The paper "How Conflict is Detrimental to Decision Making" is a good example of business coursework. Businesses in the recent past have found themselves operating in a tough environment where organizations try to formulate measures that will enable them to improve their performance and competitiveness. The term conflict has a wide array of definitions depending on the scope of the topic that is being addressed. In this case, it is regarded as a disagreement about interest or ideas. Also, conflicts in an organization may be termed as discord that occurs when goals, interests and values are not compatible with those of other individuals or groups whereby they tend to frustrate each other in an attempt to achieve their desired objectives. Working with other people in an organization or institution is not easy.
Around the world, employees spend more than two hours of their time every week, approximately a day in a month dealing with conflicts in their workplaces. The conflicts may range from minor disagreements or simple quarrels that may later escalate into serious court battles. They may involve individuals, groups or even departments.
Understanding the consequences of intragroup conflict is usually important for the overall performance of the group or the organization. In spite of the numerous number of researches that have been done, much is yet to be understood on how and when groups can benefit or be affected by constant disagreements by the members of a group. Views on Organizational conflict There are three different views on the transitions in conflict thought. The first is the traditional view. This approach assumed that all conflict was bad. It was viewed as a negative process and was often associated with violence, destruction, and irrational behavior to enhance its negative connotation.
It was therefore regarded as harmful and was to be avoided as much as possible. The conflict was a dysfunctional outcome that resulted from poor communication, lack of trust and openness between two people and the failure of managers to respond to the needs and aspirations of their employees. This view offered a simple approach to look at those people who often caused conflicts. Since all kinds of conflicts were bad and had to be avoided, more attention was paid to the cause of the conflict to correct the malfunctions so as to improve group and organizational performance. The second type is the human relations view.
It argues that conflict is a natural occurrence that occurs in all groups and organizations. Since it cannot be avoided, the conflict has to be accepted as it is part of our everyday life. Those who agreed with this view rationalized its existence. They were of the opinion that it could not be eliminated and there when times when it was beneficial to the performance of a group.
It is important to note that unlike the traditional view, human relations view does not reject conflict as an outright negative thing. Moreover, it suggests that organizational conflicts within groups may even lead to a better group outcome and performance. The third is the interactionist view. While the human relations approach chose to accept conflict, the interactionist approach encouraged conflict on the ground that it was beneficial for a group. It argued that an organization or group without conflict was bound to become static, non-responsive, un-adaptable and non-flexible.
The minimum level of conflict is perceived to be beneficial because it helps to maintain certain levels of creativity, self-evaluation and competition among individuals. It is important to note that the interactionist view does not claim that every type of conflict is beneficial, but only the functional and constructive can help a group while the dysfunctional conflicts should be avoided (Ongori 2009).
Mughal, M. R., & Khan, M. 2013. Impact of Conflict and Conflict Management On Organizational Performance. InternationalJournal of Modern Business Issues ofGlobal Market , 1 (3), 1-19.
Ongori Henry, 2009. Organisational Conflict and its Effects on Organisational Performance. Research Journal of Business Management, 3: 16-24. URL: http://scialert.net/abstract/?doi=rjbm.2009.16.24