THE EVOLUTION OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT.docx

THE EVOLUTION OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT.docx

《THE EVOLUTION OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《THE EVOLUTION OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT.docx（10页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

THEEVOLUTIONOFCONFLICTMANAGEMENT

THEEVOLUTIONOFCONFLICT 

MANAGEMENT

Theearlyapproachtoconflictmanagementwasbasedontheassumptionthatallconflictwasbadandwouldalwaysbecounterproductivetoorganizationalgoals.Conflictmanagement,therefore,wassynonymouswith conflictavoidance.Thisleftthepeopleexperiencingtheconflictwithessentiallyonlyoneoutcome:

awin-losescenario.Insuchcases,theloserwouldfeelslightedandthis,inturn,wouldleadtorenewedbelligerence.Therefore,mostmanagersviewedconflictassomethingtheymusteliminatefromtheirorganization.Thisavoidanceapproachtoconflictmanagementwasprevalentduringthelatterpartofthenineteenthcenturyandcontinueduntilthemid-1940s.

Nevertheless,conflictavoidanceisnotasatisfactorystrategyfordealingwithmostconflict.Conflictavoidanceusuallyleavesthosepeoplewhoarebeingavoidedfeelingasiftheyarebeingneglected.Also,conflictavoidanceusuallyfailstoreconciletheperceiveddifferencesthatoriginallycausedtheconflict.Asaresult,theoriginalbasisfortheconflictcontinuesunabated,heldincheckonlytemporarilyuntilanotherconfrontationarisestosetthesameunresolvedtensionsintomotionagain.Therefore,conflictavoidancestrategiesarenotespeciallyusefulinthelongrun.

Thehumanrelationsviewofconflictmanagementdominatedfromthelate1940sthroughthemid-1970s.Thisviewpointarguedthatconflictwasanaturalandinevitableoccurrenceinanyorganizationalsetting.Becauseconflictwasconsideredunavoidable,thehumanrelationsapproachrecommendedacceptanceofconflict.Inotherwords,conflictcannotbeeliminatedandmayevenbenefittheorganization.Itwasduringthistimeperiodthattheterm"conflictmanagement"wasintroduced,accordingtoNurmiandDarling.

Sincethemid-1970sanewpositiononorganizationalconflicthasemerged.Thistheoreticalperspectiveistheinteractionistapproach.Thisviewpointespousesnotonlyacceptingconflict,butalsoencouragingit.Theoristsareoftheopinionthataconflict-free,harmonious,and cooperative organizationtendstobecomestagnantandnonreponsivetomarketchangeandadvancement.Therefore,itisnecessaryformanagerstointerjectaminimumlevelofconflicttomaintainanoptimalleveloforganizationalperformance.Forexample,SheltonandDarlingsuggestconflictisanecessaryconditionforbothindividualandorganizationalprogression.Theyencouragemanagersto"embraceconflictanduseitforcontinuoustransformation."

SOURCESOFCONFLICT

AccordingtobothDaftandTerry,severalfactorsmaycreateorganizationalconflict.Theyareasfollows:

∙ScarceResources.Resourcesmayincludemoney,supplies,people,orinformation.Often,organizationalunitsareincompetitionforscarceordecliningresources.Thiscreatesasituationwhereconflictisinevitable.

∙JurisdictionalAmbiguities.Conflictsmayalsosurfacewhenjobboundariesandtaskresponsibilitiesareunclear.Individualsmaydisagreeaboutwhohastheresponsibilityfortasksandresources.

∙PersonalityClashes.Apersonalityconflictemergeswhentwopeoplesimplydonotgetalongordonotviewthingssimilarly.Personalitytensionsarecausedbydifferencesinpersonality,attitudes,values,andbeliefs.

∙PowerandStatusDifferences.Powerandstatusconflictmayoccurwhenoneindividualhasquestionableinfluenceoveranother.Peoplemightengageinconflicttoincreasetheirpowerorstatusinanorganization.

∙GoalDifferences.Conflictmayoccurbecausepeoplearepursuingdifferentgoals.Goalconflictsinindividualworkunitsareanaturalpartofanyorganization.

∙CommunicationBreakdown.Communication-basedbarriersmaybederivedfromdifferencesinspeakingstyles,writingstyles,andnonverbalcommunicationstyles.Thesestylisticdifferencesfrequentlydistortthecommunicationprocess.Faultycommunicationleadstomisperceptionsandmisunderstandingsthatcanleadtolong-standingconflict.Additionalbarrierstocommunicationmayemergefromthecross-genderand cross-cultural differencesofparticipants.Suchfundamentaldifferencesmayaffectboththewaysinwhichthepartiesexpressthemselvesandhowtheyarelikelytointerpretthecommunicationtheyreceive.Thesedistortions,inturn,frequentlyresultinmis-readingbythepartiesinvolved.Moreover,itiscommonforthepartiesinvolvedtobeoblivioustothesefalseimpressions.Theresultantmisunderstandingssubsequentlyleadthepartiesinvolvedtobelievethataconflictbasedonmisunderstoodbehaviorexistswhen,infact,noconflictactuallydoesexist.MillerandSteinbergcallthismisreading"pseudo-conflict,"thatis,perceivedconflictratherthanactualconflict.Muchofwhatmanagerstaketobeanactualconflictistheproductofsuchpseudo-conflict.

CONFLICTMANAGEMENT 

METHODOLOGIES

Managementtheoristshavedevelopedandsuggestedarangeofoptionsforhandlingorganizationalconflict.Figure1outlinesthevariouscomponentsoftheConflictResolutionGrid,whichistheresultofwidelyacceptedresearchpresentedbyThomasandKilmann.

Figure1 

BasedonThomas-KilmannConflictModeInstrument

ThomasandKilmannidentifiedaconflict-handlinggridcomprisedoffiveconflictmanagementstylesbasedontwodimensions:

 assertiveness andcooperativeness.Assertivenessisthemotivationofanindividualtoachievehis/herowngoals,objectives,andoutcomes,whilecooperativenessassessesthewillingnesstoalloworhelptheotherpartytoachieveitsgoalsoroutcomes.Anyofthefiveconflictresolutionstylesmightbeappropriatebasedonthecircumstancesofthesituationandthepersonalitiesoftheindividualsinvolved.

1.AvoidingConflictResolutionStyle.Theavoidingstyleislowonbothassertivenessandcooperativeness.Inotherwords,themanagerisnotverycooperativeinhelpingtheotherindividualstoachievetheirgoals,butneitherishe/sheaggressivelypursuinghis/herownpreferredoutcomesinthesituation.Theoriginalproblem,conflict,orsituationisneverdirectlyaddressedorresolved.However,avoidingbehaviormightbeappropriatewhentheissueisperceivedbythemanagertobetrivial.Itmightalsobeanappropriateapproachtousewhenthereisnochanceofwinningorwhendisruptionwouldbeverycostly.

2.CompetingConflictResolutionStyle.Thecompetingstyleofresolvingconflictisalsoknownasthewin-loseapproach.Amanagerusingthisstyle,characterizedbyhighassertivenessandlowcooperativeness,seekstoreachhis/herownpreferredoutcomesattheexpenseofotherindividuals.Thisapproachmaybeappropriatewhenquick,decisiveactionisneeded,suchasduringemergencies.Itcanalsobeusedtoconfrontunpopularactions,suchasurgentcostcutting.

3.AccommodatingConflictResolutionStyle.Thisstylereflectsahighdegreeofcooperativeness.Ithasalsobeenlabeledasobliging.Amanagerusingthisstylesubjugateshis/herowngoals,objectives,anddesiredoutcomestoallowotherindividualstoachievetheirgoalsandoutcomes.Thisbehaviorisappropriatewhenpeoplerealizethattheyareinthewrongorwhenanissueismoreimportanttoonesidethantheother.Thisconflictresolutionstyleisimportantforpreservingfuturerelationsbetweentheparties.

4.CompromisingConflictResolutionStyle.Thisstyleischaracterizedbymoderatelevelsofbothassertivenessandcooperativeness.Compromisecanalsobereferredtoasbargainingortrading.Itgenerallyproducessuboptimalresults.Thisbehaviorcanbeusedwhenthegoalsofbothsidesareofequalimportance,whenbothsideshaveequalpower,orwhenitisnecessarytofindatemporary,timelysolution.Itshouldnotbeusedwhenthereisacomplexproblemrequiringaproblem-solvingapproach.

5.Collaborating ConflictResolutionStyle.Thisapproach,highonbothassertivenessandcooperativeness,isoftendescribedasthewin-winscenario.Bothsidescreativelyworktowardsachievingthegoalsanddesiredoutcomesofallpartiesinvolved.Thecollaborationstyleisappropriatewhentheconcernsarecomplexandacreativeornovelsynthesisofideasisrequired.Thedownsideofthisapproachisthattheprocessofcollaboratingmandatessincereeffortbyallpartiesinvolvedanditmayrequirealotoftimetoreachaconsensus.

Ofthefivemodesdescribedinthematrix,onlythestrategyemployingcollaborationasamodeofconflictmanagementbreaksfreeofthewin-loseparadigm.Ithasbecomealmosthabitualtofallbackonthewin-winalternative,butthiswasnottheauthors'originalintention.Theydidnotrejectwin-loseconfigurationsoutofhand.Instead,strategicconsiderationsformanagingconflictaccordingtovariedcircumstanceswereidentified.Forinstance,inaconflictcenteredonbidsbytwoalternativesuppliers,thebestchoicemightwellbeacompetingstrategywithawinnerandloser.Afterall,theobjectiveinsuchasituationistowinthecontractforone'sowncompany.Inmostcases,winningthecontractcanbeaccomplishedonlyattheexpenseofthecompetingsupplier,whobydefinitionbecomestheloser.

Incontrast,acompetingapproachalmostneverworkswellintheinterpersonalconflictofpeopleworkinginthesameoffice（oreventhesameorganization）.Unlikethecaseofcompetingsuppliers,coworkers—boththewinnerandtheloser—mustgoonworkingtogether.Indeed,inmanyconflictsrevolvingaroundofficepolitics,anaccommodatingstrategymayactuallyenableindividualstostrengthentheirfuturenegotiatingpositionthroughallowingthemselvestoloseinconflictsoverissuestheydonotfeelparticularlystronglyabout.Insuchsituations,accommodatingcanbeseenasaformofwinningthroughlosing.Forinst