Explain the Sources and Process of conflict.

Explain the Sources and Process of conflict. Discuss various conflict-avoidance strategies being followed by an organization, citing example from the organization you are working in or any organization you are familiar with. Briefly describe the organization you are referring to.

Solution : Sources and Process of conflict

By evaluating a conflict according to the five categories below -- relationship, data, interest, structural and value -- we can begin to determine the causes of a conflict and design resolution strategies that will have a higher probability of success.
Relationship Conflicts
Relationship conflicts occur because of the presence of strong negative emotions, misperceptions or stereotypes, poor communication or miscommunication, or repetitive negative behaviors. Relationship problems often fuel disputes and lead to an unnecessary escalating spiral of destructive conflict. Supporting the safe and balanced expression of perspectives and emotions for acknowledgment (not agreement) is one effective approach to managing relational conflict.
Data Conflicts
Data conflicts occur when people lack information necessary to make wise decisions, are misinformed, disagree on which data is relevant, interpret information differently, or have competing assessment procedures. Some data conflicts may be unnecessary since they are caused by poor communication between the people in conflict. Other data conflicts may be genuine incompatibilities associated with data collection, interpretation or communication. Most data conflicts will have "data solutions."
Interest Conflicts
Interest conflicts are caused by competition over perceived incompatible needs. Conflicts of interest result when one or more of the parties believe that in order to satisfy his or her needs, the needs and interests of an opponent must be sacrificed. Interest-based conflict will commonly be expressed in positional terms. A variety of interests and intentions underlie and motivate positions in negotiation and must be addressed for maximized resolution. Interest-based conflicts may occur over substantive issues (such as money, physical resources, time, etc.); procedural issues (the way the dispute is to be resolved); and psychological issues (perceptions of trust, fairness, desire for participation, respect, etc.). For an interest-based dispute to be resolved, parties must be assisted to define and express their individual interests so that all of these interests may be jointly addressed. Interest-based conflict is best resolved through the maximizing integration of the parties' respective interests, positive intentions and desired experiential outcomes.


Structural Conflicts
Structural conflicts are caused by forces external to the people in dispute. Limited physical resources or authority, geographic constraints (distance or proximity), time (too little or too much), organizational changes, and so forth can make structural conflict seem like a crisis. It can be helpful to assist parties in conflict to appreciate the external forces and constraints bearing upon them. Structural conflicts will often have structural solutions. Parties' appreciation that a conflict has an external source can have the effect of them coming to jointly address the imposed difficulties.
Value Conflicts
Value conflicts are caused by perceived or actual incompatible belief systems. Values are beliefs that people use to give meaning to their lives. Values explain what is "good" or "bad," "right" or "wrong," "just" or "unjust." Differing values need not cause conflict. People can live together in harmony with different value systems. Value disputes arise only when people attempt to force one set of values on others or lay claim to exclusive value systems that do not allow for divergent beliefs. It is of no use to try to change value and belief systems during relatively short and strategic mediation interventions. It can, however, be helpful to support each participant's expression of their values and beliefs for acknowledgment by the other party.
RESOLVING CONFLICT
The conflict resolution requires great managerial skills. Here we are trying to give a solution to a conflict turning it in a constructive side.
If one party exercises the principles of interaction, listens, and us the six steps of collaborative resolution, that party may be able to end the conflict constructively. At the very least, he or she may be able to prevent the conflict from turning into a fight by choosing an alternative to destructive interaction?"
There is a difference between resolving a conflict and managing conflict. Resolving a conflict ends the dispute by satisfying the interests of both parties. Managing a conflict contains specialized interaction that prevents a dispute from becoming a destructive battle. Managing a conflict attends to the personal issues so as to allow for a constructive relationship, even though the objective issues may not be resolvable.
For example, the former Soviet Union and the United States managed their conflict during the Cold War by using a variety of mechanisms. The objective issues in the dispute were not resolved, and neither were the personal issues, which contained significant perceptual differences. However, both sides attended significantly to the relationship to keep the disagreement from turning into a destructive battle.
Our goal in conflict always should be to seek a resolution based on mutual gain. Realistically, however, resolution is not always possible. When this is the case, we must manage the conflict to ensure that the relationship is constructive and that open communication is maintained. We Listen to Conflict to understand the other party and demonstrate the acceptance required to maintain the relationship
1. The Framework for conflict resolution
When conflicts arise, we assess a variety of factors before selecting our approach to the situation. We may choose to compete, or dominate, where we try to impose our will on the other side through physical or psychological means, or we may choose to accommodate, or surrender, and cede victory to the other side. Likewise, we may decide to withdraw by either doing nothing or refusing to participate in the conflict altogether, or we may collaborate and reach a constructive and mutually acceptable solution. And if none of those approaches proves effective, we might choose third-party intervention, a form of collaboration in which an individual or group external to the conflict intercedes to move both parties toward agreement.
While each of the above orientations represents a way to manage conflict, only two collaboration and third-party intervention-are, by definition, focused on mutual gain and resolution. These two approaches consider the interests of both parties and are most likely to use empathic listening as the primary tool to enhance understanding. The other methods deal unilaterally with the conflict and fail to manage the interdependence of the dispute.
In order to understand the mechanisms behind the four orientations to conflict, it is useful to examine how these orientations can be applied. The study of negotiation, one form of conflict resolution, provides two opposite approaches for dealing with disputes. Most often, we think of negotiation in the formal sense seen in the business or diplomatic environment, where two or more parties bargain to reach agreement. However, two types of negotiation, competitive bargaining and collaboration, also provide good models for understanding different ways of resolving our conflicts.
2. Competitive Bargaining
When most people think of negotiation, they think of competitive bargaining. In this type of negotiation, a seller asks for more than he expects and a buyer offers less than she is willing to pay. Then, through a series of concessions, the two sides meet somewhere in the middle where each side is reasonably satisfied. This form of negotiation also is frequently called distributive bargaining or concession-convergence. It maintains a competitive, win-lose orientation, with the goals of one party and the attainment of those goals in direct conflict with the goals of the other party. In other words, competitive bargaining is a positional conflict in which "winning" is determined by how much of the original position was obtained. The parties believe that resources are fixed and limited, and that they must battle to maximize their share of the wealth.
In competitive bargaining, each party uses strategy, tactics, and tricks to achieve its objective, and whether one of both parties will achieve their goal depends upon their ability to "play the game." Each party seeks to extract information from the other party that will help in identifying appropriate counteroffers, while revealing as little accurate information as possible about its own preferences. The final agreement often depends on the willingness of one party to stake out a tough and extreme position that causes the other party to make concessions. Labor management disputes and international negotiations often use this model of conflict resolution.
The competitive bargaining process is unappealing to many of us and often produces unwise agreements. Some of us simply do not have the skills or the temperament to play the game. We see the process as being unnecessary tough, deceitful, or manipulative. Perceptions of power & control also are a significant factor in the effectiveness of competitive bargaining. If you do not have the power in the relationship, or if you perceive that you do not, you are more likely to obtain an unsatisfactory resolution. Your lack of power will prevent you from using authority or aggression to resolve, or win, the dispute. In competitive bargaining this form of aggression is often played as a trump card to achieve the win for the party who is able to acquire the most power.
The positional approach of competitive bargaining also causes unnecessary issue rigidity. Our egos become so invested in our positions that we are prevented from accepting alternatives. Therefore, even if a better solution is created, it is unlikely that we will back down. Another problem with competitive bargaining is that it often ignores the personal issues that affect the resolution process. In competitive bargaining, we care about the other party's needs only as a means to identify an opportunity for trade.
For example, we will trade one day at the beach (the other party's need) for one day visiting museums (our need). But even if the trade satisfies one need, competitive bargaining still requires some amount of persuasion, deception, and manipulation if we are going to resolve all of the objective issues in a satisfactory manner. Over time, this usually breaks down the trust between the parties and places a significant strain on the relationship.
Competitive bargaining tends not to resolve conflict. It merely manages it for his short term. It is based on an attitude of limits and is fundamentally a process of reaching a settlement within a bargaining range. Both parties know that they are going to have to settle for something less than they would prefer, but they each hope that the deal will be better than their bottom line. Parties who do not think they got the best deal possible or who believe that they "lost" typically try to find ways to recoup their losses later. Even if one party believes that it "won," it still knows that it left something on the bargaining table and will try to acquire it in future negotiations. Labor and management, for example, may reach an agreement, but it is not long before they are back at the bargaining table, renegotiating issues that one or both sides thought had been settled previously.
There is an alternative that breaks the destructive cycle of competitive bargaining. It builds relationships and opens the door to constructive resolution. The alternative not only helps you correctly identify the objective issues, but also manages, if not resolves, the personal issues in the dispute. It is based on principles of interaction that endeavor to understand all of the underlying interests that must be satisfied to reach sustained agreement.
3. Collaboration
The collaborative approach to conflict resolution, also called mutual gains or integrative bargaining, argues for the possibility of solutions that all sides find acceptable. It embodies the notion of "win-win," a core component of our principle of mutual gain. Collaboration is about identifying a common, shared, or joint goal and developing a process to achieve it. It is a process in which both parties exchange information openly, defines their common problems, and creates options to solve these problems. And while the collaborative process cannot guarantee that agreement will always be reached, more often than not, the analysis of interests, needs, and desires helps the resolution process and ultimate agreement.
There are many reasons why people don't pursue this model of conflict resolution. First, people in conflict often do not recognize the potential for collaboration. This often is the result of an attitude of limits, either-or thinking, or a fixed-pie mentality. When parties remain positional or see only a limited number of solutions that will satisfy their interests, they do not use their creativity to solve the problem.
The history of the relationship between the two parties also can prevent collaboration. Over time, destructive conflict can build resentment, if not contempt. And, as John Gottman notes in Why Marriages Succeed or Fail (1994), contempt breeds the intent to "insult and psychologically abuse" the other party. This is not always major abuse; it may be small, nit-picking criticisms that add up over time. The personal issues become so overwhelming that the objective issues of the conflict cannot be examined, and parties often cannot be in the same room together, let alone identify ways of resolving the conflict.
Another barrier to collaboration relates to the complexity of most conflicts. Some elements are conducive to collaboration, and some elements require competitive bargaining. Each mode of conflict resolution requires different skill sets, and you can send mixed messages unless you handle them carefully.
Finally, people often have a lack of faith in their problem-solving ability. Parties that enter the resolution process believing that they can work together usually find a way to collaborate. Those who do not have a solid self-concept will be less willing to follow the Principles of interaction& use listening to seek collaborative resolution.
There are many obstacles that make collaboration more difficult. Given our inherent competitiveness and the various factors that surround many of our disputes, it is a wonder that constructive collaboration occurs at all. However, it does occur if one or both of the parties in conflict outcomes, the following conditions must be established at some point during the process:
Face-to-face interaction: The Listening to Conflict approach to dispute resolution requires developing an understanding of the total message another party is trying to communicate. The most effective way to accomplish this is through face-to-face interaction, where we can see the nonverbal expressions that give us clues to underlying emotional needs.
High acquaintance potential: Without the ability to accept and have positive regard for the other party, collaboration will not be possible. We have to like the person as a person and be willing to establish a relationship that goes beyond the issues of the dispute. This will allow the personal issues to be dealt with separately from the objective issues in the particular conflict so that we can explore options for mutual gain.
Constituency support: The parties in conflict will not be able to collaborate if outside constituencies try to force competitive and positional norms. Third parties must be supportive of the collaborative process or risk nullifying the positive steps taken toward collaboration by reneging on constructive agreements established between the two interacting parties. We must prevent or resolve any conflict with our constituencies prior to interacting with the other party in the primary dispute.
Cooperative tasks: Acceptance goes a long way toward diffusing head-to-head competition in conflict, but unless a joint or mutual task is established, there will be no need to collaborate. We at least must frame the conflict as a problem to be solved together in order to establish a collaborative environment.
Shared exploration: Sharing in the process of understanding the problem and creating solutions keeps both parties involved. This saves one party from the trap of inventing all of the solutions, and the inevitable dependence and resentment that accompanies that responsibility. When both parties are involved, there will be stronger commitment to the final solutions.
No fixed agenda: An agenda creates a positional interaction that is based on satisfying the needs of one party without understanding how the interests of both are related. Having an agenda sends the message that you are not interested in the other party's issues and needs issues and needs. The only agenda should be to follow the steps of collaboration and work toward mutual gain.
Adherence to collaborative process steps. Successful resolution requires that we follow the steps of collaboration. If we skip a step, we risk sending the other party mixed signals that will; propel that party toward a defensive, competitive mode.
The Six Steps of Collaboration
With the above conditions in mind, a constructive environment can be established. However, collaboration also requires that resolution proceed through a series of steps that create a more effective interaction. The steps progress logically &should be departed from only to return to a previous step as a means to enhance the relationship & increasing understanding. Skipping steps reduces the chance for collaborative agreement and should be avoided. The six steps are as follows:
The Six Steps of Collaboration
Prepare for the Interaction.
2. Initiate the Exchange.
3. Facilitate the Relationship.
4. Understand the Interests.
5. Examine the Solutions.
6. Reach Consensus

Continue Reading ...

Explain the process of conflict.

Explain the process of conflict. Describe various sources of conflict generation in the organization you are familiar with. Explain, how some of these conflicts were resolved, illustrate with examples. Briefly describe the organization.


Conflict is not primarily a result of individual neurotic traits but arises under given conditions even when people involved are well adjusted. Since situational variables induce conflict, it is possible to modify situations so as to avoid conflict. However, there may not be any specific standard of situation in which conflict will not grow, there might be certain positive programmes and actions that might reasonably lead to avoidance of conflict in the organization. The development of effective leadership, participative decision-making. Effective two-way communication with proper emphasis on upward communication, improvement in interpersonal relationship, provision for facilities and opportunities to develop informal groups may be some of the ways to which management should pay special attention..
Establishing Common Goals
Most of the conflicts assume that incompatible goals are a necessary antecedent for the development of conflict. It means that the existence of super ordinate goals-common goals-will reduce the occurrence of dysfunctional conflicts. This is true particularly in the case of conflict among groups and between individuals and organization- Schein observes that 'the fundamental problem of inter group competition is the conflict of goals and the breakdown of interaction hecaceen the groups. This breakdown in turn permits and stimulates perceptual distortion and mutual negative stereotyping. The basic strategy of reducing conflict, therefore. Is to find goals upon which groups can agree and to re-establish valid communication between the groups. Goal differences can also be reduced through the adoption of appropriate incentive systems. Many organizational reward systems often result in 'win-lose' mentality in organization because the reward systems focus attention on the individual rather than on the group or organization as a whole. It has been observed that goal differentiation can also he reduced through the use of incentive systems designed to reward activities that benefit the larger system, as opposed to those that are primarily in the interest of subunits.
Changing Structural Arrangement
They observe that conflicts can be reduced by decentralization, restructuring to remove obvious differentials in status symbols between hierarchical interest groups, development of cycles of work, with opportunity to employees to complete tasks and sharing in organizational rewards.' Such structural variables, more specifically, can be used in the following ways.
1. Reduction in Interdependence. The basic reason in the intercrop conflict is interdependence among them. As such less such interdependence, less will the amount of conflict among them. Thompson distinguished three types of interdependence: pooled, sequential, and reciprocal. In the pooled interdependence, the various divisions of the organization are relatively self-contained and independent. In sequential interdependence, there is high degree of interdependence between two or more departments which might be using the product of others in a particular sequence.
2. Reduction in Shared Resources. When two are more units are required to share resources, particularly scarce ones, the potential for conflict increases. The management of conflict suggests reducing such sharing. One technique for reducing such sharing is the increase in such resources so that each unit is independent in using them. However, since resources are scarce, it is not always possible to do so. As such, measures may be adopted for their optimum allocation.
3. Exchange of Personnel. Personnel of the conflicting groups may be exchanged for a specified period as a way to reducing and managing conflict. An exchange of people is very similar to role reversal, which is aimed at greater understanding between 'people by forcing each to present and defend the others position.
4. Creation of Special Integrators. To resolve conflict, organization may create provisions for the appointment of special integrators who may manage the interdependence of various groups so that unresolved matters can he solved through them. For example, they found that integrators were more effective when they were viewed as about intermediate in position between the conflicting departments, where they were viewed as high in influence, and where they perceived that their rewards were tied to the total performance of the two groups they were integrating. '"
5. Reference to Superior's Authority. Conflicts may be resolved through the hierarchy. If resolution cannot be attained by two organizational members, they may take the issue to a common superior who resolves the conflict by making a decision. Such a decision is usually accepted by organizational members because of the recognized superior authority of high-ranking individual. Such a decision may not necessarily bring agreement but it will usually he accepted.
Conflict-Resolution Actions
The various measures, discussed above, undoubtedly help in reducing the occurrence of conflict in the organization but they cannot guarantee the complete absence of conflicts. For example, March and Simon say that an organization may react to conflict by problem-solving, persuasion bargaining, and politics." Ruble and Thomas have identified five types of actions : competing, avoiding, accommodating, compromising, and collaborating. Lawrence and Lorsch have identified three types of 'behaviour in conflict resolution : confrontation, smoothing, and forcing. Some major actions in conflict resolution take Place in the following ways:
1. Problem-solving. The problem-solving technique is considered to he the most positive technique available for conflict resolution because it emphasizes the attaining of the common interests of both conflicting parties. In mutual problem-solving process, the conflicting parties must come together with the responsibilities of solving the mutual problem that faces rather than merely finding a way to accommodate their different perspectives.
2. Avoidance. Another method of overcoming conflict is its avoidance, that is, parties to the conflict may either withdraw from the conflict or conceal the incompatibility. Withdrawal may be observed when one party leaves the field of conflict so that other party may win by being in sole possession of the goal in dispute.
3. Smoothing. Smoothing can he defined as the process of playing down differences that exist between individuals or groups while emphasizing common interests. Differences are suppressed and similarities are accentuated in smoothing process.
4. Compromise. Compromise is a well-accepted technique for resolving conflict, yielding neither a definite loser nor a distinct winner. Such a compromise maybe achieved either through the intervention of third party, the process is commonly known as mediation, or without the intervention of the external parties, the method is known as bargaining.
5. Confrontation. The various actions enumerated above may not bring resolution of conflict between parties if they take very rigid stand. In such a case, the parties are left to confrontation to settle the conflict themselves. This strategy may result into win-lose situation. The parties concerned may settle their score by applying their strength against each other. The parties involved in conflict must analyze certain aspects before going for confrontation. The various approaches of conflict management suggest that management can take a variety of actions depending on the situations, parties to conflicts, issues in conflict and the organizational resources available. In many cases, a change organizational structure, process, or the value systems of people is required. This requires the detailed understanding of organizational change and development which will he discussed in the next part

Continue Reading ...

Explain the process of conflict.

Explain the process of conflict. Discuss the impact of conflict on the performance of an organization you are working in or any organization you are acquainted with. Describe
the organization you are referring to.


Answer: Process of Conflict: Ken only described the conflict process on audio tapes. I don’t think I ever saw a description in print.
Sometimes you have addictions that work at cross purposes e.g.
1. You addictively demand to eat a whole raspberry pie covered in whipped cream.
2. You addictively demand to have a flat tummy.
1. You addictively demand to stay with your lover.
2. You addictively demand to leave your lover.
1. You addictively demand to get pregnant.
2. You addictively demand to avoid having children.
Often the two sides represents two different centers of consciousness. For example sensation and cornucopia may make you want to approach a handsome stranger, where security and power want to avoid being rejected.
Here is how to handle such a situation: Get a tape recorder and just talk for 15 minutes, explaining why you should take option 1. Get into your emotions, explaining how you would feel if you got what you wanted and how you would feel if you did not. If you have a particularly horrendous conflict, you made need more time. Take all the time you need. Then repeat arguing for option 2.
Usually no matter what you do, you can’t satisfy all your "requirements". However, if "everyone" has at least had a chance to speak, they know their concerns were at least considered in deciding the best option to take. Those voices will be more willing to go along with the final decision they may not like.
Conflicts are an inevitable part of our daily lives. They arise between individuals and teams in an organization, between companies, and with your customers and clients. Employees' inability to effectively deal with conflict in the workplace takes its toll. It results in an enormous loss of productivity and profit, and negative emotional impact to those directly and indirectly involved.
Every organization pays the price for mismanaged conflict. It saps the financial health of an organization, repels customers, and damages human resources. Can you identify the impact of conflict in your organization?




We can help you stop the financial bleeding and the destructive interactions among business associates caused by poorly managed workplace conflict. We specialize in conflict resolution processes and tools that help you turn conflict into capital.
Every organization has a strategy for handling conflict.
Look at what conflict costs your organization:
1. Wasted time
How much time do your managers spend dealing with conflict? How much time do individuals spend focusing on disagreements and dissatisfaction instead of using their time productively?
2. Reduced quality of decisions
Are your team members withholding information or not fully cooperating with others? What decisions are being made without full, accurate and timely information?
3. Loss of skilled employees
What is it costing you to replace employees and the knowledge they take with them when they leave?
4. Restructuring
Are you or your managers making changes to work allocation to accommodate employees who aren't getting along?
5. Sabotage/damage/theft
Are you experiencing theft or damage to your equipment and inventory? Are work processes being compromised?
6. Lowered job motivation
Are your good employees losing motivation and time when they constantly have to deal with difficult co-workers?
7. Lost work time
Are employees choosing to take "sick days" off because of their frustration with unresolved disputes and stress?
8. Health costs
Is conflict contributing to employees' susceptibility to illness and injuries? Is your company paying more for health insurance and paid time off because of the associated stress?
TAKING THE EXAMPLE OF INTERDEPARTMENTAL CONFLICT WE SEE ITS IMPACT or OUTCOME and its SOURCES :
Example: Interdepartmental conflict
The president of the company was at the end of his rope in dealing with two employees who seemed to constantly march to their own drummer. These two employees would go around their bosses and create problems in other departments. The managers lacked the skills to address the issues with these problem employees. By the time the President asked to discuss the situation with him, he wanted to fire all four of them!

A plan was developed to identify the work related needs of the President, the managers and the employees. It was clear what the President wanted! It was not so clear what the managers and employees wanted. One-on-one meetings with each person identified what each needed from the other. These needs were outlined to identify what each need would look like when it was satisfactorily achieved and what the resulting benefit would be to the person and the company. Once the initial needs were addressed and achieved, additional needs were identified. This process continued until the parties involved could conduct the process themselves and report the achievements up the chain of command.

Today, the President, one manager and the two lower level employees remain and are achieving or exceeding performance expectations. The other manager decided on his own he did not enjoy being a manager and obtained a new position as an individual contributor within the same industry.


Example: Domestic/International Airline Carrier - Interdepartmental Conflict
This domestic in-flight services department has the responsibility of planning and delivering in-flight meals. Meals must be reproducible, storable and must conform to space and weight specifications. They depend on vendors to provide this service in a timely manner. This requires phenomenal teamwork which unfortunately was not present a short while ago. Infact, three teams constantly blamed the other two for poor performance. You could cut the tension with a knife. Essential communications that needed to take place - weren't! Vendors were catching the fallout and the quality of their service dropped even further.

The management thought of giving all the teams’ leadership training. Employees from each team were selected to join together for three separate Pathways to Leadership programs. They discovered that they had been strongly focused on everything that wasn't working. With so much energy focused backwards, there was very little left to solve problems in a healthy productive way. They learned a combination of tools that would enable them to focus on solutions.
• They discovered one of the most effective tools for turning dissension into cooperation -- the Recipe for Partnership. The tool works masterfully because the answers (and solutions) are their answers, not management's.
• At a special meeting, the three managers asked the first question of the Recipe: "What are some of the successes these three teams have created over the last year?" At first, there was silence. Then they began to identify these successes.
• The second question was, "What are some of the qualities that generated those successes?" Again, the group listed an array of virtues they shared within the department that made possible those wins.
• Rather than telling the staff what managers wanted from these teams, they asked. "What is your vision for what you want to produce together, and the way you want to treat each other in the process?"
• To really anchor the buy-in for the vision they created, the managers asked, "When you achieve this vision, what will be the benefits to you, your team members, the department and the company?" Finally the teams were at such a point of cooperation, they could address the last question in earnest; And this guaranteed teamwork and a successful resolution.

"Even before the end of the first Leadership training, the turnaround was evident. Participants came to know members of other teams on an individual basis and the resentments quickly began to fall away. With their new leadership skills, team members literally discovered a 'technology for communicating' they could immediately put to work. Even before our second session, I could see a 180-degree shift in how team leaders treated their front line workers. Vendors who used to be a tremendous headache, responded beautifully to our new approach. Also, we were on the verge of losing one of our key people, but now the comment I hear is, 'There's no place I'd rather be working.' I have to say that the overall shift is quite amazing."

Continue Reading ...