*6.1.2. Fight/game/debate*

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 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

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:

**3.** Conflict is intimately dependent upon the stability of the team [29].

members have experienced or thought they have experienced.

**1.** Each conflict relationship is composed of a sequence of interlocking conflict episodes. **2.** Conflict may be functional as well as dysfunctional for the individual and the 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

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,

the micro-level approach.

76 Organizational Conflict

micro-level approaches.

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

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 decision could be made.

Of the three levels of conflict presented by Rapaport [30] the debate level of conflict would be the best level of conflict to model in a team setting. The exchange of information is critical to resolve the team's conflict. This exchange of information allows team members to consider other points of view, which can lead to productive resolution. This is supported by Rapaport [30]: "a shift in the outlook of the other can take place only together with a shift in one's own outlook".

*6.1.4. Conflict escalation*

lation than are individuals".

*6.1.5. Dual concerns*

positive outcomes.

**7. Traditional intragroup conflict**

ant views or have interpersonal incompatibilities" [39].

Escalation can take one of two forms according to Pruitt [32]. Escalation where one party becomes increasingly resistant while the second party remains open to discussion is what Pruitt termed *unilateral escalation*. Alternatively, Pruitt identified *bilateral escalation* to indicate when both parties are increasingly resistant to the other corresponding party. When bilateral escalation is present on both sides, counter to each other's opinions, this eventually leads to what Pruitt termed a *conflict spiral,* resulting in an escalation in magnitude. The longer the conflict spiral persists, and the higher in magnitude the conflict becomes, each party's members may begin to develop a new set of norms surrounding the conflict. At this point, it is harder to reverse the process due to the new, differing, set of norms that have developed on the two opposing sides [32]. This view of conflict escalation provided by Pruitt is most relevant to conflict in teams in that Pruitt identified that "groups are also more prone to esca-

Complex Adaptive Systems: Adapting and Managing Teams and Team Conflict

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

79

Dual concerns have been identified in the literature to represent the dual nature of 'concern for oneself' and 'concern for others' [34–36]. The interaction of the concern for self and concern for others occurs on a diagonal where low concern for self and a low concern for others results in a team experience that attempts to avoid the conflict. As the level of concern increases along the diagonal, the level of positive strategy for conflict resolution in implemented. The highest concern for self and for others on the diagonal represents a compromise situation for team members. Although the level of concern seemingly provides for positive outcomes related to conflict resolution, team members with little or no experiences have been observed to have difficulty integrating conflict resolution strategies for long-term solutions in team conflict situations [35]. It is expected that team members who experience the stages of conflict and are novices to conflict, would have difficulty achieving

Conflict in group settings (e.g., teams, department, task group) has been described as being a dynamic process consisting of a series of conflict episodes [29]. Greer et al. [37] supported this description by indicating that "conflict is dynamic". Likewise, Pondy [29] proposed: "Conflict can be more readily understood if it is considered a dynamic process". Since Pondy's [29] stages of conflict, the field of intragroup conflict has expanded into a multidimensional model. Balkundi et al. [38] indicated that team conflict could have multiple effects including distracting team members, undermining relationships, and reducing the team's ability to function (similar to those effects outlined by Pondy's conflict episodes). Team conflict is synonymous with intragroup conflict or within group conflict. Intragroup conflict can be formally defined as: "Perceived incompatibilities or perceptions by the parties involved that they hold discrep-
