**3. Conflicts in organizations**

productive conflicts are healthy for their organization and how destructive conflicts have

In the literature on conflict management, managers' conflict resolution skills have often been understood as their handling styles, communication competence and ability to convey appropriate values and attitudes [10–15]. What has received less attention is that choices of conflict

In this chapter, I argue that knowledge of conflict types is important for managers and use conflict theory to distinguish between six types that are especially important from an organizational perspective. *Interpretation conflicts* occur when fundamental disagreement is caused by different interpretations of verbal or non-verbal communicative acts. *Argumentation conflicts* are conflicts in which the disagreeing parties endorse incompatible arguments or weigh the strength of arguments differently. *Value conflicts* are conflicts in which the parties strive for incompatible ideals of what they consider to be valuable. *Interest conflicts* occur when the parties seek to realize inconsistent aims at personal or group level. *Role conflicts* are conflicts in which there is lack of clarity or disagreement about formal or informal roles. The final category, *personal conflicts,* involves disagreement that is grounded in perceptions of unaccept-

After explaining how these conflict types are relevant in organizational contexts, I clarify how knowledge of the conflict types can be used in conflict resolution at management levels. The fundamental idea is that the conflict types are logically related to each other, and that there is, for each conflict type, a core methodological principle for concept resolution that managers should focus on. In the last part of the chapter, I categorize these principles in an overall

In order to understand the importance of managers' conflict resolution practices in organizations, it is necessary to have a more precise understanding of the concept of conflict. Theorists differ somewhat in their definitions of the concept, but there is widespread consensus that a conflict involves more than disagreement: conflicts involve use of power and means to realize interests [4, 7, 9]. This means, as Sibana ([16], p. 11) observes, that conflicts are 'derived from social beliefs and involve two or more parties who share

Note that this definition of a conflict is neutral with respect to whether conflicts may be good or bad for an organization. In conflict theory, the potential positive and negative dimensions of conflicts have often been connected to the distinction between productive and destructive conflicts [2–4, 6]. As thoroughly elaborated by Rahim [8] in his influential analysis of conflicts in organizations, a productive conflict is a conflict that has positive functional effects for an organization. Destructive conflicts, on the other hand, are conflicts that have dysfunctional outcomes. Thus, if an organization is to benefit from a

resolution strategies should depend on the types of conflicts managers face.

negative consequences [6–9].

4 Organizational Conflict

able personality traits or attitudes.

**2. Background**

incompatible objectives.'

model for practical conflict resolution in organizations.

Conflict resolution is of general significance in social relations, but of special importance in areas of discourse in which poor communication can have substantial negative consequences. Organizations are such areas, and this explain why conflicts have received so much attention in management theory [1–4, 6, 7].

Many theorists have, in fact, argued that managers' conflict resolution skills are of crucial importance in organizations. In recent years, it has been extensively documented how conflicts undermine organizational performance [2, 5, 6, 12]. Many analyses have focused on negative consequences of conflicts when they occur, and concepts such as work engagement and job motivation have been used to explain why managers' preventive conflict work is important [18–22].

The significance of reactive and proactive conflict resolution is often associated with the conflict ladder [23]. This metaphor has been used to explain how an initial situation involving a minor dispute can accelerate and turn into a brutal conflict with severe negative consequences, as illustrated in **Figure 1**.

The conflict ladder can be applied in a variety of analyses of conflict escalation, but it is widely recognized that it is of special importance in heterogeneous social relations. This is primarily because the probability of escalation increases in social networks where people with different backgrounds, ideas and values work together [20, 23, 24]. Organizations typically have these characteristics, and it is therefore not difficult to understand why many theorists have been concerned with how tensions between personal and professional perspectives in organizations determine how conflicts arise and develop in accordance with the conflict ladder.

The importance of bridging opposing interests in order to prevent conflict escalation has received particular attention in the management of organizational reforms—when managers lead processes of change. As shown by Kotter in his influential *Leading Change* [25], in processes of reorganization it is crucial that managers secure good communication and

compromising [1]. These four strategies correspond to managers' attitudes and how they confront conflicts with attitudes that correspond to the resolutions strategies [4, 8, 11].

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

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

7

The focus on conflict-handling styles in the literature is understandable, but focusing too much on this involves a danger: how successfully managers resolve a specific conflict will depend not only on their attitude to relational aspects of the conflict but also on its content. In other words, it is not only knowledge of how a conflict can be addressed by using handling styles but also the underlying nature of the conflict in question that should guide managers' choice of actions. By transcending the complex surface of a conflict situation and identifying the deep structure as one or several conflict types, it is easier to determine how the conflict

Further on in this chapter, I will distinguish between six conflict types. I will then argue that there is a logical connection between them that it is especially important for managers to have

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

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 associ-

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

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.

reality, caused by inconsistent perspectives of interpretation.

ate these thoughts with very different beliefs [31, 32].

should be resolved.

knowledge of.

**5. Types of conflicts**

**5.1. Interpretation conflicts**

opposing party actually has.

**Figure 1.** The conflict ladder (Glasl, 1982).

have the ability to create shared understanding despite a diversity of interests and professional perspectives. A key aim is to create an inspiring organizational culture, give employees the same knowledge of aims and processes and make sure that teams function well. In fact, most models of organizational change are based on the idea that agreement is the goal and that conflicts can have substantial negative consequences in social relations [26]. In general, good communication in organizations involves much more than information exchange. Securing organizational communication also has a relational element. Dialog, both centrally at top management levels and throughout the organizational structure, is crucial for creating well-functioning teams and a shared sense of commitment [2, 13, 27].
