**5.1. Interpretation conflicts**

These conflicts occur when one or both parties in the conflict ascribe to the opposing party beliefs the party does not, in fact, have, so that disagreement about an issue of discourse is, in reality, caused by inconsistent perspectives of interpretation.

Such conflicts can be of two kinds. *Semantic* interpretation conflicts occur when the opposing parties do not attach the same meaning to the language that is used: the interpretive gaps are so profound that the parties express different concepts even though they use the same communicative expressions [29, 30]. *Associative* interpretation conflicts occur when the parties do not form the same beliefs about written or verbal communicative acts even though the acts are, in themselves, understood similarly. In such cases, the problem is that even though the parties understand the thoughts that are strictly speaking expressed in language, they associate these thoughts with very different beliefs [31, 32].

An iceberg metaphor has often been used to explain how communicators are disposed to form strikingly different interpretations of communicative acts. What is literally expressed in language is only one aspect of communication. As Davidson ([32], p. 449) notes, interpretation also rests on 'rest on vast vague assumptions about what is and what is not shared by the attributer, the person to whom the attribution is made, and the attributer's intended audience'. All interpretation conflicts are caused by misinterpretation that occur when belief attribution is incorrect: the beliefs one party ascribes to an opposing party are not beliefs the opposing party actually has.

Interpretation conflicts are in fact *pseudo conflicts*—there is no real disagreement about an object of discourse. What the parties think is real disagreement is, in fact, a misunderstanding. This means that an interpretation conflict is never perceived by the involved parties to be such a conflict. If that were the case, the parties would realize that they misunderstand each other and the conflict would dissolve.

The latter task in particular can be challenging as long as values are of fundamental importance to those who have them, but nonetheless different from (descriptive) beliefs about the world. In general, when we are concerned with values, we are (normatively) concerned with how something should be. Values are ideals we strive for, norms we think we are entitled to

Management and Conflict Resolution: Conceptual Tools for Securing Cooperation and Organizational Performance

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72132

9

It is precisely this aim of uncovering personal ideals that is the natural starting point in value conflicts. After such an uncovering, the values of the parties can often be challenged in a constructive way, so that they reconsider their own value preferences on the basis of reflection about beliefs the values are based on. At the same time, this strategy depends on the nature of the values the conflict involves. Personal values are not the same as cultural values that are accepted as sound within a social context, and contextual cultural values must, in turn, be understood in the light of more general value concepts like equality, freedom and

Thus for managers, the first communicative aim in value conflicts is to clarify the opposing values and how they are perceived as central in the conflict. The next aim is to create room for reflection about the importance of the values, and how the values are consistent with the organizational framework that the parties must accept [21]. This requires communication skills that involve much more than uncovering facts. The reason is that values are not true or false—they cannot be corrected in the same way as incorrect beliefs [40]. Resolving value conflicts is in itself a value-laden activity that requires sensitivity and consciousness

These conflicts arise when conflict parties have incompatible goals that they strive to fulfill. Managers typically face conflicts of this kind in reorganizations or processes of change, often involving union representatives or groups of employees who are opposed to each other, but sometimes no more than two individuals [25]. The conflicts can resemble value conflicts, but differ in the sense that the parties in interest conflicts have a more strategic intention of achiev-

The tension in such conflicts can be high, especially when the parties believe that they have very good reasons for endorsing their own interests. Actions that are grounded in interests are to a large extent goal driven, and the goals are often defined as something that offers a personal outcome. Interests at stake can be individual or collective, and tensions can arise on

In resolution of conflicts of interests, it is important for managers to understand the interests that the conflict involves and thereafter determine whether they are compatible with organizational principles that all the parties must accept. This is, to a large extent, a matter of giving factual information: by conveying organizational knowledge managers can often create a shared understanding of the best interests of the organization [42]. It is,

realize [23, 36].

solidarity [37–39].

about values.

**5.4. Conflicts of interest**

ing a goal that benefits themselves [4, 20].

various levels in an organization [41].
