THE EVOLUTION OF CONFLICT MANAGEMENT文档格式.docx

1、conflict avoidance. This left the people experiencing the conflict with essentially only one outcome: a win-lose scenario. In such cases, the loser would feel slighted and this, in turn, would lead to renewed belligerence. Therefore, most managers viewed conflict as something they must eliminate fro

2、m their organization. This avoidance approach to conflict management was prevalent during the latter part of the nineteenth century and continued until the mid-1940s.Nevertheless, conflict avoidance is not a satisfactory strategy for dealing with most conflict. Conflict avoidance usually leaves thos

3、e people who are being avoided feeling as if they are being neglected. Also, conflict avoidance usually fails to reconcile the perceived differences that originally caused the conflict. As a result, the original basis for the conflict continues unabated, held in check only temporarily until another

4、confrontation arises to set the same unresolved tensions into motion again. Therefore, conflict avoidance strategies are not especially useful in the long run.The human relations view of conflict management dominated from the late 1940s through the mid-1970s. This viewpoint argued that conflict was

5、a natural and inevitable occurrence in any organizational setting. Because conflict was considered unavoidable, the human relations approach recommended acceptance of conflict. In other words, conflict cannot be eliminated and may even benefit the organization. It was during this time period that th

6、e term conflict management was introduced, according to Nurmi and Darling.Since the mid-1970s a new position on organizational conflict has emerged. This theoretical perspective is the interactionist approach. This viewpoint espouses not only accepting conflict, but also encouraging it. Theorists ar

7、e of the opinion that a conflict-free, harmonious, andcooperativeorganization tends to become stagnant and nonreponsive to market change and advancement. Therefore, it is necessary for managers to interject a minimum level of conflict to maintain an optimal level of organizational performance. For e

8、xample, Shelton and Darling suggest conflict is a necessary condition for both individual and organizational progression. They encourage managers to embrace conflict and use it for continuous transformation.SOURCES OF CONFLICTAccording to both Daft and Terry, several factors may create organizationa

9、l conflict. They are as follows: Scarce Resources. Resources may include money, supplies, people, or information. Often, organizational units are in competition for scarce or declining resources. This creates a situation where conflict is inevitable. Jurisdictional Ambiguities. Conflicts may also su

10、rface when job boundaries and task responsibilities are unclear. Individuals may disagree about who has the responsibility for tasks and resources. Personality Clashes. A personality conflict emerges when two people simply do not get along or do not view things similarly. Personality tensions are ca

11、used by differences in personality, attitudes, values, and beliefs. Power and Status Differences. Power and status conflict may occur when one individual has questionable influence over another. People might engage in conflict to increase their power or status in an organization. Goal Differences. C

12、onflict may occur because people are pursuing different goals. Goal conflicts in individual work units are a natural part of any organization. Communication Breakdown. Communication-based barriers may be derived from differences in speaking styles, writing styles, and nonverbal communication styles.

13、 These stylistic differences frequently distort the communication process. Faulty communication leads to misperceptions and misunderstandings that can lead to long-standing conflict. Additional barriers to communication may emerge from the cross-gender andcross-culturaldifferences of participants. S

14、uch fundamental differences may affect both the ways in which the parties express themselves and how they are likely to interpret the communication they receive. These distortions, in turn, frequently result in mis-reading by the parties involved. Moreover, it is common for the parties involved to b

15、e oblivious to these false impressions. The resultant misunderstandings subsequently lead the parties involved to believe that a conflict based on misunderstood behavior exists when, in fact, no conflict actually does exist. Miller and Steinberg call this misreading pseudo-conflict, that is, perceiv

16、ed conflict rather than actual conflict. Much of what managers take to be an actual conflict is the product of such pseudo-conflict.CONFLICT MANAGEMENTMETHODOLOGIESManagement theorists have developed and suggested a range of options for handling organizational conflict. Figure 1 outlines the various

17、 components of the Conflict Resolution Grid, which is the result of widely accepted research presented by Thomas and Kilmann.Figure 1Based on Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode InstrumentThomas and Kilmann identified a conflict-handling grid comprised of five conflict management styles based on two dimens

18、ions:assertivenessand cooperativeness. Assertiveness is the motivation of an individual to achieve his/her own goals, objectives, and outcomes, while cooperativeness assesses the willingness to allow or help the other party to achieve its goals or outcomes. Any of the five conflict resolution styles

19、 might be appropriate based on the circumstances of the situation and the personalities of the individuals involved.1. Avoiding Conflict Resolution Style. The avoiding style is low on both assertiveness and cooperativeness. In other words, the manager is not very cooperative in helping the other ind

20、ividuals to achieve their goals, but neither is he/she aggressively pursuing his/her own preferred outcomes in the situation. The original problem, conflict, or situation is never directly addressed or resolved. However, avoiding behavior might be appropriate when the issue is perceived by the manag

21、er to be trivial. It might also be an appropriate approach to use when there is no chance of winning or when disruption would be very costly.2. Competing Conflict Resolution Style. The competing style of resolving conflict is also known as the win-lose approach. A manager using this style, character

22、ized by high assertiveness and low cooperativeness, seeks to reach his/her own preferred outcomes at the expense of other individuals. This approach may be appropriate when quick, decisive action is needed, such as during emergencies. It can also be used to confront unpopular actions, such as urgent

23、 cost cutting.3. Accommodating Conflict Resolution Style. This style reflects a high degree of cooperativeness. It has also been labeled as obliging. A manager using this style subjugates his/her own goals, objectives, and desired outcomes to allow other individuals to achieve their goals and outcom

24、es. This behavior is appropriate when people realize that they are in the wrong or when an issue is more important to one side than the other. This conflict resolution style is important for preserving future relations between the parties.4. Compromising Conflict Resolution Style. This style is char

25、acterized by moderate levels of both assertiveness and cooperativeness. Compromise can also be referred to as bargaining or trading. It generally produces suboptimal results. This behavior can be used when the goals of both sides are of equal importance, when both sides have equal power, or when it

26、is necessary to find a temporary, timely solution. It should not be used when there is a complex problem requiring a problem-solving approach.5. CollaboratingConflict Resolution Style. This approach, high on both assertiveness and cooperativeness, is often described as the win-win scenario. Both sid

27、es creatively work towards achieving the goals and desired outcomes of all parties involved. The collaboration style is appropriate when the concerns are complex and a creative or novel synthesis of ideas is required. The downside of this approach is that the process of collaborating mandates sincer

28、e effort by all parties involved and it may require a lot of time to reach a consensus.Of the five modes described in the matrix, only the strategy employing collaboration as a mode of conflict management breaks free of the win-lose paradigm. It has become almost habitual to fall back on the win-win

29、 alternative, but this was not the authors original intention. They did not reject win-lose configurations out of hand. Instead, strategic considerations for managing conflict according to varied circumstances were identified. For instance, in a conflict centered on bids by two alternative suppliers

30、, the best choice might well be a competing strategy with a winner and loser. After all, the objective in such a situation is to win the contract for ones own company. In most cases, winning the contract can be accomplished only at the expense of the competing supplier, who by definition becomes the

31、 loser.In contrast, a competing approach almost never works well in the interpersonal conflict of people working in the same office （or even the same organization）. Unlike the case of competing suppliers, coworkersboth the winner and the losermust go on working together. Indeed, in many conflicts re

32、volving around office politics, an accommodating strategy may actually enable individuals to strengthen their future negotiating position through allowing themselves to lose in conflicts over issues they do not feel particularly strongly about. In such situations, accommodating can be seen as a form of winning through losing. For inst