*6.1.1. Pondy's (1967) stage model*

Three conceptual models were presented by Pondy [29] in his seminal article: the bargaining model, the bureaucratic model, and the systems model. These conceptual models deal with interdepartmental conflict (bargaining model), vertical hierarchy conflict (bureaucratic model), and lateral conflict (systems model). Although Pondy's conceptual models were identified to conceptually represent conflict in organizations, both the bureaucratic and systems models could be utilized to represent conflict in a team setting. The bureaucratic model could be associated with conflict between team leadership and team members, whereas the systems model could be representative of team member to team member conflict. Pondy [29] identified common threads for each of these three conceptual models. These commonalities are summarized below with the original emphasis changed from organization to team:


To further elaborate on the characteristics of conflict, Pondy [29] identified five conflict episodes: "1) latent conflict (conditions), 2) perceived conflict (cognition), 3) felt conflict (affect), 4) manifest conflict (behavior), and 5) conflict aftermath (conditions)". This systematic organization has been helpful to provide a framework for evaluating the type of conflict team members have experienced or thought they have experienced.

Latent conflict is driven by conflict related to scarce resources, autonomy, and divergence of goals. Role sets within teams is one example of latent conflict, with this latent conflict possibly generated between the team members. Pondy [29] identified latent conflict to occur when "the focal person receives incompatible role demands or expectations from the persons in his role set".

With a focus on teams, conflict could occur when a team member receives incoherent task assignments or expectations from other team members. Although there might be no conditions for latent conflict in the team, perceived conflict in a team setting is likely to occur when one team member misunderstands the positions of the other team members. To manage conflict within the team, Pondy indicated that a suppression mechanism and an attention-focus mechanism can be present during a perceived conflict episode. When a team member blocked a conflict, the suppression mechanism was applied to team member conflict. In contrast, 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 rather than the personal values of the team members.

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

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 in non-cooperative behavior.

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 in poor team cohesion and performance.
