**6. Traditional organizational conflict**

#### **6.1. Conflict models**

contrast, complexity theory or complexity thinking operates in open systems. Open systems are non-linear, unpredictable, in which changes in one part of the system could lead to pre-

Operating in open systems requires self-organizing systems compared to directed systems. Systems that are controlled, or directed every step of the way, are less able to react to multiple threats from the environment (external of the system). Systems that are capable of self-organizing and reorganize as needed, are better able to operate in open systems more effectively compared to controlled systems. This key characteristic, the ability to self-organize, is defined by Varga [22] as: "self-organization occurs through the dynamics, interactions and feedbacks

The *butterfly effect*, as described by Olbolensky [23], states that small changes in one part of a system can yield dramatic changes in other parts of the system, if not the whole system. Sometimes these changes are planned, but other times they are reactive to external forces (e.g., governmental policy changes, industry changes, mergers). Managing these butterfly effects are what CAS do, they operate on the *edge of chaos*: "they are able to balance order and chaos". Complex adaptive systems self-organize and allocate resources so that they adapt to external changes by making the appropriate adjustments to the system, just enough so not to reach

Being able to adapt to external forces is one requirement when operating in open systems. For a system to self-organize, then alter its course and reorganize, it must be adaptable. Adaptive systems "have a high degree of awareness to its local context as well as a high capability to change internally" [23]. This adaptability characteristics includes a team and its members to adapt to both internal and external forces. One example of internal forces could be intragroup

Interactions are identified as being representative of "causal processes at the lower levels" [24], and can represent structural or behavioral processes. In viewing behavioral processes in a team setting, facilitation constructive conflict as opposed to destructive conflict will aid in a team's interactions, thus becoming more effective and adaptive. In complexity terms, facilitat-

Complex adaptive systems operate from the bottom-up in a dynamic manner that facilitates interactions among the system's agents (e.g., individual team members) with the potential of producing emergent, new, structures [22]. Beck and Plowman [19] identified emergence as "new

conflict, with intergroup conflict being an example of external forces.

dictable results just as easy as unpredictable results.

**5.2. Self-organizing**

74 Organizational Conflict

**5.3. Edge of chaos**

**5.4. Adaptability**

**5.5. Interactions**

**5.6. Emergence**

ing interactions aids emergence.

of heterogeneous components".

chaos but to adapt to external forces.

Conflict models can be classified as being either descriptive or normative in design. Lewicki et al. [28] identified the key identifier in differentiating between descriptive and normative conflict models as their origin of analysis. Descriptive conflict models tend to be built down from human behavior theories, mainly from academia [28]. In contrast, Lewicki et al. [28] differentiated normative conflict models as those that are built up from direct experience by practitioners.

Six general approaches to conflict were identified by Lewicki et al. [28]: the micro-level approach, the macro-level approach, economic analysis, labor relations approach, bargaining and negotiation, and third party dispute resolution. These different approaches to conflict have been derived from both academia and practitioners, have evolved to address specific needs, have emerged to accompany specific industries, and have originated due to excessive frequency of usage [28].

The micro-level approach best fits with the purpose of this review to identify cognitive conflicts in team settings. The micro-level approach is based in psychological theory concentrating on conflict within and between participants while looking at small group behavior, inter- and intra-personal interactions [28]. A review of the conflict theories from the Lewicki et al.'s [28] manuscript will be concentrated on those classified as being descriptive conflict models from the micro-level approach.

Pondy explained that the activation of the attention-focus mechanism was applied where team members focused on conflict related more to behaviors within the team organization

Complex Adaptive Systems: Adapting and Managing Teams and Team Conflict

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.72344

77

Felt conflict refers to the "personalization of conflict" [29]. This conflict could be present in situations where inconsistent demands on team members are made or when a team member feels anxiety through the personalization of conflict [29]. The amount of conflict felt by team members has been observed to be at different levels; there is the possibility that one person might feel conflict with another team member of which that team member has no idea there

Manifest conflict represents the levels of behavior that one may take due to the conflict. A team member may react hostile toward a perceived or threatening conflict, which could result in a disruption of other team members. A key element noted within manifest conflict was the intention to create, hence manifest, a conflict situation to frustrate a team member and result

Lastly, Pondy [29] explained two possible outcomes for the episode of conflict aftermath; not all conflict has the impact of limiting the achievement of goals within the team. If conflict has a positive effect on both the team members and their performance, then the conflict aftermath would be positive and the team members would be more receptive and experienced controlling future conflict situations. Alternatively, if the conflict had a suppression effect, then team members may react unfavorably during the next conflict episode, or even worse, team members could unleash unresolved issues from a past conflict episode, eventually resulting

Three levels of conflict were introduced by Rapaport [30]: fight, game, and debate. At the first level, fight conflict, responses to conflict are automatic responses, which are manifested by chains of events rather than by rational choice [30]. Within the fight conflict, Rapaport [30] explained that there were both positive and negative feedback loops that account for either the stability or instability of the system. The essence of the fight level is the basic fight or flight responses that are embedded into our psychological make-up. To move beyond these basic animalistic responses, one incorporates cognitive senses as a component of conflict, transforming one from the fight level to the game level of conflict. Rapaport [30] further identified various types of games including zero-sum games where both players eventually lose something, the non-zero sum game where the win of one player does not necessarily mean the loss of the second player, and the three-person coalition game where the final outcome is ultimately decided by the social norm or the majority rule. Within the third aspect, Rapaport [30] described the debate level of conflict as one in which the opponent needs to be convinced of the outcome. As an attempt to persuade someone to listen to an alternate position one often needs to offer new insights that are not threatening [30]. The debate level of conflict offers a situation in which each side has an opportunity to present their position while the other side listens, and vice versa. By providing both sides a position, and allowing each alternative side to listen to opposing views, a better resolution or

rather than the personal values of the team members.

is any conflict. The level of anxiety felt is personalized.

in non-cooperative behavior.

*6.1.2. Fight/game/debate*

decision could be made.

in poor team cohesion and performance.

The predominant paradigm within the micro-level approach is presented as being [29] organizational conflict model. Additional models within the micro-level approach that are descriptive had been identified as: [30] *Fight, Debate, Stages of Conflict*; [31] *Stages of Conflict*; and [32] *Conflict Escalation*. The following sections will explore further the literature on these micro-level approaches.
