Chapter 2

Nature of Conflict
 Defining Conflict

Conflict is defined as an interactive process

manifested in incompatibility, disagreement, or
dissonance within or between social entities
(i.e., individual, group, organization, etc.).
Occurrence of Organizational Conflict

Organizational conflict occurs when members

engage in activities that are incompatible with
those of colleagues within their network.

Some of the manifestations of conflict behavior

are expressing disagreement with the opponent,
yelling, verbal abuse, interference, and so on.
 Threshold of Conflict
In order for conflict to occur, it has to exceed the
threshold level of intensity.
The incompatibilities, disagreements, or differences
must be serious enough before the parties
experience conflict.
There are differences in the threshold of conflict
awareness or tolerance among individuals. Thus,
some individuals may become involved in a conflict
sooner than others under similar situations.
 Conflict and Competition
Competition is a subset of conflict. Conflicts may
be placed along a continuum of cooperative to
competitive.
Cooperative: Both parties receive satisfactory
and high outcomes.
Competitive: One party wins and the other loses.
 Categorization of Conflicts

Conflicts can be categorized as following:

• Purely Cooperative Conflicts

• Purely Competitive Conflicts

• Cooperative-Competitive Conflicts
Purely Cooperative Conflicts:-

• Purely cooperative conflicts are also known as

“positive-sum games” or “conflicts of
coordination”.
• A mutually profitable outcome for both
individuals through coordination is ensured.
• For e.g. a lost child’s trying to find his or her
mother
Purely Competitive Conflicts:-

• Purely competitive conflicts are also known as

“zero-sum games” or “negative-sum games”.
• Positive outcomes to one party are directly
and equally matched by negative outcomes to
the other.
• For e.g. two candidates are interviewed but
only one can be hired.
Cooperative-Competitive Conflicts:-

• Cooperative-competitive conflicts are also

known as “nonzero-sum games” or “mixed-
motive” conflicts.
• Most conflicts are characterized by both
cooperative and competitive aspects
• Most managerial conflicts are mixed-motive in
nature.
 Classifying Conflict

Conflict may be classified on the basis of its

sources. It may also be classified on the basis
of organizational levels (individual, group, etc.)
at which it may originate.
 Sources of Conflict
Conflict may originate from a number of sources, such
as tasks, values, goals, and so on. It is classified as
following:
1. Affective Conflict
2. Substantive Conflict
3. Conflict of Interest
4. Conflict of Values
5. Goal Conflict
6. Realistic versus Nonrealistic Conflict
7. Institutionalized versus Non-institutionalized Conflict
8. Retributive Conflict
9. Misattributed Conflict
10. Displaced Conflict
1. Affective Conflict:-

• This category of conflict has been labeled as

psychological conflict, relationship conflict,
emotional conflict and interpersonal conflict.

• This occurs when two interacting social entities,

while trying to solve a problem together, become
aware that their feelings and emotions regarding
some or all the issues are incompatible.
2. Substantive Conflict:-
• This type of conflict has been labeled as task conflict,
cognitive conflict and issue conflict.
• This occurs when two or more organizational
members disagree on their task or content issues.
• Disagreement regarding an organization’s current
strategic position or determining the correct data to
include in a report.
• Affective conflict is concerned with the feelings or
emotions whereas substantive conflict is associated
with the task or other business-related issues.
3. Conflict of Interest:-

• An inconsistency between two parties in their

preferences for the allocation of a scarce
resource.

• The conflict of managers A and B for the same

vice president’s job exemplifies a conflict of
interest.
 4. Conflict of Values:-

• This occurs when two social entities differ in their

values or ideologies on certain issues.

• This is also called ideological conflict.

5. Goal Conflict:-

• This occurs when a preferred outcome of two

social entities is inconsistent.

• For e.g. when only one of the preferred job

design programs of managers A and B can be
implemented is an example of goal conflict.
6. Realistic versus Non-realistic Conflict:-

• Realistic conflict refers to incompatibilities

relating to tasks, goals and values.
• Non-realistic conflict occurs as a result of a
party’s need for releasing tension and expressing
hostility, ignorance, or error.
• Realistic conflict is associated with “mostly
rational or goal-oriented” disagreement.
• Non-realistic conflict has little to do with group or
organizational goals.
7. Institutionalized Versus Non-institutionalized Conflict

• Institutionalized conflict is characterized by

situations in which parties follow explicit rules,
display predictable behavior, and their
relationship has continuity, as in the case of
labor–management negotiations.
• Most racial conflict is non-institutionalized where
these three conditions are nonexistent.
8. Retributive Conflict:-

• A situation where the conflicting entities feel the

need for a drawn-out conflict to punish the
opponent.
• Each party determines its gains by incurring costs
to the other party.
• Examples of retributive conflicts are Palestinian–
Israeli conflicts and the Cold War between the
former superpowers.
9. Misattributed Conflict:-

• This relates to the incorrect assignment of causes

to conflict .
• Such conflict is based on misunderstanding.
• For example, an employee may wrongly attribute
to his or her supervisor a cut in the employee’s
department budget, which may have been done
by higher-level managers.
10. Displaced Conflict:-

This type of conflict occurs when the

conflicting parties either direct their
frustrations or hostilities to social entities who
are not involved in conflict. For e.g
resentment shown by the people over
increase in petrol prices.
 Levels of Analysis

• Organizational conflict may be classified as

intraorganizational (i.e., conflict within an
organization) or interorganizational (i.e.,
conflict between two or more organizations).
• Intraorganizational conflict may also be
classified on the basis of levels (individual,
group, etc.) at which it occurs.
Intraorganizational Conflict Classification

Intraorganizational conflict may be classified as:

• Intrapersonal Conflict
• Interpersonal Conflict
• Intragroup Conflict
• Intergroup Conflict
1. Intrapersonal Conflict

• This type of conflict is also known as

intraindividual or intra-psychic conflict.
• It occurs when an organizational member is
required to perform certain tasks and roles
that do not match his or her expertise,
interests, goals, and values.
2. Interpersonal Conflict

• This is also known as dyadic conflict.

• It refers to conflict between two or more
organizational members of the same or
different hierarchical levels or units.
• The studies on superior–subordinate conflict
relate to this type of conflict.
3. Intragroup Conflict
• This is also known as intradepartmental conflict.
• It refers to conflict among members of a group or
between two or more subgroups within a group
in connection with its goals, tasks, procedures.
• Such a conflict may also occur as a result of
incompatibilities or disagreements between
some or all the members of a group and its
leader(s).
4. Intergroup Conflict

• This is also known as interdepartmental conflict.

It refers to conflict between two or more units or
groups within an organization.
• Conflicts between production and marketing,
headquarters and field staffs are examples of this
type of conflict.
• One special type of intergroup conflict is between
labor and management.
 Four Models Interpersonal Conflict
Four models of the styles of handling
interpersonal conflict in organizations are as
following:
• Model of Two Styles
• Model of Three Styles
• Model of Four Styles
• Model of Five Styles
 Model of Two Styles
Cooperative–Competitive model:(Suggested by Deutsch)
• This model focuses on conflicts that are either purely
cooperative or purely competitive.
• In real life and managerial settings, one hardly
encounters purely cooperative or purely competitive
conflict situations.
• Most conflicts are characterized by both cooperative and
competitive aspects (i.e., they are “nonzero-sum games”
or “mixed-motive” conflicts).
• This is very similar to the compromising style.
 Model of Three Styles
This model identified three, instead of five,
factors for handling conflict which were:
 Non-confrontation(obliging),
 Solution-orientation (integrating)
 Control (dominating)
Evidence of how the three styles influence
organizational behavior and management is
needed.
Unfortunately, the researchers have not provided
any evidence of the relationships between the
three conflict styles and individual, group, and
organizational outcomes.
 Model of Four Styles
This model proposed four styles of handling
conflict:
 Yielding
 Problem solving
 Inaction
 Contending
This model provided evidence that problem-solving
style is the best for managing conflict effectively.
The evidence,(empirical evidence) was mainly from
laboratory studies.
The relationships of the four styles to job
performance or productivity have not been
provided.
 Model of Five Styles

• This model differentiate the styles of handling

interpersonal conflict on two basic dimensions:
concern for self and concern for others.
• The first dimension explains the degree (high or
low) to which a person attempts to satisfy his or
her own concern.
• The second dimension explains the degree (high
or low) to which a person wants to satisfy the
concern of others.
• Combination of the two dimensions results in five
specific styles of handling interpersonal conflict.
A Two-Dimensional Model
 Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict

1. Integrating Style

2. Obliging Style

3. Dominating Style

4. Avoiding Style

5. Compromising Style
1. Integrating Style

• This style is also known as problem solving.

• This style indicates high concern for self and others.
• It involves collaboration between the parties.
• The first rule for obtaining integration is to put your
cards on the table, face the real issue, uncover the
conflict, bring the whole thing into the open.
• This style has two distinctive elements:
confrontation and problem solving.
2. Obliging Style
• This style is also known as accommodating.
• This style indicates low concern for self and high
concern for others.
• There is an element of self-sacrifice in this style.
• It may take the form of selfless generosity,
charity, or obedience to another party’s order.
• An obliging person neglects his or her own
concern to satisfy the concern of the other party.
• Such an individual is like a “conflict absorber,”
3. Dominating Style
• This style is also known as competing.
• This style indicates high concern for self and low
concern for others.
• This style has been identified with a win–lose
orientation.
• A dominating person goes all out to win his or her
objective and, as a result, often ignores the needs
and expectations of the other party.
• Sometimes a dominating person wants to win at
any cost.
4. Avoiding Style

• This style is also known as suppression.

• This style indicates low concern for self and
others.
• It has been associated with withdrawal, or “see
no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” situations.
• Such a person may refuse to acknowledge in
public that there is a conflict that should be dealt
with.
5. Compromising Style

• This style indicates intermediate concern for self

and others.
• Both parties give up something to make a mutually
acceptable decision.
• A compromising party gives up more than a
dominating party but less than an obliging party.
• Likewise, it addresses an issue more directly than
an avoiding party but does not explore it in as much
depth as an integrating party.
Interpersonal Conflict According to Game Theory

According to game theorists the five styles of

handling interpersonal conflict can be reclassified
as following:
• Integrating style as a (win–win) style.
• Compromising as a (no-win/no-lose) style.
• Obliging as a (lose–win) style.
• Dominating as a (win–lose) style.
• Avoiding as a (lose–lose) style.
 Integrative and Distributive Dimensions
Five styles of handling interpersonal conflict can be
organized according to the integrative and
distributive dimensions.
Integrative-dimension: The integrative-dimension
(integrating–avoiding) represents the amount of
satisfaction of concerns received by both parties
(i.e. self and others).
Distributive-dimension: The distributive-dimension
(dominating–obliging) represents the amount of
satisfaction of the concerns received by one of the
parties (i.e., self or others).
Integrative-dimension

According to integrative-dimension:
The integrating style attempts to increase the
satisfaction of the concerns of both parties by
finding unique solutions to the problems
acceptable to them.
The avoiding style leads to the reduction of
satisfaction of the concerns of both parties as a
result of their failure to confront and solve their
problems.
Distributive-dimension

According to integrative-dimension:
The dominating style attempts to obtain high
satisfaction of concerns for self (and provide low
satisfaction of concerns for others).
The obliging style attempts to obtain low
satisfaction of concerns for self (and provide high
satisfaction of concerns for others).
 Intersection of the Two Dimensions
Compromising Style: The compromising style
represents the point of intersection of the two
dimensions, that is, a middle-ground position
where both parties receive an intermediate level
of satisfaction of their concerns from the
resolution of their conflicts.
Integrative and Distributive Dimensions Model