Various Conflict Theories in Management

Communication and Conflict Synthesis
Part I: Conflict Theories
1
Attribution theory when applied to the manager-employee interview would suggest that both the manager and the employee are attributing feelings, beliefs, attitudes and intentions towards the other in ways that are neither productive nor entirely fair. Each may appear to make a valid point, or a point that justifies the position of each, but neither is really conducive to developing a better working environment or work relationship. Each is seeking to scapegoat—the manager by blaming poor production results on the employee for not figuring out how to lead when the manger himself appears to be “hands off” and not demonstrate leadership examples for the workers to follow. The worker on the other hand views the manager as being overly negative and purposefully difficult because he wants to place blame on the boss. For example, the worker attributes indifference to the manager because the manager has not bothered all year to find out what is going on with his workers to see if they have any needs. The manager on the hand attributes ignorance to the worker, saying, “You should know by now that I don’t over structure the teams that work for me. Rigid lines of responsibility discourage people from flexibility in working together. That’s my management philosophy.” By attributing only negative qualities to one another, the relationship is basically breaking down. Each should make an effort to attribute more positive qualities to the other to achieve a more balanced perspective.
Expectancy violations theory would suggest that both are ratcheting up their words in response to the words of the other. For example, the manager says the worker should know his management philosophy and not be so surprised. Then he escalates the situation by saying, “There is more to this, though. You have actually been unhappy for some time in this unit. Maybe we should think … consider … moving you to another department.” The manager’s expectations for how the employee should take the negative feedback have been violated, so he reacts negatively himself, which provokes more frustration on the part of the employee. The worker’s expectations for the interview are unknown but he gives the impression that he is quite familiar with the manager’s antics by now yet is still surprised and angered that his boss should be so obtuse. When the boss suggests the employee move to a different department the employee becomes defensive and challenges the manager’s care for the employee.
Confrontation episodes theory would suggest that the issue between the employee and the manager is the issue of who should be accepting responsibility for not meeting expectations. The employee argues the measure is not even legitimate because expectations are not known ahead of time. The manager argues that his management philosophy is purposefully vague with defining roles and objectives but that the worker should know what the objectives and tasks are anyway. The employee argues that the manager cannot hold the employee accountable for not meeting objectives that are never defined and therefore are illegitimately applied as measures at the employee annual review. The worker refuses to accept responsibility or acknowledge the legitimacy of the review’s value and questions the validity of the manager’s leadership style. The manager likewise questions the value of the worker and singles out his bad attitude and inability to accept criticism and move on. The confrontation episodes theory thus suggests that the two are at an “issue-driven” impasse.
2
In displacement theory, the mind when faced with conflict escalation will substitute a new object or aim to get around the obstacle and divert attention from the conflict zone. Escalation is conceptualized in displacement theory as part of a process of disjunctive retaliation: the worker and the manager, for instance, view each other’s words as conflict-laden and thus they escalate into a battle of words and wills as each supplants the previous argument with a new one that is designed to be a new mode of attack on the other. When the first argument fails, another is used in its place in the same way an enemy combatant
In arousal deficit theory, escalation is conceptualized in terms of the individual’s need to acquire ever increasing levels of arousal via self-stimulation. In an active situation, arousal is stimulated, which helps the individual to address the arousal deficit. In other words, conflict creates arousal and stimulates the individual with low arousal. The individual with low arousal can be said to initiate and benefit from conflict. The conflict itself becomes a way for the individual to gain satisfaction. It has nothing to do with the other person or the job performance that person is doing. Rather it is based on the individual arousal level of the individual and that individual’s need for stimulation, of which conflict is a great source.
In moral conflict theory, conflict escalation occurs when two groups have different deeply held moral beliefs or views about how things should be ordered. Unable to converge or get along, the two groups clash and conflict ensues because they fail to agree on how to resolve the order. The moral order is defined by knowledge, values, beliefs, judgments and experiences—and each group will be using different criteria to determine their own sets of principles. Escalation is thus conceptualized in moral conflict theory in terms of two or more moral orders that clash over values, perceptions, beliefs and so on.
Escalation is conceptualized similarly in each theory in the sense that conflict is viewed as a result of each individual or group seeking something for itself and running into conflict with another who is also seeking something for himself but just in a different way or that is different from what the other wants. In displacement theory, the individual is looking to win the argument. In arousal deficit theory, the individual is looking for stimulation. In moral conflict theory, the individual is looking to instill a moral order that appeals to him. In each theory, the individual wants something.
Escalation is conceptualized differently in each theory in the sense that conflict escalation is characterized in unique terms of purpose. In displacement theory, it is characterized as a way to get around a previous obstacle. In arousal deficit theory, it is characterized as a way to obtain stimulation and arousal. In moral conflict theory, it is characterized as a way to assert one’s own moral order view on another and what happens when the other also has the same intention.
Thus each theory conceptualizes escalation in similar and dissimilar ways. In the manager-employee interview example, both the manager and the employee could be said to be suffering from a state of low arousal, forcing an escalation as a way of avoiding a previous argument, and in need of asserting their own respective moral orders. At the same time, both is showing a willingness to pursue one’s own aims over the course of the interview, neither having any regard whatsoever for what the other has to say. For that reason, all three theories could be applied.
3
Moral conflict theory is based in the underlying ideas in the coordinated management of meaning in the sense of how the latter focuses on creating and interpreting meaning through discourse. Via interaction, two parties come to coordinate an agreeable view or worldview or value system in which both can work towards a common aim or vision. The moral conflict arises when there is tension or dissension among parties as to what the order should be. Though communication and discourse should bring about a coordinated management of meaning, it can end in moral conflict if both sides are unyielding and resolute, as can be seen in the case of the manager and the employee. The process of arriving at an agreed upon meaning and order is conducted by way of interaction between parties. They agree to come to a consensus opinion as to what will be the meaning and order going forward that all parties refer to for organization and management purposes. This is obviously missing in the manager-employee interview case. When management fails to coordinate an acceptable meaning and order among stakeholders, moral conflict is bound to ensue.
Verbal aggressiveness theory is related to conflict competence theory in the sense that verbal aggression is viewed as a verbal skill deficiency: one lacks the ability to communicate one’s anxiety or feelings effectively and so reduces an individual to expressions of aggression in order to make feelings known to another. Conflict competence theory posits that one must use cognitive, emotional, social and behavioral intelligence and skills to create positive outcomes of conflict and reduce risk of escalation or negative outcomes. Verbal aggression occurs when one lacks conflict competence or the ability to use emotional and social intelligence skills to reach out to another and keep a tense situation from boiling over. A manager, for example, must be able to implement social and emotion intelligence skills during an interview with an employee in order to help the worker communicate views and ideas the employee may be unable to express on his or her own. In the case of the employee-manager interview one sees the manager woefully lacking in emotional and social intelligence. That interview escalated quickly but should not have and would not have had the manager simply made better use of social and emotional intelligence skills.
Intractable conflict theory is related to displacement theory in the sense that conflict arises from a sense of one’s identity being threatened and that in displacement theory one seeks to get around a threat or obstacle by creating a new argument. In intractable conflict theory, one becomes more rigid in one’s stance by creating new identities when the previous identity is attacked or threatened. By creating numerous identities, one essentially puts a buffer or barrier between various threats that one anticipates or meets with, each identity serving as a barrier between the criticism and the person. A person with an intractable conflict as a result of numerous threatened identities is unlikely to come to the table to resolve an issue or agree to terms. Unless one of the identities is leveraged and altered in some way, either peripherally or at the core of the construct, no process of negotiation will occur and no resolution of the conflict is likely to ensue. To ensure that one does not create shield of identities to ward off attacks of one’s person, managements has to respectfully acknowledge those identities and then leverage them to draw the worker into embracing the vision that manager has for the worker that performance goals and initiatives may be met in accordance with the organization’s needs.
Part II
In the song “Sweetness and Tenderness” by The Rentals, the lyrics state: “I need to figure this out / And find where my place is / I don't mean to threaten anyone / No need to get so defensive / You say you're with me, / I know you don't care / You say you're with me, / I know you don't care / I guess it's real simple / It's just like when Gary Numan said / You're just a viewer / Cold and distant / You are just business / You're worthless / You say you're with me, / I know you don't care.” These lyrics (in full in the Appendix) resonate with attribution theory, as the singer is attributing a number of beliefs to another person by saying that he says one that but that he knows the person is actually thinking something else. In other words, the singer is attributing feelings to another person after identifying a conflict in the relationship: “I need to figure this out.”
Attribution theory posits that one attempts to understand the behavior of another person by attributing ideas and feelings to that person. In this song, the singer feels that people around him feel threatened by his introspections. He feels put off by the others as well and chooses to explain their behavior by quoting Gary Numan, who noted that in relationships in business people tend not to care about personal issues and just view one another as business, which is a particularly dehumanizing way of looking at things. The singer projects this concept onto the other and attributes the same cynical outlook of Numan to what is going on here.
In the end, the singer simply cries that he needs some tenderness because he feels he is not getting any sympathy or support from the other. To make sense of why he is not getting what he wants he attributes feelings of dehumanization to the other person. He attributes a belief about that person being mainly focused on business and nothing else. He attributes the intention of abandoning the singer to the other to explain why he does not get any tenderness or sweetness.
Appendix
“Sweetness and Tenderness” lyrics:
I need to figure this out
And find where my place is
I don't mean to threaten anyone
No need to get so defensive
You say you're with me,
I know you don't care
You say you're with me,
I know you don't care
I guess it's real simple
It's just like when Gary Numan said
You're just a view
A cold and distant
You are just business
You're worthless
You're worthless
You say you're with me,
I know you don't care
I know you don't care
Sweetness
Oh, sweetness
I need some tenderness
Tenderness
You know it's just like Judas say
I've been your right hand man all along
My admiration for you hasn't died
I haven't forgotten how put down we are
I haven't forgotten how put down we are
You say you're with me,
I know you don't care
I know you don't care
Sweetness
Oh, sweetness
I need some tenderness
Tenderness
Come away with me
Come away with me
Sweetness
Come away with me
We can hide in peace
And we can finally rest
This melody's wrong,
And I do care
This melody's wrong,
Yes I care