Resolving of Substantive and Emotional Conflicts in the Organizations - Case Study Example

Conflict can be defined as a state of persistence unresolved differences between people, groups or within an individual (Vecchio, 2004). The parties involved in the conflict usually have a pressing need which should be addressed and they get frustration because they are not in a position to get what they believe should be given to them or they have been denied what they believe should be rightfully theirs---promotion, wage increment, gift and many others. It can extend to disagreement for social issues within the working environment due to lack of understanding between individuals or group of people within the organization (Resnick, 1983). Such kind of conflict is detrimental to organization performance has it can hinder the performance within the organization. Nelson and Campel (2003) say that conflict cause persistence friction among groups and individuals hence hindering smooth flow of work in a company. There are majorly two types of conflict which can exist in any organization and these are; substantive conflict and emotional conflict (Nelson and Campbell, 2003). Substantive conflict can be defined as the disagreement which exist between two or more groups or individuals over the goals or ends to be pursued and accomplished within an organization and the means to be used in their accomplishment, this kind of disagreement is usually principle based conflict like difference on accounting principle to be used in profit realization method in an organization or method to be used in resolving a conflict which exist in a company (Plaks et al, 2005). This type of conflict is majorly common in large companies with different department who have different objectives and goals to achieve. This is because as each and every department will try to achieve its goals, friction will arise more so if the goals are parallel but interdependent in one way or the other. The second type of conflict is the emotional conflict. In most cases emotional conflict occurs between groups or individuals and it can be defined as interpersonal differences or difficulties that comes out as a result of feelings of anger, betrayal, dislike of either party, fear of unknown action from either party, resentment and mistrust among the parties (Mc Shane and Von Glinow, 2002). People have different moods each day, likes and dislikes, taste and preferences and make them to be unique and different from one another. If these differences are not managed well they can result to irreconcilable conflict within the organization (Adler, 2002). Since it is a very common type of conflict in any organization, the management should take keen interest in handling this kind of conflict whenever it arises as it can slow down the organization performance due to the fact that the parties in the conflict will not be free to work with one another. Both conflicts can be theorized as social and it is the approach that has been used to categorize the two. According to this approach or theory the main point of concern is usually imbalance existing regarding resources, money and power. This conflict, just like it is witnessed by John and Tania, can happen in any setting---industrial, firm or familial. While researches continue to discover new elements, social theory resonates around details on how when and where socially related conflict can occur. The reason behind the actions of the social groups falling apart is always dependent on the mutual benefit attached (Adler, 2002). The conflict in the finance department can be classified as emotional. John and Tania are in resentful mood and could not face one another due to their personal interest and egos. The element of resentful brings with it hatred and feeling of anger. On the other hand, Tania dislikes John because of the persistence name calling and complains which she received from John and this has greatly hampered their relationship and the work delivery between the two individuals. This kind of emotional conflict can further be classified into interpersonal conflict since it involve two individuals who are involve in persistence quarrels and exchange of words. Interpersonal conflict usually exists between two individuals who are in the same organization, and as a result of daily interaction between individuals they differ in personal principles hence conflict (Plaks, et al, 2001). There are four parties or players in this conflict; the first party to the conflict is the administration or the management of the University which is seen by John as the main contributor to the existing conflict between him and Tania. The management has contributed to this conflict due to its ambiguity in the way it handle its promotional of its staff. This is because John takes this one to be biased and only favors one gender or group of people within the organization. There is need for the management to set clear rules and procedures to be followed when rewarding each and every employee in the organization (Plaks et al, 2005). This would spell the idea that some people are being favored by top management. Secondly, the work interdependency as set in the finance department has also contributed to this cause of the conflict---there is need for the management to set a clear chain of command where the junior officers report to the senior officers with a clear chain of command hence eliminating the conflict. In the case of Tania and John it is difficult to determine who is more senior than the other and who should report to the other one hence endless friction in their work. The second groups of individuals who are the party to this conflict are the fellow work mates of Tania and John. They are indirectly involved in the conflict by not approaching each of their fellow work mates on the actual hatred between them but keep one of the parties in the dark. They should act as mediators between the two or shock absorber to reduce the friction between Tania and John. The third and main player in this conflict is John. He is the one who feels mistreated within the company as he is not being rewarded properly in accordance with his experience or job qualification. This has caused a feeling of hatred and resentful within him and express it towards Tania who has been recently promoted. He is the one who is in the center stage of this conflict. The last player to this conflict is Tania. She is not in a position to understand why John always reject her work and also deny her the resources and materials she needs to complete her work. Due to this, she gets frustrated and fights back hence generating a lot of tension between her and John. There are both direct and indirect conflict management approaches which can be used by the management to resolve the organizational conflict like the case in point of John and Tania. The first option can be the indirect methods. Firstly, there is need to reduce interdependency of work between John and Tania as this will reduce their interaction in cause of duty hence reducing conflict. In interdependency conflict reduction, one can decide to use decoupling method where the two are separated completely in the departments. This can be done either by one remaining in the finance department and the other one taken to a different department but still within the University. Secondly, Buffering could be used to solve the conflict between the two where Simon would act as a shock absorber between the two hence reducing tension between them. Third way of challenging the ever growing tension between the two is to adopt linking pins to resolve the conflict (Vecchio, 2004). Second indirect method is what Adler (2002) refer to as hierarchical referral whenever they do their work. Simon should instruct both parties; John and Tania to submit their work to him first before proceeding to the next stage. That is, what John needs will be picked from Simon and in that case, Tania also pick hers work from Simon without meeting John. In such case, Simon will act as a go between the two hence reducing their meeting which will in turn reduce conflict. Although the use of the command might not result into actual conflict resolution it will, to some favorable extent postpone the growing tension. Thirdly, Simon can employ the use of alteration of mythology and the script; the scripts are just but behavioral routines which with time become part and parcel of the organization culture. This script will give a clear direction on ways and methodology of conflict resolution. This is some of indirect ways in which conflict can be resolve in an organization (Plaks et al, 2001). Lastly is the adoption of indirect way of dealing with situation which is by using principle of competition or power struggle. Principle where swift action are required to resolve the conflict within the organization is used where the conflict is important but not very unpopular and should be used if there are characters who take advantage over non competitive characters in an organization. The direct methods and approaches are usually based on the emphasis laid on the issue to be tackled by the parties involved. The assertiveness of actions is where in resolving the problem; we tend to focuses in satisfying one’s own concerns while unassertiveness is where the personal interest is put aside in conflict resolution. Cooperativeness is where one party is ready and willing to satisfy another concern (Adler, 2002). Avoidance is where the two parties down play their differences between them due to unassertiveness or uncooperativeness to resolve the conflict between them, Simon should adopt both win-win situation of conflict resolution where both parties will get what they desire in their hearts. This will work well since both parties will not feel favoritism from the top management. If win- lose method is used then another fresh conflict might arise (Adler, 2002). Accommodation approach “Kill Your Enemies with Kindness principle” should also be adopted. This theme will give both parties opportunity to express themselves by each first accepting that they are on the wrong side and the other party is right hence have an opportunity to air their grievances freely without any intimidation (Robins and Pals, 2002). The antagonizing parties should be made to know that preserving their own relationship is much better than their own selfish interest at hand and incase of continuous competition among themselves would actually damage their own case at hand. Negotiation/compromise “split the difference” is another option to go with. Since John feels so much compromised, the negotiation can work to solve their difference with Tania. Both Tania and John have equal powers so there is need for both parties to commit themselves to get a mutual goal. But if only one party is ready to give up then this method might not work better (Resnick, 1983). The last aspect of direct conflict resolution is negotiation. Negotiation can be defined as the process of making one decision by different individuals involved while having difference preferences (Vecchio, 2004). Simon should explore face to face negotiation in which Tania and John are put down with Simon and any other senior management officer in the finance division so that Tania and John can explain their points of differences. For effective negotiation to occur the following issues needs to be considered. Firstly, there must be high quality and integrity from the person doing the negotiation and healthy contribution from both parties involve. Secondly, the negotiation must be harmonious, both parties must maintain high level of patience and tolerance, and lastly it should be efficient so that the solution can be found (Vecchio, 2004). The parties involved in the negotiation should maintain high ethical standards and also should put aside their self interest aside which will allow them to reason logically hence avoiding un ethical behaviors during negotiation (Resnick, 1983). John and Tania must have supportive attitude and approach to the said negotiation. They should have willingness to trust each other---they have to show willingness to share all the grievances with the other party and must show willingness to ask constructive questions to the other party during the negotiation. The table below is an elaborate model that can be used to understand conflict resolution. S References Adler, N.: International dimensions of organizational behavior, Fourth edition, south – Western Thomson Learning, 2002 Mc Shane, S. – Von Glinow, M.: Organizational Behavior. Organizational Conflict and Negotiation, McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2002 Nelson, D. – Campbell, J.: Organizational Behavior – foundations, realities and challenges. Conflict at work, Fourth Edition, Thomson, South- Western, USA, 2003 Nelson, D. – Campbell, J.: “What is your Conflict-Handling Style”, Organizational Behavior – foundations, realities and challenges, Fourth Edition, Thomson, South-Western, USA, 2003 Plaks, J. E., Stroessner, S. J., Dweck, C. S., & Sherman, J. W. (2001). Person theories and attention allocation: Preferences for stereotypic versus counter stereotypic information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Resnick, L. B. (1983). Mathematics and science learning: A new conception. Science Robins, R. W., & Pals, J. (2002). Implicit self-theories in the academic domain: Implications forgoal orientation, attributions, affect, and self-esteem change. Self and Identity, Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond I.Q. New York: Cambridge University Press Vecchio, R.: Organizational Behavior, Core Concepts, Fourth Edition, The Dryden Press, 2004 Read More