A re‐evaluation of conflict theory for the management of multiple, simultaneous conflict episodes

A re-evaluation of conflict theoryfor the management of multiple,simultaneous conflict episodes

James SpeakmanIESEG School of Management, Catholic University of Lille, Lille, France, and

Lynette RyalsCranfield School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK

Abstract

Purpose – This conceptual paper aims to draw upon recent complexity and organizationalpsychology literature to examine conflict episodes, exploring the limitations of the predominantresearch paradigm that treats conflict episodes as occurring in sequence, as discrete isolated incidents.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper addresses a long-standing issue in conflictmanagement research, which is that the predominant typology of conflict is confusing. Thecomplexity perspective challenges the fundamental paradigm, which has dominated research in theconflict field, in which conflict episodes occur in sequence and in isolation, with managers using onepredominant form of conflict resolution behavior.

Findings – The findings are two-fold: first, the behavioral strategies adopted in the management ofthese conflicts will be highly complex and will be determined by a number of influencing factors; andsecond, this moves theory beyond the two dimensional duel concern perspective, in that the adaptablemanager dealing with these multiple, simultaneous conflicts will also need to consider the possibleimplications of their chosen strategy along with the changing micro environment in which theyoperate.

Originality/value – This paper adds value to the field of conflict theory by moving beyond twodimensions and exploring a sequential contingency perspective for conflict management within theorganization. It argues that multiple conflict episodes can occur simultaneously, requiring managers touse differing behaviors for successful conflict management.

Keywords Conflict management, Conflict resolution, Organizational conflict, Individual behaviour,Interpersonal relations

Paper type Conceptual paper

IntroductionIt is now over 40 years since Louis Pondy (1967) wrote his seminal article on conflictwithin the organization and its management and almost 20 years since his reflections onhis earlier work were published (Pondy, 1989)[1]. In 1967 Pondy established what was fortwo decades the generally accepted paradigm of conflict: that conflict episodes occur astemporary disruptions to the otherwise cooperative relationships which make up theorganization (Pondy, 1967). In his subsequent reflections on his earlier work and that ofothers, Pondy proposed that conflict is an inherent feature of organizational life, ratherthan an occasional breakdown of cooperation (Pondy, 1989). This radically challengedthe previous paradigm. Indeed, Pondy (1989) even suggested that research into thephenomenon of cooperation within the organization could be beneficial in providingfurther insight into conflict within the organization, implying that it was cooperation, not

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1044-4068.htm

IJCMA21,2

186

Received 7 May 2008Accepted 25 May 2009

International Journal of ConflictManagementVol. 21 No. 2, 2010pp. 186-201q Emerald Group Publishing Limited1044-4068DOI 10.1108/10444061011037404

conflict, which was the anomalous state requiring investigation. Yet, for almost twodecades, Pondy’s conceptualization of conflict as a natural state for the organization hasremained largely unexplored despite the emergence of a complexity perspective whichexplores multiple elements of the conflict situation or cooperative state.

One possible reason why Pondy’s challenge has not been answered is that someconfusion has arisen over the terms and typologies used for the classification of conflictepisodes. Consequently, debates about conflict structure or composition have tended todominate the research agenda. The potential for confusion arising from these variousconflict classifications will be discussed in this paper. Where conflict managementbehaviors have been studied, researchers have tended to focus on a two-dimensionalapproach or “dual concern theory” model (Thomas, 1976) which suggests thatindividuals adopt conflict management behaviors based on their perceived selfinterests and those of others; i.e. concern for self (competitive behaviors) versusconcern for other (accommodating behaviors). Although this approach to the researchof conflict and its management fits well with Pondy’s (1967) original paradigm, it ischallenged by the complexity perspective that has emerged in psychology research.

The complexity perspective of intraorganizational conflict maintains thatinterpersonal relationships are more complex than hitherto thought, and that theunfolding conflict is influenced by a wide variety of conditions. Moreover thecomplexity perspective encourages the consideration of simultaneous complexity(more than one event occurring simultaneously) and of how the mode of conflictmanagement affects the outcomes (Munduate et al., 1999). This fresh perspective hasenabled researchers to examine the point at which behavioral style is changed and theeffect on the conflict episode (Olekalns et al., 1996) and to look at how differentbehaviors are combined (Janssen et al., 1999).

With the recent developments in the complexity perspective of conflict managementresearch (Van de Vliert et al., 1997; Munduate et al., 1999), the time has come to furtherexplore the possible consequences of the complexity perspective: whether it is in factthe case that conflict is an inherent condition within the organization (Pondy, 1989);whether conflict episodes do not occur in isolation but occur frequently andsimultaneously (Euwema et al., 2003); and whether complex sequences of adaptivebehaviors are required to continually manage the constantly changingintraorganizational, conflict environment. Before we can do this, and to provide acommon ground for discourse, we first need to examine some of the theories aroundconflict typology that have arisen in the psychology and management literature andwhich may be the cause of some confusion.

Conflict terms and typologies“Conflict” is a broad construct that has been studied extensively across severaldisciplines covering a wide range of social interactions. Previous conflict research hasidentified four main levels of conflict in the context of human behavior andrelationships as summarized by Lewecki et al. (2003):

(1) Intergroup conflicts between groups of individuals which can range in size andcomplexity due to the many relationships involved, including internationalconflict between nations.

(2) Intragroup or intraorganizational conflicts arising within smaller groups whichcomprise the organization.

A re-evaluationof conflict theory

187

(3) Interpersonal conflict; that is, conflict at an individual level, conflict betweenindividuals, or conflict between an individual and a group.

(4) Intrapersonal conflict on a personal level, where the conflict occurs in one’s ownmind.

Although these four levels of conflict all appear across both the psychology andmanagement literature, it is the third level (interpersonal conflicts within theorganization or the reactions an individual or group has to the perception that twoparties have aspirations that cannot be achieved simultaneously) that has become thecentral field of research within the organization (Putnem and Poole, 1987). In 1992,Thomas proposed a simplified definition of interpersonal conflict as the process whichbegins when an individual or group feels negatively affected by another individual orgroup. The conflict consists of a perception of barriers to achieving one’s goals (Thomas,1992). More recently, interpersonal conflict has been defined as an individual’sperceptions of incompatibilities, differences in views or interpersonal incompatibility(Jehn, 1997). Conflict at this level has mostly been seen as adversarial and as having anegative effect upon relationships (Ford et al., 1975). These definitions presuppose thatan opposition or incompatibility is perceived by both parties, that some interaction istaking place, and that both parties are able to influence or get involved – that is. thatthere is some degree of interdependence (Medina et al., 2004). Interpersonal conflict couldarise within organizations where, for example, customer-facing departments such asSales make promises to customers that other departments then have to deliver. In thisdomain of intraorganizational, interpersonal conflict, both Pondy’s (1966, 1967) work andrecent developments adopting the complexity perspective are of particular interest

This broad area of intraorganizational, interpersonal conflict has been furthersubdivided into two types: relationship conflict and task conflict. Relationship conflictarises between the actors through their subjective emotional positions, whereas taskconflict relates primarily to the more objective tasks or issues involved (Reid et al.,2004). A series of studies confirmed this duality between relationship and task. Walland Nolan (1986) identified “people oriented” versus “task oriented” conflict. In theearly to mid-1990s Priem and Price (1991), Pinkley and Northcraft (1994), Jehn (1995)and Sessa (1996) all identified “relationship” and “task” as discrete aspects of conflict.

The picture became rather more complicated in the late 1990s. In 1995 Amason et al.redefined conflict types as “affective” and “cognitive” and in 1999 Van de Vliert furtherredefined these types as “task” and “person” conflict. In working toward a morecomprehensive model of intraorganizational, interpersonal conflict, Jameson (1999)suggested three dimensions for conflict:

(1) content;

(2) relational; and

(3) situational.

The content dimension encompasses the previously discussed conflict types (affective,cognitive, relationship etc) while the relational dimension considers the subjective,perceived variables within the relationships of the actors involved:

. trust;

. status;

IJCMA21,2

188

. seriousness;

. degree of interdependence;

. record of success; and

. the number of actors involved.

The situational dimension examines the variables which may be most relevant inselecting an appropriate conflict management strategy. These include time pressure,the potential impact of the conflict episode, the degree of escalation and the range ofoptions available in the management of the conflict episode (Jameson, 1999).

Meanwhile, Sheppard (1992) criticized the multiplicity of terms that were being usedto describe types of interpersonal conflict, and the needless confusion that this caused.The result of the many approaches described above is that there is no general model forthe typology of interpersonal conflict within the organization. In the absence of such amodel, other researchers have taken different approaches, using the antecedents of theconflict episode to describe conflict types. Examples of this proliferation include roleconflict (Walker et al., 1975), gender conflict (Cheng, 1995) and goal conflict (Tellefsenand Eyuboglu, 2002). This proliferation of terms or typologies has unsurprisingly led toconfusion, most noticeably with the term “interpersonal conflict” being used to describepurely relationship or emotional conflict (Bradford et al., 2004) or conflict being defined interms of emotion only, adding to the wide range of terms already used (Bodtker andJameson, 2001). Thus, at a time when international, interorganizational,intraorganizational, interpersonal and intrapersonal conflicts are being extensivelystudied with conflict defined and operationalized in a variety of ways, no widelyaccepted and consistent model has emerged to shape conflict research (Reid et al., 2004).Table I summarizes the many different conflict typologies that have been proposed.

Table I illustrates that relationship and task conflict are almost universally acceptedas distinct types of interpersonal conflict by psychology and management researchers.

Date Author(s) Conflict typology

1986 Wall and Nolan People oriented, task oriented1991 Priem and Price Relationship, task1994 Pinkley and Northcraft Relationship, task1995 Jehn Relationship, task1995 Amason et al. Cognitive, affective1996 Sessa Task, person oriented1996 Amason Affective, cognitive1997 Amason and Sapienza Affective, cognitive1999 Jameson Content, relational, situational1999 Janssen et al. Task, person oriented2000 Friedman et al. Relationship, task2000 Jehn and Chatman Task, relationship, process2002 Tellefsen and Eyuboglu Goal conflicts2003 Bradford et al. Interpersonal, task2003 De Dreu and Weingart Relationship, task2004 Reid et al. Relationship, task2004 Tidd et al. Relationship, task2005 Guerra et al. Relationship, task

Table I.A summary of the

typologies of conflict


189

In addition, many researchers have identified a third type of conflict which relates tothe environment in which managers operate, described as situational conflict( Jameson, 1999) or process conflict ( Jehn and Chatman, 2000).

We believe that a consistent conflict typology is called for, to aid future researchinto the complex nature of intraorganizational conflict. In this paper, we propose thatfuture researchers should recognize three types of interpersonal conflict. However,since the terms “relationship” and “task” are vulnerable to misinterpretation weadvocate using the terms affective and cognitive (following Amason, 1996 and Amasonand Sapienza, 1997), in conjunction with process ( Jehn and Chatman, 2000), to describethe three types of interpersonal conflict. These terms, which reflect the more specificterminology used in the psychology literature, are defined in Table II.

As Table II shows, the typology we propose is as follows. Affective Conflict is aterm describing conflicts concerned with what people think and feel about theirrelationships including such dimensions as trust, status and degree of interdependence(Amason and Sapienza, 1997). Cognitive Conflict describes conflicts concerned withwhat people know and understand about their task, roles and functions. ProcessConflict relates to conflicts arising from the situational context, the organizationstructure, strategy or culture (Amason and Sapienza, 1997; Jehn and Chatman, 2000).Using this typology for conflict between individuals or groups of individuals withinthe organization avoids confusion over the use of the terms “interpersonal”, “person” or“relationship” often used when referring to affective conflict, while task conflict isclearly distinguished from process conflict, addressing all the issues previouslyoutlined. These terms will therefore be used throughout the remainder of this paper.

Having argued that taxonomic confusion has hindered conflict research through themisuse of existing taxonomies (Bradford et al., 2004) or where language has resulted inthe use of different terms to describe the same conflict type (see Table I), we now moveon to consider the implications or consequences of intraorganizational conflict andwhether it is always negative or can have positive consequences (De Dreu, 1997).

Consequences of conflict: functional or dysfunctional?Some researchers exploring attitudes towards conflict have considered theconsequences of conflict for individual and team performance (Jehn, 1995) and havefound that interpersonal conflict can have either functional (positive) or dysfunctional(negative) outcomes for team and individual performance (e.g. Amason, 1996).Moreover, the consequences of conflict can be perceived and felt in different ways bydifferent actors experiencing the conflict episode (Jehn and Chatman, 2000). Thus,conflict is situationally and perceptually relative.

Conflict type Definition

Affective Conflicts concerned with what people think and feel about their relationships withother individuals or groups

Cognitive Conflicts concerned with what people know and understand about their task

Process Conflicts arising from the situational context, the organization structure, strategy orculture

Table II.A proposed taxonomy ofconflict

IJCMA21,2

190

The traditional view of conflict takes the view that conflict exists in opposition toco-operation and that conflict is wholly dysfunctional, putting the focus on resolutionrather than management (e.g. Pondy, 1966). This perspective can be traced forward tomore recent work. Where conflict is defined as the process which begins when oneperson or group feels negatively affected by another (Thomas, 1992), there is animplication of obstruction to either party achieving their goals, which is readilyinterpreted negatively. This can result in conflict avoidance or suppression of conflictmanagement behavior, leading to perceived negative consequences on team or individualperformance (De Dreu, 1997). Negatively-perceived conflict episodes can increase tensionand antagonism between individuals and lead to a lack of focus on the required task(Saavedra et al., 1993; Wall and Nolan, 1986) while avoidance and suppression can alsohave long term negative consequences such as stifling creativity, promoting groupthinkand causing an escalation in any existing conflict (De Dreu, 1997). Not surprisingly,where interdependence is negative (where one party wins at the expense of the otheralthough they have some dependency in their relationship) any conflict will be viewednegatively (Janssen et al., 1999). The perception of conflict will also be negative where theconflict is personal, resulting in personality clashes, increased stress and frustration.This type of relationship conflict can impede the decision-making process as individualsfocus on the personal aspects rather than the task related issues (Jehn, 1995).

In contrast to the somewhat negative perception of intraorganizational conflictoutlined above, more recent conflict management theory has begun to suggest thatcertain types of conflict can have a positive effect upon relationships and that the bestroute to this outcome is through acceptance of, and effective management of, inevitableconflict, rather than through conflict avoidance or suppression (De Dreu, 1997). Whenindividuals are in conflict they have to address major issues, be more creative, and seedifferent aspects of a problem. These challenges can mitigate groupthink and stimulatecreativity (De Dreu, 1997). Naturally, where there is high positive interdependence (anagreeable outcome for both parties), the conflict episode will be viewed much morepositively (Janssen et al., 1999). Moreover, Jehn (1995) has suggested that task- andissue-based cognitive conflict can have a positive effect on team performance. Groupswho experience cognitive conflict have a greater understanding of the assignments athand and are able to make better decisions in dealing with issues as they arise (Simonsand Peterson, 2000). For example, research has shown that, when individuals areexposed to a “devil’s advocate”, they are able to make better judgments than those notso exposed (Schwenk, 1990). Schulz-Hardt et al. (2002) suggested that groups makebetter decisions where they started in disagreement rather than agreement. In theseexamples, conflict has a functional (useful and positive) outcome.

We have argued that the notion of functional conflict has shifted the field of conflictresearch away from conflict resolution and towards consideration of the managementbehaviors which can be adopted in dealing with conflict in order to gain the best possibleoutcome (De Dreu, 1997; Euwema et al., 2003). Next, we examine research into conflictmanagement behaviors and explore some of the managerial tools that have beendeveloped to help managers to deal with intraorganizational, interpersonal conflict.

Conflict management behaviorsConflict management can be defined as the actions in which a person typically engages,in response to perceived interpersonal conflict, in order to achieve a desired goal


191

(Thomas, 1976). Demonstrably, conflict management pays off: previous research hasindicated that it is the way in which conflict episodes are addressed which determinesthe outcome (Amason, 1996). However, there is disagreement between researchers as tothe degree to which managers can and do adopt different conflict managementbehaviors. Previous research has considered three different approaches: the “one bestway” perspective (Sternberg and Soriano, 1984); the contingency or situationalperspective (Thomas, 1992; Munduate et al., 1999; Nicotera, 1993); and the complexity orconglomerated perspective (Van de Vliert et al., 1999; Euwema et al., 2003).

Arguably the simplest perspective on conflict management behavior is the “one bestway” perspective (Sternberg and Soriano, 1984), which agues that one conflictmanagement style or behavior (collaboration) is more effective than any other.However, it argues that individuals have a particular preferred behavioralpredisposition to the way in which they handle conflict. Thus, from the “one bestway” perspective, the conflict-avoiding manager may have a behavioral predispositionto avoidance strategies, whereas the accommodating manager may preferaccommodating solutions. In this paradigm, the most constructive solution isconsidered to be collaboration, since collaboration is always positively interdependent– it has a joint best outcome, generally described as “win/win” (Van de Vliert et al.,1997). The “one best way” approach suggests that a more aggressive, competitive,negatively interdependent approach (in fact, any conflict management approach otherthan collaborative) can result in suboptimal outcomes (Janssen et al., 1999). However,the “one best way” perspective raises more questions than it answers. It does notexplain how managers are able to collaborate if they have a different behavioralpredisposition, nor does it provide evidence that collaboration always produces thebest outcome (Thomas, 1992). A more general problem with the “one best way”approach is that it may not be very useful: if managers truly have little or no controlover their approach to conflict management, the practical applications are limited. The“one best way” perspective does not consider the passage of time, that behaviors couldbe changed or modified during any interaction, nor the effect any previous encountersmay have on the current experience (Van de Vliert et al., 1997).

Moving beyond the “one best way” perspective, in which only collaborativebehaviors are considered to provide the most desirable outcome, the contingencyperspective maintains that the optimal conflict management behavior depends on thespecific conflict situation, and that what is appropriate in one situation may not beappropriate in another (Thomas, 1992). In this paradigm, the best approach isdependent upon the particular set of circumstances. The implications, which are verydifferent to the “one best way” perspective, are that individuals can and should selectthe conflict management behavior that is most likely to produce the desired outcome.Thus, conflict management behaviors are regarded as a matter of preference (ratherthan innate, as in the “one best way” view), and the outcome is dependent on theselection of the most appropriate mode of conflict management behavior.

Until recently, conflict research has been heavily influenced by the “one best way”and contingency perspectives, focusing on the effectiveness of a single mode of conflictmanagement behavior (primarily collaboration) during a single conflict episode(Sternberg and Soriano, 1984). Thus the “one best way” and contingency perspectivesdo not necessarily offer a real-world view in which managers both can and do changetheir behaviors: adapting to the situation; perhaps trying different approaches to break

IJCMA21,2

192

a deadlock or to improve their bargaining position; taking into account changingcircumstances in the microenvironment; and the subsequent influence upon the actionsof individuals involved in any conflict episode (Olekalns et al., 1996).

A fresh approach is provided by the complexity perspective, which characterizesconflicts as being dynamic and multi-dimensional. In such circumstances, the bestbehavioral style in dealing with any one conflict episode may vary during, or between,conflict episodes (Medina et al., 2004; Nicotera, 1993). For conflict in a complex world,neither the “one best way” nor the contingency perspective would necessarily produceoptimal results. If conflict does not occur discretely and individually (Pondy, 1992a),existing approaches may not describe the world as managers actually experience it.Arguably, these approaches have artificially limited conflict research to a flat,two-dimensional model. To address the shortcomings of traditional research and toincorporate the complexity perspective into conflict management theory, we need tomove beyond two dimensions (Van de Vliert et al., 1997).

Beyond two dimensions of conflict management theoryRecent work by Van de Vliert et al. (1997) and Medina et al. (2004) has expandedcurrent theory through consideration of the complexity perspective. Thecomplexity perspective argues that any reaction to a conflict episode consists ofmultiple behavioral components rather than one single conflict managementbehavior. In the complexity perspective, using a mixture of accommodating,avoiding, competing, compromising and collaborating behaviors throughout theconflict episode is considered to be the rule rather than the exception (Van deVliert et al., 1997).

To date, studies taking a complexity approach to conflict management haveadopted one of three different complexity perspectives. The first examinessimultaneous complexity and how different combinations of behaviors affect theoutcome of the conflict (Munduate et al., 1999). The second complexity approachfocuses on the point of behavioral change and the outcome, examining either thebehavioral phases through which the participants of a conflict episode pass, or applytemporal complexity to look at the point at which behavioral style changes and theeffect on the conflict episode (Olekalns et al., 1996). The third approach is the sequentialcomplexity or conglomerated perspective, which is concerned with the different modesof conflict management behavior, how they are combined, and at what point theychange during the interaction.

The application of the complexity perspective to conflict management research hasrevealed that managers use more than the five behaviors suggested by the “one bestway” perspective to manage conflict. In their study of conglomerated conflictmanagement behavior, Euwema et al. (2003) argued that the traditional approachunder-represents the individual’s assertive modes of behavior and have as a resultadded “confronting” and “process controlling”, making seven possible behaviors:

(1) competing;

(2) collaborating;

(3) avoiding;

(4) compromising;

(5) accommodating;


193

(6) confronting; and

(7) process controlling.

Weingart et al. (1990) identified two types of sequential pattern: Reciprocity,responding to the other party with the same behavior; and Complementarity,responding with an opposing behavior. Applying a complexity perspective, theeffectiveness of complementarity or reciprocity behaviors will be contingent upon thesituation, the micro-environment, the number of conflict episodes, and the types ofconflict present. The sequential pattern may in itself be complex, being dependent bothupon the current situation and on varying behaviors throughout the interaction.

A further, often unrecognized implication of complexity in conflict is that eachconflict episode could be unique, being composed of different proportions of each of theaffective, cognitive and process conflict types (Jehn and Chatman, 2000). Theimplication for conflict management strategy and the choice of the most appropriatebehavior is immense. Therefore, a new perspective is needed, in which conflict and theresponse to conflict is viewed as dynamic and changing over time, with each conflictepisode having a unique composition requiring a specific but flexible approach in orderto obtain the best possible outcome. We propose that this might result in a managerchanging behavior during a conflict episode, or indeed a manager adopting differentbehaviors for a number of conflict episodes occurring simultaneously. In the nextsection, we take all these complex factors into account and propose a single, dynamicand comprehensive model of conflict management behavior.

Multiple, simultaneous conflict episodesWe have shown that the field of conflict has become entangled in multiple terms andthat research into conflict management is struggling to reconcile two-dimensionalmodels with the more complex situation encountered in the real world. A model isneeded which considers the complexity of conflict episodes and separates conflictantecedents from conflict types, recognizing that conflict can relate to emotions andsituations which have common antecedents. We propose that the way forward is toexpand the conglomerated perspective into a sequential contingency perspective, inwhich the sequence of conflict management behaviors adopted is dependent upon anumber of influencing factors in the micro-environment, the number of conflictepisodes being dealt with, their composition, and changes in the behaviors of the actorsinvolved.

A sequential contingency perspectiveThe sequential contingency perspective for intraorganizational, interpersonal conflictproposes the adoption of an alternative paradigm which is that conflict is ever-presentand ever-changing in terms of its nature or composition; and that it is the way in whichthese continuous conflicts is managed which determines the outcome of any conflictepisode and the nature of any subsequent conflicts. Figure 1 provides a visualization ofPondy’s (1992b) postmodern paradigm of conflict and provides a foundation for theinvestigation of complex, multiple, simultaneous, intraorganizational conflicts.

This conceptual visualization of conflict within the organization provides athree-dimensional representation of conflict from the paradigm that conflict is aninherent feature of organizational life. It shows how, at any one given point in time,

IJCMA21,2

194

there can be a number of conflict episodes experienced (y axis), each with differentintensities (z axis) and duration (x axis). In addition, we have argued that each conflictepisode will have a unique composition, being made up of different proportions ofcognitive, affective and process elements.

The implications for conflict management theory are twofold: first, the behavioralstrategies adopted in the management of these conflicts will be highly complex andwill be determined by a number of influencing factors; and second, this moves theorybeyond the two dimensional duel concern perspective, in that the adaptable managerdealing with these multiple, simultaneous conflicts will also need to consider thepossible implications of their chosen strategy along with the changing microenvironment in which they operate. Using this three-dimensional conceptualvisualization of conflict within the organization we propose a sequential contingencymodel for managing interpersonal conflict within the organization (Figure 2).

The basic elements of the framework in Figure 2 consider all the dimensions ofconflict and its management as previously discussed:

. the conflict episode characteristics, the type and composition of any conflictepisode encountered (Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1995; Jehn, 1997; Pinkley andNorthcraft, 1994);

. the characteristics of the relationship(s) ( Jehn, 1995);

. the characteristics of the individuals involved;

. the conflict management behaviors; and

. the outcome of previous conflict episodes (Van de Vliert et al., 1997).

Figure 1.A conceptual visualizationof multiple, simultaneous

conflict


195

The basic postulate of the model is that conflict is a constant and inherent condition ofthe organization (that is, that conflict episodes do not occur as isolated, anomalousincidents). Additionally, the effectiveness of the conflict management behaviors interms of its functionality or dysfunctionality is contingent upon, and moderated by, thenature of the conflict, the characteristics of the individuals and relationships involved,and experience of previous conflict. Thus, this model provides a framework for dealingwith multiple, simultaneous conflict episodes moving beyond the traditiontwo-dimensional approach.

Future researchTo date there has been little empirical research into the degree to which individuals areable to adapt their behavior during an interaction, or on the value of the complexityperspective in dealing with complex intraorganizational conflict. The future researchagenda needs to explore conflict through Pondy’s (1992b) alternative paradigm andexpand on these theoretical findings by investigating intraorganizational,interpersonal conflict in a number of ways. We therefore set out a research agendaframed in terms of four research propositions.

First, taking the sequential contingency perspective and adopting Pondy’s (1989)alternative paradigm for conflict within the organization, research is needed toestablish the occurrence of conflict. Pondy (1992b) argues that, rather than a sequenceof discrete isolated incidents, conflict is an inherent condition of social interactionwithin the organization and that conflict episodes occur simultaneously notsequentially. This would imply that:

Figure 2.A sequential contingencymodel for managingintra-organizational,interpersonal conflict

IJCMA21,2

196

P1a. Conflict is a constant condition of interorganizational, interpersonalrelationships.

P1b. Multiple conflict episodes occur simultaneously.

P1c. Conflict episodes are complex, having differing compositions of affective,cognitive and process elements which change over time.

The complexity perspective recognizes that different conflict situations call fordifferent management behaviors (Van de Vliert et al., 1997). This implies thatmanagers can call upon a much wider range of approaches to conflict managementthan previously thought. Moreover there is a further implication, which is thatmanagers are able to adapt their behavior during conflict episodes. Thus:

P2a. Managers use different behaviors to manage multiple conflicts at any onetime.

P2b. Managers change their behavior over time during the same conflict episode.

A substantial branch of recent conflict management research has focused on theoutcomes of conflict and has suggested that not all conflict is negative (De Dreu, 1997;Simons and Peterson, 2000; Schultz-Hardt et al., 2002; Schwenk, 1990). Given this, weneed a greater understanding of the effect that the behavior adopted has on the conflictexperienced, whether it mitigated or agitated the situation, and the consequences forany subsequent conflict (Amason, 1996). Thus:

P3a. The behaviors that managers use affect the outcome of the conflict.

P3b. The behaviors that managers use affect subsequent conflicts.

Finally, re-visiting Pondy’s (1989) alternative paradigm and incorporating theadditional perspectives that come from consideration of conflict outcomes and theapplication of the complexity perspective, we argue that more research is needed intothe relationship between the behaviors that managers adopt and whether thesebehaviors represent the conscious adaptation of an optimal approach to conflictmanagement. Thus:

P4. Conflict management involves adapting a set of behaviors through which adegree of co-operation is maintained, as opposed to the use of behavior(s)which resolve(s) discrete isolated incidents of conflict.

Our purpose in setting out a new model and research agenda for conflict managementresearch, together with a set of detailed research propositions, is to move the fieldbeyond the consideration of conflict episodes as discrete, isolated incidents and toencourage the investigation of different behaviors in different circumstances and theireffectiveness. Future research needs to consider the complexity of conflict and adopt aresearch paradigm which considers the behavioral strategies within long term complexinterpersonal relationships.

ConclusionThis paper has offered four contributions to the field of conflict and conflictmanagement. The first is the clarification of conflict typologies set out in Table II. The


197

second contribution is the notion that business managers handle multiple andsimultaneous conflict episodes that require different approaches to resolving them, sothat the existing models proposed for conflict management are unlikely to chime withtheir actual experience. The third contribution is to map this in the form of a newtheoretical model for conflict management (Figure 2). The fourth contribution is to usethis theoretical model to set out a set of research propositions to shape research thatwill shed light on the real conflicts that managers have to face.

Just 40 years on, and intraorganizational conflict theory itself appears to be inconflict. In order to resolve the apparent differences in research approach andperspective researchers need to establish some common ground upon which newtheory can be empirically tested, allowing conflict management theory to move beyondtwo dimensions and to explore complexity whilst adding clarity.

Note

1. First presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, August 14, 1986.

References

Amason, A. and Sapienza, H. (1997), “The effects of top management team size and interactionnorms on cognitive and affective conflict”, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 4,pp. 495-516.

Amason, A.C. (1996), “Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict onstrategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams”, Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 123-48.

Bodtker, A.M. and Jameson, J.K. (2001), “Emotion in conflict formation and its transformation:application to organizational conflict management”, International Journal of ConflictManagement, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 259-75.

Bradford, K.D., Stringfellow, A. and Weitz, B.A. (2004), “Managing conflict to improve theeffectiveness of retail networks”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 181-95.

Cheng, C. (1995), “Multi-level gender conflict analysis and organizational change”, Journal ofOrganizational Change Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 26-39.

De Dreu, C.K.W. (1997), “Productive conflict: the importance of conflict management and conflictissue”, in De Dreu, C.K.M. and Van de Vliert, E. (Eds), Using Conflict in Organizations,Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 9-22.

Euwema, M.C., Van de Vliert, E. and Bakker, A.B. (2003), “Substantive and relationaleffectiveness of organizational conflict behavior”, International Journal of ConflictManagement, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 119-39.

Ford, N.M., Walker, O.C. Jr and Churchill, G.A. (1975), “Expectation specific measures of theintersender conflict and role ambiguity experienced by salesmen”, Journal of BusinessResearch, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 95-112.

Jameson, J.K. (1999), “Toward a comprehensive model for the assessment and management ofintraorganizational conflict: developing the framework”, International Journal of ConflictManagement, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 268-94.

Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E. and Veenstra, C. (1999), “How task and person conflict shape therole of positive interdependence in management teams”, Journal of Management, Vol. 25No. 2, pp. 117-42.

IJCMA21,2

198

Jehn, K.A. (1995), “A multi-method examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroupconflict”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 256-82.

Jehn, K.A. (1997), “A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizationalgroups”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 530-57.

Jehn, K.A. and Chatman, J.A. (2000), “The influence of proportional and perceptual conflictcomposition on team performance”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 11No. 1, pp. 56-73.

Lewicki, R., Saunders, D., Barry, B. and Minton, J. (2003), Essentials of Negotiation, 3rd ed.,McGraw Hill, Singapore.

Medina, J.M., Dorado, M.A., de Cisneros, I.F.J., Arevalo, A. and Munduate, L. (2004), “Behavioralsequences in the effectiveness of conflict management”, Psychology in Spain, Vol. 8 No. 1,pp. 38-47.

Munduate, L., Ganaza, J., Peiro, J.M. and Euwema, M. (1999), “Patterns of styles in conflictmanagement and effectiveness”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 10No. 1, pp. 5-24.

Nicotera, A.M. (1993), “Beyond two dimensions: a grounded theory model of conflict-handlingbehavior”, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 282-306.

Olekalns, M., Smith, P.L. and Walsh, T. (1996), “The process of negotiating: strategy and timingas predictors of outcomes”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 68-77.

Pinkley, R.L. and Northcraft, G.B. (1994), “Conflict frames of reference: implications for disputeprocesses and outcomes”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 193-205.

Pondy, L.R. (1966), “A systems theory of organizational conflict”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 246-56.

Pondy, L.R. (1967), “Organizational conflict: concepts and models”, Administrative ScienceQuarterly, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 296-320.

Pondy, L.R. (1989), “Reflections on organizational conflict”, Journal of Organizational ChangeManagement, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 94-8.

Pondy, L.R. (1992a), “Historical perspectives and contemporary updates”, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 253-5.

Pondy, L.R. (1992b), “Reflections on organizational conflict”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 257-61.

Priem, R.L. and Price, K.H. (1991), “Process and outcome expectations for the dialectical inquiry,devil’s advocacy, and consensus techniques of strategic decision making”, Group &Organization Studies, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 206-25.

Putnem, L. and Poole, M.S. (1987), “Conflict and negotiation”, in Jablin, F.M., Putnam, L.L.,Roberts, K.H. and Porter, L.W. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Communication, Sage,Newbury Park, CA, pp. 549-99.

Reid, D.A., Pullins, E.B., Plank, R.E. and Buehrer, R.E. (2004), “Measuring buyers’ perceptions ofconflict in business-to-business sales interactions”, The Journal of Business & IndustrialMarketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 236-49.

Saavedra, R., Earley, P.C. and Van Dyne, L. (1993), “Complex interdependence in task-performinggroups”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 61-73.

Sessa, V. (1996), “Using perspective taking to manage conflict and affect in teams”, The Journalof Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 101-15.


199

Schwenk, C.R. (1990), “Effects of devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry on decision making: ameta-analysis”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 47 No. 1,pp. 161-77.

Sheppard, B.H. (1992), “Conflict research as Schizophrenia: the many faces of organizationalconflict”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 325-34.

Schulz-Hardt, S., Jochims, M. and Frey, D. (2002), “Productive conflict in group decision making:genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased information seeking”,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 563-86.

Simons, T.L. and Peterson, R.S. (2000), “Task conflict and relationship conflict in topmanagement teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust”, Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 102-11.

Sternberg, R.J. and Soriano, L.J. (1984), “Styles of conflict resolution”, Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 115-21.

Tellefsen, T. and Eyuboglu, N. (2002), “The impact of a salesperson’s in-house conflicts andinfluence attempts on buyer commitment”, Journal of Personal Selling & SalesManagement, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 157-72.

Thomas, K.W. (1992), “Conflict and conflict management: reflections and update”, Journal ofOrganizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 265-74.

Thomas, K.W. (1976), “Conflict and conflict management”, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook ofIndustrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 889-935.

Van de Vliert, E., Nauta, A., Euwema, M.C. and Janssen, O. (1997), “The effectiveness of mixingproblem solving and forcing”, Using Conflict in Organizations, Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 38-52.

Van de Vliert, E., Nauta, A., Giebels, E. and Janssen, O. (1999), “Constructive conflict at work”,Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 475-91.

Walker, O.C., Churchill, G.A. Jr and Ford, N.M. (1975), “Organizational determinants of theindustrial salesman’s role conflict and ambiguity”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 1,pp. 32-9.

Wall, V.D. Jr and Nolan, L.L. (1986), “Perceptions of inequity, satisfaction, and conflict intask-oriented groups”, Human Relations, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 1033-52.

Weingart, L.R., Thompson, L.L., Bazerman, H.H. and Caroll, J.S. (1990), “Tactical behavior andnegotiation outcomes”, International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 7-31.

Further reading

Amason, A.C., Hochwarter, W.A., Thompson, K.R. and Harrison, A.W. (1995), “Conflict: animportant dimension in successful management teams”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 24No. 2, pp. 20-35.

Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1964), The Managerial Grid, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, TX.

De Dreu, C. and Weingart, L.R. (2003), “Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, andteam member satisfaction: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4,pp. 741-9.

Deutsch, M. (1973), The Resolution of Conflict, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Friedman, R., Tidd, S., Currall, S. and Tsai, J. (2000), “What goes around comes around: theimpact of personal conflict style on work conflict and stress”, International Journal ofConflict Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 32-55.

IJCMA21,2

200

Guerra, M.J., Martinez, I., Munduate, L. and Medina, F.J. (2005), “A contingency perspective onthe study of the consequences of conflict types: the role of organizational culture”,European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 157-76.

Lewicki, R.J. and Sheppard, B.H. (1985), “Choosing how to intervene: factors affecting the use ofprocess and outcome control in third party dispute resolution”, Journal of OccupationalBehavior, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 49-64.

Tidd, S.T., McIntyre, H. and Friedman, R.A. (2004), “The importance of role ambiguity and trustin conflict perception: unpacking the task conflict to relationship conflict linkage”,International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 364-84.

About the authorsJames Speakman is Assistant Professor of International Negotiation at IESEG Business School,a member of Catholic University of Lille, where his attentions are focused on sales andnegotiation. After working for 16 years in key account management sales he completed his PhDresearch at Cranfield School of Management, where, using the Critical Incident Technique withan Interpretive Framework for coding to investigate intraorganizational, interpersonal conflictand the behavioral sequences adopted in the management of these complex interpersonal,intraorganizational conflict episodes. Other research interests include personal selling, past,present and future, where he conducted the US research for a multinational study on the future ofpersonal selling and negotiation in context where his research interests include multi-culturalnegotiation. James Speakman is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:[email protected]

Lynette Ryals specializes in key account management and marketing portfolio management,particularly in the area of customer profitability. She is a Registered Representative of theLondon Stock Exchange and a Fellow of the Society of Investment Professionals. She is theDirector of Cranfield’s Key Account Management Best Practice Research Club, Director of theDemand Chain Management community and a member of Cranfield School of Management’sGoverning Executive.


201

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Documents

A re‐evaluation of conflict theory for the management of multiple, simultaneous conflict episodes