Sources of conflict in organizations

¶ … conflict within an organization?

In "Conflict Management as a Core Competency for HR Professionals," Howard Guttman identifies some of the sources of conflict within an organization. This is critical because identifying and characterizing conflict is important is one is to reduce or eliminate conflict from the workplace. However, Guttman did not view conflict as something inherently negative; instead, he believed that the role that conflict plays in an organization is determined largely by how that organization manages the conflict. Instead, Guttman seemed to strongly suggest that conflict could play a productive role in an organization, as long as that conflict was managed appropriately. Of Schachar's possible types of conflict, Guttman focused on inter-personal conflict when looking at the workplace.

Guttman viewed conflict largely as a function of a team's developmental stage. Stage 1 occurs at the beginning of a group's formation. While there may be conflict present, that conflict is generally hidden as the different team members find their bearings and place within the group. They may begin testing other team members. Stage 2 occurs after team members become more familiar with the team and with their teammates. It is characterized by people in the team becoming more authentic with one another. This can lead to infighting. However, Guttman did not necessarily think that such infighting was always negative; only by dropping the facades can the team members reach their productivity goals. However, while the transition from stage 1 to stage 2 is an organic one, the danger is that teams will become stuck in stage 2. They need to transition to stage 3, which is characterized by moving past personal differences and confronting issues, while working towards common goals with established guidelines for behavior. Finally, stage 4 is considered a high-performing team, where people have their roles in the team defined, they are working towards clear, common goals, and they have established a means of conflict resolution for dealing with new conflicts as they arise (Guttman, 2009).

2. Is conflict resolution only within the jurisdiction of the HR people? Explain.

Conflict resolution is absolutely not only within the jurisdiction of the HR people. In fact, while HR people need to be able to understand how to effectively manage conflict, the reality is that conflict that reaches all the way up to the HR level is a sign that something has gone terribly wrong at lower levels. At the basic level, the hope is that two people will be able to engage in appropriate conflict resolution without the intervention of a third party. In other words, in a well-trained office environment, two colleagues who disagree about an issue should be able to sit down, discuss the issue like adults, and work towards a resolution. Even if they are unable to agree on a solution, their discussion should help highlight the areas of disagreement and agreement and direct them towards further research or resources for assistance, so that when a third-party decision maker is asked to resolve the conflict, the issues are clarified. The problem is that many people are simply not used to dealing with conflict in a reasonable manner. Instead, they believe that all conflict must be resolved in a competitive manner, and that there is always a loser in each conflict.

Conflict resolution should be taught and implemented at all possible points of conflict in an organization. These include, but are not limited to, interpersonal conflicts, conflicts in meetings, conflicts in negotiations, conflicts in resource allocation, conflicts in workload distribution, and the conflict inherent in any organizational change. If employees and managers know to anticipate conflict and are trained in how to resolve conflict, then most conflict should never reach the level of needing attention from HR. Instead, HR's emphasis on conflict can be on training.

3. Is it important or necessary in an organization, to understand these sources of conflict, as we have an autocratic structure that can impose a resolution?

It is critical to understand the sources of conflict in an organization, even if there is an autocratic structure that can impose a resolution. First, it is unrealistic to believe that autocratic structures can solve the source of discord. While an autocratic structure may be able to resolve a particular dispute, it will not help reach agreement in the underlying philosophical differences that help create conflict. Therefore, while particular workplace disputes may be resolved, they are likely to recur. Moreover, these workplace disputes, which, if approached correctly could lead to an increase in team-building and cooperation, can fester when there is a top-down approach to problem-solving. One party is likely to perceive that the other party is receiving preferential treatment, which will exacerbate tensions. Eventually, even if the smaller disputes are all resolved, this may lead to a situation where parties are unable or unwilling to work together.