A Group is a collection of people or a social unit that interacts with each other, working towards some common purpose, and perceive themselves as a unit. A group provides rewards to its members, share a common goal, and possess a set of values or norms regulating the attitude and behavior of individual members, at least in matters of consequence to them i.e. anything affecting one member affects the entire group. Group relations between two or more groups and their respective members are often necessary to complete the work required to operate a business. Many times, groups inter-relate to accomplish the organization's goals and objectives, and conflict can occur.

Some conflict, called functional conflict, is considered positive, because it enhances performance and identifies weaknesses. Dysfunctional conflict, however, is confrontation or interaction between groups that harms the organization or hinders attainment of goal. Relationships between groups often reflect the opinions they hold of each other's characteristics. When groups share some interests and their directions seem parallel, each group may view the other positively; however, if the activities and goals of groups differ, they may view each other in a negative manner. When trying to prevent or correct group conflict, it is important to consider the history of relations between the groups in conflict. History will repeat itself if left to its own devices.

Conflict is a pervasive part of group and organizational culture (Fasnacht, 1990) and unmanaged group conflict can be very chaotic (Kormanski, 1982). At the same time, the absence of conflict indicates or results in apathy. Therefore, the goal of groups should not necessarily be to avoid conflict, but to use conflict as a means of creating a more positive group atmosphere (Hungenberg & Moyer, 1996). Increasing the acceptance and management of group conflict, however, requires effective leadership to increase as well (Kormanski, 1982). As a result, conflict and leadership are inseparable (Burns, 1978).

One of the most prominent reasons for group conflict is simply the nature of the group. Other reasons may be work interdependence, goal variances, differences in perceptions, and the increased demand for specialists. Also, individual members of a group often play a role in the initiation of group conflict. Any given group embodies various qualities, values, or unique traits that are created, followed, and even defended. Members who violate important aspects of the group, and especially outsiders, who offend these ideals in some way, normally receive some type of corrective or defensive response.

Restricted resources and reward structures can foster group conflict by making the differences in-group goals more apparent. Differences in perceptions among groups regarding time and status, when coupled with different group goals, can also create conflict. Reorganization of the workplace and integration of services and facilities can be stressful to some and create negative conflict. Some individuals within the group have inherent traits or social histories that impact group conflict, but problems within group relations are not usually caused by the deviate behavior of a few individuals.

The consequences of conflict, whether positive or negative, are largely dependent upon the types of differences that lead to the disagreement. While disagreements among group members are bound to occur, so long as they focus on substantive, issue-related differences of opinion, they tend to improve group effectiveness. It opens up an issue in a confronting manner, thus building understanding and commitment to the group's goals and decisions; develops clarification of an issue; improves problem-solving quality; increases involvement; provides more spontaneity in communication; initiates growth; and strengthens a relationship when creatively resolved thus helps increase productivity. Without cognitive conflict, group decisions are little more than the decisions of a group’s most vocal or influential member (Kreitner and Kincki, p. 489, 491).

On the other hand, negative conflict: which is a disagreement over personalized, individually oriented matters are largely detrimental to group performance. It fosters cynicism, distrust, and avoidance, thereby obstructing open communication and integration. In such situations, commitment to the group itself erodes because group members no longer associate themselves with the group's actions. This undermines the group's ability to function effectively in the future. Group members who have been burned by affective conflict in the past are less likely to participate fully in future meetings. In other words, it diverts energy from real task; destroys morale; polarizes individuals and groups; deepens differences; obstructs cooperative action; produces irresponsible behavior; creates suspicion and distrust; and decreases productivity (Kreitner and Kincki, p. 489).

Conflict is a natural part of the group environment. The management of conflict is an important dimension of group effectiveness. But to be effective, group must be able to manage that conflict and how they do so brings out the best or the worst of employee involvement. Successful groups use conflict to provoke discussion and stimulate creative thinking. Less successful groups do a poor job of managing differences. These teams tend to avoid conflict.

According to Hellriegel, Slocum and Woodman, some ways to manage conflict include: the “forcing style”, the “accommodating style”, the “compromising style”, and the “collaborating style”. The forcing style refers to “assertive and uncooperative behaviors and reflects a win-lose approach to interpersonal conflict”.  This forcing style relies on coercive power and dominance to resolve the conflict.  In the forcing style, the person who is trying to resolve the conflict feels that one side must win and that one side must lose (Hellriegel, Slocum and Woodman, p. 374). 

The accommodation style, which refers to “cooperative and unassertive behaviors”, manifests itself as a long-term strategy to encourage cooperation by others, or as a submission to the wishes of others.  The accommodator tries to reduce tensions and stresses by reassurance and support.  This style shows concern about the emotional aspects of conflict, but does not deal with substantive issues -- this style simply results in covering up or glossing over the issue (Hellriegel, Slocum and Woodman p. 376).

Likewise, the compromising style, which refers to “behaviors at an intermediate level of cooperation and assertiveness”, is based on give and take that usually involves a series of concessions.  This technique is commonly used and widely accepted as a means of resolving conflict.

A collaborating style refers to “strong cooperative and assertive behaviors.  It is the win-win approach to interpersonal conflict handling”.  In this approach to workplace conflict management, it is sharing, examining and assessing the reasons for the conflict that leads to the development of an alternative that is fully acceptable to everyone involved.  This effectively resolves the conflict (Hellriegel, Slocum and Woodman, p. 376, 377). 

Studies on the use of these different interpersonal conflict-handling styles indicate that collaboration is the best approach to managing workplace conflict.  The collaboration style tends to be characteristic of more successful individuals and high-performing, rather than medium- and low-performing organizations.  Furthermore, the use of the collaboration style of conflict management appears to result in positive feelings from employees (Hellriegel, Slocum and Woodman, p. 378).  So, it appears that the best style to resolve conflict is the collaborative style. 

Another suggestion for workplace conflict management is to take a step-by-step approach no matter what style the manager is employing. Kreitner and Kincki suggest that a systemic approach to workplace issues by management is essential in today's workplace environment.  For example, a step-by-step process can be taken to resolve any workplace conflict.  This enables the leader to follow a systematic approach to resolving a conflict.  Each of the foregoing systemic techniques and styles regarding workplace conflict management can be utilized either separately, or in conjunction with each other, in order to promote a more cohesive work environment. 

    Conflicts are part of individual relationships and organizational development, and no organization can hope to mature to productivity and be successful without being able to resolve conflicts effectively.  Thus, conflict resolution is an integral part of maintaining a thriving workplace and the techniques and systemic approaches discussed in this paper should be utilized to resolve differences in the workplace.  Responsible measures to reduce barriers and encourage a true paradigm shift are training, incentives, marketing, periodic review, case studies, and top management support and participation. Facilitators trained in mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) programs are a necessary resource from outside or within the organization. The workplace of the new millennium will have in-house mediation or other conflict management programs to reduce formal claims and act as a risk management business practice.

References:

Fasnacht, M.S. (1990). A conflict management-training module for a leadership development program. Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of North Carolina at Greensboro

Hellriegel, Don, John W. Slocum, Jr. and Richard W. Woodman. 
Organizational Behavior, 8th Edition. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing, 1998.

Hugenberg, L.W. & Moyer, B.S. (1996). Groups in organizations and communication training: Closing the barn door (Report No. CS 509 446) San Diego, CA: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 404 696).

Kormanski, C. (1982). Leadership strategies for managing conflict. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 7(2), 112-18.

Kreitner R. and Kincki A, (2005). Organizational Behavior (6th Ed.). New York, NY:
            McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.