9.2. CONFLICT BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS
Chan (1981) has studied conflict between R&D managers and nonmanagers in four organizations, and he found that they perceived conflict as generally having negative consequences. Most conflict occurs in the areas of reward structure (most important), control of goals, authority, and insufficient assistance. Most respondents saw a negative link between conflict and performance and job satisfaction, but a few respondents saw conflict as having positive consequences such as increased performance. Reactions to conflict were perceived as quite different. Competition and avoidance reactions were seen as most detrimental to the effectiveness of the work group; cooperation was seen as the most desirable reaction to conflict.
In general the ideal way to deal with conflict is to be creative and try to reach win–win solutions. For example, if authorship of a paper is a disputed issue, arranging for one of the persons to do extra work on it, in order to justify joint authorship, can result in a win–win situation.
Evan (1965 a, b) has developed a typology of interpersonal conflict in organizations. Three types of conflict in two distinct areas can be defined. There can be conflict with peers, with supervisors, or with subordinates, and this conflict can occur in the technical area and in the interpersonal area. Conflict with peers, supervisors, or subordinates in the technical area involves technical goals, milestones, the means of reaching a particular goal, and interpretation of data. Conflict with peers or subordinates at the interpersonal level involves personal likes and dislikes, trust, and fear that the other person misperceives what one is doing. The conflict with the supervisor usually deals with project administration or with power relationships. This includes conflict over who is supposed to decide what to do or what rules or procedures are in effect.
Research shows that conflict is more likely to occur in those situations in which two individuals have different attitudes and values. In one such situation, for instance, one person believes it is very important to keep a certain distance between the supervisor and the subordinate, while the other person may not think that a large distance is appropriate. Similarly, one person may require an exact clarification of rules or specifications of what is to be done, while the other person does not feel that such clear statements are necessary. Conflict can also arise if one person believes that people should be independent, while the other person thinks that there should be greater interdependence and coordination in activities, and that the most important thing is to have good interpersonal relationships.
Such conflict is more acute when one or both of the individuals are cognitively simple and tend to see things in black and white, in stereotypes, or in a very simple manner. Generally, the conflict is less important when the people are cognitively complex. Some conflict can be traced to incompatible personalities. It is beyond the scope of this book to discuss this type of conflict, but when it occurs, counseling or the use of a clinical psychologist ought to be investigated by management.
Conflict in general is more difficult to reduce when there are major discrepancies of power. If one person can totally dominate the other, it is possible for the lower-status person to take the view that there is nothing to lose if he or she makes a tremendous mess of the relationship. When the relationship has a reasonable balance of power (in other words, the subordinate has some power) the relationship is likely to allow reductions of conflict. It is also obvious that when two people have a history of bad relationships with others and with each other, it is much more difficult to improve these relationships in the future.
One of the ways to get around poor relationships is to put the two people into a situation in which they have what is known as a superordinate goal—that is, a goal that both of them want to attain and that neither can reach without the help of the other. Banker, Houlette, Johnson, and McGlynn (2000) found that a superordinate goal can be achieved through decategorization, recategorization, and mutual differentiation. Decategorization involves creating self-revealing or personal interactions to allow individuals to get to know one another and become friends. Recategorization redefines one's sense of group and makes interactants aware that members of another group are also members of one's own group. Mutual differentiation encourages groups to emphasize their mutual distinctiveness so long as it is in relation to cooperative interdependence. By using these strategies independently or together, bias can be lessened and intergroup collaboration can be enhanced. Creating opportunities for communication, getting help from professional counselors, and organizational restructuring should all be considered as alternative options for reducing conflict.