**5.4. Conflicts of interest**

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

Argumentation conflicts are conflicts in which disagreement is grounded in incompatible arguments or arguments that the parties do not perceive as having the same strength. Argumentation conflicts typically arise when the conflict parties focus on very different arguments, but they can also arise when the parties are concerned with the same arguments but

In resolving argumentation conflicts, it is important to distinguish the aim of understanding arguments from the aim of determining their strength. This is a fundamental distinction that has received a lot of attention in philosophical communication theory. It is not possible to understand whether a person has a plausible justification for a point of view unless one has

Achieving this aim of justificatory understanding in practical conflict resolution is to a large extent a matter of creating an atmosphere conducive to constructive and equal dialog [8–10, 13]. An important goal is to base communication with the parties on knowledge of why the parties think they are entitled to have the views that they have. Theorists have presented a variety of methods for resolving argumentation conflicts on the basis of this kind of communication, and although these methods differ in detail, there is widespread agreement that any strategy for resolving argumentation conflicts should involve four principles [7]: (i) make the parties understand that there is a problem, (ii) define the problem, (iii) find ways of solving the problem and (iv) if the problem cannot be solved,

In the prevention of argumentation conflicts in organizations, it is essential to create mutual understanding of organizational knowledge and facts about frameworks that all employees must accept. Sound *communication management*—inspired by Habermas' theory [34, 35] of emancipatory dialog—presupposes that managers convey arguments that employees are capable of evaluating the soundness of. In an ideological sense, the ideal of focusing on rational arguments in conflict resolution falls under the principle of finding solutions that are

These conflicts arise when the parties in a conflict have opposing values that influence their preferences for action—the beliefs they have about how they think it is correct to act. Value conflicts pose a double challenge for managers. They need to uncover the values that are at stake for the conflict parties, but they also need to decide, normally in dialog with one or both

grounded in shared knowledge of the best interests of the organization.

and the conflict would dissolve.

disagree about their soundness or practical implications.

uncovered the person's justification in the first place [33, 34].

**5.2. Argumentation conflicts**

8 Organizational Conflict

find ways to avoid it.

**5.3. Value conflicts**

parties, how some values should prevail.

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

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 various levels in an organization [41].

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, moreover, important to talk openly with employees about organizational visions and arguments in support of them [25]. Managers who initiate dialog about core organizational values and listen to employees' views about aims and means of achieving them are in a good position to create agreement and cooperation in accordance with the best interests of the organization [13, 43].

parties how they experience each other. A *confronting* strategy is to make it clear that (and ideally why) some actions are unacceptable. A *pragmatic* strategy is to make it clear to the parties that they must be able to work together even though they do not have very good chemistry. A *functional* strategy is to make it clear that the conflict has unacceptable negative consequences for the functioning of the organization and that the parties must work together

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

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

11

The choice of which communication strategies to use will depend on the content of the personal conflict and the context in which it arises, but all the strategies can be used to improve interaction if they are adapted wisely to the situation in question. For managers, it is also important to work preventively, by accentuating ideals like respect, openness and equality among employees with idiosyncratic personalities [10, 13]. When many individuals work together, the aim is always to create a shared sense of team commitment among a variety of

The abovementioned conflict types can surface in various ways in organizations. At the same time, they are related to each other conceptually. In the first type of conflict – interpretation conflicts – there is no substantive platform of disagreement, no shared conception of a factual

In argumentation conflicts, the parties have the same perception of what the conflict is about, but their views on how it should be resolved are based on incompatible arguments. The next three conflict types involve specific ideas the parties have about what they are entitled to in terms of realizing values, fulfilling interests and conforming to roles. The final conflict type personal conflicts—can be understood as the category that remains when the other possibili-

Understood like this, the way the conflict types are related to each other should guide managers' resolution practices. When confronted with a given conflict situation between opposing parties within a manager's area of responsibility, the natural first step is to determine whether the parties understand each other, whether they agree about the issue of discourse and whether they understand their own and opposing parties' arguments. If such an exploration does not lead to clarifying solutions, it is relevant to ask whether the conflict involves opposing interests or values, or incongruent role beliefs as regards organizational structure. If none of these questions can be answered in the affirmative, the conflict falls into the remain-

It is important to bear in mind that although this step-by-step strategy has a general application, it is not always necessary to explore all the steps in detail. It may, for instance, sometimes be clear from the start that the parties do not misunderstand each other. Nonetheless, the two first conflict types can function as a check list: in cases where it is not already clear how

object of discourse. The parties are, in reality, talking past each other.

in order to ensure that it continues to function.

individuals with unique personality traits.

**6. A model for conflict resolution**

ties have been eliminated.

ing category, personal conflicts.
