Within the corporate world, the word has been "spread" for more than a generation that conflict is in any case inevitable.
Different field studies have shown that managers and executives spend around 20% of their time dealing with a conflictive situation (RA Baron: Personality and organizational conflict: Type A behavior-pattern and self-monitoring ”; Organizational behavior and human decision processes - 1989; KW Thomas & WH Schmidt: “A survey of managerial interests with respect to conflict”; Academy of Management Journal - 1976) and from there the importance of conflict and its consequent impact on organizational performance can be deduced.
The German sociologist Georg Simmel (“Conflict” - 1908) makes us see that peace does not follow conflict in the same way that conflict follows peace and that the end of a conflict is in itself an undertaking in itself. The conflict "It belongs neither to war nor to peace, just as a bridge is different it is different from the two ends of land that the bridge connects".
George Sarton (born in Belgium) points out that one of the worst conflicts of our time lies in the difference of opinion and perspective between humanists (writers, historians, philosophers) and scientists and that the difference between them is increased in the time as a result of intolerance between both groups and also due to the fact that science is growing by leaps and bounds ("The history of science and the history of civilization" - 1930).
The great conflict between our biological self and the one that is purely human actually has to do with the confrontation between the biological and the ethical. The concept of anxiety is rather biological and is related to something external such as an object or a situation, while the fault would be an "internal anxiety" where one is fearful of oneself ("Otto Rank:" Beyond psychoanalysis "- 1929).
The American historian Arthur M. Schlesinger ("The vital center" - 1949) makes an important point regarding "conflict". He points out that what most of us experience is not a choice between progress with conflict or progress without conflict, but rather a choice between conflict and stagnation. Within a similar position we find the sociologist of the United States of America, Charles H.
Cooley who mentions that conflict and cooperation are not separate things, but rather different phases of a process that always includes both ("Social Process" - 1918) and Lewis A. Coser ("The functions of social conflict" - 1956) shows how conflict is necessary within communities, organizations and groups as it is itself a mechanism for resolving tension between antagonistic parties, which positions the conflict as a powerful stabilizing force.
Many works by different authors and specialists in organizations were aimed at eliminating or otherwise reducing the impact of conflicts.
The specification of roles, the development of a hierarchical organizational arrangement with unity of command and a strong specialization, supported by high formalization, with clear anticipation mechanisms and strict controls, were aimed at eliminating as much as possible the conflict situations within the organizations and companies. This approach began to change in the most developed economies and the conflict began to be considered as something natural and that should not be avoided.
And today conflict is considered as one of the basic processes that must be managed within organizations (Kenneth W. Thomas: “Conflict and Negotiation Processes in Organizations”; in Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology ”, Consulting Psychologists Press - 1992). This same author defines conflict as a process that begins when one of the parties perceives that the other is negatively affecting them with respect to something that really interests them or is about to be negatively affected.
Readers interested in other definitions of conflict can refer to different sources that have produced very good summaries of different definitions (Lewicki, Weiss & Lewin: "Models of conflict, negotiation and third party intervention: A review and synthesis"; Ohio State University - 1988; CF Fink: "Some conceptual difficulties in the theory of social conflict"; Journal of Conflict Resolution - - 1968; RW Mack & RC Snyder: "The analysis of social conflict: Toward an overview and synthesis"; Journal of Conflict Resolution - 1957; LR Pondy: "Organizational Conflict: Concepts and Models", ASQ - 1967).
If we want to understand what the Conflict is, it is useful to keep in mind that it is a process where a series of events that have a particular sequence is manifested, where the events are manifested as conflictive episodes between different parties.
The set of events includes past experiences, their current behaviors and visions regarding the future. Thomas (already quoted) suggests that there are structural conditions that are given by certain structural parameters of the system and the situation that is confronted.
As a result of these structural conditions, conflict episodes have consequences that translate into different “products / results of the conflict” that impact on the achievements and maintenance of the social system. These products / outcomes of the conflict are still handled by the various parties involved and “third parties” may also be involved.
These third parties play a very important role and although they are not always visible, they are present in every way. In a conflict between a manager and a subordinate, however, the superior of the manager and also some pairs of subordinates are also present.
They also operate somewhat openly, such as when conflict is handled through a committee or working meetings with multiple people. The two main forms of third party intervention are "process interventions" and "structural interventions". In process interventions, the third party involved participates (Thomas, already mentioned) in the sequence of events of the process, as in the case of mediating or arbitration activities that are mainly oriented towards the short-term objective.
On the other hand, structural interventions focus on what is beyond the specific episode that is being experienced within the social system and the interventions are mainly oriented to alter the conditions that have created the conflict or to modify the ways in which the parties have to dealing with conflict, therefore being more long-term.
Most of the time, conflict situations exist because the parties seek a situation where they win and others lose, or else another option called zero sum. In the latter, the parties perceive the possibility of the counterparty receiving benefits, but in any case, the latter are achieved at the expense of the other.
Apparently the way in which the different parties define the issue in conflict has a lot to do with its resolution, Thomas (already quoted) coming to identify three important dimensions that are related to the definition of the issue. The first dimension has been termed as egocentrism characterized by the fact that conflict is defined in terms of what interests a particular person.
Some examples of Thomas have to do with a "conflict of objectives" as is the case of a situation where it is stated that "We need another man for maintenance but the Maintenance supervisor does not give us any" or with a "regulatory conflict": "Juan should cooperate, but refuses to help." The author also cites a "conflict of judgment" as is the case where: "We think that sales could increase dramatically with this new marketing plan, but he does not have to agree." As the parties focus on what is particularly in their interest we encounter “us or them” situations.
Self-centered positions, in addition to taking into account their own interests, also minimize the desire that the other may have in terms of satisfying their interests, placing the thought of the "other" in what the author calls "questionable from the normative point of view " Under these types of definitions where egocentric perceptions are present, it is very likely that the situation is heading towards "win-lose."
Kenneth Thomas identifies a second dimension that has to do with the underlying aspects that occur in any negotiation process where the parties can think rather superficially in terms of “positions” compared to a more detailed and analytical assessment where they think about. terms of "interests". Several authors have privileged this dimension within negotiation processes and in conflict situations (R. Fisher & W. Ury: “Getting to YES: Negotiating agreement without giving in”; Houghton Mifflin - 1981; D. Lax & J Sebenius: "The manager as negotiator"; Free Press - 1986; DG Pruitt & JZ Rubin: "Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement"; Random House - 1986).Eric Gaynor Butterfield ("Organizational Development and Conflict Workshop" - 2004) points out as an example of a positional definition that where the sales force opposes loading information related to the Clients within a CRM verbalizing: "The Sales manager wants now, in addition to all the work I have, it is loaded into My Client data software ”.
A greater and more detailed analysis suggests that they think differently, focusing on interests: “For us as sellers, it means learning and adopting a new way of knowing and relating them with Customers, which will take us longer, but apparently our Sales manager needs us to load it because if our company does not have a CRM system we will be at a disadvantage with our competition ”.
Thomas mentions that various theorists and researchers (JW Eiseman: "Reconciling incompatible positions"; Journal of Applied Behavioral Science - 1978; AC Filley: "Interpersonal conflict resolution"; Scott, Foresman - 1975; R. Fisher & W. Ury: "Getting to YES: Negotiating agreement without living in"; Houghton Mifflin - 1981; MP Booklet: "Constructive conflict"; Harper & Row - 1941; DG Pruitt & JZ Rubin: "Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement"; Random House - 1986; RE Walton: "Interpersonal peacemaking: Confrontations and third party consultation"; Addison-Wesley - 1969) have identified that the fact that the parties to the conflict show appreciation for the underlying aspects beyond the positions they adopt,It helps the process to be approached in a cooperative way of solving problems.
We can conclude then that the fact that the parties come to appreciate the underlying aspects of the negotiation processes using a more detailed analysis where the inductive approach is privileged over the deductive one (Eric Gaynor Butterfield - 2005) facilitates the conflict orient toward a resolution of sorts where win-win is possible.
There is a third dimension that Thomas considers is also of importance in the definition of the topic and that is related to the “size of the topic” which has been redefined by Eric Gaynor Butterfield (2005) as “scope of the topic”.
Achieve integrative results (win-win) when the definition of the topic reaches many more people, groups, individuals and communities; a very large number of events, instances and circumstances, when the debates are related rather on an abstract level, where the time ranges between the past that is taken into account and the future that is visualized is greater, it is not an easy thing to achieve. The risks in these situations and everything at stake makes it difficult to achieve integrative solutions.
MM Magula (“Toward a theory of conflict: Perceptions and preferred behaviors”; University of Washington - 1977) did an interesting job in her doctoral dissertation daring to analyze these dimensions by Kenneth Thomas. Magula's findings have shown that "egocentrism" is related to "win-lose" situations while those who have privileged interests over position have oriented themselves towards the search for cooperative actions in the conflict that facilitate "winning -win".
There are conflict resolution models that have had a strong influence from economists who assume and take as a basic hypothesis a rational model of behavior, which consequently omits main aspects.
We could say - following Thomas (already quoted) - that these economic models have a “sociopathic” flavor since they have a clear perception of what reality is with the exception of social and moral obligations. Taking into account the hedonistic aspect and being motivated by personal interest, they are only interested in their own actions, and do not take into account the morality of the act itself.
Thomas's work finds its support in the contributions of M. Fishbein (“An investigation of the relationship between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object”; Human Relations - 1963) who visualizes behaviors as a result of intentions where these they take shape as a consequence of the cumulative effects of two different ways of reasoning: the "rational" and the "normative" that includes emotions.
It is known that rational reasoning is within the conception that unites the means with the ends that has been privileged within the schools and economic thoughts.
Within the behavioral sciences, and especially within the discipline of organizational behavior, many experts belong to this same school of rational thought. We can include Herbert Simon (“Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization”; Macmillan - 1957 // “The new science of management decision”; Harper & Row - 1960); James March & Herbert Simon (“Organizations”; Wiley and Sons - 1958); Edward Lawler III (“Motivation in Work Organizations”; Brooks / Cole - 1973); Victor Vroom ("Work and Motivation"; Wiley & Sons - 1964); Robert J. House ("A path goal theory of leader effectiveness"; ASQ - 1971).
Kenneth Thomas in "Conflict and Negotiating Processes"; Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology - 1992, makes a very good description of the “rational reasoning” that we reproduce literally and in English: “Using rational / instrumental explanations, a party's choice of a given settlement (outcome) as a strategic intention is presumed to be a function of the desirability (valence) of that settlement, together with the likelihood (expectancy) that the strategy could be successfully implemented if one tried.
Within the negotiations literature, Pruitt (1983; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986) provides an especially detailed discussion of the role of outcome valences in the choice of strategic intentions. Paraphrasing Pruitt, a party's valence for a given settlement appears to be a function of the degree to which the settlement meets the party`s own aspirations and his or her perceptions of the degree to which it meets the other`s aspirations, together with the party`s desire to satisfy his or her own and the other`s concerns ”. The level of aspiration and degree of satisfaction of it are clear indicators under the option of "rational reasoning".
We know that there is some evidence that cooperative actions oriented towards "win-win" are more likely to be selected when both parties place a high value on both satisfying what is important to them and the other party, while competitive situations of “Win-lose” are commonly presented when the parties place a high value on their own satisfactions and a low value on the satisfactions of others. Loss-lose strategies are present when the parties place a low value on satisfying both their own interests and those of the other.
Within this rational conception, those conceptions can be located where a party can visualize that their strategy can be effectively put into practice, that is, there are some tactics, processes and procedures that must be of help in conflict resolution.
On the other hand, "normative reasoning" is not concerned with how desirable are the consequences resulting from a course of action (rational reasoning) but with the degree of normative acceptability, that is, how "good" is the act itself from the moral and ethical point of view. In an effort to summarize we can conclude that rational reasoning privileges price while normative reasoning privileges value. M. Fishbein & I. Ajzen: "Belief, attitude, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research"; Addison-Wesley - 1975) have made important contributions to the type of "normative reasoning".
Kenneth Thomas (already cited) refers to different specializations by author within this field of "normative reasoning", citing Deutsch (1975) in the area of distributive agreements in justice.
To other authors (R. Folger & J. Greenberg: "Procedural Justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel systems"; Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management - 1985; J. Thibaut & L. Walter: "Procedural Justice: A psychological analysis"; Erlbaum - 1975; TR Tyler: “When does procedural justice matter in organizational settings?”; Research on Negotiation in Organizations - 1986) in relation to managerial conflict procedures; RJ Lewicki ("Ethical concerns in conflict management"; Conflict Management and Industrial Relations - 1982) in relation to ethical standards; a KW Thomas & RH Kilmann: The social desirability variable in organizational research: An alternative explanation for reported findings ”; Academy of Management Journal - 1975) in relation to conflicting strategic intentions.
Taking into account these significant contributions, we can perhaps conclude that there are some basic aspects that every person responsible for a situation in conflict subject to negotiation must take into account. First, an appreciation of the subject in conflict must be carried out together with a definition of it oriented towards possible / probable agreements.
And in addition, aspects related to rational reasoning that take into consideration the possible consequences derived from different courses of action must be considered, which must be accompanied by normative reasoning that considers the degree of acceptance of the different courses of action from the point of view moral, ethical and of value.
Within each episode, the author (Thomas, already quoted) based on the contributions of two other experts (LR Pondy: "Organizational conflict: Concepts and models"; ASQ - 1967 and RE Walton: "Interpersonal peacemaking: Confrontations and third party consultation"); Addison-Wesley - 1969) highlights that there are different facets, namely: Self-awareness. There is always an event that triggers this taking of self-knowledge, which has to do with three main forms of conflict: the one related to the conflict of objectives; conflicts that have to do with judgments (and are related to empirical or factual differences); and normative conflicts (that have to do with the evaluation that a person makes regarding his expectations of how the other person should act.
The thoughts and emotions of the different parts define the subjective interpretation of reality and are important since they can modify the relationships between what we know as objective conditions and the reactions in the behaviors of the parts.
In a negotiation process, the satisfaction of one of the parties may be perceived as less compared to what the other receives. The possible agreements are the eventual final actions by which the people are predisposed to reach a closing of the conflict.
Defining which is the main topic on which the two parties are discussing is a topic of major relevance as it helps to decide what is the topic of the conflict.
It is also important to recognize which are the different possible types of “products / outcomes” that can end conflict. BH Sheppard, RJ Lewicki & J. Minton (“A new view of organizations: Some retrospective comments” - 1986) give the name of “framing” to the fact of defining the subject. If we consider two variables where one of them is the degree of satisfaction on the part and the second has to do with the degree of satisfaction on the other, four possible situations can occur:
- win-lose lose-win lose-lose win-win plus a fifth called “commitment”.
The agreement reached under the name of win-win has been named by Follett (“Constructive conflict”; Harper & Row - 1941) as “integrative” and more recently AC Filley (“Interpersonal conflict resolution”; Scott, Foresman - 1975) calls it win-win.
Thomas (already quoted) shows different patterns regarding possible agreements. One of them is the one called "win-. Lose" (R. Blake, HA Shepard & JS Mouton: "Managing intergroup conflict in industry" - Gulf - 1964) where the possible results are those of total satisfaction and total frustration for the different parties, and the satisfaction of each of the parties is achieved at the expense (or cost) of the other.
Another possible pattern is the one that has received the name of "zero sum" where the possibilities do not have to do with two distant points but with a dimension (that unites the points), this being one of the differences with the previous pattern. In any case, under this option, the benefits in satisfaction for one of the parties continues to be at the expense of the other, but in any case it allows a whole range of compromise-based intermediate agreements where both parties can achieve certain satisfaction. Walton & McKersie (“A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system”; McGraw-Hill -1965) have called this zero-sum option under the name of “distributive”.The decisions here have more to do with issues related to the amount of time that must be dedicated to the development of a product instead of deciding whether or not to go ahead with the project.
Thomas (already quoted) points out to us the existence of a fourth pattern of possible agreements that he calls "indeterminate" that occurs when the parties are not yet aware of some possible agreements such as when the dispute between options may have to do with choosing between " provide a service quickly ”as opposed to“ an efficient use of our equipment and machinery ”.
It is also possible the existence of a fourth pattern that Thomas (already mentioned) calls under the name of “conflicts not possible to resolve” that are frustrating for both parties and which is characterized by the fact that these parties do not find possibilities of reach a type of integrative agreement as indicated by several authors and researchers (AC Filley: "Interpersonal conflict resolution"; Scott & Foresman - 1975; R. Fisher & W. Ury: "Getting to YES: Negotiating agreement without living in"; Houghton Mifflin - 1981; MH Bazerman: "Judgment in managerial decision making"; Wiley & Sons - 1986).
Emotions, affects and feelings are possibly one of the sets of variables that are most present in the behavioral sciences within the areas of Organizational Development and Organizational Behavior.
This set of emotions has to do with conflicts through all the stages of the negotiation and conflict resolution process (Eric Gaynor Butterfield - already quoted), that is, before, during and after the agreement has been reached.
Possibly no one has integrated as much material on the subject of emotions in recent years as Daniel Goleman ("The Emotional Intelligence"; Bantam Books - 1995). Much of Daniel Goleman's work within the corporate world has been based on the contributions of previous experts, within the area of behavioral sciences. Some of them are: Carl Frost ("The Scanlon Plan"; MSU - 1972); Chester I.
Barnard ("The functions of the executive"; Harvard University Press - 1938); David A. Mc Clelland ("Toward a theory of motive acquisition"; American Psychologist - 1965); Edward E. Lawler III (Pay and Organization Development ”; Addison-Wesley - 1981); Elton Mayo (“The social problems of an industrial civilization”; Routledge & Kegan - 1949); Frederick Herzberg (Managerial choice: to be efficient and to be human ”; Dow Jones - Irwin - 1976); Mary Parker Follett (Creative Experience ”; Longmans - 1924); Rensis Likert ("New Patterns of Management"; Mc Graw Hill - 1961); R. Kumar ("Affect, cognition and decision making in negotiation: A conceptual integration"; Managing Conflict: An integrative approach, Praeger - 1989).
R. Kumar (already quoted) points out that, on the one hand, emotions shape the cognitive, finding that negative emotions (once they emerge) are fed back with the rational, resulting in the creation of “simplified states” (such as where positions are preferred over interests). Furthermore, these simplified states usually reduce the level of trust between the parties and predispose the behavior of others in a negative way.
On the other hand, Kenneth Thomas (already quoted) mentions the work of PJ Carnevale and A. Isen ("The influence of positive affect and visual access on the discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation"; Organizational behavior and human decision processes "- 1986) who have found evidence that positive emotions and affections increases the possibility for the parties to interact and relate better in terms of analyzing the problems to be solved, and also helps to have a broader perspective of the situation in addition to developing new innovative solutions.
Emotions in addition to shaping the cognitive also impact motivational forces. Kenneth Thomas (already quoted) highlights that orientations of "rage" can negatively influence motivational forces and for this he cites the work of RA Baron ("Human Aggression"; Plenum - 1977), R. Kumar (already quoted - 1989), DG Pruitt & JZ Rubin (already quoted - 1986). While on the other hand positive emotions tend to increase the possibility that the parties help each other and are generous (PJ Carnevale & A. Isen, already quoted - 1986). It is interesting to note - especially for those practitioners engaged in conflict and negotiation situations as part of their professional services and who do so in a continuous and systematic way, that “humor” tends to reduce feelings of aggression,(Thomas) citing various authors (Carnevale, Isen, Pruitt, Ben-Yoav, Nochajski & Van Slyck.
The intentions
According to Kenneth Thomas' scheme, Intentions are the fourth phase of a conflictive episode, and they are the combination of motivational forces produced by rational thinking, normative thinking, and emotions. The author defines an "Intent" as a decision taken with the purpose of initiating an action in a certain way that operates as an intervening variable between the parties' thoughts and emotions and their manifest behavior.
For Kenneth Thomas, Intentions are Purposes that serve to explain patterns of certain observable behaviors and he cites the following components as examples of Intentions:
- cooperation collaboration haggling, self-defense or self-protection competence
It must be made clear that there is a very important distinction between Intentions and Behaviors; We all have many examples both inside and outside the organizational world where there is evidence that not every intention has an equivalent behavior. Furthermore, one of the parties may endeavor to infer the other's Intentions in order to know how to respond to the other's behavior, so that the evaluations and judgments we make regarding the other's Intentions strongly influence the conflictive episodes.
It is also important to make distinctions between "strategic" and "tactical" intentions (Thomas, cited above). We all remember the great confusion that existed for many years regarding which was the most effective type of Leadership that was based on an analysis (carried out by researchers and academics) that took into account the one-dimensional aspect.
It was discussed if the effective leaders had an authoritarian orientation or if, on the contrary, they were more participatory. Fortunately, Ohio State University scholars on this topic adopted a two-dimensional approach rather than the traditional one-dimensional perspective. Later, the excellent work of Robert Blake and Jane Mouton (“The managerial gris”; Gulf - 1964) extended the previous findings also adopting the two-dimensional approach.
Kenneth Thomas envisions the existence of three distinct sets of two-dimensional models of Strategic Intent. The first Taxonomic model is his (KE Thomas: “Conflict”; Organizational Behavior, Grid Publications - 1979) that has two main dimensions: Cooperation (trying to take into account the interests of the other) and Assertiveness (trying to take into account the own interests). This taxonomic model is subject to the following Interpretations:
- Intentions Collaborating Avoiding Accommodating Taking “average” positions (compromising)
The Strategic Intent is called "Competing" and the Interpretation of the Strategic Intent is the same "Intent".
The second two-dimensional model of Strategic Intent includes the conceptions of three different authors and is based on the characteristics of people (traits):
R. Blake & J. Mouton (“The Managerial grid”; Gulf - 1964) where the two main dimensions are: taking people into account or taking production into account. The Strategic Intentions are: forcing, confronting, withdrawing or backing down, softening, or taking “middle” positions (compromising). On the other hand, the Interpretation of the Strategic Intent has to do with the management style approaches J. Hall (“Conflict management survey: A survey of one´s characteristic reaction to and handling of conflicts between himself and others”; Teleometrics - 1969) It has two main dimensions: taking into account relationships and taking into account personal goals. The strategic intentions are: Win-lose; synergistic, give way to others - lose, lose - abandon the situation,and taking “average” positions (compromising). The interpretation of the Strategic Intentions has to do with styles and philosophies of direction / management MA Rahim & TV Bonoma (“Managing organizational conflict: A model for diagnosis and intervention”; Psychological Reports - 1979) contemplate the existence of two main dimensions: having with others in mind and with oneself in mind. The strategic intentions are: dominant, integrating, avoiding, forcing and taking “average” positions (compromising). The interpretation of the Strategic Intentions has to do with managerial and directive styles including also the different motivational orientations.V. Bonoma (“Managing organizational conflict: A model for diagnosis and intervention”; Psychological Reports - 1979) contemplate the existence of two main dimensions: considering others and considering oneself. The strategic intentions are: dominant, integrating, avoiding, forcing and taking “average” positions (compromising). The interpretation of the Strategic Intentions has to do with managerial and directive styles including also the different motivational orientations.V. Bonoma (“Managing organizational conflict: A model for diagnosis and intervention”; Psychological Reports - 1979) contemplate the existence of two main dimensions: considering others and considering oneself. The strategic intentions are: dominant, integrating, avoiding, forcing and taking “average” positions (compromising). The interpretation of the Strategic Intentions has to do with managerial and directive styles including also the different motivational orientations.forcing and taking “average” positions (compromising). The interpretation of the Strategic Intentions has to do with managerial and directive styles including also the different motivational orientations.forcing and taking “average” positions (compromising). The interpretation of the Strategic Intentions has to do with managerial and directive styles including also the different motivational orientations.
The second two-dimensional model of Strategic Intention includes the conceptions of two different authors and is based on the characteristics of the situation:
Kenneth Thomas (already quoted - 1976) where the two main dimensions are: the desire to satisfy what counts for the other and the desire to satisfy what counts for oneself. As we see, desires play a main role in the Thomas model. The strategic intentions are: competitiveness, collaboration, avoiding, accommodating, sharing. The interpretation of the Strategic Intent has to do with the "specific relationship".
DG Pruitt ("Strategic choice in negotiation"; American Behavioral Scientist - 1983) has two main dimensions: taking into account the "outcomes" of others and taking into account the "outcomes" of oneself. Strategic intentions have to do with these aspects: contention, problem solving, inaction, "giving way".
James March and Herbert Simon (“Organizations”, Wiley & Sons - 1958) adopt a particular position when privileging the cognitive approach. For them, conflict is related to a breakdown of the standard mechanisms that individuals, groups and organizations have when having to select an alternative action. In terms of Alvar Elbing (already mentioned), an unbalanced situation arises.
March and Simon (already cited) analyze conflicts under three types of situations in particular:
- the conflict of an individual when making decisions, the organizational conflict that is related to the conflict of a person or a group within an organization; and the inter-organizational conflict that deals with conflicts between organizations or between groups, highlighting that the main focus of interest they have is that of organizational conflict.
In their ambitious work, the authors emphasize that they are interested in finding answers to three questions:
Under what conditions does the conflict emerge?
What are the reactions of individuals, groups and organizations when confronting the conflict?
What are the outcomes of a conflict?
For the authors, there are easy decisions that arise when, among all the alternatives, one is clearly better than the rest and, in addition, said alternative is good enough to be acceptable. Many of the "programs" installed in people, groups, and organizations have mechanisms built into themselves to thereby make decisions easy. Eric Gaynor Butterfield - within his motivational theoretical framework based on the development of the zone of discomfort - suggests that the conflict in the taking of people is subject to the characteristics of the unit of analysis in question and to its location within its own zone of discomfort.
For March and Simon (1958) the conflict emerges as a consequence of three different situations. The first of these is named as an "unacceptable" situation. Under this situation, the person knows at least the probable distribution of outcomes of each alternative course of action, even identifying a preferred alternative over the rest.
But the conflict arises because said alternative - with known results or outcomes - is not good enough, that is, it does not meet the satisfaction standards. A second situation is one that the authors call “not comparable”, characterized by the fact that people know the probable distribution of the results but cannot identify a preferred alternative. And the third situation is called uncertainty that occurs when people do not get to know the probable distributions that result from different choices regarding behaviors and the results to be achieved.
Within their strong rational approach, March & Simon dare to create a “conflict typology” based on five different types (a good, soft, mix of, poor, and uncertain alternative) of possible (perceived) outcomes. As a result of these 5 possible alternatives, the emerging types of conflict are 15. The perception of conflict is then a function of: the subjective uncertainty of alternatives; the subjective "non-comparison" of alternatives; and the subjective "non-acceptance" of alternatives.
In relation to organizational conflict, the authors refer to two factors. The first type of organizational conflict arises when none of the people within the organization (or only very few) are aware of acceptable alternatives in terms of their objectives and perceptions, while the second type does not originate in relation to the problems that people they have to make decisions but for the difference in choices made by the different people within the organization.
In turn, among the conditions for inter-group conflict James March and Herbert Simon (1958) highlight the following factors: when people feel the need to jointly decide what is strongly related to leadership style and management philosophy of the organization;, when there is a difference regarding the objectives, and when there is a difference between the groups regarding the perceptions of reality.
Now, what are the consequences of the conflict in the organization? In this case, and as James March & Herbert Simon (1958 - already cited) point out, conflict is no longer treated as a dependent variable where "something" impacts on it, but rather now conflict is an independent variable. In other words, we now focus on observing what the organization does to react to the conflict. In this sense, the authors emphasize that organizations usually react through the development of four main processes that take the form of: a. Problem resolution; b. persuasion; c. bargaining; and d. "Doing politics".
For March & Simon, the behavior of people in the organization has to do directly with decision-making and the cognitive, where the "rational" aspect is privileged. Now, one of the questions asked by these two notable authors has to do with whether people really are rational, especially within our actions in organizations.
For economists, man is hedonistic and in his capacity to make decisions and acts according to "the rational" where he must privilege the maximum benefit with the least effort. But for March and Simon this premise of economists is subject to criticism and also does not find full support within the behavioral sciences of people within the organizational sphere. They postulate that there are limits to the intellectual capacities of people to solve the problems they confront on a daily basis within companies. Managers only “capture” some facets of the problem to be solved and are therefore in vulnerable situations.
To solve this problem, people and organizations develop a series of main characteristics:
individuals, groups, and organizations do not maximize but simply "satisfy"; that is, it operates to achieve levels of satisfaction; the options that are available (when making decisions) and the consequences (of the decisions made) are discovered in a sequential way through various search processes that are not always fully optimal; Faced with this situation of "imperfection", individuals and organizations develop "repertoires of programs" that serve as available options to decide in recurring situations; These repertoires of programs tend to be routed as “specific action programs” that take into account only a limited range of situations and also a limited (expected) range of consequences;each action program, however best developed, is only capable of being executed in a “semi-independent” manner from the other; in a nutshell there are "very weak links".
Eric Gaynor Butterfield ("Organizational Development Congress", 2005) adds some additional variables that relate to increasing situational diversity based on the 3Ts (transition, tradition, and transformation) which adds even more complexity as a result of the 3P's (person, personality, character). To this must be added a natural condition that is distributed "democratically" throughout the planet regardless of the community, its culture and people: "everything deteriorates with the simple passage of time."
No one defined the death certificate of the hierarchical pyramid organization as clearly as James March and Herbert Simon when affirming that it is these “limits of rationality” that make organizations not have a stable structure over time.
That is why, just as organizations develop programs for the survival of the organization "in the short term", it is also essential that they be in a position to deal with new "problem resolutions" and the incorporation of procedures that allow the development of new procedures for both creating, developing, instituting, installing and reviewing programs. The quality with which the company management and management can cope with this “conflict” situation, must have a lot to do with the organizational efficiency and the health of its members.
Thanks for sharing.
