), the researcher multiplies the assigned score with the
number of respondents to obtain a percentage of poor communication, accountability,
interpersonal skills and discipline in the four organizations. A score below 60 indicates that the
board member/employee related factors significantly contribute to the level of conflict in the
organization. The result is presented in Table 7 below.
Table 7: Percentage of Board member/Employee Contribution to Conflict
FORUDEF EGI ASYOUSED PEP TAS
B S Av. B S Av. B S Av. B S Av.
Communication 40 50 45 46.7 44 45.5 48 56.7 52.4 43.3 50 46.7 47.4
Interpersonal Skills 75.6 53.3 64.5 46.7 44 45.5 48 60 54 50 57.5 49.6 54.4
Accountability 40 66.7 53.4 53.3 60 56.7 68 73.3 70.7 56.7 57.5 57.1 59.5
Discipline 64.4 80 72.2 70 76 73 40 56.7 48.4 73.3 55 64.2 64.5
Average Scores 58.8 55.1 56.4 55.5 56.5
Source: Data from fieldwork, 2015
B: Board members S: Staff members Av.: Average TAS: Total Average Score
Table 7 above shows that board members/employee related factors greatly influence the level of
conflict in all the four NGOs. It is, however, more intense in EGI (55.1%) and PEP Africa
(55.5%) than in FORUDEF (58.8%) and ASYOUSED (56.4%). Thus the lack of interpersonal
and communication skills, as well as limited accountability, constitute a major source of conflicts
in the selected NGOs. This explains why the degree of misunderstandings is rated high in all the
four organizations (see Appendix III).
4.2.3. Organization-Wide Causes
While it is possible for conflicts to be stimulated by leaders and employees or board members of
NGOs as observed above, the structure, policies and processes in the organization can as well
generate tension within NGOs. Hence, we examine the organization-wide sources of conflict in
the selected NGOs. The researcher observes views on the availability of resources, distribution
50
of duties, the organization system, as well as goals and vision. The researcher finds that these
factors above are fundamental determinants of conflicts in these NGOs. This is because a
majority of staff in the four organizations perceive resources required for organizational
effectiveness to be low and limited resources generate conflicts as board members and
employees scramble for the available resources.
In addition to that, the perception of poor distribution of duties among board and staff members
of the four organizations constitutes a major source of conflicts as well as the observed poor
organizational system which has the potential of generating stress among employees and creates
misunderstandings among staff. Moreover, the observed lack of clarity on the vision and goals
in the given NGOs often intensify disintegration among the different stakeholders of the
organizations. This also explains the high levels of misunderstandings in the four NGOs as
shown in Appendix III.
The researcher further measured the degree to which vast organization forces cause conflict in
the four organizations by computing scores of each of the variables above. Using the scale (1-5),
the researcher multiplies the assigned score with the number of respondents to obtain a
percentage satisfaction with resource availability, distribution of duties, organization system and
goals/vision in the four organizations. An average score below 60 indicates that wide
organization factors significantly contribute to the level of conflict in the organization. The
outcome is shown in Table 8 below.
Table 8: Organization Wide Forces of Conflict
FORUDEF EGI ASYOUSED PEP TAS
B S Av. B S Av. B S Av. B S Av.
Resource
Availability
47.8 60 53.9 50 48 49 68 33.3 50.7 53.3 57.5 55.4 52.3
Distribution of
duties
51.1 56.7 53.9 40 56 48 60 66.7 63.4 53.3 72.5 62.9 57.1
Organization
System
60 53.3 56.7 56.7 52 54.4 52 46.7 49.4 66.7 40 53.4 53.5
Goals and Vision 60 63.3 61.7 53.3 64 58.7 60 76.7 68.4 46.4 45 45.9 58.7
Average Scores 56.6 52.5 54.4 54.4 55.4
Source: Data from fieldwork, 2015
51
B: Board members S: Staff members Av.: Average TAS: Total Average Score
The ratings assigned to wide organization forces in the four organizations (as shown in Table 8
above) indicates that the level of satisfaction with these forces is low in all the organizations
under study. This low level of satisfaction with resources, distribution of duties, the
organizations’ systems, and clarity of goals/vision contributes significantly to the rise of conflicts
in the four organizations. The results show that satisfaction in EGI is lower (52.5%) than in
FORUDEF (56.6%), ASYOUSED (54.4%) and in PEP Africa (54.4%). Thus confusion as to
where the organization is heading to, poor distribution of duties and poor organizational
structuring accounts for the high levels of verbal attacks in EGI (36.4% as shown in Appendix
III) than in the other three NGOs.
4.2.4 Testing Hypothesis 1
The first hypothesis of this study relates to the principal source of conflict in NGOs. The
researcher hypothesizes that conflicts in NGOs are triggered exclusively by personal rule of the
leaders or founders. Consequently, we state the null and alternative hypothesis as:
H0: Conflict in Non-governmental Organizations is triggered by poor organization systems and
internal stakeholder relations
H1: Conflict in Non-governmental Organizations is triggered by personal rule of the leaders or
founders (claim)
To verify this hypothesis, the researcher conducts a nonparametric test based on the observed
average scores in Tables 6, 7 and 8. Testing at a 0.5 level of significance, the researcher obtained
the results as presented in Table 10 below. However, Table 9 below first shows the scores for
each category in each organization, used in testing the hypothesis.
Table 9: Observed Scores per Category
Organization Personal Rule
(PR)
Board/Employee
factors (BE)
Organization Wide Issues
(OW)
FORUDEF 53.3 58.8 56.6
EGI 63.6 55.1 52.5
ASYOUSED 68.8 56.4 58.0
PEP Africa 55.9 55.5 54.4
Source: Data from fieldwork, 2015
52
Table 10: Nonparametric Test of Hypothesis 1
Null Hypothesis Test Significance Decision
1 The distribution of scores PR
is normal with mean 60.40
and standard deviation 7.11
One-Sample
Kolmogorov-
Smirnov Test
.978 Retain the null
hypothesis
2 The distribution of scores BE
is normal with mean 56.45
and standard deviation 1.66
One-Sample
Kolmogorov-
Smirnov Test
.946 Retain the null
hypothesis
3 The distribution of scores OW
is normal with mean 55.38
and standard deviation 2.42
One-Sample
Kolmogorov-
Smirnov Test
.998 Retain the null
hypothesis
Source: Data from fieldwork, 2015
Asymptotic significances are displayed. The significance level is .05
*Nonparametric Tests: Related Samples.
As seen in Table 10 above there is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis. We have
earlier stated that a mean score of less than 60 for each factor (personal rule (PR), Board/staff
members (BE) and organization-wide (OW)) indicates that it is a significant determinant of
conflict in the NGO. The test results show that the mean score for the personal rule is above 60
(60.4), indicating that though leadership quality in the four organizations may not be the best; it
is not the major cause of conflict in the NGOs. As observed in the table, the broad organizational
issues (with the mean score of 55.38) and board/staff member factors (with the mean score of
56.48) are the primary triggers of conflict in the four NGOs. The null hypothesis is therefore
retained.
4.3. Intensity of Conflicts in NGOs
The second research objective intended to measure the intensity of conflict in the selected NGOs.
To achieve this, the researcher makes use of the standard conflict intensity continuum.
Respondents were first asked to indicate which level of conflict in the continuum (differences,
minor disagreements, misunderstandings, challenge of others, assertive verbal attacks, threats,
aggressive physical attacks, as well as overt efforts to destroy another party) is very low, low,
moderate, high, or very high in the individual NGOs. Respondents were equally asked to indicate
the frequency in which such conflicts occur in their organization and the category of stakeholders
53
frequently involved in conflicts. The results are presented in Table 11, 12 and 13 below based on
the questions raised in the questionnaire.
In order to correctly measure the intensity of conflict in the organizations, the researcher
computes actual scores from Appendix III given by the respondents by multiplying the assigned
score (Very low: 1, Low: 2, Moderate: 3, High: 4, and Very High: 5) with the total number of
respondents per scale to have a percentage score for each level in the continuum. A score ≥60 for
each parameter in the continuum indicates a high intensity. Also, an average score ≥60 means
that there is a high intensity of conflict in the organization. The results are represented in Table
11 below.
Table 11: Conflict Intensity Scores
INTENSITY CONTINUUM FORUDEF EGI ASYOUSED PEP Av. Score
(All NGOs)
Differences 84 49.1 65.5 65.7 66.1
Minor Disagreements 72 83.6 69.1 91.4 79
Misunderstandings 69.3 63.6 70.9 82.9 71.7
Challenge to Others 74.7 60 80 68.6 70.8
Assertive Verbal attacks 57.3 58.2 58.2 64.3 59.5
Threats 48 36.4 69.1 51.4 51.2
Aggressive Physical attacks 40 25.5 54.5 58.6 44.7
Overt Efforts to Destroy the
other
52 58.2 58.2 72.9 60.3
Av. Score/NGO 62.2 54.3 65.7 69.5 62.9
Source: Data from fieldwork, 2015
The results presented in Table 11 above shows that overall; there is a high intensity of conflict in
the selected NGOs. However, conflict is more intense in PEP Africa (69.5) than in the non-
governmental organizations other. This notwithstanding, the conflict level of FORUDEF and
ASYOUSED is equally observed to be high (62.2 and 65.7 respectively). The only NGO with
lower conflict intensity is EGI with 54.3.
54
To further observe the intensity of conflict in the selected NGOs, the researcher also measured
the frequency of clashes in the NGOs. Respondents were asked to indicate the consistency with
which disputes occur in their non-governmental organizations individual. The outcomes are
shown in Table 12 below based on the question raised in the questionnaire.
Table 12: How often conflicts occur in various organizations
Non-Governmental Organizations Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
FORUDEF Valid 1-3 times a month 46.7 46.7 46.7
4-6 times a month 40.0 40.0 86.7
7-9 times a month 13.3 13.3 100.0
Total 100.0 100.0
EGI Valid 1-3 times a month 54.5 54.5 54.5
4-6 times a month 36.4 36.4 90.9
7-9 times a month 9.1 9.1 100.0
Total 100.0 100.0
ASYOUSED Valid 1-3 times a month 36.4 36.4 81.8
4-6 times a month 45.5 45.5 45.5
7-9 times a month 18.2 18.2 100.0
Total 100.0 100.0
PEP Africa Valid 1-3 times a month 50.0 50.0 50.0
4-6 times a month 28.6 28.6 78.6
7-9 times a month 21.4 21.4 100.0
Total 100.0 100.0
Source: Data from fieldwork, 2015
As shown in Table 12 above, a majority of respondents in FORUDEF (46.7%) and EGI (54.5%)
observed that conflicts occur in their organization within 1-3 times a month. A similar result is
found in PEP Africa, where 50% of the respondents say conflicts occur 1-3 times a month in the
organization. On the other hand, conflict in ASYOUSED is noticed 4-6 times a month as
indicated by 45.5% of respondents. The results presented in Table 12 above seem to contradict
55
results on the intensity of conflict (shown in Table 11 above) which indicated PEP Africa to have
the highest conflict intensity levels. However, this is because in trying to demonstrate the
frequency of conflicts, many respondents were confused whether to consider differences and
minor disagreements as conflicts.
The researcher also observed the parties that are most frequently involved in a conflict so as to
give a definite picture of the nature of conflicts in NGOs. Table 13 below presents findings on
the most frequent conflicting parties.
Table 13: The parties most frequently involved in conflict in the various organizations
Non-Governmental Organizations
FORUDEF EGI ASYOUSED PEP Africa
Frequent
parties in
conflict
Management and
management
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 7.1%
management and
employee
40.0% 18.2% 27.3% 28.6%
employee and
employee
6.7% 36.4% 27.3% 21.4%
board members
and board
members
26.7% 9.1% 36.4% 14.3%
board members
and management
26.7% 36.4% 9.1% 28.6%
Subtotal 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Data from fieldwork, 2015
Table 13 shows that conflicts in FORUDEF are frequent between management and employees as
observed by a majority (40%) of the respondents. This indicates that there is a higher intensity of
conflict between management and employees in FORUDEF compared to other parties in the
organization.
In EGI, conflict is frequent among employees (as confirmed by 36.4% respondents) and between
board members and management as observed by another 36.4% of the respondents. This means
that there is a higher intensity of conflict within employees and between board members and
management compared to other parties in the organization.
56
Meanwhile in ASYOUSED, conflict is rather rife among board members as indicated by 36.4%
of the respondents. Thus, there is a higher intensity of conflict within board members of
ASYOUSED compared to other parties in the organization.
In PEP, conflict is frequent between management and employees (28.6%), and between board
members and management as observed by most (28.6%) respondents. This is an indication that,
there is a higher intensity of conflict between management and employees, and between board
members and management in PEP compared to other parties in the organization.
4.3.1. Test of Hypothesis 2
The second hypothesis of this study relates to the intensity of conflicts in the selected NGOs. The
researcher hypothesizes that the intensity levels of conflicts in the four NGOs is higher than
60%. Hence, the null and alternative hypotheses are stated thus:
H0: = 60
H1: > 60 (claim)
To investigate this hypothesis, the researcher conducts a t-test using the average scores for all the
NGOs (as shown in Table 14). The t-test has been adopted here because n˂30 and σ (standard
deviation) is not known. Testing at 5% level of significance, α=0.05 and degree of freedom (d.f)
is 6 (n-1), the t value is 1.943 (as shown in the t-distribution table). Based on this, we compute
the test value using the under mentioned formula:
𝑡 = 𝑋−
𝜎/𝑛
Where:
X = Observed mean
µ = hypothesized mean
σ = Standard deviation
n = Total sample
Results for the observed mean, total sample, and standard deviation are summarized in a one
sample statistics table below.
57
Table 14: Descriptive statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Av Scores
Valid N(list wise)
8
8
44.7 79.0 62.925 11.269
Computed using SPSS
Since the hypothesized mean is 60, we compute the test value as follows:
𝑡 = 62.9 − 60
11.3/7
𝑡 = 2.9
4
𝑡 = 0.725
Since the test value of 0.7 is less than the critical value of 1.943 and do not fall in the rejection
zone, the decision is not to reject the null hypothesis. There is therefore not enough evidence to
support the claim that the intensity of conflicts in the selected NGOs is above 60%. The observed
mean of 62.9% may have been due to chance.
This study’s third objective was to identify the approaches used by the different NGOs to address
or resolve conflicts. The essence is to investigate the effectiveness of conflict management
strategies used by leaders in the selected NGOs. The researcher asked respondents to indicate the
most frequently used methods employed in conflict resolution in their NGOs. The outcomes
obtained are presented in Table 15 below following the questions raised in the questionnaire.
58
Table 15: The most frequent methods used by managers/superiors to resolve conflicts in
the various organizations
Non-Governmental Organizations
FORUDEF EGI ASYOUSED PEP Africa
Most
frequent
conflict
resolution
methods
Avoiding 13.3% 27.3% 18.2% 0.0%
Compromising 13.3% 0.0% 18.2% 7.1%
Collaborating 13.3% 18.2% 0.0% 14.3%
Accommodating 26.7% 9.1% 0.0% 7.1%
Forcing 20.0% 18.2% 36.4% 42.9%
Mediation 13.3% 27.3% 18.2% 14.3%
Arbitration 0.0% 0.0% 9.1% 14.3%
Subtotal 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Data from fieldwork, 2015
As shown in table 15 above, the most frequently used method by leaders in FORUDEF, to
resolve conflict is accommodating (as observed by 26.7% of the respondents). Meanwhile in
EGI, avoidance and mediation are the most frequently used methods of resolving conflicts as
confirmed by 27.3% or the respondents. On the other hand, leaders of ASYOUSED and PEP
recurrently apply forcing to resolve conflict as observed by majority respondents in both
organizations.
Based on the diversity of approaches used in resolving conflict in the selected organizations, the
researcher attempts to investigate the effectiveness of the different methods. Respondents were
asked to strongly agree, agree, stay neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree on the assumption that
the current approach used to resolve conflict by their leader is effective. The result of this is
presented in table 16 below.
59
Table 16: The effectiveness of the conflict resolution approaches used by the leaders of the
various organizations
Non-Governmental Organizations Percent Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
FORUDEF Valid Strongly agree 6.7 6.7 6.7
Agree 33.3 33.3 40.0
Neutral 26.7 26.7 66.7
Disagree 26.7 26.7 93.3
Strongly disagree 6.7 6.7 100.0
Total 100.0 100.0
EGI Valid Strongly agree 27.3 27.3 27.3
Neutral 36.4 36.4 63.6
Disagree 18.2 18.2 81.8
Strongly disagree 18.2 18.2 100.0
Total 100.0 100.0
ASYOUSED Valid Strongly agree 18.2 18.2 18.2
Agree 18.2 18.2 36.4
Neutral 18.2 18.2 54.6
Disagree 45.5 45.5 100.0
Total 100.0 100.0
PEP Africa Valid Agree 28.6 28.6 28.6
Neutral 21.4 21.4 50.0
Disagree 35.7 35.7 85.7
Strongly disagree 14.3 14.3 100.0
Total 100.0 100.0
Source: Data from fieldwork, 2015
The result indicated in Table 16 above shows that a higher percentage of members (33.3%) in
FORUDEF, agree to the effectiveness of their leader's approach to resolving conflict. Meanwhile
in EGI, the majority (36.4%) of the respondents are indifferent to the effectiveness of their
leaders approach to resolve a conflict. In ASYOUSED (45.5%) and PEP (35.7%) which are
made up of a higher percentage of members (45.5%) disagree to the effectiveness of their leaders
approach to resolve a conflict. Based on this, the researcher argues that the forcing approach to
60
conflict resolution, currently used in ASYOUSED and PEP Africa is not effective. This explains
why the intensity of conflict is higher in ASYOUSED (65.7) and PEP Africa (69.5) than in
FORUDEF (62.2) and EGI (54.3) as shown in Table 11 above.
To further investigate the effectiveness of current conflict resolution approaches, the researcher
attempt to measure the rate of mistakes committed by the leaders in conflict resolution,
inappropriate behaviors, the cost of handling conflicts, time spent in addressing conflicts, and the
skills available. The result is presented in Table 17 below.
Table 17: The stakeholders (leaders, employees and board members) rating of the conflict
resolution process in various organizations.
Non-Governmental Organizations
FORUDEF EGI ASYOUSED PEP Africa
Recurrent mistakes (Avoidance
of conflict altogether, argument
winning, forgetting to listen,
over generalizing, mind-reading
attempts.)
Low 46.7% 54.5% 54.5% 42.9%
High 53.3% 45.5% 45.5% 57.1%
Subtotal 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Inappropriate behaviors (Being
right, being defensive, blaming
others, character attacks, neither
talking nor listening)
Low 60.0% 72.7% 63.6% 28.6%
High 40.0% 27.3% 36.4% 71.4%
Subtotal 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Cost effectiveness (less money is
spent in resolving conflicts)
Low 60.0% 54.5% 54.5% 53.8%
High 40.0% 45.5% 45.5% 46.2%
Subtotal 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Time effectiveness(less time is
spent in resolving conflicts)
Low 60.0% 54.5% 27.3% 57.1%
High 40.0% 45.5% 72.7% 42.9%
Subtotal 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Valuable skills(Decision making,
problem solving emotional
intelligence, negotiation skills
Low 40.0% 63.6% 54.5% 42.9%
High 60.0% 36.4% 45.5% 57.1%
Subtotal 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Data from fieldwork, 2015
61
As shown in Table 17 above, there is a high rate of mistakes in conflict resolution by the
stakeholders of FORUDEF as observed by majority of the workers and board members (53.3%)
Also, most of the employees and board members (60%) are of the opinion that the rate of
inappropriate behaviors portrayed by stakeholders in resolving conflict when they arose is low. A
higher percentage of workers and board members mentioned that the cost-effectiveness (60%)
and the time effectiveness (60%) of the conflict resolution process are low. Many (60%) board
members and workers observed that the amount of valuable skills used in the course of resolving
conflicts is high.
Meanwhile in rating the conflict resolution techniques employed by the stakeholders of EGI a
larger percentage of the workers and board members observed that the rate of recurrent mistakes,
portrayed by stakeholders in resolving conflict when they arose is low. Most employees and
board members (72.7%) also observed that the rate of inappropriate behaviors portrayed by
stakeholders in the settlement of conflicts when they arose is low. A higher percentage of
workers and board members mentioned that the cost-effectiveness (54.5%) is low and the time
effectiveness (54.5%) is high during a conflict resolution process. Also, a greater number
(63.6%) of board members and workers observed that some valuable skills leaders used during
conflict resolution are low.
It is equally shown in Table 17 that most employees and board members (54.5%) of
ASYOUSED observed the rate of recurrent mistakes, portrayed by stakeholders in resolving
conflict when they arose to below. Also, a higher percentage of the workers and board members
(63.6%) observed that the rate of inappropriate behaviors portrayed by stakeholders in resolving
conflict when they arose is low. Most of the workers and board members (54.5%) mentioned that
the cost effectiveness is low and the time effectiveness (72.7%) is high during a conflict
resolution process. A higher percentage (54.5%) of board members and workers observed that
some valuable skills stakeholders use during conflict resolution are high.
In rating the conflict resolution techniques utilized by the stakeholders of PEP, a larger
percentage of the workers and board members (57.1%) observed that the rate of recurrent
mistakes, portrayed by stakeholders in resolving conflict when they arose is high. Furthermore,
most workers and board members (71.4%) of the organization observed that the rate of
inappropriate behaviors portrayed by stakeholders in resolving conflict when they arose is high.
Meanwhile, a significant proportion of respondents (53.8%) mentioned that the cost and time
62
effectiveness is low during a conflict resolution process. The amount of valuable skills used by
stakeholders during conflict resolution is high (57.1%)
4.4. Implications of results
The results above, which relate to the determinants of conflicts in the selected NGOs, imply from
a distinct perspective that the major determinants of conflicts in NGOs are due to poor
communication, scarcity of resources, poor leadership, inadequate skills and abilities and the
poor organization system. The results from a hypothetical perspective imply that the mean score
for the personal rule is above 60 (60.4), thereby indicating that though leadership quality in the
four organizations may not be the best; it is not the primary cause of conflict in the NGOs. The
broad organizational issues (with the mean score of 55.38) and board/staff member factors (with
the mean score of 56.48) are the major triggers of conflict in the four NGOs. These findings are
confirmed by the hypothesis test which proves that conflict in Non-governmental Organizations
is triggered by poor organization systems and internal stakeholder relations. These results help
the researcher to solve partially the research problem which states the ability of NGOs,
particularly African NGOs, to manage conflicts is frail, because by identifying the general and
main determinants of conflicts, leaders will be able to prevent a lot of conflict occurrences by
tackling these root causes of conflicts exclusively. These results also imply that even though
leaders are not the primary determinants of conflicts in these NGOs, they still need improvement
because their leadership quality is not the best. This explains better the inadequate ability of
leaders to manage these NGOs. These findings also partially solve the research problem by
indicating the particular leadership qualities which need to be improved upon by leaders so as to
reduce conflict occurrences. These include their communication and leadership style. The ratings
of causes of conflict are varied from one study to another, but the aspects of causes of conflict
are common (Warner, 2005; and Piek, et al., 2008). This depends on the nature and circumstance
of the organization. Barry, et al., (2009) concluded that the high percentage of causes of conflict
(personal-related) were personality clashes, communication problem, and poor leadership. This
agrees with findings of this study, in which, the most frequently causes of conflict from a
personal-related (personal rule and board/staff member factors) perspective were poor
communication among board/staff members (47.4%), poor leadership communication (52.1%),
poor leadership (58.4%) inadequate interpersonal skills among board/staff members(54.4%) as
seen in Table 5 and Table 6. Barry, et al. (2009) also argues that the leading cause of conflict
(organizational –related) is the poor work environment which conforms to the findings of this
63
study where the weak organization system is a primary cause of conflict. However, Barry, et al.
does not mention the scarcity of resources as one of the leading causes of conflict probably
because his research work was mostly carried out in stable large- scale organizations unlike in
Non-Governmental Organizations where my studies were conducted.
From the results relating to the intensity of conflict in the selected NGOs, the researcher realizes
that these findings are quite contrasting; firstly by using the conflict intensity continuum, the
results show that there is a high intensity of clashes in the selected NGOs. However, conflict is
most intense in PEP Africa (69.5), the conflict level of FORUDEF and ASYOUSED is equally
observed to be high (62.2 and 65.7 respectively) and that conflict is least intense in EGI
(54.3).Secondly, in rating the intensity of conflicts by considering the frequency of occurrence of
conflict the researcher realizes that conflict is more intense in ASYOUSED (4-6times) and
conflict is less intense in FORUDEF and PEP Africa and EGI (1-3times). Even though these
results confirm the low intensity of conflict in EGI, these results are quite contrasting but
understandable, because, they indicate that, in trying to show the frequency of conflicts, many
respondents were confused whether to consider differences, misunderstandings and minor
disagreements as conflicts. So the measurement of conflict intensity using the conflict intensity
continuum better reflects the appropriate intensity of conflicts in these organizations.
Moreover, despite the fact that the results of the hypothesis test show that there is not enough
proof to support the assertion that the intensity of conflicts in the selected NGOs is above 60%.
The results, however, imply that the intensity of conflict is 60% which is considerably high for
such small organizations and thus needs to be reduced to the minimum to bring forth absolute
stability particularly between the parties mostly involved in conflict within the selected NGOs.
These parties include the management and employees in FORUDEF, within employees, and
between board members and management in EGI, within the board members in ASYOUSED
and between management and staff, and between board members and management in PEP.
These results will narrow the pattern to resolve the research problem, by indicating the various
parties in the NGOs which need to be addressed mainly and intently to reduce the perceived
intensity of conflict in these organizations immediately.
The results above, which relate to the effectiveness of the conflict resolution approaches in the
selected NGOs, imply that the forcing approach to conflict resolution, currently used in
ASYOUSED and PEP Africa is not effective as regarded by the board members and employees,
64
while the accommodating approach in FORUDEF is effective. The avoidance and mediation
approach frequently used in EGI explains the indifference by workers because avoidance builds
up the tension while mediation brings forth cooperation. This explains why the intensity of
conflict is higher in ASYOUSED (65.7) and PEP Africa (69.5) than in FORUDEF (62.2) and
EGI (54.3) as shown in Table 14 above. These results, therefore, helps the researcher to
understand the reason why the conflict resolution approaches used in these NGOs as rated by
PAID-WA were not up to standard These results indicate that forcing is not an efficient method
to resolve conflicts, and so if these methods are continually used in ASYOUSED (65.7) and PEP
Africa (69.5), these conflicts will remain intense.
The results imply that the rate of mistakes committed by the stakeholders in conflict resolution
needs to be significantly reduced in FORUDEF (53.3%) and PEP (57.1%). The inappropriate
behaviors portrayed by stakeholders in conflict resolution need to be substantially reduced in
PEP(71.4%).The cost of handling conflict needs to be significantly reduced in FORUDEF(60%)
and EGI(54.5%), ASYOUSED(54.5%), PEP(53.8%). The time effectiveness in resolving
conflicts need improvement in FORUDEF (60%), EGI (54.5%) and PEP (53.8%), the skills
available to handle conflicts need improvement in EGI (63.6%) and ASYOUSED (54.5%).These
results give insight to the reason why, in measuring the conflict management capacity of these
four NGOs in the SWR of Cameroon, PAID-WA (2014) observed that the ability of NGOs to
manage conflicts is 60% below the desired level of 100%. These results above will help the
stakeholders of these NGOs independently to improve the management of conflicts in their
pertaining NGOs by providing them with the specific areas that need substantial improvement.
The findings concur with the findings by Barry, et al., (2009) who found that it appears that
many leaders are falling short in resolving a conflict. This is because most managers were not
willing to fulfill the needs of the employees at expenses of the organizations, even if through
using this strategy it would improve organizational performance. These findings conform to the
study as the forcing approach which is mostly used in ASYOUSED and PEP is considered
ineffective by stakeholders, and thus these organizations reflect the highest conflict intensities
ASYOUSED (65.7) and PEP Africa (69.5). Williams (2011) found that 5% of respondents had
used mediation in the past, 60% had heard of mediation but not practiced it, and 36% had not
heard of mediation elsewhere. Use of mediation increases with the size of the organization, and
organizations with a formal grievance and disciplinary styles were much more likely to have
65
used mediation than those without legal procedures. Again the finding of the Williams study
conforms to the results of the study as the NGO's understudy have no policy guides or protocols
to resolve conflicts and thus barely make use of the mediation strategy in the settlement of
conflicts in their various organizations.
4.5 Limitations of the Study
There were several limitations encountered by the researcher in the course of this research work
precisely at the data collection stage. Firstly, the printing and administering of questionnaires
was quite costly, then, the permission letters from the various employers to allow the researcher
to collect data from the selected NGOs were replied very late. In addition to that, in the selected
NGOs most often the staff members were always for missions, or in seminars, so it was tough to
have the questionnaires filled in time. It was also tough to get in touch with the board members
of the selected NGOs because most of them are residents abroad or in other towns far away from
the location of their non-governmental organizations relevant.
66
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary of Findings
The role of non-governmental organizations in promoting sustainable development cannot be
overemphasized. It is a truism that NGOs in Africa have contributed significantly to the
promotion of health, education, human rights, environmental sustainability, and overall local
development. Despite these achievements, very little has been done by previous research to
explore the internal functioning and roadblocks for NGO sustainability in Africa. The
repercussions are glaring as the NGO power (the ability of NGOs to hold governments
accountable), noticed in the early 1980s is gradually being diluted. As many NGOs are created
on a daily basis in the continent, so too are many NGOs dissolving in alarming rates. The
researcher finds this trend problematic and dangerous for future development efforts in Africa.
Consequently, the current research attempts to probe into the factors that render frail the internal
functioning of NGOs and hence affect their sustainability. The researcher measures the intensity
and investigates the fundamental determinants of conflicts in four selected non-governmental
organizations in the South West Region of Cameroon. Specifically, the study intended to respond
to three key research questions:
Research question one: What are the main determinants of conflicts in the selected Non-
governmental Organizations?
As a reply to the first research question, the researcher observed that the main triggers of conflict
in the selected NGOs are the scarcity of resources and the poor communicative style of leaders,
employees and board members. However, inappropriate organizations’ systems, poor leadership
as well as the limited interpersonal relationship among staff, were also found to be major
determinants of conflict in the four NGOs. From a general perspective, conflicts in these NGOs
are substantially triggered by poor organizational systems and internal stakeholder relations as
compared to the personal rule of the leaders in the respective NGOs.
67
Research question two: What are the intensity levels of conflict in the selected Non-
governmental Organizations?
Following research question two, the researcher found, with the use of the standard conflict
intensity continuum, that there is a high intensity of conflict in three of selected NGOs. It was
observed that conflict is more intense in PEP Africa (69.5) than in the non-governmental
organizations other. This notwithstanding, the conflict level of FORUDEF and ASYOUSED is
equally observed to be high (62.2 and 65.7 respectively). The only NGO with lower conflict
intensity is EGI with 54.3. Hypothetical proof concludes that the intensity of conflicts in these
selected NGOs is rated (60%) which is considerably high for such small organizations and thus
confirms the high intensity of conflict in these NGOs, the researcher also found that the intensity
of conflicts varies between the different stakeholders of the organization. It was realized for
instance that, there is a higher intensity of conflict between management and employees (40%) in
FORUDEF compared to other parties in the organization. In EGI there is a higher intensity of
conflict within employees (36.4%) and between board members and management (36.4%) as
compared to other parties in the organization. In PEP Africa there is a higher intensity of conflict
between management and employees (28.6%), management and board members (28.6%).
Meanwhile in ASYOUSED, there is a higher intensity of conflict within board members of was
observed.
Research question three: How effective are the various approaches used by the selected NGOs
to manage conflicts?
On the third research question, the researcher found that conflict resolution approaches currently
used by most of the NGOs are diverse. The results show that the most frequently used method by
leaders in FORUDEF, to resolve conflict is accommodating (as observed by 26.7% of the
respondents). Meanwhile in EGI, avoidance and mediation are the most frequently used methods
of resolving conflicts as confirmed by 27.3% of the respondents. On the other hand, leaders of
ASYOUSED and PEP recurrently apply forcing to resolve conflict as observed by majority
respondents in both organizations. The diversity of approaches used in resolving conflict
accounts for the differences in the ratings assigned to the effectiveness of conflict resolution
methods. From a general perspective of this assessment, it was realized that the cost-
effectiveness and time- effectiveness in resolving conflict were not the best in these NGOs,
moreover, the stakeholders of PEP Africa, portrayed certain inappropriate behaviors and
68
recurrent mistakes in conflict resolution while the stakeholders of ASYOUSED and EGI did not
possess the essential skills required for an effective and efficient conflict resolution.
5.2. Conclusion
Conflicts are part of human nature, and it is extremely important to study it not only for
theoretical purposes but also for organizational practice. Conflict can be healthy if it is managed
effectively. Effective conflict management approaches prior to varying intensity levels of
conflict require a combination of analytical and human skills. Moreover, it is of utmost
importance for every member of the pertaining NGO’s to learn on how conflicts can be resolved
efficiently as individuals. Good conflict managers’ work at the source (determinant) of conflict,
to resolve it permanently; they address the root cause of the conflict and not just the symptoms of
it. They size up possible clashes before “contact” is made and then prepare their action plans to
handle potential trouble. However, there are some other conflicts determinants which are not
investigated upon in the given NGOs due to the scope of my study. These determinants also have
to be taken into consideration when resolving conflicts. Some of which include task
interdependence, goal incompatibility, workload, stress, discrimination, differing perceptions and
so on. Nevertheless, leaders should focus on creating an atmosphere intended to reduce
destructive dispute and deal with regular frictions and minor differences before they become
unmanageable in line with looking for a win-win conclusions, cutting losses when necessary,
building a team spirit among workers, formulating proactive conflict management strategies,
using effective negotiation and communication, and appreciating differences among
stakeholders.
5.3. Recommendations
With regards to the results obtained from the research carried out in the various organizations the
researcher makes some recommendations. In line with the results achieved from investigating the
determinants of conflicts and the intensity levels of clashes in these NGOs, the following
recommendations are made which will address the root sources of conflict and in turn, reduce the
intensity of conflict instantly.
An information sharing or communication plan should be developed for each NGO. In addition
to that, there should be an increase use of memos, bulletin boards and the use of e-mail addresses
to pass on information about any little uprising developments in the respective NGOs. The
researcher also proposes that a standard grievance procedure that will involve the board in
69
solving conflicts be developed in the non-governmental organizations differently. This will
significantly reduce the communication gap among staff members and board members and as
such, enhance their understanding and interpretation of all the given information and
instructions. This may equally reduce the amount of conflict triggered by personal rule by
improving on the leadership style and communicative skills of leaders. This recommendation
will also help in clarifying the goals and vision in all the NGOs. This recommendation will thus
reduce the intensity levels of conflict in the respective organizations.
Since scarcity of resources breeds conflicts in the NGOs, it is recommended that proper financial
management and accounting policies and procedures, be developed and appropriately monitored
to ensure optimal utilization of limited available resources for the benefit of the organization and
other stakeholders. This may equally help address the problems of shared resources among the
different stakeholders. Also, the capacity of these NGOs to mobilize resources nationally and
internationally needs to be enhanced. This recommendation will thus reduce the intensity levels
of conflict in the respective organizations.
Conflict preclusion structures should be put in place to address issues that can produce conflicts
before they break open. In a similar vein, conflict situations should be promptly confronted and
addressed whenever they occur rather than being avoided. Management should form policies that
will ensure that conflicts that may arise within the organization are quickly resolved.
Management should clearly define all areas of responsibility and ensure that all stakeholders
clearly understand job descriptions and job specifications. This would improve on the nature of
the various organizational systems as well as reduce the intensity levels of conflicts in the
respective organizations.
Another necessary recommendation is training on several aspects in the organization. This is
required to develop particular skills amongst the workers in these NGOs. Firstly, interpersonal
relationships and team development training are needed with the use of subsidiary training
methods which include role-playing training and sensitivity training. Role-playing training is to
put emphasis on emotional issues in relationships while sensitivity training is to make people
understand themselves and others reasonably. This training will enhance trust and cooperation
among the workers in the organization and create a climate where team members will be open
and honest with each other and use conflict in a constructive way. This kind of method helps to
develop social sensitivity and behavioral flexibility. This would improve the internal stakeholder
70
relations and the leadership quality as well as reduce the intensity of conflict in the respective
organizations. Emotional Intelligence and problem solving/decision-making training; emotional
intelligence training is also recommended to teach people on how to manage themselves
appropriately and focus their emotional energy on doing their job efficiently and working
productively with other individuals in the workplace. Problem-solving/decision-making training
provides a general understanding of conflict resolution techniques and the problem-solving
process as well as expertise decision making. These would reduce the recurrent mistakes made
by stakeholders in FORUDEF and PEP and inappropriate behaviors portrayed by stakeholders in
PEP while resolving a conflict. This training will, however, improve on the valuable skills
required for resolving conflict in ASYOUSED and EGI. This training would also improve on the
time and cost effectiveness of the resolution process. This training will thus reduce the intensity
levels of conflict and also improve the effectiveness of the resolution process in the respective
organizations.
The second set of recommendations is to improve specifically on the efficacy of the conflict
resolution by ensuring that the most appropriate and efficient technique in any given conflict
situation is used to bring about the most practical and efficient outcome to stakeholders and the
organizations. It is thereby essential for stakeholders to make their choices based on following
considerations below:
Use Force: When you are convinced that you are accurate. When an emergency situation exists
(do or die).When stakes are high and, concerns are important. When you are stronger: never start
a battle you can’t win. When the acceptance is unimportant and to gain status or demonstrate a
position of power.
Use Collaboration (Confrontation): When you both get at least what you want and maybe more.
To reduce overall project costs. To gain commitment and create a shared power base. When
there is enough time and skills are corresponding. When you want to prevent later use of other
methods. To maintain future relationships. When there is mutual trust, respect, and confidence.
Use Compromise: For temporary solutions. For substitute, if collaboration fails. When you can’t
win or, don’t have sufficient time. When others are as strong as you are. To keep your
relationship with your opponent. When you are not sure, you are right. When you get nothing if,
do not give in. When goals are fairly high.
71
Use Escape (Withdrawal): When you can’t win, or the stakes are low. When the stakes are high,
but you are not ready yet. To gain status or demonstrate position power. To save time. To
demoralize your opponent. To maintain impartiality or reputation. When you think, the problem
will go away by itself.
Use Accommodation (Smoothing): To reach an overreaching goal. To create the obligation for a
trade-off at a later date. When stakes are low and liability is limited. To maintain harmony,
peace, and goodwill. When any solution will be adequate. When you will lose anyway. To gain
time.
5.4 Further research
As further studies, it would be fascinating to apply the methods suggested in this thesis through
workshops or when a conflict arises in an NGO. Through a workshop with two opposing parties,
negative and positive effects could be revealed but most beneficial would be to apply these
methods in a real conflict. Furthermore, different company cultures may be more appropriate for
a particular recommendation over another, this study can be difficult to implement but can help
with a deeper understanding of the pattern conflict determinants and the corresponding intensity
levels and thereby further development in the study of conflict management. There are several
things that the researcher found interesting for future research.
Firstly, it could be interesting to know how the trend of organizational conflicts of these NGOs
has been changed (whether conflicts are decreasing or rather increasing) with the implementation
of the recommendations made in this research. Secondly, because of variations in the external
and internal environments, it would be interesting to see how conflict resolution approaches have
been changing through the years in the NGOs. It could be interesting to conduct a future research
in bigger companies in Cameroon, moreover in the public sector which has a higher diversity
among employees and board members. In this case, other Cameroonian organizations will have
different strategies for conflict management prior to the diversified nature of these organizations.
5.5. Final words
The research has been an exciting journey. The researcher has made a long way to reach the
purpose of the study to develop the recommendations for these selected NGOs concerning their
determinants of conflict, the intensity level of conflicts and the conflict resolution approaches
used. The researcher has made useful recommendations to the NGOs on how to tackle the
uprising determinants of conflict from its roots, reduce the intensity levels of conflicts and
72
improve the effectiveness of their conflict resolution approaches. The researcher hopes that the
dissertation will be useful for NGOs as it helps them to identify their weaknesses and provides
recommendations for improvements. If these selected NGOs will have a new insight into their
conflict resolution approach after reading this report, then the aim of the author has been
reached. The research project can also be helpful for other researchers who wish to make further
investigations in this field of study.
73
REFERENCES
Allan.S. (2006). Retrieved from Retrieved September 19, 2012 from World Wide Web :
www.hscanada.com/Personal%20and%20Positional%20Power.doc.
Amstrong M. (2006). A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice 10th edition.
London: Kogan.
Andra Medea. (1996). The Conflict Continuum.Chicago.
Aslam R., Shumaila S., Azhar M., Sadaqat S. (2011). Work-Family Conflicts: Relationship
between Work-Life Conflict and Employee Retention -A Comparative Study of Public
and Private Sector Employees. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business.
Avery, D. R., McKay, P. F., David, C. W.,. (2007). Engaging the aging workforce: The
relationship between perceived age similarity, satisfaction with coworkers, and employee
engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology.
Aycan Z. (2010). Work Family Conflict from a Cross-Cultural Perspective: Invited Presentation
at the Arab Women Leadership Forum, Istanbul: Department of Psycology,Koc
University.
Azamosa O. (2004). Industrial Conflict in Nigerian Universities: The case of the Academic Staff
Union of the University Teacher's Strike of December2002 - June 2003. Dept. of
Sociology, Anthropology and Applied Social Sciences, Bristol University.
Baddar, L., Karatepe, O. M., Uludag, O., Menevis, I., and Hdzimehmedagic, L. (2006). The
effects of selected individual characteristics on frontline employee performance and job
satisfaction. Tourism Management Journal.
Badler Howard. (2008). Conflict management in the workplace. Training
News,http://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/186/28530.html.
Barry, D., James, W., Townsend R., and Jung, C, G. (2009). Warring Egos, Toxic
Individuals,Feeble Leadership: A study of conflict in the Canadian workplace.
Psychometrics Canada Ltd.
Bercovitch, J. & Jackson, R. (2009). Conflict resolution in the twenty first century: Principles,
methods, and approaches. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Berg B. (2009). Qualitative research methods: For social sciences. Boston: Pearson Education.
Boddy D. (2002). Managing Projects. Edinburgh Gate: Pearson Education.
Borisoff. D., & Victor, D. A. (1998). Conflict Management: A Communication Skills Approach.
Needham Heights. Allyn & Bacon , AViacom Company.
74
Brett J.M. (2007). Negotiating Globally:How to Negotiate Deals,Resolve Disputes, and Make
Decisions. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brian F.,. (2003). Approaches of resolving dysfunctional conflict. World Wide Web:
http://www.ehow.com/list_5801672_causes-conflict-workplace_.html.
Caras and Associates Incorparation. (Retrieved April 18, 2011). http://peerpanel.com/peer-
review/.
Christina, P. (2006). Federal labour and employee Relations. World Wide Web:
www.taskmanagementguide.com/glossary/what-is-task .
Corby., Susan. (2003). Public Sector Disputes and Third Party Intervention. Research paper
prepared for ACAS Company. London:
http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/5/2/public_sector_disputes.
Cynthia, A. T. and David, J. P. (2006). Relationships among organizational family support, job
autonomy, perceived control, and employee well-being. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, pp. 100-118.
De Dreu, C. and Beersma, B. (2005). Conflict in Organizations: Beyond Effectiveness and
Performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology.
Deutsch, M. (1991). Subjective features of conflict resolution: Psychological, social and cultural
influences. In R. Vayrynen (ed.), New directions in conflict theory. London: Sage.
Fonchingong C.C., Fonjong L.N. (2002). The Concept of Self-Reliance in Community
Development Initiatives in the Cameroon Grass fields. Geo Journal 57 , 83–94.
Gareth. R. J., Jennifer, M. G. (2008). Contemporary of Conflict Management. Retrieved August
28, 2012, from World Wide Web: http://www.ehow.com/list_6802470_types-goal-
conflict.html.
Goleman, D. P. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ for Character,
Health and Lifelong Achievement.New York: Bantam Books.
Griffin, L. M. . (2006). Gender and Stress: A Comparative Assessment of Sources of Stress
among Correctional Officers. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, pp 5-25.
Havenga,W. (2002). A comparative analysis of conflict dynamics within private and public
sector organizations. PhD Thesis, Potchefstroom University.
Huseman, R. C., Logue, C. M. &Freshley, D. L. (1977). Readings in interpersonal and
organizationalcommunication.Boston: Holbrook Press, Inc.
Jeffrey, & Pinto, K. (1998). Project Management Handbook. San Francisco: Lyons Falls Turin
Books.
75
Jennifer, L. (2010). The Real Cost of Workplace Conflict. Retrieved July 12, 2012, World Wide
Web: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/207196.
Johnson, R. . (2008). Types of Managerial action That Cause Workplace Conflicts . Retrieved
July, 12th, 2012, from World Wide Web: http://www.ehow.com/list_7377909_causes-
conflict-work-place_.html.
Karatepe, O. M. and Kilic, H. (2007). Relationships of supervisor support and conflicts in the
work–family interface with the selected job outcomes of frontline employees. Tourism
Management Journal, 238–252 .
Karatepe, O. M., and Tekinkus, M. (2006). The effects of work-family conflict, emotional
exhaustion, and intrinsic motivation on job outcomes of front-line employees. .
International Journal of Bank Marketing, pp.173 – 193.
Kim, S. L. J. and Ling, S.C. (2001). Work-Family Conflict of Women Entrepreneurs in
Singapore. .
Kinemo. S. M. (2012). Lecture Notes On Conflict Management, Mzumbe University.
Kinicki, A., &Kreitner, R. (2008). Organizational Behavior: Key Concepts, Skills & Best
Practices. New York: The McGraw - Hill Companies.
Kurtzberg, T.R. and Mueller, J.S. (2005). The influence of daily conflict on perceptions of
creativity: A longitudinal study‟, [Online] Available at:http://nuweb.northumbria.ac.uk/li.
The International Journal of Conflict Management, pp. 335-353.
Lebedun, J. (1998). Managing Workplace Conflicts. Virginia, USA: published by Coastal
Training Technologies corporation 500 studio drive.
Leung, Yu Fai . (2010). Conflict Management and Emotional Intelligence. Lismore:
Unpublished thesis for degree of Doctor of Business Administration, Southern Cross
University.
Makoba. (2002). Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOS) and Third World Development: An
Alternative Approach to Development Print . Journal of Third World Studies Spring.
Managing Conflict in the Workplace :People Communicating.(2012). Retrieved April 20, 2012,
from http://www.people-communicating.com/conflict-in-the-workplace.html.
Mark, C. B. and William, H. T. (2005). The Personal Costs of Citizenship Behavior: The
Relationship Between Individual Initiative and Role Overload, Job Stress, and Work-
Family Conflict . Journal of Applied Psychology, pp 740-748.
Mersino, A. C. ( 2007). Emotional Intelligence for project managers. New York: AMACOM .
Moore, M. &Stewart,S. (1998). “Corporate governance for NGOs?,” Development in Practice.
76
Mukasa, S. (2006). “Are expatriate staff necessary in international development NGOs? A case
study of an international NGO in Uganda”,CVO International Working Paper 4,.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/,(Accessed, August 11 2006).
Mullins, L. J. (2005). Management and OrganisationalBehaviour 7th Edition,. Essex: Prentice
Hall.
Netemeyer, G. R., Maxham, G. J., and Chris, P. (2005). Conflicts in the Work-Family Interface:
Links to Job Stress, Customer Service Employee Performance, and Customer Purchase
Intent. American Marketing Association. Journal of Marketing Vol. 69.
Ohbuchi, K. and Suzuki, M. (2003). Three dimensions of conflict issues and their effects on
resolution strategies in organizational settings. The International Journal of Conflict
Management, pp. 61-73.
Peter Salovey & Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotional intelligence: Imagination, Cognition, and
Personality.
Punyasiri , S. (2003). Work and Family Conflicts of Women Managers at Five-Star Hotels in
Bangkok, Thailand, University of South Australia .
Rahim M. A. (2001). Managing Conflicts In Organisation Westport, C. T. Quorom 3rdEdition.
Rahim, A.M., Magner, N.R. and Shapiro, D.L. (2000). "Do justice perceptions influence styles
of handling conflict with supervisors?: What justice perceptions, precisely?". The
International Journal of Conflict Management, pp. 9-31.
Runde, C.E. and Flanagan T.A. (2007). Becoming a Conflict Competent Leader. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
S.P.Robbins, S. (2005). Organisational behavior. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Schramm-Nielsen, J. (2002). “Conflict Management in Scandinavia” Department of Interntional
Communication and Management, Copenhangan Business School. Denmark.
Scott, Elizabeth. (2011). Conflict Resolution Mistakes To Avoid. Stress Management. Retrieved
April 19, 2012, from http://stress.about.com/od/relationships/tp/conflictres.htm.
Segal, Jeanne, & Smith, Melinda. (2011). Conflict Resolution Skills. Retrieved February 25,
2012, from http://www.helpguide.org/mental/eq8_conflict_resolution.htm.
Shyam, B. (1999). Assessment of sources of intergroup conflict. Retrieved August 28, 2012,
from World Wide Web: http://www.ehow.com/info_8430141_sources-intergroup-
conflict.html,Tuesday, 12:08 pm .
Spangler, Brad. (2003). Facilitation. Retrieved February 25, 2012, from
http://www.beyondintractability.org/bi-essay/facilitation.
77
Starks, G. L. (2006). Managing conflict in public organizations: conflict can be recognized,
tackled, and resolved in five not-so-easy steps. Retrieved July 27, 2012, from World
Wide Web: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-158909002.html.
Therkildsen, O. and Tidemand, P. (2007). Staff Management and Organisational Performance in
Tanzania and Uganda: Public Servant Perspectives. Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs
by the Danish Institute for International Studies and DEGE Consult in cooperation.
Thomas, K. (1999). Theory of goals conflict . Retrieved August 28, 2012, from World Wide
Web: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_goal_conflict .
USAID (2011) CSO sustainability index for Sub-Saharan Africa: Bureau of Democracy, Conflict
and Humanitarian Assistance. (n.d.) Washington.
Uwem Essia. (2014). Institutional Capacity Assessment by PAID-WA. Cameroon.
Victor, David A. (2012). Conflict Management and Negotiation. Encyclopedia for Business.
Retrieved 25 February, 2012, from
http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Comp-De/Conflict-Management-and-
Negotiation.html.
Wall, B. (2007). Coaching For Emotional Intelligence: The Secret to Developing the Star
Potential in Your Employees. New York: AMACOM.
Whetten, David A., & Cameron, Kim S. (2012). Managing Power and Conflict in the
Workplace. Introduction to International Organizational Behavior. Retrieved 25
February, 2012, from http://www.introtoob.com/textbook/introtoob/chapter7/.
Workplace, M. C. (2012) :People Communicating. Retrieved April 20, 2012, from
http://www.people-communicating.com/conflict-in-the-workplace.html.
78
APPENDICES
APPENDIX I
QUESTIONNAIRE
PAN AFRICAN INSTITUTE FOR DEVELOPMENT – WEST AFRICA
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS STUDIES
Dear sir / Madam
I am a Graduate student of the above mentioned Department and Institution carrying out research
work on the topic: “Forces and Intensity of Dysfunctional Conflicts in Non-Governmental
Organizations: A Study of Selected NGOs in the South West Region.” The research work is
in partial fulfilment of the Masters of Science (M.Sc.) Degree in Strategic Human Resource
Management and as such it is strictly for academic purposes. Your identity is not therefore
needed since your names are not required. Consequently, I would be most grateful should you
provide truthful and factual responses to the questions below. I count on your co-operation to
make this research endeavour a success.
Many thanks for your understanding,
With best of wishes
Kombem Ridel (PAIDWA00061)
BACKGROUND OF RESPONDENT:
1. Region/town …………………………………………….
2. Sex (male/female) ……………………………………………………………….
3. Occupation (e.g., clerk).....................................................................................
4. Age: <25 …… 26 – 35……. 36 – 45……… 46 – 55……. 56
above…….
5. Marital status: Married ………….. Unmarried ……………
6. What is your education level? Tick the relevant answer (√)
79
A) Primary B) Ordinary Certificate Secondary Education C) Advanced Certificate
Secondary Education E) Diploma F) Advanced Diploma G) Bachelor H)
Postgraduate /Masters I) Ph.D.
SECTION A
7. Rate the following in your organization on a scale of 1-5
1 2 3 4 5
Communication by leaders
Leadership styles
Accountability by leaders
Use of power by leaders
Communication among employees/board members
Interpersonal skills and abilities of employees/board members
Accountability of employees/ board members
Discipline of employees/board members
Resource availability
distribution of duties
organizational system
Goals and vision
80
SECTION B
8. How would you rate the intensity of these conflicts in your organization on a scale of
1-5?
1 2 3 4 5
Differences
Minor disagreements
Misunderstandings
Challenge of others
Assertive verbal attacks
Threats
Aggressive physical attacks
Overt efforts to destroy the other party
9. Which parties are involved in conflict most frequently in your organization? Tick the
relevant answer (√)
A) Management and management B) Management and employees
C) Employees and employees D) Board members and management
E) Board members and board members
10. Which is the most frequent time- frame occurrence of conflict in your organization?
Tick the relevant answer (√)
A) 1-3 times a month B) 4-6 times a month C) 7-9 times a month
81
SECTION C
11. Which is the most frequent method used by leaders to resolve conflict in your
organization? Tick the relevant answer (√)
A) Avoiding B) Collaborating C) Forcing D) Accommodating E) Compromising
F) Mediation G) Arbitration
12. Do leaders solve conflict effectively at work place. Tick the relevant answer (√)
a) Strongly agree b) Agree c) Neutral d) Disagree e) Strongly disagree
Explain…………………………………………………………………………………
13. How would you rate the stakeholders (leaders, employees and board members) in your
organization in the process of resolving conflict in the following aspects below?
Low High
Recurrent mistakes (Avoidance
of conflict altogether, argument
winning, forgetting to listen,
over generalizing, mind-reading
attempts)
Inappropriate behaviors (Being
right, being defensive, blaming
others, character attacks, neither
talking nor listening)
Cost effectiveness (less money is
spent in resolving conflicts)
Time effectiveness(less time is
spent in resolving conflicts)
Valuable skills(Decision
making, problem solving
emotional intelligence,
negotiation skills
82
APPENDIX II
INTERVIEW GUIDE
1) What are the major triggers of conflict in your organization?
2) How intense is conflict in your organization?
3) How effective are the approaches used by leaders in resolving conflicts in your
organization?
83
APPENDIX III
THE INTENSITY LEVELS OF CONFLICTS IN THE VARIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS
Non-Governmental Organizations
FORUDEF EGI ASYOUSED PEP Africa
Dif
fere
nce
s
Very low F (%) 0(0.0%) 3(27.3%) 0(0.0%) 1(7.1%)
Low F (%) 0(0.0%) 5(45.5%) 3(27.3%) 2(14.3%)
Moderate F (%) 4(26.7%) 0(0.0%) 5(45.5%) 3(21.4%)
High F (%) 4(26.7%) 1(9.1%) 0(0.0%) 8(57.1%)
Very high F (%) 7(46.7%) 2(18.2%) 3(27.3%) 0(0.0%)
Subtotal F (%) 15(100.0%) 11(100.0%) 11(100.0%) 14(100.0%)
Min
or
dis
agre
emen
ts
Very low F (%) 1(6.7%) 0(0.0%) 0(0.0%) 1(7.1%)
Low F (%) 1(6.7%) 0(0.0%) 2(18.2%) 3(21.4%)
Moderate F (%) 5(33.3%) 2(18.2%) 4(36.4%) 4(28.6%)
High F (%) 4(26.7%) 5(45.5%) 3(27.3%) 5(35.7%)
Very high F (%) 4(26.7%) 4(36.4%) 2(18.2%) 1(7.1%)
Subtotal F (%) 15(100.0%) 11(100.0%) 11(100.0%) 14(100.0%)
Mis
un
der
stan
din
gs
Very low F (%) 1(6.7%) 2(18.2%) 0(0.0%) 0(0.0%)
Low F (%) 2(13.3%) 3(27.3%) 2(18.2%) 0(0.0%)
Moderate F (%) 4(26.73.3%) 0(0.0%) 3(27.3%) 4(28.6%)
High F (%) 5(33.3%) 3(27.3%) 4(36.4%) 4(28.6%)
Very high F (%) 3(20.0%) 3(27.3%) 2(18.2%) 6(42.9%)
Subtotal F (%) 15(100.0%) 11(100.0%) 11(100.0%) 14(100.0%)
Ch
all
enge
of
oth
ers
Very low F (%) 1(6.7%) 3(27.3%) 0(0.0%) 2(14.3%)
Low F (%) 2(13.3%) 1(9.1%) 1(9.1%) 1(7.1%)
Moderate F (%) 1(6.7%) 2(18.2%) 2(18.2%) 3(21.4%)
High F (%) 7(46.7%) 3(27.3%) 4(36.4%) 5(35.7%)
Very high F (%) 4(26.7%) 2(18.2%) 4(36.4%) 3(21.4%)
Subtotal F (%) 15(100.0%) 11(100.0%) 11(100.0%) 14(100.0%)
Ass
erti
ve v
erb
al
att
ack
s
Very low F (%) 5(33.3%) 2(18.2%) 1(9.1%) 1(7.1%)
Low F (%) 1(6.7%) 3(27.3%) 4(36.4%) 2(14.3%)
Moderate F (%) 4(26.7%) 1(9.1%) 2(18.2%) 5(35.7%)
High F (%) 1(6.7%) 4(36.4%) 3(27.3%) 5(35.7%)
Very high F (%) 4(26.7%) 1(9.1%) 1(9.1%) 1(7.1%)
Subtotal F (%) 15(100.0%) 11(100.0%) 11(100.0%) 14(100.0%)
84
Th
reats
Very low F (%) 3(20.0%) 5(45.5%) 0(0.0%) 3(21.4%)
Low F (%) 6(40.0%) 3(27.3%) 2(18.2%) 3(21.4%)
Moderate F (%) 3(20.0%) 3(27.3%) 4(36.4%) 6(42.9%)
High F (%) 3(20.0%) 0(0.0%) 3(27.3%) 1(7.1%)
Very high F (%) 0(0.0%) 0(0.0%) 2(18.2%) 1(7.1%)
Subtotal F (%) 15(100.0%) 11(100.0%) 11(100.0%) 14(100.0%)
Aggre
ssiv
e p
hysi
cal
att
ack
s
Very low F (%) 7(46.7%) 8(72.7%) 2(18.2%) 2(14.3%)
Low F (%) 5(33.3%) 3(27.3%) 3(27.3%) 4(28.6%)
Moderate F (%) 1(6.7%) 0(0.0%) 3(27.3%) 3(21.4%)
High F (%) 0(0.0%) 0(0.0%) 2(18.2%) 3(21.4%)
Very high F (%) 2(13.3%) 0(0.0%) 1(9.1%) 2(14.3%)
Subtotal F (%) 15(100.0%) 11(100.0%) 11(100.0%) 14(100.0%)
Overt
ef
fort
s to
d
estr
oy
the
oth
er p
art
y
Very low F (%) 3(20.0%) 1(9.1%) 0(0.0%) 1(7.1%)
Low F (%) 5(33.3%) 4(36.4%) 3(27.3%) 5(35.7%)
Moderate F (%) 2(13.3%) 2(18.2%) 4(36.4%) 2(14.3%)
High F (%) 5(33.3%) 3(27.3%) 2(18.2%) 6(42.9%)
Very high F (%) 0(0.0%) 1(9.1%) 2(18.2%) 0(0.0%)
Subtotal F (%) 15(100.0%) 11(100.0%) 11(100.0%) 14(100.0%)
85
APPENDIX IV
CROSSTABS
Age distribution of participants in the selected NGOs * Differences Crosstabulation
Count
Differences Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Age distribution of participants in
the selected NGOs
<25 1 1 1 3 3 9
26-35 3 1 8 3 3 18
36-45 0 6 3 5 5 19
46-55 0 0 0 0 1 1
>56 0 2 0 2 0 4
Total 4 10 12 13 12 51
Age distribution of participants in the selected NGOs * Minor disagreements Crosstabulation
Count
Minor disagreements Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Age distribution of participants in
the selected NGOs
<25 0 0 7 1 1 9
26-35 1 4 3 7 3 18
36-45 1 1 3 8 6 19
46-55 0 0 0 1 0 1
>56 0 1 2 0 1 4
Total 2 6 15 17 11 51
Age distribution of participants in the selected NGOs * Misunderstandings Crosstabulation
Count
Misunderstandings Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Age distribution of participants in
the selected NGOs
<25 0 1 3 1 4 9
26-35 0 2 6 4 6 18
36-45 2 3 4 7 3 19
46-55 0 0 0 0 1 1
>56 1 1 0 2 0 4
Total 3 7 13 14 14 51
86
Age distribution of participants in the selected NGOs * Challenge of others Crosstabulation
Count
Challenge of others Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Age distribution of participants in
the selected NGOs
<25 1 0 1 6 1 9
26-35 4 1 3 4 6 18
36-45 1 2 3 8 5 19
46-55 0 0 1 0 0 1
>56 0 2 0 1 1 4
Total 6 5 8 19 13 51
Age distribution of participants in the selected NGOs * Assertive verbal attacks Crosstabulation
Count
Assertive verbal attacks Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Age distribution of participants in
the selected NGOs
<25 1 3 4 1 0 9
26-35 5 3 5 3 2 18
36-45 2 2 3 8 4 19
46-55 0 1 0 0 0 1
>56 1 1 0 1 1 4
Total 9 10 12 13 7 51
Age distribution of participants in the selected NGOs * Threats Crosstabulation
Count
Threats Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Age distribution of participants in
the selected NGOs
<25 2 1 4 2 0 9
26-35 4 1 6 6 1 18
36-45 2 11 2 2 2 19
46-55 1 0 0 0 0 1
>56 0 1 1 2 0 4
Total 9 14 13 12 3 51
87
Age distribution of participants in the selected NGOs * Aggressive physical attacks Cross tabulation
Count
Aggressive physical attacks Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Age distribution of participants in
the selected NGOs
<25 3 3 1 1 1 9
26-35 5 9 3 0 1 18
36-45 10 3 2 4 0 19
46-55 1 0 0 0 0 1
>56 0 0 1 0 3 4
Total 19 15 7 5 5 51
Age distribution of participants in the selected NGOs * Overt efforts to destroy the other party Cross tabulation
Count
Overt efforts to destroy the other party Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Age distribution of participants in
the selected NGOs
<25 0 7 1 0 1 9
26-35 2 4 7 5 0 18
36-45 2 5 2 8 2 19
46-55 1 0 0 0 0 1
>56 0 1 0 3 0 4
Total 5 17 10 16 3 51
Gender distribution of participants in the selected NGOs * Differences Cross tabulation
Count
Differences Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Gender distribution of participants
in the selected NGOs
Male 4 7 3 6 5 25
Female 0 3 9 7 7 26
Total 4 10 12 13 12 51
88
Gender distribution of participants in the selected NGOs * Minor disagreements Cross tabulation
Count
Minor disagreements Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Gender distribution of participants
in the selected NGOs
Male 1 1 7 10 6 25
Female 1 5 8 7 5 26
Total 2 6 15 17 11 51
Gender distribution of participants in the selected NGOs * Misunderstandings Cross tabulation
Count
Misunderstandings Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Gender distribution of participants
in the selected NGOs
Male 3 6 3 9 4 25
Female 0 1 10 5 10 26
Total 3 7 13 14 14 51
Gender distribution of participants in the selected NGOs * Challenge of others Cross tabulation
Count
Challenge of others Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Gender distribution of participants
in the selected NGOs
Male 5 4 2 10 4 25
Female 1 1 6 9 9 26
Total 6 5 8 19 13 51
Gender distribution of participants in the selected NGOs * Assertive verbal attacks Cross tabulation
Count
Assertive verbal attacks Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Gender distribution of participants in the
selected NGOs
Male 5 2 3 8 7 25
Female 4 8 9 5 0 26
Total 9 10 12 13 7 51
89
Gender distribution of participants in the selected NGOs * Threats Cross tabulation
Count
Threats Tota
l Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Gender distribution of participants in the
selected NGOs
Male 5 7 7 4 2 25
Female 4 7 6 8 1 26
Total 9 14 13 12 3 51
Gender distribution of participants in the selected NGOs * Aggressive physical attacks Cross tabulation
Count
Aggressive physical attacks Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Gender distribution of participants in the
selected NGOs
Male 9 7 4 2 3 25
Female 10 8 3 3 2 26
Total 19 15 7 5 5 51
Gender distribution of participants in the selected NGOs * Overt efforts to destroy the other party Cross tabulation
Count
Overt efforts to destroy the other party Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Gender distribution of participants in the
selected NGOs
Male 0 8 2 12 3 25
Female 5 9 8 4 0 26
Total 5 17 10 16 3 51
Marital status of respondents * Differences Cross tabulation
Count
Differences Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Marital status of respondents
Married 4 2 6 6 10 28
Unmarried 0 8 6 7 2 23
Total 4 10 12 13 12 51
90
Marital status of respondents * Minor disagreements Cross tabulation
Count
Minor disagreements Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Marital status of respondents Married 1 3 10 9 5 28
Unmarried 1 3 5 8 6 23
Total 2 6 15 17 11 51
Marital status of respondents * Misunderstandings Cross tabulation
Count
Misunderstandings Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Marital status of respondents Married 1 1 9 9 8 28
Unmarried 2 6 4 5 6 23
Total 3 7 13 14 14 51
Marital status of respondents * Challenge of others Cross tabulation
Count
Challenge of others Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Marital status of respondents Married 5 3 4 10 6 28
Unmarried 1 2 4 9 7 23
Total 6 5 8 19 13 51
Marital status of respondents * Assertive verbal attacks Cross tabulation
Count
Assertive verbal attacks Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Marital status of respondents Married 6 6 7 3 6 28
Unmarried 3 4 5 10 1 23
Total 9 10 12 13 7 51
91
Marital status of respondents * Threats Cross tabulation
Count
Threats Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Marital status of respondents Married 4 9 11 4 0 28
Unmarried 5 5 2 8 3 23
Total 9 14 13 12 3 51
Marital status of respondents * Aggressive physical attacks Cross tabulation
Count
Aggressive physical attacks Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Marital status of respondents Married 12 11 3 2 0 28
Unmarried 7 4 4 3 5 23
Total 19 15 7 5 5 51
Marital status of respondents * Overt efforts to destroy the other party Cross tabulation
Count
Overt efforts to destroy the other party Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Marital status of respondents Married 4 10 5 9 0 28
Unmarried 1 7 5 7 3 23
Total 5 17 10 16 3 51
Educational level of respondents * Differences Crosstabulation
Count
Differences Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Educational level of respondents
B.Sc 4 3 10 9 11 37
P.G.D 0 2 2 2 0 6
M.Sc 0 4 0 1 1 6
P.H.D. 0 1 0 0 0 1
H.N.D 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 4 10 12 13 12 51
92
Educational level of respondents * Minor disagreements Cross tabulation
Count
Minor disagreements Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Educational level of respondents
B.Sc 1 4 13 12 7 37
P.G.D 1 1 1 2 1 6
M.Sc 0 0 1 2 3 6
P.H.D. 0 1 0 0 0 1
H.N.D 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 2 6 15 17 11 51
Educational level of respondents * Misunderstandings Cross tabulation
Count
Misunderstandings Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Educational level of respondents
B.Sc 1 4 12 10 10 37
P.G.D 1 2 1 0 2 6
M.Sc 1 1 0 3 1 6
P.H.D. 0 0 0 1 0 1
H.N.D 0 0 0 0 1 1
Total 3 7 13 14 14 51
Educational level of respondents * Challenge of others Cross tabulation
Count
Challenge of others Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Educational level of respondents
B.Sc 6 3 5 14 9 37
P.G.D 0 0 2 1 3 6
M.Sc 0 2 1 3 0 6
P.H.D. 0 0 0 0 1 1
H.N.D 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 6 5 8 19 13 51
93
Educational level of respondents * Assertive verbal attacks Cross tabulation
Count
Assertive verbal attacks Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Educational level of respondents
B.Sc 8 7 9 7 6 37
P.G.D 1 1 2 2 0 6
M.Sc 0 2 0 3 1 6
P.H.D. 0 0 0 1 0 1
H.N.D 0 0 1 0 0 1
Total 9 10 12 13 7 51
Educational level of respondents * Threats Cross tabulation
Count
Threats Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Educational level of respondents
B.Sc 7 10 12 6 2 37
P.G.D 0 2 0 4 0 6
M.Sc 2 2 1 0 1 6
P.H.D. 0 0 0 1 0 1
H.N.D 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 9 14 13 12 3 51
Educational level of respondents * Aggressive physical attacks Cross tabulation
Count
Aggressive physical attacks Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Educational level of respondents
B.Sc 14 14 4 3 2 37
P.G.D 3 0 2 0 1 6
M.Sc 2 0 0 2 2 6
P.H.D. 0 0 1 0 0 1
H.N.D 0 1 0 0 0 1
Total 19 15 7 5 5 51
94
Educational level of respondents * Overt efforts to destroy the other party Cross tabulation
Count
Overt efforts to destroy the other party Total
Very low Low Moderate High Very high
Educational level of respondents
B.Sc 4 13 7 12 1 37
P.G.D 0 2 3 1 0 6
M.Sc 1 1 0 2 2 6
P.H.D. 0 0 0 1 0 1
H.N.D 0 1 0 0 0 1
Total 5 17 10 16 3 51
