The management of the direction entails the performance of a set of actions, by the managers, to achieve the objectives of the organization. Socrates (470-339 BC) from his time referred to administration as "a personal skill", separate from technical knowledge and experience. Similar contributions from other philosophers of the time such as Plato and Aristotle were not lacking (Medina A., Avila A., 2002).
And it is that since the man himself arises, the need emerges for a leader, boss or person in charge, whatever he wants to be called, who will organize the activities of the group, at that time dedicated to satisfying basic needs such as the search for food.
In this way the first reviews of administrative theories date back to the Egyptian, Roman, Chinese and Greek civilizations around 4,000 and 2,000 BC, which applied some principles such as planning, organization, control, decentralization and organization. of the administrative power for the fulfillment of the functions.
Since then to date there is a wide range of administrative theories, ranging from the most classical of Taylor and Fayol to the most modern of total quality, organizational development and new theories of human relations, each of them with their contributions and weaknesses.
Nowadays, the functions to be developed by managers are clearly distinguished, among which four main ones stand out: work planning, organization of functions, control of the achievement of goals or objectives according to plans and objectives. presets and the address as such.
However, at the same time that the basic functions and activities implicit in the management work have been outlined, an attempt has been made to convert bosses or managers into leading managers based on the assumptions that it is the leader who wins over others, who manages to drag them to achieve goals, who influences others, inspires them, induces them to change; the leader is a counselor who does not need force but works through persuasion.
It is not enough for the manager's strategic thinking to have a high level of clarity to perform the managerial work effectively.
We can have well established the objectives of the company, the future vision of how far we want to go and even how to do it, but without the involvement, motivation and active participation of its workers, clear and effective communication with them, the ability to listening to them and constructively managing their conflicts, success is not possible.
In fact, the classical theories of business administration did not remain intact because they focused on the rationalization of work, the general principles and functions of the administration, the structure and functions of the organization, but left out the informal elements that characterize a company. motivation, communication and complex dynamics among its members and between managers and subordinates.
The four main functions indicated above, in turn, involve a set of sub-functions such as feedback at different levels, rethinking and renewal of objectives, taking measures and sanctions, evaluation and training of personnel., the confrontation with both internal and external changes but that affect the organization.
In each of them there is a crucial element, which is sometimes ignored, working with different people, at different hierarchical levels and even at the same level but in dissimilar moments or circumstances, that is, there is the The challenge of achieving common goals and objectives with people (both vertically and horizontally) who are unique and unrepeatable human beings, with needs, personal histories, philosophy of life, personality characteristics that differ and sometimes even contradict each other.
It is impossible that with such a diversity of variables, conflicts do not exist, they are part of life and a high percentage of the time of our lives is spent in organizations. We will dedicate the following article to them.
The conflict and its causes.
The first starting point when talking about conflict is to defend the idea that it is an inevitable part of life and that it does not necessarily have to lead to chaos and destruction, since it itself has controversial forms, processes and results.
The study of conflict is eclectic and multidisciplinary. Many authors define it, including Deutsch, Coser, Himes, Hocker and Wilmot, Moore, and Katz and Lawyer.
The definition of Hocker and Wilmot is of important precision: "it is the struggle that is established between at least two interdependent parties, which perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources and interference from the other party in obtaining their goals" (cited by Picard.Ch., 2002).
In the definition, interdependence stands out and is a defining element in the perception of a situation as conflictive, because as Katz and Lawyer, 1993 (cited by Picard A.Ch., 2002) propose for the conflict to arise, the actions of one of the parties must affect the other, if this does not happen there are differences but no conflict.
Also for there to be conflict, the parties involved must perceive the situation as problematic, that is, regardless of the objectivity of the situation, there must be awareness that a conflict is being experienced.
Various causes are pointed out as originating from a conflict, which is of special interest to help resolve it if we are in the position of a third party or if we are parties to it. Finding the root of the problem is a decisive element.
Moore (1986) refers as causal factors of the conflict, elements associated with interpersonal relationships, conflicts of values, conflicts of interest, discrepancies on information of certain facts and discrepancies related to structural inequality.
In interpersonal relationships, communication is essential during a conflict situation. Whether the conflict is exacerbated or whether a constructive solution is reached will depend on it:
Deaf dialogues, lack of listening skills, rigid communication, mistrust, imposition of criteria are conflict intensifiers and lead to residual repercussions.
Personal priorities, religious, political, and cultural beliefs come into play in value conflicts.
Conflicts of this type are usually very strong and difficult to solve because when people feel their values threatened, they perceive that their personal identity is threatened and they cling with great force to them.
Values are almost always going to be fair and correct for those who sustain them, regardless of their true justice and veracity, hence in this type of conflict it is more productive to seek mutual understanding or conciliation.
The incompatibility of goals, conflicting interests and the perception of scarcity of resources are central to many conflicts. Resources can be money, land, employment, social position and can also be love, esteem, status, recognition and respect.
Conflicts are not only usually interpersonal in nature, there are also conflicts between people or subgroups of the same group, which occur between groups such as communities, organizations, countries and the so-called intrapersonal ones, which constitute debates produced within ourselves.
How many times do we not lose sleep trying to harmonize our own needs, for example, maybe I need more workers in a team but this implies that comfort and space are lost, which I also need.
And let it be clear to us that the non-harmonic relationship between needs is not synonymous with illness, many times we are faced with the challenge of making decisions among our colleagues or about the people we manage that involve making transactions between the results to be achieved, preferences and make allowances for certain needs.
For a harmonious relationship to occur between all our needs, a number of facts and conditions have to coexist, which we are almost talking of a utopia. There is a popular saying that refers "in life you can not achieve everything."
Responses to the conflict.
Taking into account that conflict will be an inevitable part of our lives, that it is neither positive nor negative in itself but depends on how it is handled and that we can acquire skills to achieve its constructive solution, it is necessary to continue deepening its essential aspects to ensure that most of the conflicts that arise in the organizations we lead can constitute a true learning experience that leads to change, stimulates interest and improves communication in the work team and in the organization in general.
Cheryl A. Picard (2002) points out a group of basic beliefs that if we possess them or try to replace our negative beliefs with them, they favor that the conflict is constructive for the participating parties:
- Believe in flexibility, in the sense that people can change, adjust in conflictive relationships without losing their essence and personal identity Believe that the conflict should not remain unresolved Believe that my point of view about the Conflict situation can be wrong or distorted and therefore it is important and even decisive, to listen to the point of view of the other or others. Believe that an alternative or solution can be found that reconciles the interests of the parties involved.
Starting from the beliefs or philosophy that one has about the conflict and other elements such as the history between the parties, the differences in power between them, the importance given to the consequences, the personal characteristics of the participants, the inherent abilities of the parties and the attitudes manifested, people give different responses to the conflict situation. Thomas and Kilmann (1974) propose five response styles in this sense:
I. Accommodation. In this case, people are capable of compromising, conforming and bowing before others, ignoring their own needs and desires in order to please others. They put the situation aside to focus on relationships.
II. Competition. The opposite happens to the previous case, people try to force others to accept their positions because the main concern is to achieve their goal or project, ignoring the needs of others. Your basic belief in relation to conflict is win or lose.
III. Evade. They withdraw from the conflict because they consider that its resolution is not worthwhile. They avoid both people and issues that can cause them conflict.
IV. Agreement. These people give up some of their goals if others are willing to do the same. They push for some goals but try, at the same time, not to jeopardize relationships and allow the other party to get something.
V. Collaboration. In this case the confrontation of the conflict acquires an open and fair character. There is a commitment to personal goals and to the goals of others, so it begins with identifying the goals of both parties and then looking for a mutually beneficial solution. There is interest in goals and it is through relationships that you work to achieve them.
As we can see, the style of conflict selected depends on the goals that each party tries to achieve and the relationships that exist between these parties.
The usefulness of each of these styles is variable, for example, in cases where it is necessary to take unpopular measures, the competitive style is effective; accommodation is useful in situations where one of the parties makes an insight that they are wrong or the issue of the conflict is of little importance; evasiveness is useful only in cases where it is vitally important to reduce tensions in order to move forward; Finding compromises is valuable when goals are only moderately important and collaboration is extremely important when ideas arise from different approaches or points of view or when a consensual solution is to be achieved.
People are capable of using any of these styles, however there is a tendency to use one of them more frequently depending on personal characteristics, one's own conception of what a conflict is and the skills with which be counted.
Addressing the conflict involves the consideration of a wide range of factors to be analyzed and on which we must assess, the extent to which they can be modified.
The resolution of the conflict.
In managing people and trying to guide them towards the achievement of common goals, I face conflicts of various kinds, ranging from a dispute between two of my subordinates over the use of a computer to serious confrontations for a job promotion.
It is pertinent to ask several questions that facilitate the constructive solution of the conflict:
How are the two parts? Is the power they have symmetrical or not? What is the previous history of your relationships? What caused the current conflict? What ends are incompatible in this situation?
Are there third parties involved? What is the position of the third party in question? What strategies have been used in the course of the conflict?
Once these initial questions have been assessed, it is up to us to establish the guidelines to define the conflict and walk the path of its constructive solution for the team and for the organization.
Regardless of having given an answer to the aforementioned questions, we must check if we are really in the presence of a conflict.
A real example is that there is a single computer to work two people and that at the same time, both want to use it; the first to finalize a stimulation report and the second for a project that was requested.
The conflictive situation is defined by the existence of a common objective: the use of the computer that is required by two parties for different objectives and where the fulfillment of the purpose of one is incompatible with that of the other.
Second, there must be an awareness that the situation they are experiencing is conflictive because even though it objectively exists, the parties involved or some of them may not have the perception that such a conflict exists. According to “the particularities that this awareness assumes, the conflict can take different forms” (Fuentes, 2001):
- An authentic conflict: the objective conflict situation is perceived by both parties in a precise and homogeneous way. A conflict of misattribution: each party offers a different interpretation of the situation. For example, in the case of the computer, if one of the colleagues assumes that the other wants to use the computer at that moment not because he needs it but to annoy him. A pseudo- conflict: There is no obvious objective conflict situation. The parties experience the conflict, however, from the outside we are not able to perceive it. For example, if a computer was bought for each worker but the discussion continues because they both want to work on the old one.
The conflict in this case is in the particularities of the interpersonal bond, the affective-emotional elements make conflicts emerge where the rational elements do not justify their existence.
The mixture of conflicts: simultaneously the different types of conflicts are mixed. There is a latent basic conflict and new conflicts are progressively being inserted in their various forms.
The third objective, once the conflictive situation has been defined and fully aware of its existence, is the behavior derived from the previous steps. Dissimilar behaviors can be manifested, such as arguments, hostility, aggressiveness, withdrawal, all of which are colored by a high emotional charge.
It is therefore necessary to resolve the situation before its consequences reach more severe magnitudes. A conflict can be resolved in whole or in part.
If the solution is partial, it can appear again in the future or become a latent conflict since the conflictive behavior is reduced or eliminated but the rest of the components remain intact.
In the total solution, all fronts are opened simultaneously, that is, at the same time the conflictive behavior, awareness and objective situation are acted upon.
The strategy used is of special attention because there may be traces that damage relationships and that even transcend the interpersonal limit to negatively influence work teams and the organization as a whole.
For these reasons, conflict resolution is a delicate issue that has "happily" passed into the hands of scientists and experts, and in this little work we only intend to offer a general view that would never reach all the edges of such a complex process.
However, we insist that managers assume as a philosophy of daily action, the constructive solution of the conflict regardless of the level at which it occurs because every day they will be surprised by countless situations of an indisputable conflict nature.
The constructive or destructive nature of a conflict depends on the cooperative or competitive perspective offered by the participating parties.
The relative strength of the cooperative or constructive interests between the parties and the way in which these interests undergo any modification in the course of the conflict situation, will determine the nature of the conflict and will bring us closer to a constructive or destructive solution.
The constructive solution of the problem may sometimes require the presence of a mediator who has a system of effective relationships with each of the parties in conflict in a way that creates trust and facilitates communication.
For this type of constructive solution, it is also necessary to stimulate collaborative attitudes, make group decisions that facilitate broadening the range of alternative solutions and knowledge of the issues on which the conflict is based so that the solutions are realistic.
A constructive approach assumes that the incompatibility exists but that it is surmountable and that the solutions exist and that under certain circumstances even a conflict can help develop creativity and the evaluation of novel alternatives not taken into account until then.
Final thoughts
The fact that the conflict has its positive side in the sense that it can be used to clarify a problem, it can lead to clearer and more critical thinking, allow the emergence of new ideas and even bring opponents together in the search for a consensus It does not mean that we are going to become its faithful defenders and promoters.
However, it is a reality that is present in the most subtle issues of our life, which is why it imposes the challenge of trying to reduce its consequences on our emotional state, on the areas of life in which we are immersed.
A conflict in an attentive company about productivity, for example, the confrontation between people with a high level of decision becomes uncontrollable, conflicts between members of the same work team.
It can also be positive….
