Job issue
1. Overview of the conflict in the company
Conflicts can be intrapersonal (typical of the "I") or interpersonal (typical of a group of people who form an organization). There are some conditions that predispose to conflict:
1. Differentiation of activities: "different objectives and interests (including antagonistic ones) tend to provoke conflicts" (Chiavenato, 1994)
2. Shared resources: the need to distribute resources that are in themselves scarce can generate struggles of interest in the face of the need to meet goals or objectives.
3. Interdependent activities: "When groups become highly interdependent, opportunities arise for one group to help or harm the work of others" (Chiavenato, 1994).
Conflict can have various consequences:
| Positive: | Negative (can happen…): |
|
|
2. The organization as a system
Conflict is necessary for the survival of any organization. Taking into account that this is conceived as a system in which internal interactions and processes naturally occur (within that relationship between its parts), and exchanges of information and resources with the external environment. In this sense, the organization can be thought of as an open system and, consequently, the conflict would be the degree of disorder that said system presents (entropy). At the moments when disorder appears (conflict) it tends to correct it and this correction of entropy leads to the establishment of a higher order and afterwards the organization (the system) perpetuates itself adapting to the conditions posed by the environment and their own internal dynamics.
In this writing the conflict within the work organization will be discussed. Firstly, it is worth clarifying the term organization that in the rest of this document will be used interchangeably to name any commercial company: «an organization exists when two or more people join together and coordinate their activities in order to achieve a series of objectives commons ”(Bryans and Cronin, 1983). There are various theories of the organization that seek to understand, explain and predict the behavior of the human being within an organization; These include: 1. The classical theory of organizations; 2. The school of human relations and 3. The General Theory of Systems (open). Within this last paradigm is the initial justification presented in this writing.
3. The conflict in the organization (labor conflict)
Conflict is understood as a situation in which two or more parties disagree with each other. Disagreement can be multicausal and within an organization, said conflict generates two basic consequences: inefficiency and ineffectiveness. Inefficiency can range from minimal interference in the company's operations, to the appearance of serious dysfunctions that threaten the effectiveness of the organization (hindering the achievement of the organization's own objectives through the internal processes that are own).
Regarding the dimensions of the labor conflict, there is a certain confusion regarding the causes and the manifestations, and in certain cases these tend to be confused. In any case, within this work said difficulty will be avoided and each type of conflict will be exposed according to its particular context and the implications of the interactions of the parties involved in the confrontation.
Broadly speaking, some of the main conflicts within the organization are:
1. Conflicts between Headquarters and its Subsidiaries.
2. Conflicts between department heads.
3. Conflicts between the boss and his subordinates (and vice versa).
4. Conflicts between people from the same department.
5. Conflict between the organization's objectives and the individual objectives of its members.
6. Conflict between the individual and his work.
Below is a brief review of these.
Conflicts Between Headquarters And Its Subsidiaries
This conflict has to do with the interactions that take place between a "parent" (or central) company and its subsidiary companies. The criterion of 'subsidiary company', although limited to financial issues related to the ownership of one company over another, will not be taken into account in its full meaning and for the sake of further discussion the term could be extended to satellite companies to a larger company, and that are dedicated either to the provision of general or specialized services, or to the set-up of products, their handling and distribution. This is a characteristic common to today's businesses in which a central company blurs its production or parts of its processes within a group of outside companies (strategy known as "outsourcing").Such companies may be owned by the central company or separate entities with which close functional links are established.
This is a growing characteristic in contemporary multinationals that "water" their processes throughout the world in order to guarantee optimal use of their financial and operational resources, as the case may be. The most recurrent manifestations of conflict in this style of inter-organizational relationship have to do with the fact that sometimes the headquarters and the subsidiaries confront each other with people who do not know each other, who share very different expectations and objectives or who work at particularly own rhythms, generating tense contacts and postures that tend towards rigidity.
It should be noted that the difficulties not only have to do with people, but also with the structural policies of the central company and the policies of the subsidiary companies. Such policies, naturally, are conceived as guidelines for action and consequently guide the conduct of the employees involved.
The traditional differences have to do with the dissatisfaction of the needs of the headquarters and some signs of incapacity of the subsidiaries. The same is done by the impositions made by the parent company and the reluctance of the subsidiaries to allow external interference when there has previously been a clear line of work (and which probably generates adequate conditions of productivity and well-being).
The solution to this type of conflict goes through various factors. On the one hand, the role played by central company policies is crucial, and more than the laws that are imposed, what really counts is their elasticity. Additionally, the need for a "preventive selectivity" of the subsidiaries (as the case may be) that guarantees that in the future the relationships with them will be harmonious, dynamic and in accordance with the expectations of the parent company becomes important. On the ground, the presence of conflicts such as these generates other types of situations that require a concerted approach, although the description of such solution strategies is beyond the objectives of this work.
Conflicts Between Heads Of Department
In a context in which "individuals endowed with similar responsibilities and powers, but assigned to different departments, have to live and organize together" (Chalvin and Eyssette, 1992), the conflict between department heads may appear. The presence of a common objective for the organization can give a unitary vision, at least for those who hold positions of authority; however, an organization consists of functions and departments created around specialization requirements, and each can develop a different vision of its objectives and its position within the overall framework of the organization. Such intentions may be confined to internal and external spheres of the organization.Increasing specialization may lead some departments to grow and strengthen in such a way that they tend to interfere with the objectives of others and, consequently, lead to the emergence of tensions between the heads of the different departments who see their autonomy threatened by the influence they may have. have the head of another unit.
Conflicts between department heads are often due to both mutual ignorance and ignorance of the role to be played. Other dependencies may generate reluctance to operate in parallel with others within the organization, if their function is subordinate to what another division does. Such a case could be that of a production department that works subject to the dictates of the marketing department regarding product quality, manufacturing time and set-up, according to customer requirements. It is feasible for the head of the production department to express that he feels tied to the guidelines imposed by the marketing manager and in this sense some kind of discord arises.Current "customer-oriented company" approaches aim to break this paradigm and engage all employees with a shared sales philosophy focused on full customer satisfaction, regardless of the department to which they belong.
Another style of conflict that may occur between department heads has to do with competition for similar functions. An example may be the case of the personnel department that tries to control all the policies for the selection of new employees and the financial department, for example, be guided by profiles and criteria that are not shared by the other agency. In this sense, it is likely that the department financial pretends to be autonomous and collides with the structure of the organization.
In cases where conflicts arise between department heads, the presence of a higher instance than the parties involved is suggested, who has a clear vision of the goals and procedures of the organization and who eventually enters into mediation between the parties. looking for a balance point.
Conflicts Between The Chief And His Subordinates (And Vice Versa)
This type of conflict within the organization has to do, mainly, with issues such as remuneration, productivity and general working conditions. However, these discrepancies can also arise when subordinates want to participate in decision-making processes that may directly affect them.
Subordinate-boss conflicts affect the former when they have tense relationships with the latter. Apparently, subordinate-boss communication may seem fluid, but frequent tension causes small conflicts, the repetition of which generates demotivation and acrimony. "It is a type of conflict in which the victim attitude prevails, since the subordinate feels victimized by the boss" (Chalvin and Eyssette, 1992).
Conflicts of command lie in a poor appreciation of limits that must not be broken: area of competence, limit of one's own power (field of control), limit of one's strengths and weaknesses. "Command relationships are certainly those that cause the most tension in those responsible, when they have to carry out daily tests of their authority and tenacity at the risk of causing conflicts. (…) The boss who wants to have the best conflict reduction system must be an always present person, always available, must know how to listen and must be willing to train (and inform) his subordinates permanently. » (Chalvin and Eyssette, 1992).
On the other hand, conflicts between subordinates and their boss cause tension, waste of time and consequent ineffectiveness. A simple way to counteract this type of conflict is that: a) The subordinates openly express their fears (and that they do so because they find a favorable environment for it), misunderstandings, ideals and manifestations of their own abilities; b) Create an environment tolerant to error, a reliable environment that prevents subordinates from feeling intimidated when it comes to acting.
Conflicts Between People From the Same Department
The definition of this type of conflict is clear: "inside a group, a service or a department, colleagues at the same hierarchical level suffer or provoke internal struggles that have repercussions in one way or another on the person in charge of the group" (Chalvin and Eyssette, 1992) and on the dynamics of the group itself.
The solution of this type of conflict goes through the aforementioned: allowing people to express themselves as freely as possible and within the proper limits of respect. Either through the legal mechanisms in force within the labor legislation of each nation (which is discussed in another section of this work for the Colombian case) or within specific guidelines of the company, these spaces of expression are the basis of any agreement. Based on the fact that in most conflicts of this nature the subjects involved know what type of elements are implicit,It pays to "wash the dirty laundry at home" and settle the differences on the best terms before having to resort to external instances that are likely to undermine the natural harmony that should characterize the group.
Conflict between the organization's objectives and the individual objectives of its members
“The objectives of the corporation relate to the organization as a total entity (as a system); This does not mean that each of its members agrees with these objectives. Each individual has their own goals and not all are related to the organization, although it may serve as a means of achieving at least some of them. Differences in the identification of objectives and their fulfillment raise the possibility of conflict ”(Bryans and Cronin, 1983).
Currently, given the difficult working conditions, there is a tendency to work in various work activities that guarantee adequate economic income. "When the objectives of these (different) organizations conflict, the possibility of conflict may increase" (Bryans and Cronin, 1983).
The attitudes, commitment and personality of the members of an organization can eventually be related to the position they occupy within the hierarchy of the company. It often happens that those who are on the lower scale have difficulty identifying with the objectives proposed by senior management. "People, since they occupy different levels within the organization, may perceive differently what is convenient and their perception by notions about the position and reality of the life of the organization" (Bryans and Cronin, 1983). Often, these types of people who react against company policies tend to see the organization as a useful means, mainly economic, that makes it possible to achieve goals related to private life (outside the organization)..
The conflict, in this case, tends to be typified through the multiple visions that are interwoven. Management may view these "reactive" individuals as antithetical to the desired "male (or female) model of organization," as opposed to the positions of the employee (s).
This variety of conflict is closely related to the labor-management struggles in which union unions are involved, negotiating lists of requests and resorting to collective agreements to conquer what are "their demands". On many occasions these struggles can be judged as fair because they tend to achieve better salary conditions, improvements in social security, job stability, occupational health and better living conditions for the employee and his family. In other circumstances, the union fight represents a serious threat to the stability of the companies against the intransigence of the unions that exceed their demands at the expense of the real economic capacity of the company.A weak administration will probably give in to pressure from the union (in some cases fueled by the strike or deliberate paralysis), but in the medium or long term this will affect the financial capacity of the company and eventually force the use of layoffs, withdrawal of premiums or suppression of plants to stay afloat. Currently this is a common case in many large companies in Colombia and the world.
The measures to counteract this variety of conflict are basically proposed in solutions of a preventive nature, that is, from the moment of personnel selection. Management establishes a line of professional profiles appropriate to their needs and designs a candidate search process that optimizes the identification of such traits within candidates for a vacancy. But this is not only limited to the professional sphere, there are even companies that explore the employment history of employees to take into account antecedents related to the functionality of this within the gear of the organizations to which they have belonged. Although in light of many legislations (Political Constitution, Labor Code, ILO Regulations, etc.) it is illegal to deny a job for exercising or having exercised the union struggle,Some companies, when they find a suitable candidate for the position, immediately eliminate them if they find a history of belonging to a labor struggle group (union or union of workers).
Conflict Between The Individual And His Work
This type of conflict can arise due to economic pressures to perform on the job as a place (out of necessity) and be socially productive. "The result may be work that offers very few opportunities for creativity and sense of accomplishment, and lead to suffering, frustration, and alienation because the needs of the organization's social system are incompatible with those of the technical system" (Bryans and Cronin, 1983).
The role conflict (individual-work) can take several forms. There is a case in which the demands of work exceed the capabilities of the individual; This person will likely become insecure, frustrated, incapable, and tend to withdraw physically and psychologically. The opposite case is also common and consists in that the person's capabilities exceed the demands of the work he performs; This can lead to the individual being apathetic, frustrated and bored, with the consequences that this may eventually bring to the organization.
Another situation is ambiguity, that is, when the individual is not fully sure of the nature and demands of his work, or when there is a conflict of demands (responsibility against multiple requirements); This can lead to experiencing a high degree of uncertainty and anxiety, which in turn can trigger other conflicts (eg, with the boss or colleagues).
4 . Bibliographic reference
Braians, P and Cronin, TP Organization Theory. Santafé de Bogotá: Ed. Norma SA, 1985. Cap. 9
Chiavenato, Idalberto. Human resources management. Santafé de Bogotá: McGraw Hill, 1998. P. 397–405.
Chalvin, Dominique and Eyssette, François. How to Resolve Small Conflicts at Work. Barcelona: Ed. Deusto, 1992. 178 p.
Summary:
The following work presents an outline of the main conflicts that arise in contemporary organizations. It is based on a systemic perspective that conceives the organization as a 'whole' in which its parts are interrelated and in which the presence of conflicts, rather than a difficulty, is an opportunity to evolve towards a more complex and new order. dynamic.
Download the original file
