Values and Conflict in Organisations - Literature review Example

Values and Conflict in Organisations Author name Institutional affiliation Date Introduction Organizations need to have an environment that every person can thrive. Disagreements and differences are expected since organizations are made up of people from different backgrounds and culture. Leaders have a major role to play in order to resolve the interpersonal conflicts that may arise as a result of disagreements. Various theoretical approaches have been adopted as effective processes of conflict resolution as will be focused on the first part of this paper. 1. Theoretical approach to conflict resolution This part will focus on two of such theories namely: moral philosophy theory and the social science theory. Moral philosophy Moral philosophers of the Roman and Stoic times have the belief in the way natural law govern people from different cultures (Gausa & Courtland, 2005). The theory of communitarianism and liberal universalism are considered to be effective in influencing conflict resolution. The two moral philosophies are based on the belief that doing what is considered right in the society can help avoid conflict with other members of the society. Liberalism as a moral philosophy is a moral theory that places value on the conception of a person. Though liberalism is a political philosophy, in terms of conflict resolution the theory is effective since it also encompasses the theories of value, ethics and the person. Moral philosopher Wilhelm von Humboldt (1993) stressed on the importance of developing individuality as the basis of introducing primacy of freedom. According to Mill (1991), a moral philosopher, individuality is a liberal ethic that helps to cultivate and produce well-developed human beings. This philosophy helps to bring human beings nearer to doing the best thing. Gaus and Courtland (2005) argue that liberalism is not just about politics, rather this philosophy is based on perfectionist, substantive and moral theory of doing what is considered as good. In support of this view, the right thing is considered to be the one that promotes development and a regime that is ready to secure individual’s liberty to accomplish doing the right thing. The theory has been supported many philosophers in the nineteenth century like John Rawl and John Dewey since it supports development and human perfection by laying the foundation of a regime supporting liberal rights (Gaus & Courtland, 2005). Liberal perfectionism does not simply mean that it is an ethic that is applied to help liberal politics defend its position. Instead, it means that liberals have understood moral rightness based on individuality and the value attached to human development. On the other hand, Bell (2005) introduces the theory of communitarianism which is critical reaction towards John Rawls liberalism. This theory differs with liberal theories which devalue the community. The theory is based on the support of social and tradition context for political and moral reasoning. Communitarians differ with Rawls’ view of justice as universally true but support the view that standards of justice can only be founded in forms of life and traditions that are specific to societies and can vary from one context to the other (Bent, 2005). Philosophers like Alasdiar and Charles Taylor were of the opinion that political and moral judgments depend on the language of reason within with people view their world. As such, human beliefs, institutions and practices should not be ignored in any political enterprise. This paper considers the theories of communitarianism and liberal universalism as effective in conflict resolution because they specifically support the rights of people to what is good. Conflicts in organizations arise from conflicting interests where some people feel that they have been denied an opportunity to do what they consider as good. As such, they differ with what is implemented as “good” to others. If each member of an organization is valued and allowed to have a say in determining what is good, then every decision made would be considered to be based on consensus. Social science Social sciences disciplines like sociology, psychology and anthropology are involved in the study of societies that are non-violent (Rubenstein, 2001). Social sciences have proven that majority of indigenous cultures employed effective measure to resolve conflicts in the nineteenth century (Hydle, 2006). Human needs theory is an effective theory in conflict resolution as mentioned by psychologists like Abraham Maslow and the work of John Burton (1994). John Burton (1994) human needs theory talks about universal human needs that people need to be satisfied in order to prevent and help resolve conflicts (Rubenstein, 2001). Abraham Maslow (1954) conception of human development as based on sequential satisfaction of basic needs also support Burton’s view of satisfying basic human needs. Maslow (1954) identified the needs in this order “physiological, safety, belongingness/love, esteem, and self-actualisation” (Marker, 2003). The primary needs identified by Burton (1994) are recognition, security, control, rationality and stimulation (Rubenstein, 2001). Social science theories are thus effective in conflict resolution since they address the route cause of conflicts in organizations. For instance, the human needs theory supported by Burton (1994) and Maslow (1954) help to resolve conflict since people get satisfied when their primary needs are made available. When the needs of the members of organizations are addressed fairly and in the order of priority, the members can feel that their desires are fulfilled. Failure to provide such needs fairly would result to conflict as the people struggle to get what their hearts desire. 2a) Conflict as inevitable in organizations In any form of life, conflict is manageable and inevitable (Wertheim et al, 2006). This implies that organization accept that conflict has to exist and they should thus seek measures to manage it. Organization that accept that conflict is inevitable and work with it instead of working against it benefit in various ways. Usually, the major benefit with resolving conflict is that pain arising from the direct and direct costs of resolving conflict can be avoided (Poulton, 2005). The key motivators of understanding and accepting that conflict is inevitable are time and costs. An organization spares some time when it is aware of the conflicting issues and thus address them accordingly as opposed to when an organization is not accepting that conflict is inevitable. The time spared is utilized in other activities that generate income to the organization. If a lot of time is spent addressing the conflict, a lot of resources will be wasted along with time (Wertheim et al, 2006). Organizations operate in a legal environment that guides them on how to perceive and respond to conflicts (Vivar, 2006). Such an environment requires that organizations have internal conflict resolution programs and provide an opportunity for an external mediator to intervene. An organization that understands that conflict is inevitable provides a variety of options to address all types of problems facing all people in the workplace be it employees, professionals, supervisors or managers. Such an organization will also welcome a culture that encourages conflict resolution through a direct negotiation process (Wertheim et al, 2006). Conflict can be considered as healthier or undesirable according to how it satisfy human wants. If conflict results to a mutual understanding of two parties, it can be termed as healthy but when it leads to war or abuses, it is destructive in nature (Wertheim et al, 2006). The decision on how to handle conflicts is based on the ethical principles of sociology and philosophy. The obvious cause of major wars and conflicts in many countries are as a result of fight for such goods as territory, energy and trade (Vivar, 2006). However, the true source of conflict is perception of the likelihood that the way the needs of the people at war would be met (Poulton, 2005). b) Co-operative problem solving/win-win approach A win-win approach or co-operative problem solving method involves the parties in conflict coming together in order to have a consensus on the problem that is affecting them and finally come up with a solution that benefits both of them (Eunson, 2005). The final result of this conflict resolution approach is end up with mutually beneficial outcomes (Heys, 2007). Since this approach focus on addressing the root cause of the conflict, it has its own advantages. The main advantage is that it results to a win-win result where both the parties in conflict leave contended with the process followed and the consensus reached (Vivar, 2006). This method also gives birth to mutual respect and trust since the parties in conflict have to first respect each other in order to have a consensus. The mutual respect and trust lays the foundation for the future partnership or collaboration in future by the parties involved (Eunson, 2005). However, the process of coming into a win-win situation may as well be difficult since it demands for the commitment of all parties to actively participate in search for a mutually acceptable solution (McGrane, Wilson, & Cammock, 2005). As such, designing the options to solve the conflict is an important step in conflict resolution as noted by Eunson (2005). Parties in conflict may become disillusioned with a well-meant consultation and readiness for dialogue if they feel that the consultation will still leave them in a problem (Heys, 2007). Win-win approach may fail as it requires a lot of time as compared to other conflict resolution methods; thus, lack of commitment from any of the party would result to more conflict. In addition, lack of trust from either of the involved party may result to the end of conflict resolution process which results to the introduction of other methods. 3 a) additional negotiation process recommended for use in conflict resolution During the process of conflict resolution, Wertheim et al (2006) identify an additional negotiation processes that are deemed necessary. It is worth to note that conflicts are associated with emotions like anger, hurt, resentment and regrets as manifested by the parties involved. Handling these emotions is an important process recognized by Wertheim et al (2006). A person in regret must be experiencing some anger or resentment. It is thus difficult for such a person to express the pain he or she is experiencing after being hurt. When one is hurt, he or she is confronted with anger which can be very destructive if not well controlled (Poulton, 2005). Wertheim et al (2006) also mentions building of personal relationships as another additional process in conflict resolution. The authors also state why it is important to develop empathy towards the people in a conflict as this is an indicator of concern for others. Wertheim et al (2006) note that by developing a co-operative relationship, trust between conflicting parties grows, damaged relationships get repaired and it assists to separate the parties from the problems they are going through. The additional negotiation process recommended by Wertheim et al (2006) is aimed to facilitate an easy and effective conflict resolution process. The additional processes should as well be an alternative in case the intended conflict resolution process fails as a result of blocks co-operative negotiation. It is for this reason that Wertheim et al (2006) recommend that such blocks should be removed in order to ensure that the conflict resolution process is a success (Hydle, 2006). Such blocks are very common in a win-win approach where some people think that it should result to a win to one party and a loss to the other. Such an altitude is a potential block to the resolution process and removing it is an urgent priority (Poulton, 2005). b) value of third party approaches to conflict resolution Third party involvement in conflict resolution involves the intervention of an independent party to either guide of facilitate the process (Marker, 2003). There are four types of third party involvement namely: mediation, arbitration, conciliation and adjudication (Poulton, 2005). In mediation, a third party facilitates the process by guiding the parties through the negotiation process. Conciliation on the other hand involves a third party investigating the dispute and proposes several solutions which can either be accepted or rejected by the parties. For arbitration, a third party is requested to make a decision which has been arrived at by the disputing parties as binding. Finally, adjudication involves the use of a judge or a jury operating within the court jurisdiction that ensures that the decision reached is backed by the legal system (Wertheim, et al, 2006). The involvement of a third party in conflict resolution is very effective in ending conflict though it may also be a hindrance as noted by Wertheim et al (2006). However, the third party is very useful when the conflict is severe to the extent that the disputant can hardly talk to each other calmly. The third party can intervene by invitation from one of the parties or voluntarily and help to cease the fire (Heys, 2007). In other circumstances, disputants can hardly meet or talk to each other. In such a scenario, the third part can act as an intermediary in the negotiation process (Poulton, 2005). The negotiation process can sometimes call for the involvement of a two chain of intermediaries since it is difficult to have one intermediary relating well with the disputants. In conclusion, the value of a third party involvement in conflict resolution cannot be undermined considering the nature of severe disputes. The third party facilitates the negotiation process by providing a neutral platform when the dispute becomes severe (Behrens, 2007). References Behrens, M. (2007). Conflict, arbitration and workplace dispute resolution in the German workplace. International Journal of Conflict Management, 18(2): 175-192. Bell, D. (2005). Communitarianism. In The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy Edward N. Zalta (Ed.) http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2005/entries/communitarianism/ Eunson, B. (2005). Conflict not always a bad thing. In Communicating in the 21st century. Melbourne: Wiley. Gaus, G., & Courtland, S. D. (2005). Liberalism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Edward N. Zalta (Ed.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2005/entries/liberalism/#Phil Heys, A. (2007). Managing grievances and conflict. In Australian master human resource guide (5th ed.). Sydney: CCH Australia. Hydle, I. (2006). An anthropological contribution to peace and conflict resolution studies. Contemporary Justice Review, 9(3), 257-267. Marker, S. (2003). Unmet human needs. In G. Burgess & H. Burgess (Eds.), Beyond Intractability. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Retrieved from http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/human_needs/?nid=1039 McGrane, F., Wilson, J., & Cammock, T. (2005). Leading employees in one-to-one dispute resolution. Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, 26 ,(4): 263-279. Poulton, M. S. (2005). Organizational storytelling, ethics and morality: How stories frame limits of behaviour in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics and Organizational Studies, 10, (2): 4-9. Rubenstein, R. (2001). Basic human needs: The next steps in human development. International Journal of Peace Studies 6(1). Retrieved from www.gmu.edu/academic/ijps/vol6_1/Rubenstein.htm Vivar, C. G. (2006). Putting conflict management into practice: A nursing case study. Journal of Nursing Management, 14, (3): 206-211. Wertheim, E., Love, A., Wittlefield, L., & Peck, C. (2006). Skills for resolving conflict (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Erudition Press. Read More