organisational conflict literature: a review

Parikalpana - KIIT Journal of Management30

Introduction

Organisational conflict has been afascinating subject of study for mostresearchers and practitioners. While mostresearchers agree on the inevitability ofconflict in organisations as well as on theneed to manage them constructively, theliterature relevant to organisational conflictis somewhat segmented (Thomas, 1976)and is specialised according toorganisational areas e.g. labour-management relations (Stagner, 1956;Stagner & Rosen, 1965), line-staff

Organisational Conflict Literature: A Review

Rabinarayan SamantaraAssociate Professor, Shivaji College, University of Delhi

[email protected]

Nidhi SharmaAssistant Professor at Shivaji College in the University of Delhi

[email protected]

ABSTRACT

The present research involves a review of ‘organisational conflict’ literature in anintegrated framework. In addition to exploring such basic issues related toorganisational conflict as conceptual meaning and definitions of conflict, antecedentconditions or determinants of conflict, desirability of conflict, etc., the paperspecifically focuses upon the internal dynamics of a conflict episode. Moresignificantly, the paper highlights the fact that conflict can have either functional orpathological effects depending upon its management. The findings of various researchstudies analysed point to the fact that the levels of conflict as well as the styles ofhandling conflict can be suitably varied in different organisational situations witha view to enhancing organisational effectiveness.

Key Words Conflict, Dynamics, Antecedents, Effects, Management

controversies (Dalton, 1950; McGregor,1957), superior-subordinate conflicts(Evan, 1965; Burke, 1970; Renwick,1975), inter-departmental disputes(Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967), etc. At thispoint, it must be emphasised, however, thatthe dynamics underlying conflict behaviourin one area have immense relevance toother areas as well. Moreover, a largevolume of research undertaken outside theboundaries of organisations (e.g.experimental gaming, small group

Parikalpana - KIIT Journal of Management, Vol-12(I), Jan-June 2016

31

research, social conflict, internationalrelations etc.) has yielded concepts andinsights of great potential relevance to thestudy of conflict in organisational settings.The contribution of such outside researchto available knowledge regardingindustrial and organisational conflict cannotbe lost sight of. In view of the aforesaidfacts, an attempt has been made in thepresent paper to provide a morefundamental and generic treatment ofconflict covering all organisational areas.

Conceptual Meaning of Conflict

In the Behavioural Sciences, the term‘conflict’ has no single, clear referent.According to the psychologists, the termoften denotes incompatible responsetendencies within an individual e.g.“approach-avoidance conflict” (Levinger,1957), “role conflict” (Kahn et.al., 1964),etc. In the sociological parlance, on theother hand, attention is focused on thattype of conflict that occurs between socialunits i.e. between individuals, groups ororganizations. These conflicts are knownas inter-personal, inter-group or inter-departmental (Wall & Callister, 1995) orinter-organisational conflicts respectively.

There is no consensus amongresearchers even on a specific definitionof conflict. It has been variously definedby different authors. In a review of conflictliterature, Fink (1968) found a largenumber of divergent usages, including 14different criteria for simply distinguishingconflict from competition. Within theorganisational conflict literature, Pondy

(1967) noted a number of divergentdefinitions ranging over antecedentconditions, emotions, perceptions andconflictful behaviour. Rather thanattempting to agree that one of thesespecific definitions was really conflict,Pondy (1967) recommended that conflictshould be used in a generic sense to includeall these phenomena.

In the absence of any consensus onthe conceptual meaning of conflict, it is butquite natural that the term ‘conflict’ hasbeen variously defined by different socialscientists. Nevertheless, a few commonlygiven definitions of conflict which providesome indications as to the meaning ofconflict may be presented here. Accordingto Robbins (1974), Conflict is a processin which an effort is purposefully made byone person or unit to block another thatresults in frustrating the attainment of theother’s goals or the furthering of his or herinterests. Thomas (1976) views conflict asthe process which begins when one partyperceives that the other has frustrated oris about to frustrate some concern of his.Katz & Kahn (1978) view that twosystems (persons, groups, organisations,nations) are in conflict when they interactdirectly in such a way that the actions ofone tend to prevent or compel someoutcome against the resistance of the other.According to Chung & Megginson (1981),conflict refers to the struggle betweenincompatible or opposing needs, wishes,ideas, interests or people; it arises whenindividuals or groups encounter goals thatboth parties cannot obtain satisfactorily.

A Review of Organisational Conflict Literature


Kabanoff (1986) opines that Conflict isthe result of incongruent or incompatiblerelationships between members of a groupor dyad. According to Roloff (1987),Organisational conflict occurs whenmembers engage in activities that areincompatible with those of colleagueswithin their network, members of othercollectivities, or unaffiliated individuals whoutilize the services or products of theorganisation. Hellreigel, Slocum, &Woodman (1992) define conflict as anysituation in which incompatible goals,attitudes, emotions and behaviours lead todisagreement or opposition between twoor more parties. Steers & Black (1994)define Conflict as the process by whichindividuals or groups react to other entitiesthat have frustrated or are about to frustratetheir plans, goals, beliefs or activities.

Some authors also include theenvironment as a constituent element ofthe inter-relationship (Applefield, Huber,& Moallem, 2000; Coy & Woehrle,2000; Demmers, 2006; Lederach,2000). According to Mayer (2000)conflict is “a feeling, a disagreement, areal or perceived incompatibility ofinterests, inconsistent worldviews, or a setof behaviors.” Conflict has also beenreferred to as differences betweenindividuals or groups relating to interests,beliefs, needs and values (De Dreu,Harinck, & Van Vianen, 1999).

Rahim (2002) conceptualizes conflictas “an interactive process manifested inincompatibility, disagreement ordissonance within or between social

entities (i.e. individual, group, organisation,etc.)”. According to Rahim, conflict mayoccur when:

1. A party is required to engage in anactivity that is incongruent with his orher needs or interests.

2. A party holds behavioural preferences,the satisfaction of which is incompatiblewith another person’s implementationof his or her preferences.

3. A party wants some mutually desirableresource that is in short supply, suchthat the wants of everyone may not besatisfied fully.

4. A party possesses attitudes, values,skills, and goals that are salient indirecting his or her behaviour but areperceived to be exclusive of theattitudes, values, skills, and goals heldby the other(s).

5. Two parties have partially exclusivebehavioural preferences regarding theirjoint actions.

6. Two parties are interdependent in theperformance of functions or activities.

Thus, on the whole, it can be concludedthat a conflict situation is primarily the resultof differences on account of issues relatedto a task or inter-personal relationships(Ongori, 2010). It is “the substantive issuein which the tension is rooted” (De Dreu,Harinck, & Van Vianen, 1999). Taskconflicts result from disagreements withinthe group or among groups as to thecontent of the task or how it should beperformed (procedure for accomplishing

33

goals) whereas relationship conflicts are aresult of interpersonal incompatibilities andmanifest as tension, animosity among groupmembers (Jehn, 1995).

The Dynamics of Conflict

It was observed by Pondy (1967)and Walton and Dutton (1969) that conflictin a dyadic relationship tends to occur incycles. In other words, a conflictrelationship between two individuals orother social units can be analyzed as asequence of conflict episodes. Eachconflict episode is partially shaped by theresults of previous episodes and in turn,leaves an aftermath that affects the courseof succeeding episodes.

Five stages of a conflict episode wereidentified by Pondy (1967) as can be seenfrom Figure 1. These stages are (1) latentconflict (antecedent conditions), (2)perceived conflict (cognition), (3) feltconflict (affective stages e.g. stress, tension,anxiety, hostility, etc.), (4) manifest conflict(conflictful behaviour ranging from passiveresistance to overt aggression), and (5)conflict aftermath (outcomes/consequences). Pondy (1967)concentrated on three basic types of latentconflict: (1) competition for scarceresources (2) drives for autonomy and (3)divergence of sub-unit goals. The nextimportant stage of a conflict episodeinvolves the cognitive states of individualsi.e. their perception or awareness ofconflict situations. It may be noted thatconflict may sometimes be perceived whenno conditions of latent conflict exist, and

latent conflict conditions may be presentin a relationship without any of theparticipants perceiving the conflict. Feltconflict refers to the affective state ofindividuals involved in a conflict situation(e.g. stress, tension, hostility, anxiety, etc.).Manifest conflict results when an individualmember of an organization consciouslyengages in behaviour that blocks anothermember’s goal achievement. Manifestconflict may mean any of several varietiesof conflict behaviour, ranging from passiveresistance to overt aggression.

Figure -1

The Dynamics of a Conflict Episode

Source: Pondy, L. R. (1967).Organisational Conflict: Concepts andmodels. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, (12), 296-320.

It may be reemphasized that eachconflict episode is nothing but one of asequence of such episodes that constitutethe relationships among organizationparticipants. If the conflict is genuinelyresolved to the satisfaction of all



participants, the basis for a morecooperative relationship may be laid. Onthe other hand, if the conflict is merelysuppressed but not resolved, the latentconditions of conflict may be aggravatedand explode in more serious form until theyare rectified or until the relationshipdissolves. This legacy of a conflict episodeis here called “conflict aftermath”.

Antecedents to Organizational Conflict

As it was pointed out at the beginning,the literature on organisational conflict hasbeen somewhat compartmentalized,dealing mostly with certain specializedorganisational arenas. So it is but quitenatural that the organisation theorists haveattempted to analyze the determinants oforganisational conflict in the context ofinterest-group conflicts, inter-personalconflict, inter-departmental disputes, andso on. However, such isolated attemptsmade to deal with casual factors relatedonly to a narrow segment of organisationalconflict at one time have only stood in theway of development of a comprehensivetheory of conflict and conflict management.

Conflict situations in organizationsmay be triggered due to several factors.In the present section, an endeavour hasbeen made to integrate the determinantsof organisational conflict as emphasised bysociologists and other behaviouralscientists. The various determinants orunderlying sources of conflict discussedare: competition for scarce resources,mutual task dependence, organisationaldifferentiation, identity concerns,

performance criteria and rewards, barriersto communication, ambiguities, personalityattributes, hierarchical differences inprestige, power and knowledge, roledissatisfaction, drive for autonomy, andneed for tension release.

Competition for Scarce Resources

Conflict potential exists amonginterest groups where there is adiscrepancy between aggregated demandsof the competing parties and the availableresources (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Thereis often conflict between labour andmanagement over their respective share ofenterprise profits; departmental units oftencompete for scarce organisationalresources such as physical space,equipment, manpower, capital funds andcentralised services (e.g. typing, draftingetc.); and so on. Walton (1965) describessuch conflicts as complex relationshipswhich involve both integrative(cooperative) and distributive sub-processes. Each party to the conflict hasan interest in making the total resource aslarge as possible, referred to as“expanding the pie” (Pruitt, 1981) or“creating value” (Lax & Sebenius,1986; Olekalns, 1997) but also in securingas large a share of them as possible foritself – a process referred to as “claimingvalue” (Lax & Sebenius, 1986; Olekalns,1997).Conflict due to scarce resources isalso referred to as the Bargaining Modelof conflict due to the dynamics involved(Pondy, 1967). The integrative sub-process is largely concerned with joint

35

problem solving to maximize outcomes(Pruitt, 1981), and the distributive sub-process with strategic bargaining.

Mutual Task Dependence

Task dependence is the extent towhich two functional units operating at thesame hierarchical level depend upon eachother for assistance, information,compliance or other coordinative acts inthe performance of their respective tasks.Important types of interdependence matterare: (1) common usage of some serviceor facility, (2) sequence of work orinformation flow prescribed by task orhierarchy, and (3) rules of unanimity orconsensus about joint activity. This typeof conflict occurs mostly among groups orindividuals engaged in a functionalrelationship and is also referred to as theSystems Model of conflict (Pondy, 1967).Dutton & Walton (1966) indicate thattask-dependence not only provides anincentive for collaboration, but alsopresents an occasion for conflict and themeans for bargaining overinterdepartmental issues. As the sub-unitsoften have different sets of active goals(Simon, 1964) or different preferenceorderings for the same sets of goals, amplescope for inter-unit conflict exists.

Organizational Differentiation

It is commonly acknowledged thatuniform tasks require a bureaucratic typeof organization whereas non-uniform tasksrequire a human relations organization. Inthe present day society, most large-scaleorganizations have to deal with both

uniform and non-uniform tasks, and mostcombine these contradictory forms ofsocial relations into a professional model.Litwak (1961) regards the inclusion ofthese contradictory forms as a source oforganisational conflict.

Lawrence & Lorsch (1967)emphasized the effects of differentiation onorganisational conflict. Where each of thefunctional units (such as production, salesor research) performs a different type oftask and copes with a different segmentof the environment, the units will developsignificant internal differences amongthemselves with respect to their: (a) degreeof structure; (b) interpersonal orientation;(c) time orientation; and (d) goalorientation. Lawrence & Lorsch believethat this four-fold differentiation is largelya response to the degree of uncertainty inthe relevant environments of differentdepartments. They found that suchdifferentiation between organisational unitsposed an obstacle to integration orcoordinative processes, thus yieldingample scope for inter-unit conflict.

Identity Concerns

Identity concerns (Mayer & Louw,2009) of individuals in terms of their selfconcepts such as feelings of beingknowledgeable, confident, experienced,etc. have a profound influence onorganisational conflicts. In his conceptualanalysis of inter-organisational decisionmaking, Walton (1972) views that theidentity concerns of organizations are ofcrucial significance in the choice of



strategies (to be made for making jointdecisions) as well as their potentialconsequences. If the identity needs of twoparties are compatible (i.e. identityreinforcement), the parties are more likelyto resort to problem-solving and exploittheir integrative potential with a view tomaximizing the joint gains available to them.However, when the preferred identities arein conflict (i.e. identity conflict), the partiesare more likely to engage in bargainingbehaviors and obtain sub optimal decisions.

Performance Criteria and Rewards

Inter-departmental conflict ariseswhen each of the interdependent units hasresponsibility for only one side of adilemma embedded in organisationaltasks. Dutton and Walton (1966) notedthat the preference of production units forlong, economical runs conflicted with thepreference of sales units for quick deliveryto good customers. Dalton (1959)observed that staff units valued changebecause that was one way they couldprove their worth, whereas line units valuedstability because change reflectedunfavorably upon them. While suchdilemmas underlying inter-departmentaldifferences are inherent in the total task,the reward system (Alper, Tjosvold, &Law, 2000)designed by management mayeither increase or dissipate their divisiveeffects. The more the reward systememphasizes the separate performance ofeach department rather than theircombined performance, the greater is thelikelihood of conflict to occur.

Barriers to Communication

Research findings have indicated thatsemantic differentials can impedecommunication essential for cooperation.This challenge is especially heightened inthe current globalized economicenvironment with diverse interactingcultures (Mayer & Louw, 2009). Straus(1964) observed that differences in thetraining of purchasing agents and engineerscontributed to their conflicts. March &Simon (1958) stated that organisationalchanneling of information introduced bias.In an empirical investigation of the causesof inter-departmental conflicts, Walton andDutton (1969) used three measures ofconflict, typically characteristic of thebargaining type of decision processes (a)distrust; (b) overstatement of departmentalneeds; and (c) lack of consideration ofanother department’s needs. It waspostulated that reducing the levels of theabove three conflict variables wouldpromote problem-solving behaviors. Theresults of the study revealed thatcommunication-inhibiting factors weremost significantly related to the compositemeasure of the conflict variables.

Ambiguities

Ambiguity contributes to inter-departmental conflict in many differentways. Difficulty in assigning credit or blamebetween two departments increases thelikelihood of conflict between units. Dalton(1959) attributed part of the line-staffconflict he observed to the fact thatalthough improvements required

37

collaboration between line and staff units,it was later difficult to assess thecontribution of each unit. Similarly, Duttonand Walton (1966) found that conflictsarose between production and sales unitswhen it could not be determined as towhich department made a mistake. Lowroutinisation and uncertainty of means togoals increase the potential for inter-unitconflict. This proposition is supported byZald (1962) in his study of inter-unitconflict in five correctional institutions.Ambiguity in the criteria used to evaluatethe performance of a unit may also createtensions, frustration, and conflict (Kahn et.al., 1964).

Personality Attributes

A review of experimental studies ledWalton & McKersie (1965) to observethat certain personality attributes such ashigh authoritarianism, high dogmaticism,and low self-esteem increase conflictbehaviour. Kahn et.al. (1964) found thatin objective role conflict, persons whoscored lower on neurotic anxiety scalestended to depart more from “cordial,congenial, trusting, respecting andunderstanding relations”. A person with anarrow range of behavioral skills is lesslikely to exploit the integrative potential fullyin an inter-unit relationship. He may eitherengage in bargaining to the exclusion ofcollaborative problem-solving, orwithdraw or become passive (Walton &McKersie, 1966). Dalton (1959) andThompson (1960) found that personaldissimilarities such as education, social

patterns, values, background, age, etc.lowered the probability of inter-personalrapport between departmentalrepresentatives, and in turn, decreased theamount of collaboration between theirrespective units.

Hierarchical Differences in Prestige,Power and Knowledge

Inter-unit conflict is produced bydifferences in the way units are rankedalong various dimensions of organisationalstatus such as direction of initiation ofaction, prestige, power and knowledge.As reported by Seiler (1963), when thesequential pattern of initiation and influencefollowed the status ordering amongdepartments, it was acceptable to all.However, where a lower-status unitneeded to direct a higher-status unit, theresult was break-down in inter-unitrelationships. In his study of correctionalinstitutions, Zald (1962) offered anexplanation of the effects of relative power.With mutual task dependence anddivergent values among the three unitsstudied, conflict occurred as expectedbetween units that are unable to controlthe situation and those perceived as beingin control. Inconsistency between thedistribution of knowledge amongdepartments and the lateral influencepatterns are also a source of conflict.Lawrence & Lorsch (1967) observed thatthe more the influence of each unit isconsistent with key competitive factors, themore effectively will the inter-unit issuesbe resolved.



Role Dissatisfaction

Role dissatisfaction stemming from avariety of sources can be a source ofconflict. Dalton (1959) found that blockingstatus aspirations in staff members led toconflict with other units. In these cases,the professionals felt that they lackedrecognition and opportunities foradvancements. Similarly, where one unitinternally reports on the activities of anotherunit, resentment can occur, as with staffunits reporting to management onproduction irregularities (Dalton, 1959).Argyris (1964) and Dalton (1959) bothhave argued that role dissatisfaction andconflict would follow where one unit withthe same or less status set standards foranother.

Drive for Autonomy

Superior-subordinate conflicts in anorganization usually arise becausesuperiors attempt to control the behaviourof subordinates, and subordinates resistsuch control. The subordinate is likely toperceive conflict when the superiorattempts to exercise control over activitiesoutside the “zone of indifference” (i.e. overactivities perceived to be outside thelatter’s jurisdiction), and the superiorperceives conflict when his attempts atcontrol are thwarted. A typicalbureaucratic reaction to subordinateresistance is the substitution of impersonalrules for personal control. Such impositionof rules defines the authority relation moreclearly and robs the subordinate of theautonomy provided by ambiguity. The

subordinate, therefore, perceives himselfto be threatened by and in conflict with hissuperiors, who are attempting to decreasehis autonomy.

Need for Tension Release

Another important underlying sourceof organisational conflict is the human needfor tension release (Coser, 1967; Pondy,1967). It has been observed inorganizations that the inconsistent demandsof efficient organisational and individualgrowth often create anxieties within theindividual (Argyris, 1957). Anxiety mayalso result from identity crisis from extra-organisational pressures. Individuals needto ventilate these anxieties in order tomaintain internal equilibrium. In fact, latentconflicts of various types providedefensible excuses to individuals fordisplaying their anxieties against suitabletargets.

Effects of Conflict

The traditional view of conflictassumed that conflict is essentially negativein character and is detrimental to theattainment of organisational objectives.However, the contemporary managementthinkers conceive of conflict as amultidimensional concept, i.e. bothnegative and positive in character(Tjosvold & Chia, 1989). Van de Vliertand colleagues (1999) stated that “conflictcan be handled in either a constructive ordestructive way”. Despite this recentconceptualisation of conflict, few studiesare available in which the researchers havetried to distinguish between constructive

39

conflict and destructive conflict as well astheir respective effects on organisationaloutcomes. Research studies have showna negative association between“disharmony” and the quality of employeerelationships and between “disharmony”and new product success in terms ofinnovation performance. Conversely,harmonious or cooperative relationshipshave been found to be associated withimproved performance. Dyer and Song(1998) specifically modeled constructiveconflict and found that it leads to innovationsuccess. Menon and colleagues (1996)found indirect linkages betweendysfunctional (destructive) conflict andmarket performance for new productintroductions. Song, Dyer, & Thieme(2006) found a strong positive associationbetween constructive conflict andinnovation performance and a strongnegative association between destructiveconflict and innovation performance.

Guetzkow and Gyr (1954) suggestedtwo dimensions of conflict in theorganisational context – one consisting ofdisagreements relating to task issues andthe other consisting of emotional orinterpersonal issues which lead to conflict.These two dimensions of conflict havebeen given a variety of labels – e.g.substantive and affective conflicts(Guetzkow & Gyr, 1954), task andrelationship conflicts (Pinkley, 1990; Jehn,1997), cognitive and affective conflicts(Amason, 1996), and task and emotionalconflicts (Ross , 1989). In recent years,several researchers have empirically

investigated these two dimensions ofconflict. They suggest that the distinctionbetween these two types of conflict is validand that they have differential effects at theworkplace.

It may be noted that affective conflictrefers to inconsistency in interpersonalrelationships which occurs whenorganisational members become awarethat their feelings and emotions regardingsome of the issues are incompatible.“Summarily stated, relationship conflictsinterfere with task-related effort becausemembers focus on reducing threats,increasing power, and attempting to buildcohesion rather than working on task…The conflict causes members to benegative, irritable, suspicious, andresentful” (Jehn, 1997).

Research evidence has shown thataffective conflict impedes groupperformance by limiting information –processing ability and cognitive functioningof group members and antagonisticattributions of group members’ behaviour(Amason, 1996; Baron, 1997; Jehn, 1995;Jehn et. al., 1999; Wall and Nolan, 1986).Affective conflicts are detrimental to theperformance of the team as decisions areunlikely to be based on the merits of thecase and backed by solid commitment forimplementation (DeChurch, Hamilton, andHaas, 2007). Such conflicts could resultin dysfunctional teams, and reducedperformance and cohesion (Jehn andChatman, 2000; Sullivan and Feltz, 2001;Wheaton, 1974). Affective conflictsdiminish group loyalty, workgroup



commitment, intent to stay in the presentorganisation, and job satisfaction(Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1995, 1997; Jehnet. al., 1999). These result from higherlevels of stress and anxiety and conflictescalation.

Substantive conflict occurs when twoor more organisational members disagreeon their task or content issues. Substantiveconflict is very similar to issue conflictwhich occurs when two or more socialentities disagree on the recognition of andsolution to a task problem. A studyconducted by Jehn (1995) revealed that amoderate level of substantial conflict isbeneficial as it stimulates discussion anddebate which helps groups to attain higherlevels of performance. As observed byJehn (1997), “Groups with an absence oftask conflict may miss new ways toenhance their performance while vey highlevels of task conflict may interfere withtask completion”.

Evidence indicates that substantiveconflict is positively associated withbeneficial outcomes in organisations.Groups that report substantive conflict areable to make better decisions than thosethat do not (Amason, 1996; Cosier &Rose, 1977; Fiol, 1994; Putnam, 1994,Schweiger, Sandberg, & Raga, 1986).Substantial conflict encourages greaterunderstanding of the issues, which leadsto better decisions. Such conflict promotesfrank and open discussions potentiallyleading to innovative solutions, and alsoreduces possibilities of complacency,

status quo and tendency towards “groupthink” (Gero, 1985; Turner & Pratkanis,1997). In addition, it has been noted thatgroups that report substantive conflictgenerally have higher performance levels.Substantial conflict can improve groupperformance through better understandingof various viewpoints and alternativesolutions (Bourgeois, 1985; Eisenhardt &Schoonhoven, 1990; Jehn, 1995, 1997;Jehn et. al., 1999). It should be noted,however, that the beneficial effects ofsubstantial conflict on performance havebeen found only in groups performing non- routine tasks, but not in groupsperforming standardized or routine tasks.

Desirability of Conflict

The human relations movement, withits emphasis upon the personal andorganization costs of conflict, implied thatconflict was to be avoided or eliminated(Kelly, 1970; Litterer, 1966). Thistraditional notion of conflict essentiallyresulted from the misconception thatconflict is inherently distasteful, destructiveand pathological to organisationalobjectives. Although Kahn et.al. (1964)considered some conflict as essential forthe continued development of mature andcompetent human beings; they stated that“common reactions to conflict and itsassociated tensions are often dysfunctionalfor the organization as an ongoing socialsystem and self-defeating for the personin the long run. Similarly, Boulding (1962)recognizes that some optimum level ofconflict and associated personal stress and

41

tension are necessary for progress andproductivity but he portrays conflictprimarily as a personal and social cost.Even the more dispassionate theory oforganization proposed by March & Simon(1958) defines conflict conceptually as a“breakdown in the standard mechanism ofdecision-making”, i.e. as a malfunction ofthe system.

Attitudes towards conflict appear tohave changed over the years. A morebalanced view of conflict has emerged inthe literature, which recognizes its costsand benefits, its dangers and promises.More and more social scientists are comingto realize and to demonstrate that conflictby itself is no evil, but rather aphenomenon which can have constructiveor destructive effects, depending upon itsmanagement. As stated by Thomas(1976), “with the recognition that conflictcan be both useful and destructive, theemphasis has shifted from the eliminationof conflict to the management of conflict”.Now there is a more general recognitionthat inter-personal and inter-group conflict,if managed properly, serves many usefulfunctions in the organization (Coser, 1956;Blake & Mouton, 1964; Deutsch, 1971;Hoffman, Harburg, & Maier, 1962;Pondy, 1967, Thompson, 1960). Theseuseful functions of conflict have beendescribed by Thomas (1976) in a succinctmanner, as given hereunder.

First, a moderate degree of conflictmay not necessarily be viewed as a costby the parties involved. It is increasingly

recognized that too little stimulation ortension may be as unpleasant to a personas an excess of it. Under conditions of lowtension, people may welcome or seek outthe novelty of divergent opinions, thechallenge of competition, and at times,even the excitement of open hostilities.Deutsch (1971) mentions that conflictsstimulate interest and curiosity, and that“conflict is part of the process of testingand assessing oneself and as such, maybe highly enjoyable as one experiences thefull and active use of one’s capacities”.

Second, the confrontation ofdivergent views often produces ideas ofsuperior quality (Pelz, 1956; Hoffman,1959; Hoffman & Maier, 1961; Hall,1971). Divergent views must be basedupon different considerations, differentinsights and different frames of reference.Disagreements may thus lead an individualto take cognizance of factors which he hadpreviously ignored, and help him to arriveat a more comprehensive and balancedview of things.

Third, aggressive behaviour inconflict situations is not necessarilyirrational or destructive. Indeed, theaggressive pursuit of apparently conflictinggoals by two parties may well lead toconstructive outcomes. March & Simon(1958) and Litterer (1966) state that suchconflict tends to initiate a search for waysof reducing the conflict. Since one party’sgains are not necessarily another party’slosses, the parties may succeed in findingnew arrangements which benefit them both(Follett, 1941) as well as the organization.



A few other useful side effects ofconflict have also been noted by the socialscientists. Litterer (1966) noted thatconflict within an organization may callattention to systemic problems whichrequire change. Hostility between groupsalso tends to foster internal cohesivenessand unity of purpose within groups (Coser,1956; Blake & Mouton, 1961). Finally,power struggles often provide themechanism for determining the balance ofpower, and thus adjusting the terms of arelationship according to these realities(Coser, 1956).

Management of Conflict

It has been widely recongised thatconflict by itself should not be regardedas a negative phenomenon withinorganisations. Rather, there is ampleresearch evidence to show that conflict canhave positive or negative effects withinorganisations depending upon itsmanagement. Here, it would be significantto note that studies on the management oforganisational conflict have generallymoved in two directions. Someresearchers have attempted to measure theamount or intensity of conflict at variousorganisational levels in terms of stress,anxiety, hostility, tension, competition, etc.,and also explore the sources of suchconflict. The underlying implication of thesestudies is that a moderate amount ofconflict may be maintained for enhancingorganisational effectiveness by altering thesources of conflict. As Brown (1983) hassuggested, “conflict management can

require intervention to reduce conflict ifthere is too much, or intervention topromote conflict if there is too little”.However, it should be pointed out that therelationship suggested by Brown asmentioned above, seems to be appropriateonly for substantive, but not for affectiveconflict. As discussed previously,Guetzkow & Gyr (1954) havedifferentiated between substantive andaffective conflict, and have suggested thatsubstantial conflict consisting ofdisagreements relating to tasks, policiesand other organisational issues is positivelyassociated with beneficial outcomes inorganisations. On the other hand, affectiveconflict consists of emotional orinterpersonal issues, and it has been foundto impede group performance as well asother measures of organisationaleffectiveness. Thus, while substantialconflict is to be maintained at anappropriate level within organisations,affective conflict should be discouraged asmuch as possible on account of itsdysfunctional effects. The instrumentdeveloped by Jehn (1994) can be used tomeasure affective and substantive conflictsat the group level as well as at theinterpersonal and intergroup levels.

The second approach to themanagement of conflicts has been used byresearchers to relate various styles ofhandling interpersonal conflict and theireffects on organisational objectives. Infact, a number of research studies havebeen conducted on the relationshipbetween styles of handling conflict and

43

different dimensions or aspects ofindividual, interpersonal, interdepartmentalor organisational effectiveness. At aconceptual level, Blake and Mouton(1964) suggested that individuals ororganisations placing greater emphasis onconfrontation or problem – solvingbehaviour would have effectiveinterpersonal relations. In an empiricalstudy, Lawrence & Lorsch (1967)examined the use of confrontation, forcingand smoothing in six organisations. Theirresearch findings indicated that whileconfrontation or problem – solvingbehaviour seemed to be clearly related toorganisational effectiveness, it was alsonoted that the absence of smoothing andthe presence of forcing as a back – upmode (to confrontation) were related toeffective organisational functioning.Another study conducted by Burke (1969)involved examining the five methods ofresolving conflicts (as proposed by Blakeand Mouton) in the context of superior –subordinate relations. It was found thatconfrontation or problem – solvingemerged as the most effective method ofconflict resolution, and it was followed bysmoothing behaviours. In addition, it wasnoted that withdrawing and forcingbehaviours were negatively related tointerpersonal effectiveness whilecompromising was not at all related toeffectiveness. In the context ofinterdepartmental relations, Thomas(1971) found that managers’ satisfactionwith interdepartmental negotiations variedpositively with confrontation and smoothing

behaviour by their counterparts in otherdepartments, and negatively with forcingand withdrawing. Another study conductedby Aram et. al. (1971) within research anddevelopment teams indicated that teamcollaboration was positively related toseveral measures of member self–actualization and well–being. By contrast,Dutton and Walton (1966) observed thatmanagers involved in competitive inter–departmental relations experiencedconsiderable frustration and anxiety.

It must be pointed out that the studiesavailable on the relationship betweenconflict management strategies andorganisational or individual effectivenesshave been mostly conducted in Americanindustrial settings, which may not be sopertinent to Indian industrial situations. Inthe Indian context, a case study conductedby Sharma and Samantara (1994) on therelative effectiveness of conflict resolutionmethods in terms of their effects onorganisational effectiveness aspects (i.e.productivity, adaptability and flexibility) ofa computer–manufacturing organisationrevealed that confrontation or problem–solving was the most effective method ofconflict resolution, and it was followed bysmoothing behaviour. Although thecompromising and withdrawing modelswere somewhat positively related toeffectiveness, their effects seemed to berelatively insignificant. It was also notedthat the forcing mode of resolving conflictsemerged as the ineffective one.



Concluding ObservationsIn the preceding analysis, the

contributions of leading theoreticians aswell as researchers on the subject oforganisational conflict have been puttogether in an integrated framework. Infact, the present research has beenimmensely revealing in that it focuses oncertain fundamental issues related toorganisational conflict such as its internaldynamics, its antecedent conditions, andthe changing view of conflict and conflictmanagement in recent times. It is hopedthat the ideas and insights gained from thisanalysis will help the practicing managersto take a more pragmatic view of conflictsexisting at various organisational levels andalso seek to realize their potential benefitsto the organization in terms of individualas well as group development,organisational innovation and creativity,higher performance levels, etc., throughbetter management practices.

On the basis of our analysis ofresearch studies conducted on therelationship between conflict managementstrategies and several aspects oforganisational effectiveness, we canconclude that the problem–solving strategyor behaviour may be viewed as the mosteffective way of managing conflicts inorganisations, and it may be supplementedby the use of smoothing behaviour. Thus,there is a need to encourage managers toenhance their utilization of these twoconflict management strategies or methods,especially in the context of the emergingscenario of increasing education, skills and

horizon of understanding of industrialemployees. However, the research findingshave also amply demonstrated that forcingbehaviours are rather counter–productivein the management of organisationalconflicts. In view of the emergence ofindustrial democracy, the present–daymanagers can no longer afford to ignorethe needs and aspirations of theirsubordinates, or ignore the latter’ssuggestions and viewpoints on a varietyof organisational issues. In fact, thesubordinate employees do have thenecessary ability to understand and analysethe intricacies related to the work situation,and also get involved in organisationaldecision–making. Thus, the managersshould make a reduction in their utilizationof forcing behaviours in resolving ormanaging conflicts with their subordinates.

In the end, it must be pointed out thatthe above suggestions made regarding therelative efficacy or effectiveness of conflictmanagement strategies may have immensepractical relevance to industrial situationsand conditions. However, still there is aparamount need to conductcomprehensive research studies acrossindustries, especially in the Indian context,with a view to obtaining research findingsthat would have greater validity as well asgeneral applicability to the Indian industrialenvironment. In addition, we should notbe oblivious of the fact that there are alsoseveral situational variables such asemployees’ education and skills, theireconomic conditions, organisationalclimate, social norms, etc. which do play

45

a significant role in the choice of conflictmanagement strategies as well as theirattendant consequences on differentaspects of organisational effectiveness.Therefore, the managers must try tounderstand and analyse the situationalvariables before choosing the appropriatestyle of conflict management to be used ina given situation. Although different notablecontingency approaches to conflictmanagement (Thomas, 1972, 1976; Derr,1978; Pareek, 1982; Rahim, 1985; Rahimet. al., 2001; Rahim & Bonoma, 1979)have analysed different sets of situationalvariables affecting the choice of conflictmanagement strategies as well as theirpotential outcomes or effects, there is aspecific need to conduct empirical researchstudies regarding the efficacy oreffectiveness of conflict managementstrategies in the context of variousorganisational as well as psycho–socialvariables.References

Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S.(2000). Conflict management, efficacy,and performance in organizationalteams. Personnel Psychology 53(3),625-642.

Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing theeffects of functional and dysfunctionalconflict on strategic decision making:Resolving a paradox for topmanagement teams. Academy ofmanagement journal, 39(1), 123-148.

Applefield, J. M., Huber, R., & Moallem,M. (2000). Constructivism in theoryand practice: Toward a betterunderstanding. The High SchoolJournal, 84(2), 35–53.

Aram, J. D., Morgan, C. P., & Esbeck,E. B. (1971). Relation of collaborativeinterpersonal relationships to individualsatisfaction and organizationalperformance. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 16, 289-296.

Argyris, C. (1957). The individual andorganization: Some problems of mutualadjustment. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 1-24.

Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating theIndividual and the Organization.New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Baron, R. (1997). Positive effects ofconflict: Insights from social cognition.In C. De Dreu, & E. Van de Vliert,Using conflict in organizations (pp.178-192). London: SAGEPublications.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1961).Reactions to intergroup competitionunder win-lose conditions.Management Science 7(4), 420-435.

Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964).The Managerial Grid. Houston: GulfPublishing.

Boulding, K. E. (1962). Conflict anddefense: A general theory. Oxford,England: Harper.



Bourgeois, L. J. (1985). Strategic goals,environmental uncertainty, andeconomic performance in volatileenvironments. Academy ofManagement Journal, 28, 548-573.

Brown, L. D. (1983). Managing conflictat organizational interfaces.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Burke, R. J. (1969). Methods of resolvinginterpersonal conflict. PersonnelAdministration, 32(4), 48-55.

Burke, R. J. (1970). Methods of resolvingsuperior-subordinate conflict: Theconstructive use of subordinatedifferences and disagreements.Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance 5(4), 393-411.

Chung, K. H., & Megginson, L. C.(1981). Organizational behavior:Developing managerial skills. NewYork: Harper & Row.

Coser, L. A. (1956). The functions ofsocial conflict. Vol. 9. New York:Routledge.

Coser, L. A. (1967). Continuities in thestudy of social conflict. New York,US: Free Press.

Cosier, R., & Rose, G. (1977). Cognitiveconflict and goal conflict effects on taskperformance. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance,19, 378-391.

Coy, P. G., & Woehrle, L. M. (2000). Socialconflicts and collective identities. NewYork: Rowman & Littlefield.

Dalton, M. (1950). Conflicts between staffand line managerial officers. Americansociological review, 342-351.

Dalton, M. (1959). Men who Manage.Fusions of feeling and theory inadministration. New York: JohnWiley & Sons.

De Dreu, C. K., Harinck, F., & VanVianen, A. E. (1999). Conflict andperformance in groups andorganizations. In C. L. Cooper, & I. T.Robertson, International review ofindustrial and organizationalpsychology (p. 14). Chichester: Wiley.

DeChurch, L. A., Hamilton, K. L., &Haas, C. (2007). Effects of ConflictManagement Strategies on Perceptionsof Intragroup Conflict. GroupDynamics: Theory, Research, andPractice, 11(1), 66–78.

Demmers, J. (2006). Conflict research:Lacunas, mantras and pitfalls. ISYPJournal on Science and WorldAffairs, 2(2), 99–102.

Derr, C. B. (1978). Managingorganizational conflict: Collaboration,bargaining, and power approaches.California Management Review(pre-1986), 21(2), 76.

Deutsch, M. (1971). Toward anunderstanding of conflict. InternationalJournal of Group Tensions.

Dutton, J., & Walton, R. (1966).Interdepartmental Conflict andCooperation: Two Contrasting Studies.

47

Human Organization 25(3), 207-220.

Dyer, B., & Song, X. M. (1998).Innovation strategy and sanctionedconflict: a new edge in innovation?Journal of Product InnovationManagement, 15(6), 505-519.

Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C.B. (1990). Organizational growth:Linking founding team, strategy,environment, and growth among USsemiconductor ventures, 1978-1988.Administrative science quarterly,504-529.

Evan, W. M. (1965). Superior-subordinate conflict in researchorganizations. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 52-64.

Fink, C. F. (1968). Some conceptualdifficulties in the theory of socialconflict. Journal of conflictresolution, 412-460.

Fiol, C. M. (1994). Consensus, diversity,and learning in organizations.Organization Science, 5(3), 403-420.

Follett, M. P. (1941). DynamicAdministration: The CollectedPapers of Mary Parker Follett, ed.Metcalfe, H. C. and Urwick, L. Bath:Management Publications Trust.

Gero, A. (1985). Conflict avoidance inconsensual decision processes. SmallGroup Research, 16(4), 487-499.

Guetzkow, H., & Gyr, J. (1954). Ananalysis of conflict in decision-makinggroups. Human relations.

Hall, J. (1971). Decisions, decisions,decisions. Psychology Today, 51-54.

Hellreigel, D., Slocum, J. W., &Woodman, R. W. (1992).Organisational Behaviour, St. Paul,MN: West Publishing Company.

Hoffman, L. R. (1959). Homogeneity ofmember personality and its effect ongroup problem-solving. The Journalof Abnormal and Social Psychology58(1), 27.

Hoffman, L. R., & Maier, N. R. (1961).Quality and acceptance of problemsolutions by members of homogeneousand heterogeneous groups. TheJournal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology 62(2), 401.

Hoffman, L. R., Harburg, E., & Maier, N.R. (1962). Differences anddisagreement as factors in creativegroup problem solving. The Journalof Abnormal and Social Psychology64(3), 206.

Jehn, K. A. (1994). Enhancingeffectiveness: An investigation ofadvantages and disadvantages of value-based intragroup conflict.International journal of conflictmanagement 5(3), 223-238.

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethodexamination of the benefits anddetriments of intragroup conflict.Administrative Sciences Quarterly(40), 256–282.

Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysisof conflict types and dimensions in



organizational groups. Administrativescience quarterly, 530-557.

Jehn, K. A., & Chatman, J. A. (2000).The influence of proportional andperceptual conflict composition onteam performance. InternationalJournal of Conflict Management,11, 56–73.

Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale,M. A. (1999). Why differences makea difference: A field study of diversity,conflict and performance inworkgroups. Administrative sciencequarterly, 44(4), 741-763.

Kabanoff, B. (1986). Type of Power,Affect and Preferences for DifferentConflict Modes. Australian GraduateSchool of Management, University ofNew South Wales.

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P.,Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A.(1964). Organizational stress:Studies in role conflict andambiguity. New York: Wiley.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). Thesocial psychology of organizations.New York: Wiley.

Kelly, J. (1970). Make conflict work foryou. Harvard Business Review 48(4),103.

Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967).Differentiation and integration incomplex organisations.Administrative Science Quarterly(12), 1-47.

Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (1986).Interests: The measure of negotiation.Negotiation Journal 2(1), 73-92.

Lederach, J. P. (2000). The culturaldimension. Akron: MennoniteConciliation Service.

Levinger, G. (1957). Kurt Lewin’sapproach to conflict and its resolution:A review with some extensions.Journal of Conflict Resolution, 329-339.

Litterer, J. A. (1966). Conflict inorganization: A re-examination.Academy of Management Journal9(3), 178-186.

Litwak, E. (1961). Models of BureaucracyWhich Permit Conflict. AmericanJournal of Sociology, 177-184.

March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958).Organizations. New. York: John Wileyand Sons, Inc.

Mayer, B. (2000). The dynamics ofconflict management: Apractitioner’s guide. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.

Mayer, C. H., & Louw, L. (2009).Organisational conflict: Reflections onmanaging conflict, identities and valuesin a selected South Africanorganisation. SA Journal of HumanResource Management 7(1), 36-48.

McGregor, D. (1957). The human sideof enterprise. Management Review,41- 49.

49

Menon, A., Bharadwaj, S. G., & Howell,R. (1996). The quality andeffectiveness of marketing strategy:Effects of functional and dysfunctionalconflict in intraorganizationalrelationships. Journal of the Academyof Marketing Science, 24(4), 299-313.

Olekalns, M. (1997). Conflict at Work:Defining and Resolving OrganisationalConflicts. Australian Psychologist(32), 56–61.

Ongori, H. (2010). Organisational conflictand its effects on organisationalperformance. Research Journal ofBusiness Management 4(2), 136-144.

Pareek, U. N. (1982). Managing conflictand collaboration. New Delhi: Oxford& IBH Publishing Company.

Pelz, C. (1956). Some social factorsrelated to performance in a researchorganization. Administrative ScienceQuarterly , 310-325.

Pinkley, R. L. (1990). Dimensions ofconflict frame: Disputant interpretationsof conflict. Journal of appliedpsychology, 75(2), 117.

Pondy, L. R. (1967). OrganisationalConflict: Concepts and models.Administrative Science Quarterly(12), 296-320.

Pruitt, D. G. (1981). NegotiationBehavior. New York: Academic.

Putnam, L. L. (1994). Productive conflict:Negotiation as implicit coordination.International Journal of ConflictManagement, 5(3), 284-298.

Rahim, A. M., Antonioni, D., & Psenicka,C. (2001). A Structural EquationsModel of Leader Power, Subordinates’Styles of Handling Conflict, and JobPerformance. International journal ofconflict management, 12(3), 191-211.

Rahim, A., & Bonoma, T. V. (1979).Managing organizational conflict: Amodel for diagnosis and intervention.Psychological reports, 44(3), 1323-1344.

Rahim, M. A. (1985). A strategy formanaging conflict in complexorganizations. Human Relations,38(1), 81-89.

Rahim, M. A. (2002). Toward a theory ofmanaging organizational conflict. TheInternational Journal of ConflictManagement, 13(3), 206–235.

Renwick, P. A. (1975). Perception andmanagement of superior-subordinateconflict. Organizational Behavior andHuman Performance 13(3), 444-456.

Robbins, S. P. (1974). Managingorganizational conflict: Anontraditional approach. NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Roloff, M. E. (1987). Communication andconflict. In C. R. Berger, M. E. Roloff,



& D. R. Ewoldsen, Handbook ofcommunication science (pp. 484-534). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: SagePublications.

Ross , R. (1989). Conflict. In R. Ross, &J. Ross, Small Groups inOrganizational Settings (pp. 139–178). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., &Raga, J. W. (1986). Group approachesfor improving strategic decision making:a comparative analysis of dialecticalenquiry, devil’s advocacy andconsensus. Academy of ManagementJournal, 29(1), 51 71.

Seiler, J. A. (1963). Diagnosinginterdepartmental conflict. HarvardBusiness Review 41(5), 121-132.

Sharma, R. A., & Samantara, R. (1994).Conflict management in an Indian firm:A case study. Decision, 21(4), 235.

Simon, H. A. (1964). On the Concept ofOrganizational Goal. AdministrativeScience Quarterly 9(1), 1-22.

Song, M., Dyer, B., & Thieme, R. J.(2006). Conflict management andinnovation performance: An integratedcontingency perspective. Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science,34(3), 341-356.

Stagner, R. (1956). Psychology ofindustrial conflict. Oxford, England:John Wiley & Sons.

Stagner, R., & Rosen, H. (1965).Psychology of union-managementrelations. Oxford, England:Wadsworth Pub. Co., Inc.

Steers, M. R., & Black , J. S. (1994).Organizational behavior. New York:Harper Collins College Publishers.

Straus, M. A. (1964). Measuring Families.In H. T. Christenson, Handbook ofMarriage and the Family. Chicago:Rand McNally.

Sullivan, P. J., & Feltz, D. L. (2001). Therelationship between intrateam conflictand cohesion within hockey teams.Small Group Research, 32(3), 342-355.

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959).The social psychology of groups.New York: Wiley.

Thomas, J. E. (1972). The English prisonofficer since 1850: A study inconflict. London: Routledge & KeganPaul.

Thomas, K. W. (1971). Conflict-handling modes in interdepartmentalrelations. Purdue University.

Thomas, K. W. (1976). Conflict andConflict Management. In M. D.Dunettee, Handbook of Industrialand Organisational Psychology (pp.889-935). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Thompson, J. D. (1960). Organizationalmanagement of conflict.Administrative Science Quarterly,389-409.

51

Tjosvold, D., & Chia, L. C. (1989).Conflict between managers andworkers: The role of cooperation andcompetition. The Journal of socialpsychology, 129(2), 235-247.

Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1997).Mitigating groupthink by stimulatingconstructive conflict. In C. K. De Dreu,& E. Van de Vliert, Using conflict inorganizations (pp. 53–71). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Van de Vliert, E., Nauta, A., Giebels, E.,& Janssen, O. (1999). Constructiveconflict at work. Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, 20(4), 475-491.

Wall, J. A., & Callister, R. R. (1995).Conflict and its management. Journalof management 21(3), 515-558.

Wall, V. D., & Nolan, L. L. (1986).Perceptions of inequity, satisfaction,and conflict in task-oriented groups.Human Relations, 39(11), 1033-1051.

Walton, R. E. (1965). Theory of conflictin lateral organisational relationships. InJ. R. Lawrence, Operational researchand the social science. London:Tavistock.

Walton, R. E. (1972). Inter-Organisationaldecision-making and identity conflict.In M. F. Tuite, R. Chisholm, & M.Radnor , Inter-OrganisationalDecision-making. Chicago: AldinePublishing Co.

Walton, R. E., & Dutton, J. M. (1969).The management of inter-departmentalconflict: A model and review.Administrative Science Quarterly(14), 73-84.

Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1965).A behavioral theory of laborrelations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1966).Behavioral dilemmas in mixedmotivedecision making. Behavioral Science11(5), 370-384.

Wheaton, B. (1974). Interpersonal conflictand cohesiveness in dyadicrelationships. Sociometry, 37, 328–348.

Zald, M. N. (1962). Power balance andstaff conflict in correctional institutions.Administrative Science Quarterly,22-49.

•••


organisational conflict literature: a review

Documents