Which of the Following Is Not One of the â€å“conflict Handling Stylesã¢â‚¬â Reviewed

Conflict and Negotiations

Causes of Conflict in Organizations

2. How does conflict arise in organizations?

Here we will examine two aspects of the conflict process. Commencement, several factors that take been found to contribute to conflict volition be identified. Afterward this, a model of conflict processes in organizations will exist reviewed.

Why Organizations Have So Much Disharmonize

A number of factors are known to facilitate organizational disharmonize under certain circumstances. In summarizing the literature, Robert Miles points to several specific examples.

R. Miles, Macro Organizational Beliefs (Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman, 1980).

These are as follows:

Job Interdependencies. The first ancestor can be constitute in the nature of job interdependencies . In essence, the greater the extent of task interdependence amid individuals or groups (that is, the more they accept to work together or interact to attain a goal), the greater the likelihood of disharmonize if unlike expectations or goals exist among entities, in function because the interdependence makes fugitive the conflict more hard. This occurs in function because high task interdependency heightens the intensity of relationships. Hence, a small disagreement can very apace go blown up into a major result.

Condition Inconsistencies. A second factor is condition inconsistencies amidst the parties involved. For example, managers in many organizations have the prerogative to take personal fourth dimension off during workdays to run errands, and so forth, whereas nonmanagerial personnel do not. Consider the effects this can have on the nonmanagers' view of organizational policies and fairness.

Jurisdictional Ambiguities. Disharmonize tin can also emerge from jurisdictional ambiguities—situations where it is unclear exactly where responsibility for something lies. For example, many organizations utilize an employee selection process in which applicants are evaluated both by the personnel section and by the department in which the bidder would actually work. Considering both departments are involved in the hiring process, what happens when one department wants to hire an individual, only the other department does not?

Communication Problems. Suffice it to say that the diverse advice problems or ambiguities in the advice process can facilitate conflict. When ane person misunderstands a message or when information is withheld, the person frequently responds with frustration and anger.

Dependence on Common Resources Pool. Another previously discussed factor that contributes to disharmonize is dependence on common resource pools. Whenever several departments must compete for deficient resources, conflict is almost inevitable. When resources are limited, a zip-sum game exists in which someone wins and, invariably, someone loses.

Lack of Mutual Functioning Standards. Differences in functioning criteria and reward systems provide more than potential for organizational conflict. This often occurs because of a lack of common performance standards among differing groups inside the same organization. For example, product personnel are often rewarded for their efficiency, and this efficiency is facilitated by the long-term production of a few products. Sales departments, on the other hand, are rewarded for their short-term response to market changes—ofttimes at the expense of long-term production efficiency. In such situations, conflict arises as each unit of measurement attempts to meet its own performance criteria.

Private Differences. Finally, a diversity of individual differences, such as personal abilities, traits, and skills, can influence in no small way the nature of interpersonal relations. Individual potency, aggressiveness, absolutism, and tolerance for ambiguity all seem to influence how an individual deals with potential conflict. Indeed, such characteristics may determine whether or non conflict is created at all.

A Model of the Conflict Process

Having examined specific factors that are known to facilitate conflict, we tin can ask how conflict comes nearly in organizations. The most commonly accepted model of the conflict process was developed past Kenneth Thomas.

K. Thomas, "Conflict and Disharmonize Management," In Thousand. D. Dunnette, ed., Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976).

This model, shown in (Figure), consists of four stages: (1) frustration, (2) conceptualization, (3) behavior, and (4) outcome.

Stage ane: Frustration. Every bit we have seen, conflict situations originate when an private or group feels frustration in the pursuit of important goals. This frustration may exist caused by a broad variety of factors, including disagreement over performance goals, failure to get a promotion or pay raise, a fight over scarce economical resources, new rules or policies, and so forth. In fact, conflict tin exist traced to frustration over most anything a group or private cares about.

Stage 2: Conceptualization. In stage 2, the conceptualization phase of the model, parties to the conflict effort to empathize the nature of the trouble, what they themselves want every bit a resolution, what they think their opponents desire as a resolution, and various strategies they experience each side may utilize in resolving the conflict. This stage is actually the trouble-solving and strategy phase. For example, when management and wedlock negotiate a labor contract, both sides try to decide what is most important and what can be bargained away in exchange for these priority needs.

Phase 3: Behavior. The third stage in Thomas's model is actual beliefs. As a event of the conceptualization process, parties to a conflict attempt to implement their resolution mode by competing or accommodating in the hope of resolving bug. A major job hither is determining how best to proceed strategically. That is, what tactics will the party use to try to resolve the conflict? Thomas has identified five modes for disharmonize resolution, as shown in (Effigy). These are (i) competing, (two) collaborating, (3) compromising, (four) avoiding, and (5) accommodating. Also shown in the showroom are situations that seem virtually advisable for each strategy.

A Model of the Conflict Process

Source: Adjusted from Kenneth Thomas, "Conflict and Conflict Management," in M. D. Dunnette (ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Behavior (New York: Wiley, 1976), p. 895. (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC By-NC-SA 4.0 license)

The choice of an advisable conflict resolution mode depends to a peachy extent on the situation and the goals of the party. This is shown graphically in (Figure). According to this model, each party must determine the extent to which it is interested in satisfying its own concerns—called assertiveness—and the extent to which information technology is interested in helping satisfy the opponent's concerns—called cooperativeness. Assertiveness can range from assertive to unassertive on one continuum, and cooperativeness can range from uncooperative to cooperative on the other continuum.

Once the parties have determined their desired balance between the 2 competing concerns—either consciously or unconsciously—the resolution strategy emerges. For example, if a union negotiator feels confident she tin win on an issue that is of master business concern to union members (due east.k., wages), a direct competition manner may exist called (see upper left-mitt corner of (Effigy)). On the other mitt, when the union is indifferent to an issue or when it actually supports management's concerns (due east.g., constitute safety), nosotros would expect an all-around or collaborating fashion (on the right-hand side of the showroom).

(Attribution: Copyright Rice Academy, OpenStax, under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 license)

Five Modes of Resolving Disharmonize
Conflict-Treatment Modes	Advisable Situations
Source: Adapted from 1000. West. Thomas, "Toward Multidimensional Values in Teaching: The Example of Conflict Behaviors," Academy of Management Review 2 (1977), Tabular array one, p. 487.
Competing	When quick, decisive action is vital—e.grand., emergencies On important bug where unpopular deportment need implementing—e.one thousand., cost cut, enforcing unpopular rules, discipline On issues vital to company welfare when you know you lot're right Against people who take advantage of noncompetitive behavior
Collaborating	When trying to discover an integrative solution when both sets of concerns are as well of import to be compromised When your objective is to learn When merging insights from people with dissimilar perspectives When gaining commitment by incorporating concerns into a consensus When working through feelings that have interfered with a relationship
Compromising	When goals are important but non worth the effort or potential disruption of more assertive modes When opponents with equal power are committed to mutually exclusive goals When attempting to reach temporary settlements to circuitous issues When arriving at expedient solutions under time pressure As a backup when collaboration or competition is unsuccessful
Avoiding	When an issue is trivial, or when more important bug are pressing When you lot perceive no chance of satisfying your concerns When potential disruption outweighs the benefits of resolution When letting people cool downward and regain perspective When gathering information supersedes immediate decision When others can resolve the disharmonize more effectively When issues seem tangential or symptomatic of other bug
Accommodating	When yous find you are wrong—to let a better position to exist heard, to learn, and to bear witness your reasonableness When issues are more important to others than yourself—to satisfy others and maintain cooperation When building social credits for later problems When minimizing loss when you are outmatched and losing When harmony and stability are especially of import. When allowing subordinates to develop by learning from mistakes.

Approaches to Conflict Resolution

Source: Adapted from Kenneth Thomas, "Conflict and Conflict Direction," in One thousand. D. Dunnette (ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Behavior (New York: Wiley, 1976), p. 900. (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC Past-NC-SA 4.0 license)

What is interesting in this process is the assumptions people brand nigh their own modes compared to their opponents'. For instance, in one study of executives, it was found that the executives typically described themselves as using collaboration or compromise to resolve conflict, whereas these same executives typically described their opponents every bit using a competitive mode almost exclusively.

1000. Thomas and L. Pondy, "Toward and Intent Model of Disharmonize Management Among Principal Parties," Human Relations, 1967, 30, pp. 1089–1102.

In other words, the executives underestimated their opponents' business organisation as uncompromising. Simultaneously, the executives had flattering portraits of their own willingness to satisfy both sides in a dispute.

Stage 4: Outcome. Finally, as a outcome of efforts to resolve the disharmonize, both sides determine the extent to which a satisfactory resolution or consequence has been accomplished. Where ane party to the conflict does non feel satisfied or feels only partially satisfied, the seeds of discontent are sown for a later on disharmonize, equally shown in the preceding (Figure). I unresolved conflict episode tin can easily set the phase for a 2nd episode. Managerial action aimed at achieving quick and satisfactory resolution is vital; failure to initiate such action leaves the possibility (more accurately, the probability) that new conflicts will soon emerge.

1. Why practise organizations have so much disharmonize?
2. Depict the procedure of the conflict model.

2. How does conflict arise in organizations?

Conflict in organizations can be caused by task interdependencies, status inconsistencies, jurisdictional ambiguities, communication problems, dependence on common resource pools, lack of common performance standards, and private differences. A model of the conflict procedure follows four stages. Disharmonize originates (stage 1) when an individual or group experiences frustration in the pursuit of of import goals. In phase 2, the private or group attempts to understand the nature of the problem and its causes. In stage iii, efforts are made to change behavioral patterns in such a mode that the desired upshot, or stage 4, is achieved.

Glossary

Assertiveness

Tin can range from believing to unassertive on i continuum.

Cooperativeness

The extent to which someone is interested in helping satisfy the opponent'south concerns.

Frustration

May be caused by a broad variety of factors, including disagreement over performance goals, failure to go a promotion or pay heighten, a fight over scarce economic resource, new rules or policies, then forth.

Jurisdictional ambiguities

Situations where it is unclear exactly where responsibility for something lies.

Status inconsistencies

Situations where some individuals have the opportunity to do good whereas other employees exercise not. Consider the effects this can accept on the nonmanagers' view of organizational policies and fairness.

Task interdependencies

The greater the extent of job interdependence among individuals or groups, the greater the likelihood of disharmonize if different expectations or goals be among entities, in function because the interdependence makes avoiding the conflict more than difficult.

usrymomemence.blogspot.com

Source: https://opentextbc.ca/organizationalbehavioropenstax/chapter/causes-of-conflict-in-organizations/

Share this post