Lesson 10

Lesson 10

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

Research into behaviour in organizations can be divided into two categories: normative and descriptive. Normative research is concerned with how things should be, whereas descriptive research addresses itself to what is — rather than what could or should be. This dual perspective is most apparent in approaches to the issues of conflict and conflict management in organizations. Normative approaches reflect attitudes and beliefs which identify all conflicts as destructive and promote conflict-elimination as the formula for organizational success. Descriptive approaches accept conflict as inevitable and consider its proper management the primary responsibility of all administrators. This paper pertains to the descriptive mode of inquiry in presenting a framework for the study of conflict in organizations. But it goes beyond this domain in suggesting that administrators must take the offensive and seek to manage conflict, and also in advocating that traditional methods of dealing with conflict be replaced by a new and more sophisticated approach.

Conflict: Towards a Definition

Conflict is endemic to all social life. It is an inevitable part of living because it is related to situations of scarce resources, division of functions, power relations and role-differentiation. Because of its ubiquity and pervasive nature, the concept has acquired a multitude of meanings and connotations presenting us with nothing short of a semantic jungle. Like other terms, conflict generates considerable ambivalence and leaves many scholars and administrators quite uncertain about (1) its meaning and relevance and (2) how best to cope with it.

The normative conception of conflict, strongly influenced by a preoccupation with stability and equilibrium in organizational design, links conflict to violence, destruction, inefficiency and irrationality.

This form of intellectual myopia was especially invidious in suggesting that administrators have the responsibility of avoiding, controlling or eliminating conflict.

Descriptive approaches challenge the whole basis and rationale of these assumptions. They permit us to depart from an outmoded paradigm by suggesting that any social interaction in which the parties (however they may be structured or defined) compete for scarce resources or values has the potential for conflict.

Using the term in a broad sense we suggest that conflict refers to all kinds of antagonistic interactions. More specifically, it can be defined as a situation in which two or more parties have incompatible objectives and in which their perceptions and behaviour are commensurate with that incompatability.

This definition is purposely broad. It suggests that conflict is a social phenomemon that is found in personal, group or organizational interactions. As such it comprises several dimensions. Fink distinguishes between (1) antagonistic-psychological relations and (2) antagonistic behaviour, whereas Pondy  observes that conflict is made up of (1) antecedent conditions, (2) affective conditions, (3) cognitive conditions and (4) behavioural conditions. We advance a conception of conflict which emphasizes its three, interrelated dimensions, namely: (1) conflict situation (the basic incompatibility), (2) conflict attitudes (range of psychological factors) and (3) conflict behaviour (set of related behaviour).

Conflict refers to more than just overt behaviour. Concentrating only upon its behavioural manifestation is an extremely limiting exercise. The three-dimensional conception of conflict emphasizes the need to consider the situation in which parties (individuals, groups or organizations) come to possess incompatible goals, their structure of interaction and the nature of their goals. We have to consider emotional (e.g. distrust) and cognitive (e.g. stereotyping) orientations that accompany a conflict situation a s well as the range of action undertaken by any party in a situation of conflict.

Administrators often feel that discussions of fundamental terms are merely academic. This is not always the case. Effective action and sensible responses depend upon clear thinking and systematic analysis. Understanding must precede action. If administrators consider the problem of conflict and understand that conflicts stem from ineradicable human qualities and are related to situations of interdependence, scarce resources and perceptions of incompatibility, they might readily accept conflict and recognize its values — provided, that is, they are properly aware of “conflict management” and the need to find a solution. Both conflict management and a satisfactory solution are easier to attain when it is accepted that what we normally call conflict is a complex, multidimensional phenomenon. It is not caused by “inadequate” structures, nor is it undesirable. It is natural and inevitable and, properly managed, it is productive, relevant and creative.

Conflict in Organizations

Organizations are living systems consisting of interacting units performing a task in a mutually dependent manner within a structure of scarce resources.

It seems commonplace to suggest that conflicts would be present in such a setting. The parties in an organization may have a conflict about the distribution of resources, or they may have a more fundamental conflict about the very structure of their organization and the basic nature of their interaction.

Once the parties are in a situation of goal incompatibility, their conflict develops in a dynamic fashion, initiating valuable and much-needed constructive changes or leading to escalating strategies and destructive consequences.

As there is nothing pre-determined about its course or development, it seems erroneous to view conflict from a negative perspective only — as destructive or dysfunctional. It is true that conflict may be uncomfortable, it may even be a source of problems, but it is absolutely necessary if change is to occur, if organizations are to survive and adapt. Organizational change and innovation does not just happen, it requires a stimulant.

That stimulant is conflict.

Administrators must accept the need to influence the developmental dynamics of a conflict, so that the parties’ attitudes and actions will lead to better coordination and a more appropriate interdependence. They must not seek to stifle or eliminate organizational conflict — for that is hardly a realistic goal. As Rico has noted, an organization devoid of conflict “… may indicate autocracy, uniformity, stagnation and mental fixity.”

It would also be protecting only the vested interests of the status quo. Administrators must accept and indeed occasionally encourage conflict, because change and other desirable consequences are products of conflict.

The challenge administrators face is to utilize such conflict management techniques that would ensure that as a conflict passes from a latent to a manifest phase, it proceeds towards its potential and realizes its constructive values.

Analyzing Organizational Conflict

Three distinct criteria define the role of an administrator in an organization: planning, resource allocation and conflict management.

There is no doubt that managing conflict permeates every aspect of the administrative role. Awareness of the various forms of conflict management that can be employed at different stages of the development of a conflict is vital, if administrators are to organize efforts towards influencing the conflict situation, the parties’ attitudes or their behaviour. In addition to that, effective conflict management requires recognition of the sources that generate a conflict. What, then, are the sources or bases of organizational conflicts?

Sources of Conflict.

Organizational conflict appears in a variety of forms and has varying causes. These can generally be separated into several categories. Katz identifies three sources of conflict. These are:

(1) structural conflict (conflict arising out of the need to manage the interdependence between different organizational sub-units),

(2) role conflict (conflict arising from sets of prescribed behaviour) and

(3) resources conflict (conflict stemming from interest groups competing for organizational resources).

Robbins identifies three sources of organizational conflict and indicates that an understanding of the source of a conflict improves the probability of effective conflict management. The main factors which serve as sources of conflict are identified as

(1) communicational (conflicts arising from misunderstandings etc.),

(2) structural (conflicts related to organizational roles), and

(3) personal (conflicts stemming from individual differences).

Methods of conflict management which are appropriate in one case may not necessarily be appropriate when applied to a conflict generated from another source. Here I wish to suggest a different perspective which traces the source of organizational conflict to the unit of analysis involved. Units of analysis are the parties to a conflict. They perceive, initiate and sustain a conflict. Their characteristics specify the conditions which affect the course of a conflict and determine the mode of its management. Thus, we have conflicts that originate in the individual person, conflicts that have their basis in the relationship between individuals, and conflicts that occur as a result of interactions between groups.

These may be described as

(1) intrapersonal conflict,

(2) interpersonal conflict, and

(3) interdepartmental conflict.

Each of these categories raises different questions about the three interrelated components of conflict and each emphasizes different aspects of conflict management.

Intrapersonal Conflict.

Intrapersonal conflict is internal to the individual (though its effects can profoundly influence organizational functioning) and is perhaps the most difficult form of conflict to analyze and manage. Intrapersonal conflict is basically a conflict between two incompatible tendencies. It arises when a stimulus evokes two different and incompatible tendencies and the individual is required to discriminate between these tendencies. In such a situation it is common for individuals to experience frustrations and to allow their conflict situation to be expressed in a range of behavioural strategies ranging from apathy and boredom to absenteeism, excessive drinking or destructive behaviour.

If such behavioural consequences are to be avoided, then it is essential to diagnose individual perception and utilize some techniques that would reduce anxiety-eliciting stimuli and increase consonance between individual behaviour and organizational requirements.

Interpersonal Conflict.

 Interpersonal conflict emphasizes the interaction of human factors in an organization. Here we are concerned with these factors as they appear in a dyadic relationship. We can broadly suggest two classes of factors as conflict sources. These are:

1. Personal. Individuals are not identical, constant or consistent. When two individuals are brought together and kept together, each with his own qualities, needs and skills, a conflict may ensue if their attributes are not meshed together in a coordinated way. Interaction between individuals with different attitudes, values and needs can produce conflict behaviour and affect organizational performance.

2. Functional. Individuals in organizations have roles which are expected sets of behaviour associated with their position. In theory, individuals are not expected to engage in any discretionary behaviour. Such specification would be consistent with organizational preferences for consistency and predictability. In practice, however, role specifications tend to be ambiguous and incomplete, and in their interaction with others, some individuals often feel dissatisfied with their role or position, or they may feel that their aspirations for higher positions are being frustrated. Interpersonal conflict can be accounted for, to a great extent, in terms of the incumbents’ roles and their expectations in particular situations.

Interdepartmental Conflict.

The third major cause of organizational conflict is structural. Organizations are designed around product lines, regions or technical specialities. These activities are assigned to departments that often have mutually exclusive structured interests and goals and that interact within a framework of scarce resources and task dependence. When resources are relatively fixed and when one department’s gain is at the expense of another, conflict should be expected.

If two sub-units in an organizational system have differentiated goals and are functionally interdependent, conditions exist for conflict. Interdependence produces the need for collaboration, but it also presents occasions for conflict.

Other contextual factors which affect the interaction structure between departments and create the conditions for interdepartmental conflict include: different attitudes between line and staff units, organizational size (directly related to level of conflict) and standardization (inversely related to conflict), physical or communicational barriers between departments, unequal access to authority, rewards or organizational resources and ambiguity or uncertainty in assigning tasks or rewards to different departments.

These, then, are the sources of conflict situations in organizations. How a conflict situation will change over time, how its interrelated components will alter and the environment in which it occurs will respond, is dependent upon the administrator’s efforts to manage or influence it. This, in turn, is related to one’s understanding of the source of a specific conflict situation.

Conflict Management

Ways of managing organizational conflict are as varied as its causes, origins and contexts. The purpose of conflict management, whether undertaken by the parties in conflict or whether involving the intervention of an outside party, is to affect the entire structure of a conflict situation so as to contain the destructive components in the conflict process (e.g. hostility, use of violence) and help the parties possessing incompatible goals to find some solution to their conflict.

Effective conflict management succeeds in

(1) minimizing disruption stemming from the existence of a conflict, and

(2) providing a solution that is satisfactory and acceptable.

We describe efforts directed towards containing or limiting some aspects of behaviour as strategies of conflict settlement and efforts directed towards the parties’ attitudes, situations as well as behaviour as strategies of conflict resolution. Skilled administrators are aware of these methods and techniques and know how to utilize them effectively.

All organizations, however simple or complex, possess a range of mechanisms or procedures for managing conflict. These are built into the organizational structure and are consciously employed by administrators to influence the course and development of a conflict. The success or effectiveness of such procedures can be gauged by the extent to which they limit conflict behaviour and the extent to which they help to achieve a satisfactory solution. It is the contention of this article that strategies of conflict avoidance, conflict prevention or institutionalization of conflict will change or replace coercive behaviour, but that only the injection of a behavioural social scientist, acting in a facilitative, non-directive and non-evaluative fashion, will achieve a resolution with respect to the basic issues, attitudes and structure of interaction. If administrators care for optimal methods of conflict management, they should give their strongest support to a strategy that can end a conflict in a satisfactory and self- perpetuating manner.

All this is not to contend, however, that conflict resolution is the immediate outcome of any intervention. The outcome of a conflict depends upon many aspects of the conflict process prior to the efforts to manage it (e.g. issues in conflict, relative power of actors, degree of proximity etc.). What I am suggesting is that if four basic conflict outcomes may be distinguished — namely (1) withdrawal, (2) imposition or dominance, (3) compromise and a (4) creative, problem-solving resolution— then the most likely mode by which outcome (4) may be reached pertains to the voluntary intervention of an outside consultant acting as a professional helper. Let me then present a model of conflict management which can describe the relationship between modalities of conflict management and conflict outcomes and give some directions for managing organizational conflict.

Managing Intrapersonal Conflict

Intrapersonal conflict is predicated upon an incongruity between individual needs and organizational requirements. Intrapersonal conflict unfolds over time and manifests itself in a complex and multiform range of attitudinal and behavioural consequences. These may vary from psychosomatic consequences (e.g. frustration, emotional instability) to physical consequences (e.g. absenteeism, destructive behaviour). As such consequences are obviously correlated with decreased performance and work-motivation, managing intrapersonal conflict will help the individual to promote his capacity for adaptation and attain equilibrium in his relationship with the organization.

Personal existence is, inevitably, punctuated by conflicts and other emotionally charged experiences. When a person experiences an inner conflict and feels that he caot master his situation, or change his environment, a number of methods of conflict management can be employed.

These are conveniently divided into (1) cognitive strategies and (2) behavioural strategies. Cognitive strategies, often called defence mechanisms, help an individual to falsify, distort or deny a particular conflict. Cognitive strategies represent an attempt to control or manage negative and disturbing feelings associated with conflict and to allow an individual to carry on with his normal activities. Cognitive strategies include repression (an attempt to push conflict out of existence), rationalization (hiding the truth from oneself), fantasy or even denial of reality. Behavioural strategies for coping with intrapersonal conflict include escape, withdrawal and aggression (especially against convenient targets).

These strategies caot resolve intrapersonal conflict in any permanent way. They can be successful in the short-run. They can help an individual to reduce his level of anxiety and diminish his tension. They can prevent or avoid disruptive behaviour, but they caot generate a solution. This can come about through the involvement of an expert-consultant, acting in an accepting manner and encouraging the individual to evaluate his situation rationally and decide upon more effective responses. Interventions in intrapersonal conflicts entail consideration of substantive issues, discussions and self-observations, helping an individual to unload his burdensome thoughts and reactions and reorienting his thinking towards a more benevolent and self-maintaining pattern of behaviour.

The strength of this approach to conflict management is that it helps an individual to concentrate on his situation and on ways to evaluate alternatives that may have gone unnoticed. The consultant remains detached from an individual, but his intervention, listening, probing, interviewing and explicit confrontation of the conflict issues, sets the basis for self-diagnosis and improved performance. It eliminates distortion and increases self-knowledge. It is a method which seeks not merely an amelioration of the surface symptoms, but a successful change in the situational (e.g. reevaluating a conflict situation), attitudinal (e.g. reduced anxiety, increased self-esteem) and behavioural (e.g. stimulate productive behaviour) components of a conflict.

Consultants may be internal to an organization, or they may be introduced by an administrator when circumstances require it. They have several roles to play, all intended to aid a person to be more effective in his organization.

What characterizes all these roles is that they are enacted in an informal and flexible fashion and in a facilitative and diagnostic manner. Techniques which are congruent with implementing the consultant’s role include (1) facilitative techniques (e.g. facilitating individual exploration and self-observation, giving information, advice, reassurance and encouragement), (2) behavioural modification techniques (e.g. establish, through negative or positive reinforcement, contingencies of behaviour that should be decreased) and (3) cognitive techniques (e.g. learn to undo old values and acquire a new perception of the self).

When organizations experience difficulties as a result of intrapersonal conflicts, administrators would be well-advised to manage such conflicts by leading their organization to seek professional help from persons who are trained to fulfill the role of organizational consultants. Successful organizational change does, after all, depend upon a strong commitment to conflict resolution.

Managing Interpersonal Conflict

Interpersonal interactions are extraordinarily complex. Individuals are brought together and kept together because of personal attraction or complementary needs. A great deal of individual behaviour takes place in organizations (university, hospital, factory) in which they occupy various positions. Such positions are interlocked or interdependent so that the attitudes and behaviour of one individual affect the attitudes and behaviour of another. Indeed, we may describe organizations as networks of repetitive, reciprocal and predictable interactions between individuals.

Although persons in an organization interact in a relatively consistent way along a stable-cooperative dimension (organizations develop norms to ensure stable interactions), interpersonal conflict is an essential aspect of organizational life. The causes of interpersonal conflict in organizations can be ascribed to personal differences (interaction between dissimilar people maximizes conflict potential), perceptual differences (individuals perceive an unfair allocation of organizational resources) and functional differences (conflicts arising from incompatible role requirements). On the whole interpersonal conflict generates new ideas and work patterns, but when it is augmented by personal distrust, misperception and competition, it can very easily be transformed into destructive and costly behaviour.

To avoid detrimental effects on individual as well as organizational functioning, administrators need to identify the causes of interpersonal conflict and take appropriate action to deal with it.

Following Blake and Mouton can suggest five possible modes of conflict management: withdrawal, smoothing, compromise, forcing and problem-solving.

Withdrawal is an attempt to manage interpersonal conflict by avoidance.

Smoothing involves emphasis of common, organizational interests and yielding by one or both parties.

Compromise is an attempt to manage conflict by expecting each person to give up something.

Forcing occurs when interpersonal conflict is managed in a fashion which compels one person to acquiesce.

Problem-solving is an attempt to achieve close collaboration and integrative decision-making between individuals.

Under the prevailing influence of behaviourism, interpersonal conflict management has been directed mainly towards the behavioural components of a conflict situation. Attitudes and perceptions have been considered beyond the realm of conflict management. As a result of this, conflict management has tended to force individuals to choose between fixed and simplified behavioural alternatives, defined in terms of two rigid behavioural goals, winning or losing. The choices and incentives associated with this orientation of victory versus defeat were strongly constrained, forcing individuals into relatively primitive modes of interaction and providing administrators with an untrustworthy vehicle for potential conflict management.

Of the five methods of managing interpersonal conflict it appears that problem-solving is the only method that is directed towards the attitudinal, situational and behavioural components of conflict. It is the only method that does not focus on relatively automatic, unthinking responses. It is the only method which seeks to utilize higher mental processes to achieve a high-quality, integrative and satisfying outcome.

Empirical support for the notion that problem-solving is the most effective method for dealing with the underlying problem and feelings of interpersonal conflict and generating a sound resolution may be obtained from a number of studies. Lawrence and Lorsch examined the use of the various conflict management methods in six organizations and concluded that the highest performing organizations used problem-solving to a greater extent than other organizations. Burke asked seventy-four administrators to describe the way they dealt with conflicts and, in comparing scores of constructive conflict management, found that the most effective administrators used problem-solving methods (followed by smoothing and compromise). In a second study he compared fifty-three descriptions of effective conflict management with fifty-three descriptions of ineffective conflict management from fifty-seven administrators and found that 58.5 per cent of statements about effective conflict management related to problem-solving (followed by 24.5 per cent for forcing and 11.3 per cent for compromise). Organizations that can increase the use of problem-solving in interpersonal conflict can offer a better working experience, more constructive consequences and a more creative conflict resolution.

Problem-solving as a method of conflict management is not a common experience. A number of elements or conditions have to be present if problem-solving is to be realized. These conditions appear to be as follows:

Situational requirements (e.g. informality and flexibility of interactions, absence of time pressures, power symmetry etc.).

Attitudinal requirements (e.g. trust and confidence in each other, belief in conflict resolution rather than conflict avoidance etc.).

Perceptual requirements (e.g. individuals do not perceive threats or need to win or dominate the other) and

Behavioural requirements (e.g. free information, definition of issues, discussion of alternatives, exhaustive search for solutions etc.).

On the whole these requirements are absent in dyadic conflict management where individuals’ responses are as likely to escalate as to reduce conflict. The implication of this is that parties outside the dyad must intervene to alter the fundamental parameters of individual inter- actions in organizations and to introduce the conditions which are suitable to problem-solving. The intervention of a behavioural consultant — either from within or outside the organization — can achieve this goal.

Consultation-based approaches to interpersonal conflict focus on understanding the psychological and operational environment of an individual, utilizing behavioural scientists in a supportive-facilitative way and promoting the establishment of problem-solving. Interventions by behavioural consultants may take the form of offering theoretical inputs (e.g. providing individuals with conceptions about conflict), offering content observation (e.g. suggesting various outcome interpretations) and offering process observations (e.g. increasing productive interactions through openness, synchronization of efforts etc.). They give individuals the freedom, opportunity and motivation to move away from rigid behaviour or from reiterating their positions as prescribed by organizational norms. They address themselves to the attitudinal and behavioural dimensions of interactions and in combining task and socio-emotional activities; they exemplify and help to establish the conditions of problem-solving.

In contrast to other methods of conflict management, the intervention of a behavioural consultant accentuates the positive and highlights commonly held views of the actors. Applications of this approach in the interpersonal sphere rest upon the following assumptions:

1. Deficiencies in perception are the main cause of interpersonal conflict.

2. Barriers to improved information prolong and aggravate a conflict.

3. Inadequate interactions between individuals prevent them from management their conflict constructively.

Techniques of intervention in interpersonal conflict are closely related to these assumptions and include perceptual, informational and interactional procedures. Perceptual procedures involve (1) identifying conflict issues, (2) defining alternative issues, and (3) “reality-lesting”. Informational procedures involve (1) clarifying issues, (2) encouraging and gathering information (through interviews, meetings or other instruments), and (3) increasing frequency, openness and accuracy of communication.

Interactional procedures entail (1) regulating the pace of interaction, (2) offering “process” observations to help individuals see how to be more effective, (3) injection inputs in the form of concepts, models or principles which might be useful in understanding a conflict and (4) helping in the design of implementation steps through which conflict resolution would be possible.

Through his interventions a behavioural consultant becomes the information-gathering instrument and a “resource person”. Administrators who are concerned about organizational change and more productive results would be well advised to be aware of the strengths — as well as limitations — of this approach to interpersonal conflict management.

Managing Interdepartmental Conflict

Conflict between departments is a natural consequence of organizational activities. As organizations move towards greater differentiation and complexity, as they change or adapt to new circumstances, the stage is set for incompatibility of goals or competition for scarce resources. The resulting conflict between departments may have ambivalent consequences for an organization. On the one hand it may have a dysfunctional and counter-productive effect on the organization, and on the other hand it can be highly functional and stimulate intra-organizational creativity. For conflict to be a vehicle for organizational growth and creativity, there must exist an appropriate method of conflict management between departments. An administrator should know when he is faced with interdepartmental conflict and be informed of the processes for coping with it or resolving it.

Before exploring the methods and techniques for managing interdepartmental conflict, it is pertinent to examine briefly the attitudes and behaviours which characterize interdepartmental conflict. These can be described in terms of the following categories:

1. Effects within each department. When departments are in conflict, individual members tend to bury their differences and display greater loyalty to their department. Departments become more cohesive, more formal in their behaviour and more insistent upon individual conformity and accomplishment of prescribed tasks.

2. Effects between departments. Each department begins to experience perceptual distortions and to develop a strong self-image and a negative stereotype of the other. With the rise of prejudicial attitudes between departments there is an increase in hostility and a decrease in communication. Each department strives to enhance its own image and performance and to downgrade the other’s. Under such conditions a conflict becomes a matter of victory or defeat, winning or losing.

The fundamental significance of a win-lose dynamic is that it is, to some degree, intrinsic to any complex and stratified organization, but that feelings of in-group versus out-group are especially strong in conflict situations. The attitudinal characteristics of such a pattern include a competitive orientation, the evaluative characteristics include antagonistic feelings and the behavioural characteristics include circumscribed interaction and distorted communication. The structural attributes of a conflict relationship must be taken into account in proposing a strategy of conflict management.

Traditional approaches to managing interdepartmental conflict emphasized such methods as (1) conflict avoidance (separating departments by relocating them physically), (2) regulating a conflict by introducing new rules and procedures, (3) seeking a form of “legalistic” solution (by appealing to higher organizational authorities), (3) using departmental representatives to reach a compromise agreement or (4) seeking mediation or arbitration from an outside body. Such conflict management methods may indeed produce an agreement. They may reduce the level of conflict behaviour between departments and even legitimize new levels of performance. They caot, though, achieve a genuine conflict resolution because they merely reflect, perpetuate and occasionally aggravate a win-lose pattern of interactions. Separation, withdrawal, institutionalization, bargaining or legal approaches are essentially forms of a win-lose confrontation. They all start with a polarized, adversary orientation, in which each department tries to attain as much as possible by outsmarting the other. They bury a conflict, ignore it, produce power-based decisions or allow departments to withdraw from it. They do not stimulate a search for conflict resolution.

A range of new approaches to managing interdepartmental conflict may be suggested. These approaches acquire new significance because they become integral parts of an interaction process between departments, because they move away from win-lose type of strategies and because they can meet the need for conflict resolution more effectively. They are best summarized in terms of the social psychologists out of whose experiments these approaches evolved:

I. Sherif et al.

Sherif and his associates suggest two broad strategies which are designed to increase cooperation between departments, facilitate mutual communication of needs and minimize the effects of hostility and negative attitudes. Both strategies are broad in their scope. Their target of change is the organizational structure, but changes in individual attitudes and improvement in interpersonal competence may also be involved.

1. Locating a common enemy. When departments are engaged in a conflict, their incentive structure (i.e. conflict of interest) may be changed and a mutual understanding as well as favourable attitudes may be promoted if they perceive a threat from a competing organization. Shifting the level of interdepartmental conflict to the higher level of inter organizational conflict will produce a new structural relationship within each organization, a relationship that would harness departmental efforts and help them to compete more successfully against another organization.

The perception of an external threat or the identification of a common enemy supersedes any conflict that departments within an organization may have. As a strategy of conflict management within an organization, it operates on two levels. First, it affects individual attitudes, perceptions and feelings of trust and distrust. Second, it influences organizational role structure. It transforms interactions which are characterized predominantly by differentiation to accommodative interactions of a collaborative and integrated orientation.

2. Locating a superordinate goal. Superordinate goals are goals which are greatly desired by several departments and can only be achieved by combining the energies and resources of all involved. The introduction of a superordinate goal (e.g. developing a new product-line which would attract great customer demand) will create a cooperative context in which departments may interact on problems of joint interests, develop favourable attitudes and seek to achieve solutions that are mutually satisfactory. The introduction of a superordinate goal converts a conflict between departments to friendly interactions.

The logic of introducing a superordinate goal is related to the very definition of a conflict. If conflict develops from the perception of incompatible goals, then cooperation would be promoted from common goals. To be successful in resolving interdepartmental conflict, a super-ordinate goal must be of such importance that departments can forget their differences and work together. It must involve several episodes taking into account the time dimension and it must be introduced by a third party.

The cumulative efforts of developing cooperative activities are an important determinant of successful conflict management between departments.

II. Blake and Mouton

Blake and Mouton accept that the most important aspect of a successful conflict management strategy is the attempt to shift the behavioural and attitudinal components of a relationship from a competitive to a cooperative orientation. They do, however, suggest that both the common enemy and the superordinate goal approaches fall short of the need to achieve a genuine conflict resolution. This is because both can be seen as (1) being mainly temporary in character, (2) both are primarily defensive and (3) both strategies may widen a conflict by externalizing it. They offer an approach which emphasizes consultation-based interventions, openness of communication, greater participation in decision-making and problem-solving interactions.

Blake and Mouton accept that traditional conflict management strategies can only deal with the behavioural component in conflict and bring about a patchwork solution. They suggest an approach to conflict management which involves interventions by organizational consultants (usually applied behavioural scientists), who have no vested interest in the conflict itself, but who have the competence and experience to generate a productive mode of conflict management. They avoid the pitfalls of adjudicating or evaluating which department is “right” or “wrong” (so often the hallmark of traditional conflict management). Nor do they seek to impose a solution. They intervene in order to generate creative thinking and to establish a problem-solving attitude.

Consultation-based approaches to interdepartmental conflict accept conflict situations as inevitable and see them as useful occasions which permit departments to disagree and to work out the disagreements and ultimately to understand each other better. The general functions of a consultant usually consist of (1) avoiding power-based outcomes, (2) providing knowledge and skills regarding conflict processes, (3) inducing an emotional-cognitive change as a prelude to collaborative interactions and (4) providing a supportive, informal and learning environment well-suited to creating the requirements conducive to problem-solving. The technologies of consultation consist of educational activities and techniques, laboratory training observations, survey-feedbacks, questionnaires and interviews. The structure of consultation activities is so designed as to engage individuals as whole persons, not merely as segmented individuals striving to cope with their role demands.

Conflict management — and indeed all forms of organizational behaviour — is determined by the interaction of (1) information, (2) skills, (3) values and (4) situation. Each of these factors acts as a precursor of some consultation-based activities. Behavioural consultants provide parties in conflict with more information and an understanding of the complexities of conflict interactions. They promote social interaction skills (which should be recognized as important as technical skills). They promote values of cooperation and help to create a situation in which people can interact freely and feel that they are as important to an organization as are its resources or products.

The sequence of consultation activities commences with upgrading individual skills and abilities, moves on to team-building activities and then to restructuring intergroup and interdepartmental activities. The institutionalization of these activities consists of four steps. The first step— bringing in the consultant — represents an administrative response to a felt need for effective conflict management. The second step — entry — is associated with various information-giving activities. The third step is aimed at attitudinal change through data-feedback, team-training, sensitivity and T-Group training or Grid development. The final step involves a structural change in the relationship between departments and a move towards integrative interactions and conflict resolution.

Effective conflict management is quite a major undertaking. There are not too many guideposts to indicate where we are or how to move towards conflict resolution. It is, therefore, a task which demands attention to attitudinal and behavioural elements, to outcome and emotional needs and to interpersonal as well as interdepartmental requirements. The intervention strategies of a behavioural consultant can, we have argued, move us towards that direction. We caot be certain that the intended effects will always be achieved. We can suggest, with some certainty, that such interventions move us forward in the direction of effective conflict management and success in problem-solving. With this consideration in mind, administrators should encourage such interventions and help to produce more effective programmes.

Conflict

 

While no single definition of conflict exists, most definitions seem to involve the following factors: that there are at least two independent groups, the groups perceive some incompatibility between themselves, and the groups interact with each other in some way (Putnam and Poole, 1987). Two example definitions are, “process in which one party perceives that its interests are being opposed or negatively affected by another party” (Wall & Callister, 1995, p. 517), and “the interactive process manifested in incompatibility, disagreement, or dissonance within or between social entities” (Rahim, 1992, p. 16).

 

There are several causes of conflict. Conflict may occur when:

A party is required to engage in an activity that is incongruent with his or her needs or interests.

A party holds behavioral preferences, the satisfaction of which is incompatible with another person’s implementation of his or her preferences.

A party wants some mutually desirable resource that is in short supply, such that the wants of all parties involved may not be satisfied fully.

A party possesses attitudes, values, skills, and goals that are salient in directing his or her behavior but are perceived to be exclusive of the attitudes, values, skills, and goals held by the other(s).

Two parties have partially exclusive behavioral preferences regarding their joint actions.

Two parties are interdependent in the performance of functions or activities.

 

(Rahim, 2002, p. 207)

Substantive Vs. Affective

 

The overarching hierarchy of conflict starts with a distinction between substantive (also called performance, task, issue, or active) conflict and affective (also called relationship or [the opposite of] agreeable) conflict. If one could make a distinction between good and bad conflict, substantive would be good and affective conflict would be bad. However, in a meta-analysis of the current research, De Drue and Weingart (2003) showed that these two concepts are related to each other (corrected correlation, ρ = .54).

 

Substantive conflict deals with disagreements among group members about the content of the tasks being performed or the performance itself (DeChurch & Marks, 2001; Jehn, 1995). This type of conflict occurs when two or more social entities disagree on the recognition and solution to a task problem, including differences in viewpoints, ideas, and opinions (Jehn, 1995; Rahim, 2002).

 

Affective conflict deals with interpersonal relationships or incompatibilities (Behfar, Peterson, Mannix, & Trochim, 2008). It is generated from emotions and frustration (Bodtker & Jameson, 2001), and has a detrimental impact on group or organizational outcomes (i.e. information processing ability, cognitive functioning of group members, attributions of group members’ behavior, group loyalty, work group commitment, intent to stay in the present organization, and job satisfaction) (Amason, 1996; Baron, 1997; Jehn, 1995; Jehn et al., 1999; Wall & Nolan, 1986). Summarily stated, “relationship conflict interferes with task-related effort because members focus on reducing threats, increasing power, and attempting to build cohesion rather than working on tasks…The conflict causes members to be negative, irritable, suspicious, and resentful” (Jehn, 1997, pp. 531-532; c.f. Rahim, 2002, p. 210).

 

Thus, “[substantive] conflicts occur when group members argue over alternatives related to the group’s task, whereas [affective] conflicts result over interpersonal clashes not directly related to achieving the group’s function (Amason, 1996; Guetzhow & Gyr, 1954; Jehn, 1992; Pinkley, 1990; Priem & Price, 1991)” (c.f. DeChurch & Marks, 2001, p. 5).

 

In De Dreu and Weingart’s 2003 meta-analysis, both substantive and affective conflict are negatively related to team member satisfaction (ρ = -.32; -.56, respectively). Additionally, substantive and affective conflict are negatively related to team performance (ρ = -.20; -.25, respectively). It is important to note that 20% (5 of 25) of the studies used showed a positive correlation between substantive conflict and task performance. These relationships show the severe negative impact that conflict can have on groups, and illustrate the importance of conflict management.

 

 

Organizational and Interpersonal Conflict

 

Organizational conflict, whether it be substantive or affective, can be divided into intraorganizational and interorganizational. Interorganizational conflict occurs between two or more organizations (Rahim, 2002). When different businesses are competing against one another, this is an example of interorganizational conflict Intraorganizational conflict is conflict within an organization, and can be examined based upon level (e.g. department, work team, individual), and can be classified as interpersonal, intragroup and intergroup. Interpersonal conflict–once again–whether it is substantive or affective, refers to conflict between two or more individuals (not representing the group they are a part of) of the same or different group at the same or different level, if in an organization. Interpersonal conflict can be divided into intragroup and intergroup conflict. While the former–intragroup–occurs between members of a group (or between subgroups within a group), the latter–intergroup–occurs between groups or units in an organization (Rahim, 2002).

Conflict Resolution Vs. Conflict Management

 

As the name would suggest, conflict resolution involves the reduction, elimination, or termination of all forms and types of conflict. In practice, when people talk about conflict resolution they tend to use terms like negotiation, bargaining, mediation, or arbitration.

 

In line with the recommendations in the “how to” section, businesses can benefit from appropriate types and levels of conflict. That is the aim of conflict management, and not the aim of conflict resolution. Conflict management does not necessarily imply conflict resolution. “Conflict management involves designing effective macro-level strategies to minimize the dysfunctions of conflict and enhancing the constructive functions of conflict in order to enhance learning and effectiveness in an organization”(Rahim, 2002, p. 208). Learning is essential for the longevity of any group. This is especially true for organizations; Organizational learning is essential for any company to remain in the market. Properly managed conflict increases learning through increasing the degree to which groups ask questions and challenge the status quo (Luthans, Rubach, & Marsnik, 1995).

 

 

Models of Conflict Management

 

There have been many styles of conflict management behavior that have been researched in the past century. One of the earliest, Mary Parker Follett (1926/1940) found that conflict was managed by individuals in three main ways: domination, compromise, and integration. She also found other ways of handling conflict that were employed by organizations, such as avoidance and suppression.

 

 

Early Conflict Management Models

Blake and Mouton (1964) were among the first to present a conceptual scheme for classifying the modes (styles) for handling interpersonal conflicts into five types: forcing, withdrawing, smoothing, compromising, and problem solving.

In the 1970’s and 1980’s, researchers began using the intentions of the parties involved to classify the styles of conflict management that they would include in their models. Both Thomas (1976) and Pruitt (1983) put forth a model based on the concerns of the parties involved in the conflict. The combination of the parties concern for their own interests (i.e. assertiveness) and their concern for the interests of those across the table (i.e. cooperativeness) would yield a particular conflict management style. Pruitt called these styles yielding (low assertiveness/high cooperativeness), problem solving (high assertiveness/high cooperativeness), inaction (low assertiveness/low cooperativeness), and contending (high assertiveness/low cooperativeness). Pruitt argues that problem-solving is the preferred method when seeking mutually beneficial options.

 

Khun and Poole’s Model

Khun and Poole (2000) established a similar system of group conflict management. In their system, they split Kozan’s confrontational model into two sub models: distributive and integrative.

Distributive – Here conflict is approached as a distribution of a fixed amount of positive outcomes or resources, where one side will end up winning and the other losing, even if they do win some concessions.

Integrative – Groups utilizing the integrative model see conflict as a chance to integrate the needs and concerns of both groups and make the best outcome possible. This model has a heavier emphasis on compromise than the distributive model. Khun and Poole found that the integrative model resulted in consistently better task related outcomes than those using the distributive model.

DeChurch and Marks’s Meta-Taxonomy

DeChurch and Marks (2001) examined the literature available on conflict management at the time and established what they claimed was a “meta-taxonomy” that encompasses all other models. They argued that all other styles have inherent in them into two dimensions – activeness (“the extent to which conflict behaviors make a responsive and direct rather than inert and indirect impression”) and agreeableness (“the extent to which conflict behaviors make a pleasant and relaxed rather than unpleasant and strainful impression”). High activeness is characterized by openly discussing differences of opinion while fully going after their own interest. High agreeableness is characterized by attempting to satisfy all parties involved

In the study they conducted to validate this division, activeness did not have a significant effect on the effectiveness of conflict resolution, but the agreeableness of the conflict management style, whatever it was, did in fact have a positive impact on how groups felt about the way the conflict was managed, regardless of the outcome.

“Current” Conflict Management

Rahim (2002) noted that there is agreement among management scholars that there is no one best approach to how to make decisions, lead or manage conflict. In a similar vein, rather than creating a very specific model of conflict management, Rahim created a meta-model (in much the same way that DeChurch and Marks, 2001, created a meta-taxonomy) for conflict styles based on two dimensions, concern for self and concern for others (as shown in Figure 2).

 

Within this framework are five management approaches: integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising. Integration involves openness, exchanging information, looking for alternatives, and examining differences so solve the problem in a manner that is acceptable to both parties. Obliging is associated with attempting to minimize the differences and highlight the commonalities to satisfy the concern of the other party. When using the dominating style one party goes all out to win his or her objective and, as a result, often ignores the needs and expectations of the other party. When avoiding a party fails to satisfy his or her own concern as well as the concern of the other party. Lastly, compromising involves give-and-take whereby both parties give up something to make a mutually acceptable decision. (Rahim, 2002).

 

See the table on the right, as a quick reference for when a particular conflict management style is appropriate / inappropriate.

How to manage conflict

 

Overall conflict management should aim to minimize affective conflicts at all levels, attain and maintain a moderate amount of substantive conflict, and use the appropriate conflict management strategy–to effectively bring about the first two goals, and also to match the status and concerns of the two parties in conflict (Rahim, 2002).

 

In order for conflict management strategies to be effective, they should satisfy certain criteria. The below criteria are particularly useful for not only conflict management, but also decision making in management.

 

 

General Suggestions from Rahim’s Criteria for Conflict Management (2002)

Organization Learning and Effectiveness- In order to attain this objective, conflict management strategies should be designed to enhance critical and innovative thinking to learn the process of diagnosis and intervention in the right problems.

Needs of Stakeholders- Sometimes multiple parties are involved in a conflict in an organization and the challenge of conflict management would be to involve these parties in a problem solving process that will lead to collective learning and organizational effectiveness. organizations should institutionalize the positions of employee advocate, customer and supplier advocate, as well as environmental and stockholder advocates.

Ethics – A wise leader must behave ethically, and to do so the leader should be open to new information and be willing to change his or her mind. By the same token subordinates and other stakeholders have an ethical duty to speak out against the decisions of supervisors when consequences of these decisions are likely to be serious. “Without an understanding of ethics, conflict cannot be handled” (Batcheldor, 2000).

Other suggestions

 

Do not avoid the conflict, hoping it will go away. Ask the participants to describe specific actions they would like the other party to take. It would also be beneficial to have a third party (meaning a non-direct superior with access to the situation) involved. This could be an individual member or a board dedicated to resolving and preventing issues. Lastly, do not meet separately with people in conflict. If you allow each individual to tell their story to you, you risk polarizing their positions.

International Conflict Management

 

Special consideration should be paid to conflict management between two parties from distinct cultures. In addition to the everyday sources of conflict, “misunderstandings, and from this counterproductive, pseudo conflicts, arise when members of one culture are unable to understand culturally determined differences in communication practices, traditions, and thought processing” (Borisoff & Victor, 1989).

 

Indeed, this has already been observed in the business research literature. Renner (2007) recounted several episodes where managers from developed countries moved to less developed countries to resolve conflicts within the company and met with little success due to their failure to adapt to the conflict management styles of the local culture.

 

As an example, in Kozan’s study noted above, he noted that Asian cultures are far more likely to use a harmony model of conflict management. If a party operating from a harmony model comes in conflict with a party using a more confrontational model, misunderstandings above and beyond those generated by the conflict itself will arise.

 

International conflict management, and the cultural issues associated with it, is one of the primary areas of research in the field at the time, as existing research is insufficient to deal with the ever increasing contact occurring between international entities.

 

 

Counseling

When personal conflict leads to frustration and loss of efficiency, counseling may prove to be a helpful antidote. Although few organizations can afford the luxury of having professional counselors on the staff, given some training, managers may be able to perform this function. Nondirective counseling, or “listening with understanding,” is little more than being a good listener—something every manager should be.[1]

Sometimes the simple process of being able to vent one’s feelings—that is, to express them to a concerned and understanding listener, is enough to relieve frustration and make it possible for the frustrated individual to advance to a problem-solving frame of mind, better able to cope with a personal difficulty that is affecting his work adversely. The nondirective approach is one effective way for managers to deal with frustrated subordinates and co-workers.[2]

There are other more direct and more diagnostic ways that might be used in appropriate circumstances. The great strength of the nondirective approach (nondirective counseling is based on the client-centered therapy of Carl Rogers), however, lies in its simplicity, its effectiveness, and the fact that it deliberately avoids the manager-counselor’s diagnosing and interpreting emotional problems, which would call for special psychological training. No one has ever been harmed by being listened to sympathetically and understandingly. On the contrary, this approach has helped many people to cope with problems that were interfering with their effectiveness on the job.

Clarifying Confusion About Conflict

 

© Copyright Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD

 

Conflict occurs with two or more people who, despite their first attempts at agreement, do not yet have agreement on a course of action, usually because their values, perspectives and opinions are contradictory iature. Conflict can occur:

Within yourself when you are not living according to your values.

 When your values and perspectives are threatened.

 When there is discomfort from fear of the unknown or from lack of fulfillment.

 

Conflict is inevitable and ofteecessary when forming high-performing teams because they evolve through “form, storm, norm and perform” periods. Getting the most out of diversity often means addressing contradictory values, perspectives and opinions. Conflict is ofteeeded. It:

Helps to raise and address problems.

 Energizes work to be focused on the most important priorities.

 Helps people “be real” and motivates them to fully participate.

Helps people learn how to recognize and benefit from their differences.

 

Conflict is not the same as discomfort. The conflict is not the problem – poor management of the conflict is the problem. Conflict is a problem when it:

Hampers productivity.

 Lowers morale.

 Causes more and continued conflicts.

 Causes inappropriate behaviors.

Types of Managerial Actions That Cause Workplace Conflicts

 

© Copyright Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD

1. Poor communications

 Employees experience continual surprises, for example, they are not informed of major decisions that affect their workplaces and lives.

Employees do not understand the reasons for the decisions – they are not involved in the decision-making.

 As a result, they trust the “rumor mill” more than their management.

2. The alignment or the amount of resources is insufficient. There is:

Disagreement about “who does what.”

 Stress from working with inadequate resources.

3.“Personal chemistry,” including conflicting values or actions, for example:

Strong interpersonal natures among workers do not seem to match.

 We do not like others because they seem too much like ourselves (we often do not like in others what we do not like in ourselves).

4. Leadership problems

 

For example, inconsistent, missing, too-strong or uninformed leadership (at any level in the organization), evidenced by:

Avoiding conflict, “passing the buck” with little follow-through on decisions.

 Employees see the same continued issues in the workplace.

Supervisors do not understand the jobs of their subordinates.

Key Managerial Actions / Structures to Minimize Conflicts

 

© Copyright Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD

1. Regularly review job descriptions. Get your employee’s input to them. Ensure:

Job roles do not conflict.

 No tasks “fall in a crack.”

2. Intentionally build relationships with all subordinates.

Meet at least once a month alone with them in office.

Ask about accomplishments, challenges and issues.

3. Get regular, written status reports that describe:

Accomplishments.

 Currents issues and needs from management.

 Plans for the upcoming period.

4. Conduct basic training about:

Interpersonal communications.

 Conflict management.

 Delegation.

5. Develop procedures for routine tasks and include the employees’ input.

Have employees write procedures when possible and appropriate.

Get employees’ review of the procedures.

 Distribute the procedures.

 Train employees about the procedures.

6. Regularly hold management meetings with all employees.

 

For example, every month, communicate new initiatives and status of current products or services.

7. Consider an anonymous suggestion box in which employees can provide suggestions.

 

This can be powerful means to collect honest feedback, especially in very conflicted workplaces.

Ways People Deal With Conflict

 

© Copyright Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD

 

There is no one best way to deal with conflict. It depends on the current situation. Here are the major ways that people use to deal with conflict:

1. You can avoid it.

 

Pretend it is not there or ignore it. Use this approach only when it simply is not worth the effort to argue. Be aware that this approach tends to worsen the conflict over time.

2. You can accommodate it.

 

You can give in to others, sometimes to the extent that you compromise yourself. Use this approach very sparingly and infrequently, for example, in situations when you know that you will have another more useful approach in the very near future. Usually this approach tends to worsen the conflict over time, and causes conflicts within yourself.

3. You can compete with the others.

 

You can work to get your way, rather than clarifying and addressing the issue. Competitors love accommodators. Use this approach when you have a very strong conviction about your position.

4. Compromising.

 

You can engage in mutual give-and-take. This approach is used when the goal is to get past the issue and move on together.

5. Collaborating.

 

You can focus on working together. Use this approach when the goal is to meet as many current needs as possible by using mutual resources. This approach sometimes raises new mutual needs. Collaboration can also be used when the goal is to cultivate ownership and commitment.

To Manage a Conflict with Another Person

 

© Copyright Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD

1. Know what you do not like about yourself, early on in your career.

We often do not like in others what we do not want to see in ourselves.

Write down 5 traits that really bug you when see them in others.

 Be aware that these traits are your “hot buttons.”

2. Manage yourself. If you and/or another person are getting upset, then manage yourself to stay calm:

Speak to the person as if the other person is not upset – this can be very effective!

 Avoid use of the word “you” – this avoids your appearing to be blaming the person.

 Nod your head to assure the person that you heard him/her.

 Maintain eye contact with the person.

3. Move the discussion to a private area, if possible.

Many times, moving to a new environment invites both of you to see or feel differently.

4. Give the other person time to vent.

Do not interrupt the person or judge what he/she is saying.

5. Verify that you are accurately hearing each other. When the other person is done speaking:

Ask the person to let you rephrase (uninterrupted) what you are hearing to ensure you are hearing it correctly.

 To understand the person more, ask open-ended questions (avoid “why” questions – those questions often make people feel defensive).

6. Repeat the above step, for the other to verify that he/she is hearing you. Describe your perspective:

Use “I”, not “you.”

 Talk in terms of the present as much as possible.

 Quickly mention your feelings.

7. Acknowledge where you disagree and where you agree.

One of the most powerful means to resolve conflict is to mention where you both agree.

8. Discuss the matter on which you disagree, not the nature of the other person.

Ask “What can we do fix the problem?” The person might begin to complain again.

 Then ask the same question. Focus on actions you both can do.

Ask the other person if they will support the action(s).

 If the person will not, then ask for a “cooling off period”.

9. Thank the person for working with you.

It takes patience for a person to engage in meaningful conversation during conflict. Acknowledge and thank the other person for his/her effort.

10. If the situation remains a conflict, then:

Conclude if the other person’s behavior violates one of the personnel policies and procedures in the workplace and if it does, then follow the policy’s terms for addressing that violation.

 Otherwise, consider whether to agree to disagree.

 Consider seeking a third party to mediate.

THE EVOLUTION OF CONFLICT

 MANAGEMENT

 

 The early approach to conflict management was based on the assumption that all conflict was bad and would always be counterproductive to organizational goals. Conflict management, therefore, was synonymous with conflict avoidance. This left the people experiencing the conflict with essentially only one outcome: a win-lose scenario. In such cases, the loser would feel slighted and this, in turn, would lead to renewed belligerence. Therefore, most managers viewed conflict as something they must eliminate from their organization. This avoidance approach to conflict management was prevalent during the latter part of the nineteenth century and continued until the mid-1940s.

 

 Nevertheless, conflict avoidance is not a satisfactory strategy for dealing with most conflict. Conflict avoidance usually leaves those people who are being avoided feeling as if they are being neglected. Also, conflict avoidance usually fails to reconcile the perceived differences that originally caused the conflict. As a result, the original basis for the conflict continues unabated, held in check only temporarily until another confrontation arises to set the same unresolved tensions into motion again. Therefore, conflict avoidance strategies are not especially useful in the long run.

 

 The human relations view of conflict management dominated from the late 1940s through the mid-1970s. This viewpoint argued that conflict was a natural and inevitable occurrence in any organizational setting. Because conflict was considered unavoidable, the human relations approach recommended acceptance of conflict. In other words, conflict cannot be eliminated and may even benefit the organization. It was during this time period that the term “conflict management” was introduced, according to Nurmi and Darling.

 

 Since the mid-1970s a new position on organizational conflict has emerged. This theoretical perspective is the interactionist approach. This viewpoint espouses not only accepting conflict, but also encouraging it. Theorists are of the opinion that a conflict-free, harmonious, and cooperative organization tends to become stagnant and nonreponsive to market change and advancement. Therefore, it is necessary for managers to interject a minimum level of conflict to maintain an optimal level of organizational performance. For example, Shelton and Darling suggest conflict is a necessary condition for both individual and organizational progression. They encourage managers to “embrace conflict and use it for continuous transformation.”

 SOURCES OF CONFLICT

 

 According to both Daft and Terry, several factors may create organizational conflict. They are as follows:

 Scarce Resources. Resources may include money, supplies, people, or information. Often, organizational units are in competition for scarce or declining resources. This creates a situation where conflict is inevitable.

 Jurisdictional Ambiguities. Conflicts may also surface when job boundaries and task responsibilities are unclear. Individuals may disagree about who has the responsibility for tasks and resources.

 Personality Clashes. A personality conflict emerges when two people simply do not get along or do not view things similarly. Personality tensions are caused by differences in personality, attitudes, values, and beliefs.

 Power and Status Differences. Power and status conflict may occur when one individual has questionable influence over another. People might engage in conflict to increase their power or status in an organization.

 Goal Differences. Conflict may occur because people are pursuing different goals. Goal conflicts in individual work units are a natural part of any organization.

 Communication Breakdown. Communication-based barriers may be derived from differences in speaking styles, writing styles, and nonverbal communication styles. These stylistic differences frequently distort the communication process. Faulty communication leads to misperceptions and misunderstandings that can lead to long-standing conflict. Additional barriers to communication may emerge from the cross-gender and cross-cultural differences of participants. Such fundamental differences may affect both the ways in which the parties express themselves and how they are likely to interpret the communication they receive. These distortions, in turn, frequently result in mis-reading by the parties involved. Moreover, it is common for the parties involved to be oblivious to these false impressions. The resultant misunderstandings subsequently lead the parties involved to believe that a conflict based on misunderstood behavior exists when, in fact, no conflict actually does exist. Miller and Steinberg call this misreading “pseudo-conflict,” that is, perceived conflict rather than actual conflict. Much of what managers take to be an actual conflict is the product of such pseudo-conflict.

 CONFLICT MANAGEMENT

 METHODOLOGIES

 Management theorists have developed and suggested a range of options for handling organizational conflict. Figure 1 outlines the various components of the Conflict Resolution Grid, which is the result of widely accepted research presented by Thomas and Kilmann.

 Thomas and Kilmann identified a conflict-handling grid comprised of five conflict management styles based on two dimensions: assertiveness and cooperativeness. Assertiveness is the motivation of an individual to achieve his/her own goals, objectives, and outcomes, while cooperativeness assesses the willingness to allow or help the other party to achieve its goals or outcomes. Any of the five conflict resolution styles might be appropriate based on the circumstances of the situation and the personalities of the individuals involved.

 Avoiding Conflict Resolution Style. The avoiding style is low on both assertiveness and cooperativeness. In other words, the manager is not very cooperative in helping the other individuals to achieve their goals, but neither is he/she aggressively pursuing his/her own preferred outcomes in the situation. The original problem, conflict, or situation is never directly addressed or resolved. However, avoiding behavior might be appropriate when the issue is perceived by the manager to be trivial. It might also be an appropriate approach to use when there is no chance of winning or when disruption would be very costly.

 Competing Conflict Resolution Style. The competing style of resolving conflict is also known as the win-lose approach. A manager using this style, characterized by high assertiveness and low cooperativeness, seeks to reach his/her own preferred outcomes at the expense of other individuals. This approach may be appropriate when quick, decisive action is needed, such as during emergencies. It can also be used to confront unpopular actions, such as urgent cost cutting.

 Accommodating Conflict Resolution Style. This style reflects a high degree of cooperativeness. It has also been labeled as obliging. A manager using this style subjugates his/her own goals, objectives, and desired outcomes to allow other individuals to achieve their goals and outcomes. This behavior is appropriate when people realize that they are in the wrong or when an issue is more important to one side than the other. This conflict resolution style is important for preserving future relations between the parties.

 Compromising Conflict Resolution Style. This style is characterized by moderate levels of both assertiveness and cooperativeness. Compromise can also be referred to as bargaining or trading. It generally produces suboptimal results. This behavior can be used when the goals of both sides are of equal importance, when both sides have equal power, or when it is necessary to find a temporary, timely solution. It should not be used when there is a complex problem requiring a problem-solving approach.

 Collaborating Conflict Resolution Style. This approach, high on both assertiveness and cooperativeness, is often described as the win-win scenario. Both sides creatively work towards achieving the goals and desired outcomes of all parties involved. The collaboration style is appropriate when the concerns are complex and a creative or novel synthesis of ideas is required. The downside of this approach is that the process of collaborating mandates sincere effort by all parties involved and it may require a lot of time to reach a consensus.

 

 Of the five modes described in the matrix, only the strategy employing collaboration as a mode of conflict management breaks free of the win-lose paradigm. It has become almost habitual to fall back on the win-win alternative, but this was not the authors’ original intention. They did not reject win-lose configurations out of hand. Instead, strategic considerations for managing conflict according to varied circumstances were identified. For instance, in a conflict centered on bids by two alternative suppliers, the best choice might well be a competing strategy with a winner and loser. After all, the objective in such a situation is to win the contract for one’s own company. In most cases, winning the contract can be accomplished only at the expense of the competing supplier, who by definition becomes the loser.

 

 In contrast, a competing approach almost never works well in the interpersonal conflict of people working in the same office (or even the same organization). Unlike the case of competing suppliers, coworkers—both the winner and the loser—must go on working together. Indeed, in many conflicts revolving around office politics, an accommodating strategy may actually enable individuals to strengthen their future negotiating position through allowing themselves to lose in conflicts over issues they do not feel particularly strongly about. In such situations, accommodating can be seen as a form of winning through losing. For instance, a manager may choose to concede an issue to an employee who is experiencing considerable stress as a means to motivate him or her. Similarly, an individual might choose an accommodating strategy to add balance to negotiations in which one’s counterpart has already had to give up several other points. Indeed, a winner in a win-lose scenario who fails to put forth some effort to accommodate the other party may even provoke a backlash in the form of lack of commitment or open resistance.

 

 Even the traditional approach of conflict avoidance has its place as an occasionally acceptable strategy. While conflict avoidance has justly been the subject of considerable condemnation, it can be rather useful in allowing both parties to cool off or in buying time until all the facts of a matter have been gathered. A manager might choose to avoid an employee in the throes of an emotional outburst, for example, until the employee has had sufficient time to calm down.

 

 Finally, compromise is often a useful strategy when dealing with relatively small concerns. This differs from an accommodating strategy, in which the conceding party finds an issue unimportant that the opposing party considers comparatively important. A manager might enlist a compromise approach most effectively when both parties consider the issue to be of moderate or little importance. In such cases, compromising saves both parties the time required to employ problem-solving techniques to address the fundamental core of the conflict.

 

 While all of these modes have their place among the strategies available to the manager, the collaborating approach to conflict management represents the most beneficial mode for most types of conflict management. In the collaborating mode, conflict itself acts as a managerial tool. The manager utilizes the conflict to guide the conflicting parties to address what essentially are obstacles faced by the organization. Through collaborative behavior, the conflicting parties pool their creative energies to find innovative answers to old problems.

 

 It is in this key respect that the collaborative mode of conflict management differs from the other four conflict-handling modes. Accommodating, avoiding, competing, and compromising—as permutations of the win-lose scenario—are simply forms of conflict interventions. Collaboration as a conflict-handling mode, on the other hand, represents an attempt to channel conflict in a positive direction, thus enabling the manager to use conflict as a tool to resolve otherwise incompatible objectives within the organization. In other words, this method of handling conflict acts less as a conflict intervention and more as true conflict management.

 However, any of the five conflict resolution styles may be appropriate and effective depending on the specific situation, the parties’ personality styles, the desired outcomes, and the time available, The key to becoming more prepared is to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each method.

 THE FIVE A’S TECHNIQUE

 Borisoff and Victor identify five steps in the conflict management process that they call the “five A’s” of conflict management: assessment, acknowledgement, attitude, action, and analysis. They assert that these five steps allow for a sustained, ongoing process of problem-solving-oriented conflict management.

 ASSESSMENT.

 In the assessment step, the parties involved collect appropriate information regarding the problem. The parties involved also choose which of the conflict-handling modes is most appropriate for the situation. The parties collectively decide what is and what is not central to the problem. The parties involved also indicate areas in which they may be willing to compromise, and what each party actually wants.

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.

 The acknowledgement step is one in which each party attempts to hear out the other. Acknowledgement allows both parties to build the empathy needed for the motivation of a synergistic solution to the problem. The acknowledgement acts as feedback to the other party and it demonstrates that one understands (without necessarily agreeing with) the other party’s position. Acknowledgement goes beyond merely responding to what is said, however; it involves actively encouraging the other party to openly communicate its concerns. This is aided by the use of active listening techniques and overt, nonverbal encouragement.

 ATTITUDE.

 

 The attitude step tries to remove the foundation for pseudo-conflict. Stereotypical assumptions about different, culturally-based behaviors are uncovered. For example, a member of a high-context culture may misinterpret what a member of a low-context culture says as being needlessly blunt or even rude. Conversely, a member of a low-context culture may misinterpret what a person from a high-context culture says as being needlessly indirect or even outright deceptive. Such communication variations (as the works of Edward Hall have explained) have little to do with the actual intent or content of the messages, but represent instead culturally learned approaches to using implicit versus explicit communication styles. Similarly, in the attitude step, one acknowledges differences in the way that men and women are generally conditioned to communicate. Experts such as Borisoff and Merrill, for example, have delineated clearly differentiated communication styles between men and women, which are compounded by sex-trait stereotyping regarding issues of assertiveness, interruptive behavior, and perceptions of politeness. Finally, in the attitude step, one analyzes potentially problematic variations in styles of writing, speaking, and nonverbal mannerisms. Such differences may blur meanings. It is the role of the effective conflict participant to maintain an open mind toward all parties involved.

 ACTION.

 The action step begins to actively implement the chosen conflict-handling mode. If the selected mode is the problem-solving approach, the manager conveys the opportunity for a conflict resolution based on trust and ongoing feedback on those points on which the parties have already agreed. Simultaneously, each individual evaluates the behavior of the other parties (often, little more than subtle hints) to ascertain where potential trouble spots might arise. Also, each individual must remain aware of his or her own communication style and general behavior. Finally, all parties must stay alert to new issues that are raised and look for productive solutions.

 ANALYSIS.

 In this last step participants decide on what they will do, and then summarize and review what they have agreed upon. Part of the analysis step is to ascertain whether every participant’s requirements have been addressed (and met, if possible). Finally, the analysis step initiates the impetus for approaching conflict management as an ongoing process. Analysis enables participants to monitor both the short-term and long-term results of the conflict resolution.

 QUANTUM SKILLS

 Shelton and Darling suggest a new set of management skills, more appropriate for the ever-changing, conflict-ridden contemporary organization. They refer to these skills as the quantum skills. The suggested managerial skills are derived from the field of quantum physics. They are as follows:

 Quantum seeing. This skill is defined as the ability to see intentionally. When conflict occurs, managers must explore their own assumptions about the parties and search for the underlying intentions that are creating the conflict. Each party must then come to recognize the relationship between individual thought processes and perceptions, and set clear intentions for positively resolving the situation.

 Quantum thinking. This skill involves the ability to think paradoxically. Effective conflict resolution is a paradoxical process. “Win-win solutions require paradoxical thinking. They require the ability to find a fully acceptable solution to divergent points of view” (Shelton and Darling 2004, p. 30). In other words, collaborative solutions to conflicts that involve diametrically-opposed positions are unlikely to be achieved through linear problem-solving processes and thus require more unorthodox thinking.

 Quantum feeling. This skill is defined as the ability to feel vitally alive. It is based on the premise that the level of organizational conflict is influenced by the negative emotions pervasive throughout the business world. As schedules have become more fast-paced and jobs have become more stressful, the level of organizational conflict has increased. Managers committed to the quantum feeling technique of conflict management must train themselves to view eveegative events positively. They must challenge all parties in conflict to utilize creative, brain-storming techniques in an effort to construct “impossible” win-win solutions.

 Quantum knowing. This skill is the ability to know intuitively. Managers wishing to develop this skill must integrate times of relaxation and reflection into their work routines. This skill focuses on staying mindful or aware of the organizational environment. Managers involved in conflict situations must guide all parties towards a more centered response to the negative emotions.

 Quantum acting. This skill is based on the ability to act responsibly. Quantum acting is predicated on the belief that everything in the universe is a part of a complex whole in which each part is influenced by every other part. Therefore, a manager’s thoughts affect the entire organizational unit. Thus, if managers want to encourage more creative responses to conflict, they must begin by modeling this behavior themselves.

 Quantum trusting. This skill is the ability to trust life’s process. It is derived from chaos theory. This theory suggests that without chaos organizations will become stagnant and, if left alone, they will return to a nonchaotic state. This skill may be appealing to managers experiencing conflict. It suggests that managers must simply “ride the rapids of conflict, fully participating in the dance without attempting to actively manage the course of resolution” (Shelton and Darling 2004, p. 37). The organizational unit will eventually self-organize.

 Quantum being. This skill is the ability to be in a relationship, specifically, “the ability to literally become so connected to another that one can see the world through the other’s eyes” (Shelton and Darling 2004, p.38). This skill provides the foundation for all parties to learn from and understand each other. It is a relationship of continuous learning.

 This set of skills is grounded in a new science: worldview. These skills provide a whole-brained alternative for managing people and conflict.

 Conflict management is an ongoing procedure. It entails continual communication and supervision. “Conflict-handling behavior is not a static procedure; rather it is a process that requires flexibility and constant evaluation to truly be productive and effective” (Borisoff and Victor 1998).

One of the most frequent concerns and complaints of people today is that they don’t have enough time to do what they — or especially their bosses — want them to do. Consequently, there are many resources with guidelines and tips to manage time more effectively. Time management and stress management often are closely related and discussed together.

Myths About Stress and Time Management

Major Causes of Workplace Stress

Biggest Time Wasters

Common Symptoms of Poor Stress and Time Management

Wise Principles of Good Stress and Time Management

Simple Techniques to Manage Stress

Simple Techniques to Manage Time

Role of “Gumption”

Additional Resources About Time Management

Additional Resources About Stress Management

Myths About Stress and Time Management

Myth #1: All stress is bad. No, there’s good and bad stress. Good stress is excitement, thrills, etc. The goal is to recognize personal signs of bad stress and deal with them.

Myth #2: Planning my time just takes more time. Actually, research shows the opposite.

Myth #3: I get more done in more time when I wisely use caffeine, sugar, alcohol or nicotine. Wrong! Research shows that the body always has to “come down” and when it does, you can’t always be very effective then after the boost.

Myth #4: A time management problem means that there’s not enough time to get done what needs to get done. No, a time management problem is not using your time to your fullest advantage, to get done what you want done.

Myth #5: The busier I am, the better I’m using my time. Look out! You may only be doing what’s urgent, and not what’s important.

Myth #6: I feel very harried, busy, so I must have a time management problem. Not necessarily. You should verify that you have a time management problem. This requires knowing what you really want to get done and if it is getting done or not.

Myth #7: I feel OK, so I must not be stressed. In reality, many adults don’t even know when they’re really stressed out until their bodies tell them so. They miss the early warning signs from their body, for example, headaches, still backs, twitches, etc.

Major Causes of Workplace Stress

Not knowing what you want or if you’re getting it – poor planning.

The feeling that there’s too much to do. One can have this feeling even if there’s hardly anything to do at all.

Not enjoying your job. This can be caused by lots of things, for example, not knowing what you want, not eating well, etc. However, most people always blame their jobs.

Conflicting demands on the job.

Insufficient resources to do the job.6. Not feeling appreciated.

Biggest Time Wasters

Interruptions. There will always be interruptions. It’s how they’re handled that wastes time.

 Hopelessness. People “give in”, “numb out” and “march through the day”.

 Poor delegation skills. This involves not sharing work with others.

Common Symptoms of Poor Stress and Time Management

Irritability. Fellow workers notice this first.

 Fatigue. How many adults eveotice this?

 Difficulty concentrating. You often don’t need to just to get through the day!

 Forgetfulness. You can’t remember what you did all day, what you ate yesterday.

 Loss of sleep. This affects everything else!

 Physical disorders, for example, headaches, rashes, tics, cramps, etc.

 At worst, withdrawal and depression.

Wise Principles of Good Stress and Time Management

Learn your signs for being overstressed or having a time management problem. Ask your friends about you. Perhaps they can tell you what they see from you when you’re overstressed.

 Most people feel that they are stressed and/or have a time management problem. Verify that you really have a problem. What do you see, hear or feel that leads you to conclude that you have a time or stress problem?

 Don’t have the illusion that doing more will make you happier. Is it quantity of time that you want, or quality?

 Stress and time management problems have many causes and usually require more than one technique to fix. You don’t need a lot of techniques, usually more than one, but not a lot.

 One of the major benefits of doing time planning is feeling that you’re in control.

 Focus on results, not on busyness.

 It’s the trying that counts – at least as much as doing the perfect technique.

Simple Techniques to Manage Stress

 

There are lots of things people can do to cut down on stress. Most people probably even know what they could do. It’s not the lack of knowing what to do in order to cut down stress; it is doing what you know you have to do. The following techniques are geared to help you do what you know you have to do.

 Talk to someone. You don’t have to fix the problem, just report it.

 Notice if any of the muscles in your body are tense. Just noticing that will often relax the muscle.

 Ask your boss if you’re doing OK. This simple question can make a lot of difference and verify wrong impressions.

 Delegate.

 If you take on a technique to manage stress, tell someone else. They can help you be accountable to them and yourself.

 Cut down on caffeine and sweets. Take a walk instead. Tell someone that you’re going to do that.

 Use basic techniques of planning, problem solving and decision making.

Concise guidelines are included in this guidebook. Tell someone that you’re going to use these techniques.

 Monitor the number of hours that you work in a week. Tell your boss, family and/or friends how many hours that you are working.

 Write weekly status reports. Include what you’ve accomplished last week and plan to do next week. Include any current issues or recommendations that you must report to your boss. Give the written status report to your boss on a weekly basis.

“Wash the dishes”. Do something you can feel good about.

Simple Techniques to Manage Time

 

There never seems to be enough time in the roles of management and supervision. Therefore, the goal of time management should not be to find more time. The goal is set a reasonable amount of time to spend on these roles and then use that time wisely.

 Start with the simple techniques of stress management above.

 Managing time takes practice. Practice asking yourself this question throughout the day: “Is this what I want or need to be doing right now?” If yes, then keep doing it.

 Find some way to realistically and practically analyze your time. Logging your time for a week in 15-minute intervals is not that hard and does not take up that much time. Do it for a week and review your results.

 Do a “todo” list for your day. Do it at the end of the previous day. Mark items as “A” and “B” in priority. Set aside two hours right away each day to do the important “A” items and then do the “B” items in the afternoon. Let your answering machine take your calls during your “A” time.

 At the end of your day, spend five minutes cleaning up your space. Use this time, too, to organize your space, including your desktop. That’ll give you a clean start for the next day.

 Learn the difference between “Where can I help?” and “Where am I really needed?” Experienced leaders learn that the last question is much more important than the former.

 Learn the difference between “Do I need to do this now?” and “Do I need to do this at all?” Experienced leaders learn how to quickly answer this question when faced with a new task.

 Delegate. Delegation shows up as a frequent suggestion in this guide because it is one of the most important skills for a leader to have. Effective delegation will free up a great deal of time for you.

 If you are CEO in a corporation, then ask your Board for help. They are responsible to supervise you, as a CEO. Although the Board should not be micro-managing you, that is, involved in the day-to-day activities of the corporation, they still might have some ideas to help you with your time management. Remember, too, that good time management comes from good planning, and the Board is responsible to oversee development of major plans. Thus, the Board may be able to help you by doing a better themselves in their responsibilities as planners for the organization.

 Use a “Do Not Disturb” sign! During the early part of the day, when you’re attending to your important items (your “A” list), hang this sign on the doorknob outside your door.

 Sort your mail into categories including “read now”, “handle now” and “read later”. You’ll quickly get a knack for sorting through your mail. You’ll also notice that much of what you think you need to read later wasn’t really all that important anyway.

 Read your mail at the same time each day. That way, you’ll likely get to your mail on a regular basis and won’t become distracted into any certain piece of mail that ends up taking too much of your time.

 Have a place for everything and put everything in its place. That way, you’ll know where to find it when you need it. Another important outcome is that your people will see that you are somewhat organized, rather than out of control.

 Best suggestion for saving time – schedule 10 minutes to do nothing. That time can be used to just sit and clear your mind. You’ll end up thinking more clearly, resulting in more time in your day. The best outcome of this practice is that it reminds you that you’re not a slave to a clock – and that if you take 10 minutes out of your day, you and your organization won’t fall apart.

 Learn good meeting management skills. Meetings can become a terrible waste of time. Guidelines for good meeting management are included later in this section.

Role of “Gumption”

 

Everything good usually starts with gumption. It’s picking yourself up, deciding that you could be happier, that you want to be happier – and then doing one small thing to get you started and keep you going. Boredom and blaming are the opposite of gumption. Stress and time management start with gumption. It’s the trying that counts. Poor time and stress management often comes from doing the same thing harder, rather than smarter.

Employers should provide a stress-free work environment, recognise where stress is becoming a problem for staff, and take action to reduce stress. Stress in the workplace reduces productivity, increases management pressures, and makes people ill in many ways, evidence of which is still increasing. Workplace stress affects the performance of the brain, including functions of work performance; memory, concentration, and learning. In the UK over 13 million working days are lost every year because of stress. Stress is believed to trigger 70% of visits to doctors, and 85% of serious illnesses (UK HSE stress statistics). Stress at work also provides a serious risk of litigation for all employers and organisations, carrying significant liabilities for damages, bad publicity and loss of reputation. Dealing with stress-related claims also consumes vast amounts of management time. So, there are clearly strong economic and financial reasons for organisations to manage and reduce stress at work, aside from the obvious humanitarian and ethical considerations. If you are suffering from stress yourself the stress management guidelines here are just as relevant. See the workplace stress research articles below.

Stress and stress management are directly related to personal well-being and specifically to workplace well-being. See the separate article on workplace wellbeing for a detailed explanation of wellbeing and its relevance to modern work and management.

quick stress reduction techniques

If you are stressed, do one or all of these things, in whatever order that takes your fancy. These ideas can also be adapted for team development exercises.

The key to de-stressing in the moment is getting away from or removing yourself from the stressor. Developing new habits which regularly remove you and distract you from stressors and stressful situations and pressures is essentially how to manage stress on a more permanent basis.

In this modern world it is difficult if not impossible to change stressful situations. What we can do however is change and reduce our exposure to those stressful situations.

These stress reduction ideas and techniques are based on that simple principle. These tips won’t change the situation causing the stress, but they will, more importantly, enable you to change your reaction and relationship to the stressful situations.

And in keeping with the tone of this stress tips section, and since colour is regarded by many as a factor in affecting mood, the calming shade of green is used for the headings..

stress reduction idea 1 – humour

Humour is one of the greatest and quickest devices for reducing stress.

Humour works because laughter produces helpful chemicals in the brain.

Humour also gets your brain thinking and working in a different way – it distracts you from having a stressed mindset. Distraction is a simple effective de-stressor – it takes your thoughts away from the stress, and thereby diffuses the stressful feelings.

Therefore most people will feel quite different and notice a change in mindset after laughing and being distracted by something humorous.

Go read the funny family fortunes answers. Or try the funny letters to the council. Even if you’ve seen them a hundred times before. As you start to smile and chuckle the stress begins to dissipate.

If this material fails to make you laugh then find something which does.

Keep taking the laughter medicine until you feel suitably relaxed and re-charged.

 

stress reduction idea 2 – brisk walk and self-talk

Go for a short quick really brisk walk outside.

Yes, actually leave the building.

Change your environment.

Breathe in some fresh air and smell the atmosphere…

Trees, rain, flowers, traffic fumes – doesn’t matter – stimulate your senses with new things.

On your way out keep saying to yourself out loud (and to anyone else you see, in that daft way people say “Elvis has left the building..”):

“(your name) is leaving the building.. ”

And when you are outside and free say:

“(your name) has left the building.. “

You can extend the exercise by going to a park and jogging a little.

Or do a few star-jumps – something energetic to get your body moving and relaxing.

Or stroke a dog, or pick up some litter, or kick a kid’s football.

You can of course use other mantras or chants, depending on what you want to do and how far you want to get away from the stress causes, for example:

“(your name) is doing star-jumps/picking up litter/looking for a small non-threatening dog..” or

“(your name) is leaving/has left the industrial park/district/city/company/country..” etc, etc.

Of course this is daft, but the daftness reduces the stress by removing you from the stress in mind and body.

Doing something daft and physical – and reinforcing it with some daft chanting – opens up the world again.

stress reduction idea 3 – rehydrate

Go get a big cup or a bottle of water.

Here’s why…

Most of us fail to drink enough water – that’s water – not tea, coffee, coke, ‘sports’ drinks, Red Bull or fruit juice…

All of your organs, including your brain, are strongly dependent on water to function properly. It’s how we are built.

If you starve your body of water you will function below your best – and you will get stressed. Physically and mentally.

Offices and workplaces commonly have a very dry atmosphere due to air conditioning, etc., which increases people’s susceptibility to de-hydration.

This is why you must keep your body properly hydrated by regularly drinking water (most people need 4-8 glasses of water a day).

 

You will drink more water if you keep some on your desk at all times – it’s humaature to drink it if it’s there – so go get some now.

When you drink water you need to pee. This gives you a bit of a break and a bit of exercise now and then, which also reduces stress.

When you pee you can see if your body is properly hydrated (your pee will be clear or near clear – if it’s yellow you are not taking enough water).

This will also prompt some amusing discussion and chuckling with your colleagues (“Nature calls – I’m off to the bog again…”) which is also good for reducing stress.

You do not need to buy expensive mineral water. Tap water is fine.

If you do not like the taste of tap water it’s probably because of the chlorine (aquarium fish don’t like it either), however the chlorine dissipates quite naturally after a few hours – even through a plastic bottle – so keep some ordinary tap water in the fridge for 2-3 hours and try it then.

If you want to be really exotic add a slice of lemon or lime. Kiwi and sharon fruit are nice too…

So now you are fully watered and guffawing and exercised up to the max, read on for ideas for how to prevent stress as well as reduce and manage it.

 

stress reduction technique 4 – catnap or powernap

(Not so easy but still perfectly possible)

Take a quick nap. It is nature’s way of recharging and re-energising.

A quick 10-30 minutes’ sleep is very helpful to reduce stress.

It’s obviously essential if you are driving while tired, but a quick sleep is a powerful de-stressor too.

A lunchtime snooze is very practical for home-workers – it just requires the realisation that doing so is acceptable and beneficial (when we are conditioned unfortunately to think that sleeping during the day is lazy, rather than healthy).

 

At some stage conventional Western industry will ‘wake up’ to the realisation that many people derive enormous benefit from a midday nap. Sounds ridiculous? Tell that to the many millions in the Mediterranean countries who thrive on a mid-day siesta.

People in the Mediterranean and Central Americas take a siesta every working day, and this is almost certainly related to longer life expectancy and lower levels of heart disease.

See the more detailed evidence and reasoning in the sleep and rest section below.

If your work situation is not quite ready to tolerate the concept of a daytime nap then practise a short session of self-hypnosis, combined with deep breathing, which you can do at your desk, or even in the loo. It works wonders.

See the self-hypnosis and relaxation page.

 In the summer of course you can go to the nearest park and try it alfresco (that’s from the Italian incidentally, al fresco, meaning in the fresh air – which is another good thing for stress reduction).

stress reduction technique 5 – make a cuppa

Any tea will do, but a flavoured cup of tea is even better.

Experiment with different natural flavourings using herbs and spices and fruit.

Fresh mint is wonderful, and excellent for the digestive system. Nettles are fantastic and contaiatural relaxants. Orange zest is super (use one of those nifty little zester gadgets). Ginger root is brilliant. Many herbs, spices, fruits and edible plants make great flavoured tea, and many herbs and spices have real therapeutic properties.

Use a ‘base’ of green tea leaves – about half a spoonful per serving – plus the natural flavouring(s) of your choice, and freshly boiled water. Be bold – use lots of leaves – experiment until you find a blend that you really enjoy. Sugar or honey bring out the taste. Best without milk, but milk is fine if you prefer it.

Making the tea and preparing the ingredients take your mind off your problems, and then smelling and drinking the tea also relaxes you. There is something wonderful about natural plants and fruits which you can’t buy in a packet. Use a tea-pot or cafetiere, or if you are happy with a bit of foliage in your drink actually brew it in a big mug or heatproof tumbler.

Fresh mint and ginger tea recipe:

 

Put all this into a teapot or cafetiere and add boiling water for 2-3 cups. Allow to brew for a minute or two, stir and serve. (This is enough for 2-3 mug-sized servings):

1-1½ heaped teaspoons of green tea leaves

2-4 sprigs of fresh mint (a very generous handful of leaves with or without the stems – more than you might imagine)

3-6 zest scrapes of an orange

half a teaspoon of chopped ginger root

2-4 teaspoons of sugar or 1-2 teaspoons of honey – more or less to taste

Alter the amounts to your own taste. The recipe also works very well without the orange and ginger, which is effectively the mint tea drink that is hugely popular in Morocco and other parts of North Africa. Dried mint can be substituted for fresh mint. Experiment. The Moroccan tradition is to use small glass tumblers, and somehow seeing the fine colour of the tea adds to the experience.

stress reduction technique 6 – crying

Not much is known about the physiology of crying and tears, although many find that crying – weeping proper tears – has a powerful helpful effect on stress levels. Whatever the science behind crying, a good bout of sobbing and weeping does seem to release tension and stress for many people.

Of course how and where you choose to submit to this most basic of emotional impulses is up to you. The middle of the boardroom during an important presentation to a top client is probably not a great idea, but there are more private situations and you should feel free to try it from time to time if the urge takes you.

It is a shame that attitudes towards crying and tears prevent many people from crying, and it’s a sad reflection on our unforgiving society that some people who might benefit from a good cry feel that they shouldn’t do it ever – even in complete privacy. Unfortunately most of us – especially boys – are told as children that crying is bad or shameful or childish, which of course is utter nonsense. Arguably only the bravest cry unashamedly – the rest of us would rather suffer than appear weak, which is daft, but nevertheless real.

Whatever, shedding a few tears can be a very good thing now and then, and if you’ve yet to discover its benefits then give it a try. You might be surprised.

people most at risk from stress

In one US study as many as 40% of workers described their jobs as very stressful. While not a scientific gauge and not measuring serious stress health problems, this gives some indication as to how prevalent work-related stress is. As regards official health records, in the UK, the nursing and teaching occupations are most affected by work-related stress, with 2% of workers at any one time suffering from work-related stress, depression and anxiety. (The figure for teachers rises to 4% when including physical conditions relating to stress.) Care workers, managers and professionals are the next highest affected occupations, with over 1% suffering from serious work-related stress at any one time. UK HSE work-related stress statistics suggest that work-related stress affects men and women in equal numbers, and that people in the 45-retirement age suffer more than younger people. More socially-based USA research suggests that the following American social groups are more prone to stress (this therefore not limited to work-related stress): young adults, women, working mothers, less educated people, divorced or widowed people, the unemployed, isolated people, people without health insurance, city dwellers. Combined with the factors affecting stress susceptibility (detailed below), it’s not difficult to see that virtually no-one is immune from stress. An American poll found that 89% of respondents had experienced serious stress at some point in their lives. The threat from stress is perceived so strongly in Japan that the Japanese even have a word for sudden death due to overwork, ‘karoushi’.

work-related stress trends

Data is sparse and confused (stress statistics are also complicated by metal health reporting in the UK), but the statistics do indicate certain growth. In the UK HSE statistics indicate a doubling of reported clinical cases between 1990 and 1999. Working days lost per annum appear to have been about 6.5 million in the mid-1990’s, but rose to over 13 million by 2001. Greater awareness of the stress ailment in reporting no doubt accounts for some of this variance, but one thing’s for sure: the number of people suffering from work-related stress isn’t reducing.

costs of stress

UK HSE statistics suggest stress-related costs to UK employers in the region of £700m every year. The cost of stress to society is estimated at £7bn pa. (These figures were respectively £350m and £3.7bn in 1995/6 when total days lost were half present levels.)

stress causes

Stress is caused by various factors – not all of which are work-related of course, (which incidentally doesn’t reduce the employer’s obligation to protect against the causes of stress at work). Causes of stress – known as stressors – are in two categories: external stressors and internal stressors.

external stressors – physical conditions such as heat or cold, stressful psychological environments such as working conditions and abusive relationships, eg., bullying.

internal stressors – physical ailments such as infection or inflammation, or psychological problems such as worrying about something.

From the above, it is easy to see that work can be a source of both external and internal stressors.

Stressors are also described as either short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic):

Short-term ‘acute’ stress is the reaction to immediate threat, also known as the fight or flight response. This is when the primitive part of the brain and certain chemicals within the brain cause a reaction to potentially harmful stressors or warnings (just as if preparing the body to run away or defend itself), such as noise, over-crowding, danger, bullying or harassment, or even an imagined or recalled threatening experience. When the threat subsides the body returns to normal, which is called the ‘relaxation response’. (NB The relaxation response among people varies; ie., people recover from acute stress at different rates.)

Long-term ‘chronic’ stressors are those pressures which are ongoing and continuous, when the urge to fight or flight has been suppressed. Examples of chronic stressors include: ongoing pressurised work, ongoing relationship problems, isolation, and persistent financial worries.

The working environment can generate both acute and chronic stressors, but is more likely to be a source of chronic stressors.

stress effects on health and performance

Stress is proven beyond doubt to make people ill, and evidence is increasing as to number of ailments and diseases caused by stress. Stress is now known to contribute to heart disease; it causes hypertension and high blood pressure, and impairs the immune system. Stress is also linked to strokes, IBS (irritable bowel syndrome), ulcers, diabetes, muscle and joint pain, miscarriage during pregnancy, allergies, alopecia and even premature tooth loss.

Various US studies have demonstrated that removing stress improves specific aspects of health: stress management was shown to be capable of reducing the risk of heart attack by up to 75% in people with heart disease; stress management techniques, along with methods for coping with anger, contributed to a reduction of high blood pressure, and; for chronic tension headache sufferers it was found that stress management techniques increased the effectiveness of prescribed drugs, and after six months actually equalled the effectiveness of anti-depressants. The clear implication for these ailments is that stress makes them worse.

Stress significantly reduces brain functions such as memory, concentration, and learning, all of which are central to effective performance at work. Certain tests have shown up to 50% loss of performance in cognitive tests performed by stress sufferers. Some health effects caused by stress are reversible and the body and mind reverts to normal when the stress is relieved. Other health effects caused by stress are so serious that they are irreversible, and at worse are terminal.

Stress is said by some to be a good thing, for themselves or others, that it promotes excitement and positive feelings. If these are the effects then it’s not stress as defined here. It’s the excitement and stimulus derived (by one who wants these feelings and can handle them) from working hard in a controlled and manageable way towards an achievable and realistic aim, which for sure can be very exciting, but it ain’t stress. Stress is bad for people and organisations, it’s a threat and a health risk, and it needs to be recognised and dealt with, not dismissed as something good, or welcomed as a badge of machismo – you might as well stick pins in your eyes.

These are typical causes of stress at work:

bullying or harassment, by anyone, not necessarily a person’s manager

feeling powerless and uninvolved in determining one’s own responsibilities

continuous unreasonable performance demands

lack of effective communication and conflict resolution

lack of job security

long working hours

excessive time away from home and family

office politics and conflict among staff

a feeling that one’s reward reward is not commensurate with one’s responsibility

working hours, responsibilities and pressures disrupting life-balance (diet, exercise, sleep and rest, play, family-time, etc)

factors influencing the effects of stress and stress susceptibility

A person’s susceptibility to stress can be affected by any or all of these factors, which means that everyone has a different tolerance to stressors. And in respect of certain of these factors, stress susceptibility is not fixed, so each person’s stress tolerance level changes over time:

childhood experience (abuse can increase stress susceptibility)

personality (certain personalities are more stress-prone than others)

genetics (particularly inherited ‘relaxation response’, connected with serotonin levels, the brain’s ‘well-being chemical’)

immunity abnormality (as might cause certain diseases such as arthritis and eczema, which weaken stress resilience)

lifestyle (principally poor diet and lack of exercise)

duration and intensity of stressors (obviously…)

signs of stress – stress test

At a clinical level, stress in individuals can be be assessed scientifically by measuring the levels of two hormones produced by the adrenal glands: cortisol and DHEA (dehydroepiandrosterone), but managers do not have ready access to these methods. Managers must therefore rely on other signs. Some of these are not exclusively due to stress, nor are they certain proof of stress, but they are indicators to prompt investigation as to whether stress is present. You can use this list of ten key stress indicators as a simple initial stress test: tick the factors applicable. How did I do?

 sleep difficulties

loss of appetite

poor concentration or poor memory retention

performance dip

uncharacteristic errors or missed deadlines

anger or tantrums

violent or anti-social behaviour

emotional outbursts

alcohol or drug abuse

nervous habits

methods of personal stress management and stress relief

If you are suffering from work-related stress and it’s beginning to affect, or already affecting your health, stop to think: why are you taking this risk with your body and mind? Life’s short enough as it is; illness is all around us; why make matters worse? Commit to change before one day change is forced upon you.

If you recognise signs of stress in a staff member, especially if you are that person’s manager, don’t ignore it – do something about it. It is your duty to do so. If you do not feel capable of dealing with the situation, do not ignore it; you must refer it to someone who can deal with it. You must also look for signs of non-work-related stressors or factors that increase susceptibility to stress, because these will make a person more vulnerable to work-related stressors. These rules apply to yourself as well….

Stress relief methods are many and various. There is no single remedy that applies to every person suffering from stress, and most solutions involve a combination of remedies. Successful stress management frequently relies on reducing stress susceptibility and removing the stressors, and often factors will be both contributing to susceptibility and a direct cause. Here are some simple pointers for reducing stress susceptibility and stress itself, for yourself or to help others:

stress relief pointers

think really seriously about and talk with others, to identify the causes of the stress and take steps to remove, reduce them or remove yourself (the stressed person) from the situation that causes the stress.

Understand the type(s) of stressors affecting you (or the stressed person), and the contributors to the stress susceptibility – knowing what you’re dealing with is essential to developing the stress management approach.

improve diet – group B vitamins and magnesium are important, but potentially so are all the other vitamins and minerals: a balanced healthy diet is essential. Assess the current diet and identify where improvements should be made and commit to those improvements.

reduce toxin intake – obviously tobacco, alcohol especially – they might seem to provide temporary relief but they are working against the balance of the body and contributing to stress susceptibility, and therefore increasing stress itself.

take more exercise – generally, and at times when feeling very stressed – exercise burns up adrenaline and produces helpful chemicals and positive feelings.

stressed people must try to be detached, step back, look from the outside at the issues that cause the stress.

don’t try to control things that are uncontrollable – instead adjust response, adapt.

share worries – talk to someone else – off-load, loneliness is a big ally of stress, so sharing the burden is essential.

increase self-awareness of personal moods and feelings – anticipate and take steps to avoid stress build-up before it becomes more serious.

explore and use relaxation methods – they do work if given a chance – yoga, meditation, self-hypnosis, massage, a breath of fresh air, anything that works and can be done in the particular situation.

seek out modern computer aids – including free downloads and desktop add-ons – for averting stresses specifically caused by sitting for long uninterrupted periods at a computer screen work-station, for example related to breathing, posture, seating, eye-strain, and RSI (repetitive strain injury).

Note also that managing stress does not cure medical problems. Relieving stress can alleviate and speed recovery from certain illnesses, particularly those caused by stress, (which depending on circumstances can disappear when the stress is relieved); i.e., relieving stress is not a substitute for conventional treatments of illness, disease and injury.

Importantly, if the stress is causing serious health effects the sufferer must consult a doctor. Do not imagine that things will improve by soldiering on, or hoping that the sufferer will somehow become more resilient; things can and probably will get worse.

For less serious forms of stress, simply identify the cause(s) of stress, then to commit/agree to removing the cause(s). If appropriate this may involve removing the person from the situation that is causing the stress. Counselling may be necessary to identify the cause(s), particularly if the sufferer has any tendency to deny or ignore the stress problem.

Acceptance, cognisance and commitment on the part of the stressed person are essential. No-one can begin to manage their stress if they are still feeling acutely stressed – they’ll still be in ‘fight or flight’ mode. This is why a manager accused of causing stress though bullying or harassment must never be expected to resolve the problem. The situation must be handled by someone who will not perpetuate the stressful influence.

 

sleep and rest

Sleep and rest are essential for a healthy life-balance.

We have evolved from ancestors whose sleep patterns were governed by and attuned to nature. We are born with genes and bodies which reflect our successful evolutionary survival over tens of thousands of years. Our genes and bodies do not reflect the modern world’s less natural way of life.

Only in very recent generations have the modern heating, lighting, communications and entertainment technologies enabled (and encouraged) people to keep daft unnatural waking and working hours. Such behaviour is at odds with our genetic preferences.

Resisting and breaking with our genetically programmed sleep and rest patterns creates internal conflicts and stresses, just as if we were to eat unnatural foods, or breathe unnatural air.

Having a good night’s sleep is vital for a healthy mind and body.

Napping during the day is also healthy. It recharges and energises, relaxes, and helps to wipe the brain of pressures and unpleasant feelings.

Evidence of the relevance and reliability of this logic is found for example in the following research by Androniki Naska et al published in the Archives of Internal Medicine on 12 February 2007, and summarised here:

 

The research project is titled Siesta in Healthy Adults and Coronary Mortality in the General Population. The research team was headed by Androniki Naska PhD of the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Athens Medical School, Athens, Greece.

 The introduction of the report extract explains the approach:

 “Midday napping (siesta) is common in populations with low coronary mortality, but epidemiological studies have generated conflicting results. We have undertaken an analysis based on a sizable cohort with a high frequency of napping and information on potentially confounding variables including reported comorbidity, physical activity, and diet…”

While the study did not measure stress per se, it is reasonable to make at least a partial connection between reduced fatality due to heart disease and reduction in stress, since the two illnesses (stress and heart disease) are undeniably linked.

Information sources:

1.     Mnushko Z.N., Sofronova I.V., Pestun I.V. Management and marketing in pharmacy. P.1. Management in pharmacy: Texts of lectures. – Kh.: PH of NUPh, 2008. – 148 p.

2.  Borisoff, D., and D.A. Victor.  Conflict Management: A Communication Skills Approach.  2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998.

 3. Borisoff, D., and L. Merrill.  The Power to Communicate: Gender Differences and Barriers.  3rd ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, 1998.

4.  Daft, R.L.  Organizational Theory and Design.  St. Paul, MN: West, 1992.

5.  Miller, G.R., and M. Steinberg.  Between People: A New Analysis of Interpersonal Communication.  Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1974.

6.  Nurmi, R., and J. Darling.  International Management Leadership.  New York: International Business Press, 1997.

 7. Shelton, C.D., and J.R. Darling. “From Chaos to Order: Exploring New Frontiers in Conflict Management.”  Organization Development Journal  22, no. 3 (2004): 22–41.