Conflict in Organizations, Good or Bad Essay

Organizational contest is a state of discord pissd by an actual or perceived opposition of asks, determine and interests among concourse releaseing together. mesh takes many forms in organizations. in that location is the inevitable clangor between formal authority and power and those privates and groups affected. There atomic number 18 dis regorgees over how revenues should be divided, how the elaborate should be done and how long and hard mess should roleplay ( group and relationship contrast). There ar jurisdictional disagreements among psyches, executives, motorbuss, teams, departments, and between unions and management. There ar subtler forms of infringe involving rivalries, jealousies, in the flesh(predicate)isedity clashes, role definitions, and fights for power and favor. There is withal departure deep d deliver individuals between competing needinesss and demands to which individuals respond in unlike ports.A process that begins when an indi vidual or group perceives differences and opposition between itself and anformer(a) individual or group roughly interest and resources, be remainfs, prizes or practices that matter to them. It occurs or arises due to difference in expected quantify and knowledge, poor communication, fear, attachment, incompatible values, harassments, stress, scarce resources, past trauma, mis chthonianstandings and perceived oppression. It also arises unremarkably during mergers and acquisitions, union negotiations, performance appraisals, interpersonal issues, changing job functions, d witnesssizing and reorganizations. skirmish has negative effects on organizations such(prenominal) as, increase in turnovers, absenteeism, wellness issues, wasted resources, increase in production cost and decrease in job satisfaction and performance. Its positive effects include, increases effort of doers, diagnostic information, creativity, education of new skills and forming of deep bonds. Conflicts smoke be handled by means of integrating, forcing, contestation, sharing, smoothing, reverseing and compromising.There are devil ways of looking at organizational troth the useful and dysfunctional. separately of these ways is linked to a different set of assumptions ab emerge the purpose and function of organizations. Conflict that occurs in organizations need not be destructive, provided the susceptibility associated with conflict is harnessed and directed towards problem-solving and organizational improvement. However, managing conflict effectively requires that alone parties understand the nature of conflict in the workplace. The dysfunctional thinking (bad) of organizational conflict is imbedded in the judgement that organizations are created to achieve goals by creating structures that perfectly define job responsibilities, authorities, and other job functions. Here, for each one worker knows where he or she fits, knows what he or she mustiness do and knows how to l ink up to others in the organization. This traditional situation of organizations values castliness, st office and the repression of any conflict that occurs.To the traditional organizational thinker conflict implies that the organization is not intentional or structured correctly or adequately. Common remedies would be to upgrade elaborate job descriptions, authorities and responsibilities, increase the use of central power (discipline), separate conflicting components, etc. This view of organizations and conflict causes problems. Unfortunately, most managers consciously or unconsciously, value some of the characteristics of this orderly environment. Problems arise when it is not agnize that this way of looking at organizational conflict only fits organizations that work in routine ways, where foundation garment and change are virtually eliminated. closely all government organizations work within a very surreptitious context one characterized by constant change and a need for constant adaptation.Trying to structure away conflict and disagreement in a dynamic environment requires tremendous amounts of energy, and will also persecute any positive outcomes that whitethorn come from disagreement, such as improve decision-making and innovation. When a bad conflict worsens it becomes an monstrous conflict. Ugly conflicts occurs where the manager (and maybe employees) act to eliminate or suppress conflict in situations where it is unachievable to do so. Ugly conflicts in organizations occur when conflicts run for years, people view given up on resolving and addressing conflict problems, there is a inviolable deal of private bitching and complaining more thanover little attempt to fix the problem and when staff show little interest in operative to achieve common goals, but spend more fourth dimension and energy on protecting themselves Under these circumstances there is a tendency to look to the manager or formal leader as being responsible for the mess. In fact, that is how most employees would look at the situation.It is full-strength that managers and supervisors play critical roles in determining how conflict is handled in the organization, but it is also true that the avoidance of these ugly conflicts must be a shared responsibility. Management and employees must work together in a cooperative way to reduce them, and increase the likelihood that conflict put up be channeled into an effective force for change. The functional (good) view of organizational conflict sees conflict as a productive force, one that behind take members of the organization to increase their knowledge and skills, and their contribution to organizational innovation and productivity. unconnected the position mentioned above, this more modern approach considers that the keys to organization success lie not in structure, clarity and orderliness, but in creativity, responsiveness and adaptability. The sure-fire organization, then, needs conflict so that diverging views can be put on the table, and new ways of doing things can be created. The functional view of conflict also suggests that conflict provides people with feedback about how things are going. fifty-fifty personality conflicts carry information to the manager about what is not working in an organization, affording the probability to improve.Personal conflictPersonal conflict refers to an individuals inner workings and personality problems. Conflict sometimes has a destructive effect on the individuals and groups involved. At other times, however, conflict can increase the capacity of those affected to help deal with problems, and therefore it can be used as a motivating force toward innovation and change. Conflict is encountered in two general forms. Many difficulties in this empyrean are beyond the scope of management and more in the state of a professional counselor, but there are some aspects of personal conflict that managers should understand and some th ey can possibly help remedy. cordial conflict include interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup differencesRole ConflictAnother facet of personal conflict has to do with the multiple roles people play in organizations. distributively member of the organization belongs to a role set, which is an association of individuals who share reciprocalist tasks and thus perform formally defined roles, which are further influenced both by the expectations of others in the role set and by ones own personality and expectations. For example, in an organization, employees are expected to learn from the teacher by listening to him, following his directions, undertaking assigned tasks, and maintaining appropriate standards of conduct. The manager is expected to provide the employee with high-quality working materials and resources, give advice and direction, conduct evaluation tests and work appraisals, provide a conducive working environment, and set a good example. The system of roles to which a n individual belongs extends outside the organization as well, and influences his functioning within it.As an example, a mans roles as husband, father, son, and church member are all intertwined with each other and with his set of organizational roles. As a consequence, there exist opportunities for role conflict as the various roles interact with one another. Other types of role conflict occur when an individual receives inconsistent demands from another person for example, he is asked to serve on several(prenominal) time-consuming committees at the same time that he is urged to get out more production for his work unit. Another kind of role physical body takes place when the individual finds that he is expected to meet the opposing demands of two or more separate members of the organization. Such a case would be that of a worker who finds himself pressured by his boss to improve the quality of his work while his work group wants more production in order to receive a higher(prenom inal) bonus share.Conflict within groupsConflicts between people in work groups, committees, task forces, and other organizational forms of face-to-face groups are inevitable. As we gather in mentioned, these conflicts may be destructive as well as constructive. Conflict arises in groups because of the scarcity of freedom, position, and resources. People who value independence tend to resist the need for interdependence and, to some extent, conformity within a group. People who seek power therefore struggle with others for position or status within the group. Rewards and recognition are practically perceived as insufficient and improperly distributed, and members are inclined to argue with each other for these prizes. In western culture, winning is more delicious than losing, and competition is more prevalent than cooperation, all of which tends to intensify intragroup conflict. group meetings are oftentimes conducted in a win-lose climate that is, individual or subgroup in teraction is conducted for the purpose of determining a winner and a bankruptcy rather than for achieving mutual problem solving.The win-lose conflict in groups may have negative effects such as divert time and energy from the main issues, delay decisions, create deadlocks, drive unaggressive committee members to the sidelines, intercept with listening, obstruct exploration of more alternatives, decrease or destroy sensitivity, cause defensiveness, members to drop out or resign from committees, arouse anger that disrupts a meeting, interfere with empathy, leave losers resentful, incline underdogs to sabotage, provoke personal abuse. Conflict in the group need not lead to negative results, however, the presence of a dissenting member or subgroup often results in more sharpness of the groups problem as well as more creative solutions. This is because disagreement forces the members to think harder in an attempt to cope with what may be valid objections to general group opinion. But the group must know how to deal with differences that may arise.True interdependence among members leads automatically to conflict colonization in the group. Interdependence recognizes that differences will exist and that they can be helpful. Hence, members learn to accept ideas from dissenters (which does not imply agreeing with them), they learn to listen and to value openness, and they learn to share a mutual problem-solving attitude to ensure the exploration of all facets of a problem facing the group. Intergroup conflict between groups is a sometimes destructive, sometimes necessary, since event occurs at all aims and across all functions in organizations. Intergroup conflict may help generate creative tensions leadership to more effective contributions to the organizations goals, such as competition between sales districts for the highest sales. Intergroup conflict is destructive when it alienates groups that should be working together, when it results in win-lose competit ion, and when it leads to compromises that represent less-than-optimum outcomes. Intergroup conflict occurs in two general forms- Horizontal and unsloped strain.Horizontal strain involves competition between functions for example, sales versus production, research and increment versus engineering, purchasing versus legal, line versus staff, and so on. A clash between a sales department and production over inventory policy would be an example of horizontal strain. Vertical strain involves competition between ranked levels for example, union versus management, foremen versus middle management, shop workers versus foremen. A struggle between a group of employees and management is an example of vertical strain or conflict. reliable activities and attitudes are typical in groups involved in a win-lose conflict. Each side closes ranks and prepares itself for battle. Members show increased loyalty and support for their own groups. tike differences between group members tend to be smoo thed over, and deviants are dealt with harshly. The level of morale in the groups increases and infuses everyone with competitive spirit.The power structure becomes better defined, as the real leaders come to the surface and members rally around the trounce thinkers and talkers. On the other hand, each group tends to distort both its own views and those of the competing group. What is perceived as good in ones own position is emphasized, what is bad is ignored the position of the other group is assessed as uniformly bad, with little good to be acknowledged or accepted. Thus, the vox populi and objectivity of both groups are impaired. When such groups meet to discuss their differences, constructive, apt behavior is severely inhibited. Each side phrases its questions and answers in a way that strengthens its own position and disparages the others.Hostility between the two groups increases mutual understandings are buried in negative stereotypes. It is easy to see that under the con ditions described above, mutual solutions to problems cannot be achieved. As a result, the side having the greater power wins the other side loses. Or the conflict may go unresolved, and undesirable conditions or circumstances continue. Or the conflict may be settled by a higher authority. None of these outcomes is a cheerful one. Disputes settled on the basis of power, such as through a strike or a lockout in a labor-management dispute, are often deeply resented by the loser. Such settlements may be resisted and the winner defeat in underground ways that are difficult to detect and to counter. When this happens, neither side wins both are losers. If the conflict is left unresolved (it becomes an ugly conflict), as when both sides withdraw from the scene, intergroup cooperation and effectiveness may be staidly impaired to the detriment of the entire organization.Disputes that are settled by higher authority also may cause resentment and what is called lose-lose consequences. Such settlements are invariably made on the basis of incomplete information without entropy that the conflict itself obscures and therefore are poor substitutes for mutually reasoned solutions. Strategies for Managing assort Conflicts include Avoidance a management strategy which includes non-attention or creating a total separation of the combatants or a partial separation that allows especial(a) interactions. Smoothing technique which stresses the achievement of harmony between disputants. Dominance or office Intervention the imposition of a solution by higher management, other than the level at which the conflict exists. Compromise strategy that seeks a resolution which satisfies at least part of the each partys position. face-off strategy featuring a thorough and frank discussion of the sources and types of conflict and achieving a resolution that is in the best interest of the group, but that may be at the expense of one or all of the conflicting parties. clever conflict resolver can begin with an economical intervention, such as acquire group members to clarify and reaffirm shared goals. If necessary, he or she moves through a systematic series of interventions, such as testing the members ability and willingness to compromise resorting to confrontation, enforced counseling, and/or termination as last resorts To conclude, the notion that conflict should be avoided is one of the major contributors to the growth of destructive conflict in the workplace. The bad view of conflict is associated with a pot of organizational effectiveness that is no longer valid (and perhaps never was). Conflict can be directed and managed so that it causes both people and organizations to grow, precede and improve.However, this requires that conflict not be repressed, since attempts to repress are more probably to generate very ugly situations. Common repression strategies to be avoided are nonaction, administrative orbiting, secrecy and law and order. Thus, conflic t affecting organizations can occur in individuals, between individuals, and between groups. Also, conflicts within and between work groups in organizations are often caused by struggles over control, status, and scarce resources. The constructive resolution of such conflicts can most often be achieved through a rational process of problem solving, coupled with a willingness to explore issues and alternatives and to listen to each other. Conflict is not always destructive, it may be a motivator. When it is destructive, however, managers need to understand and do something about it.A rational process for relations with the conflict should be programmed. Such a process should include a planned action response on the part of the manager or the organization, rather than relying on a simple reaction or a change that occurs without specific action by management. If managers should subscribe to the flexible vision of effective organizations, and at each conflict situation provide opportun ity to improve, they can have the chance to harness the energy of conflict, directing it to be productive. Rather than trying to eliminate conflict, or suppress its symptoms, their task becomes managing conflict so that it enhances people and organizations, rather than destroying people and organizations. So, the task is to manage conflict, and avoid what we call the ugly.where conflict is allowed to eat away at team cohesiveness and productivity.