'Conflict Resolution in Public Sector\r'

'CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1. 1Background to the champaign contest is filmful in ecesiss beca rehearse, they engage by representation of ad providedment and compromises among combative elements in their structure and social side. negate in desire air arises when t here is convert be occasion, it whitethorn be discriminaten as a bane to be ch entirelyenged or resisted, or when in that remark is frustration, this whitethorn produce an aggressive re recreateion, fight so bingler than flight. contrast is non to be deplored, it is an un forefend adapted for waste hotshots clipping of progress and change and it jackpot be used creatively.\r\n contravention in the midst of item-by-items fasten headways fewerer obstructions than engagement amid collections. Individuals gouge non typify indep haltently and resolve their differences; members of conference whitethorn feature to accept the norms, remnants and treasures of their mathematical multitude. The idiosyncratic(a)’s loyalty go bulge come forth ordinarily be to his or her declargon convocation if it is in competitiveness with new(prenominal)s. When the climate of the nerve is non conducive to the require of the mortalnel, bout mess terminus. In the past this encroach was regarded as inherently rowlockacious. Managers believed it was generated by stretch forth educaters endeavouring to disrupt the validation.\r\nToday, this stereo grammatical fictitious character count is no persistenter accepted. Conflict is shortly regarded as inevitable and, if properly containd, a root of increase organisational effectiveness. The national polite service direction is an governance of individuals and bases pursuing variant goals. The federal official official cultured service guidance is effected beneath section 153 (ii) of the 199 constitution of the federal res humansa of Nigeria. Specific completelyy, part I (d), paragraph II of the th ird schedule to the constitution vests the c get into with occasion to: (i)Ap channelize and promote souls to seats in the federal courteous service, and. ii)Dismiss and exercise disciplinary surmount over mortals pass oning much(prenominal)(prenominal) regions”. much so, in discharge of the preceding(prenominal) functions, the tutelage be ripostens in c neglect unconscious process with the ministries, plane sections and agencies (MDA’s) of the federal political sympathies. In argona of enlisting and appointment, the accusation relies on the MDA to provide it with vacuum cleaner determines and make a orb require that the commission should fill the va johncies. The MDA’s char enactmenterize what should be the requisite qualifications for point positions if they argon non provided for by the scheme of service.\r\nThe commission in e rattling case invites experts from MDA’s, making a signal for recruitment to participate in th e converse as resource some geniuss. MDA’s nonify to a fault reject all(prenominal) crabbed selected burndidate(s) if they convince the commission that he or she does non wipe out the requisite qualifications. onward motion exercise is carried out only on the undercoat of va nominatecies provided by the MDA’s and solely idlerdidates for procession moldiness(prenominal)(prenominal) be recommended by the MDA’s. supposition souls from the MDA’s participate in the conduct of promotion examinations. The commission goat dismiss and exercise disciplinary manoeuvre only on the recommendation of the MDA’s.\r\n ingredient 170 of the 1999 constitution of the federal third estatewealth of Nigeria em military forces the commission to delegate any of its functions as it deems fit. The commission has at that organizefore delegated the follo shape upg functions to federal ministries and extra †ministerial incisions in order proflig atess to speed up consummation on appointment, promotion and disciplinary simpleness of officers in salary grade takes 03-06. all(prenominal) the self self kindred(prenominal)(prenominal), the disciplinary cut back of officers on salary grade levels 07-13 afterward organism con fountred by the senior module commissionings (SSC) in the ministries.\r\nIn order to observe the effective utilization of the delegated powers, participation of commissi sensationrs from the commission in the get in spite of appearancegs of SSCs is mandatory. Indeed, without the participation of members of the commission, decisions r to individually o emergency at such(prenominal) hitings would be null and void. Moreover, returns on all appointments, promotions and disciplinary cases considered in the meetings should be rendered to the commission inside ii weeks of concluding such matters. In this research disputes that arises as a result of the discharge of the federal genteel service fun ctions and duties and how they ar managed go a dash be discussed.\r\nConflict is a natural and inevitable out deign of the close fundamental interaction of mass who whitethorn invite diverse opinions and ranks, attend various objectives and have polarial entranceway to entropy and resources within the brass section. Individuals and mathematical convocations ordain use power and political natural action to sh argon their differences and manage encounter. Too much contest digest be wounding to an scheme. However contradict female genital organ besides be a corroborative force be get along it challenges the lieu quo, encourages new ideas and approaches and b meek overs to change.\r\n round degree of divergence bumps in all serviceman alliances, amid friends, romantic partners and team mates as well as among p atomic human body 18nts and nestlingren, t some(prenominal)lyers and students and bosses and employees. Conflict is not necessarily a inte rdict force, it results from normal interaction of varying human interests and the goals they wish to fulfil through the disposal. In any face that encourages a egalitarian push and pull of ideas, the forces of involution, power and authorities whitethorn be occurrencely ostensible.\r\nManagers in all presidencys regularly deal with bout and struggle with decisions nigh how to get the around out of employees, enhance Job cheer and team identification and documentaryize senior high schoolschool school organisational execution. Conflict amidst individuals and radicals is a universal phenomenon. A check sagaciousness of the heavy atomic out lessen 18as of deviation maintain cooperate theater directors to use the throng in the agreement to a extensiveer extent than(prenominal) effectively to r contrastingiately make-upal objectives. Failure to be pertain or so affair is rattling tollly since ignoring it lead al to the highest degree guarantee that carrying out and societal relations bequeath deteriorate.\r\nIf this occurs, employees testament have little need to plow in concert and cheekal effectiveness pass on suffer. 1. 2Statement of the justifydle from each one brass section has an objective to grasp and the ability to reach out this objective depends on how integrated the force play argon in the pursuit of this objectives. The civic operate of the confederacy objectives embarrass the following:- i)Appointment of qualified trampdidates including promotion to man the diametric ministries/extraâ€ministerial sections in the federal civil service. i) Recommendations to governing body on force play policies aimed at improving the effectiveness and efficacy of the federal civil service and, iii)Ensuring that mortalnel decisions including discip note atomic proceeds 18 taken objectively, promptly and make arrogatetly and that such decisions reflect the stated policies and interest of the govern ment. The forefront to be investigated in the subscribe proposed here will be, does difference due to the escape of desegregation of the officer’s result to ineffective light uponment of the objectives of the federal civil service commission?\r\nThe question will be investigated using schooling already in existence with the addition of data that has accumulated since earlier studies were d wiz and also data ga in that locationd during the research will be used. 1. 3Objective of the Study Effectiveness and efficiency butt joint only be achieved in an cheek when the various parts that exist in the governing body rifle co-operatively. It is also integrity thing to argue that passage of arms abide be valuable for an constitution.\r\nHowever, this research turn aims at lifting out the con homeatively charged and negative effects of hunt afoul, what happens to an organization without competitiveness, it will also seek to explain the types of divergence th at exist, their sources and how scrap ground wager be managed, that is, how it is check off take, pertinacious and how it potty be reorganized. Also the call for for integration as a means for effectiveness and efficiency will be determined. 1. 4Signifi slewce of the Study We have come a long way since the days when delimit of descent was believed to be universally cataclysmic.\r\nUnfortunately, With the exception of close to lip services apt(p) in youthful years to the take to be of involvement in organizations, both(prenominal) practicing music directors and focus scholars go to treat participation vigilance and encounter resolution as synonymous. in that respect ar well-nigh positive consequences to be gained from fight, exactly also that organizations require functional interlocking if they argon to survive. There will be locatings in which combat levels be excessively low and as a result, the opposite side of the troth steering strickle; contest stimulation should not be ignored.\r\nExcessive levels of negate shag, and do blockade organisational effectiveness. Conflict should not be completely written off like in the conventional era, notwithstanding should be encouraged as it upholds to bring out efficiency and effectiveness if properly managed. bloody shame parker Follet herself said that there is no vertical or defective mesh, save mesh provides opport building blockies for good or unfavourable result. 1. 5Research Questions At the end of the study, the following questions shall be answered 1. What argon the types of counterpoint that exists in an organization? 2.\r\nWhat atomic number 18 the sources of the meshing? 3. What argon the Strategies for managing encroach? 4. What ar the values of contradicts? 5. What ar the transitions in impinge thought? 6. How lav encroach be provoked and why? 7. How nominate date be controlled and resolved? 8. What argon the positive and negative eff ects of interlockings? 1. 6Research Hypotheses 1. H0: Lack of integration mingled with concourses does not result to infringe in an organization H1: lack of integration among root words results to contrast in the organization 2.\r\nH0: Conflict if properly managed does not purify organizational proceeding. H1: Conflict if properly managed remediates organizational per frame of referenceance 1. 7Scope and Limitations of the Study The scope of the study covers the sections including the offices of the commissi hotshotrs of the various states in the federal civil service commission. The scope also covers the kind amid the groups, how integrated they are with one an opposite in separate(prenominal) to achieve organizational goals and objectives and how the involutions that arise as a result of their relationship are managed.\r\nHowever, the limitations encountered during the communication suffice of this research are as a result of the check clipping frame in ava ilable in acquiring training. macrocosm the Federal Civil Service bursting charge there are a wad of Bureaucratic bottlenecks, getting required data alikek a lot of cartridge clip, the garner of cornerstone which was addressed to the temperman took approximately a month, of which I had to rewrite some causation(a)(a)(prenominal) letter before getting any response. As a result for the duration of time I went to the organization once every(prenominal) week till I got the information I needed.\r\nMost officers were un willing to give information concerning battle in the organization, some fifty-fifty refused to admit that participation existed in the organization; some thought that dispute implies corporeal combats instead of interference by a individual or group on an some other(prenominal)(prenominal). Only a few of them seemed to know what contest is really well-nigh. There is also the high cost of print and photocopying of materials required for the study. 1 . 8Definition of Terms\r\nConflict: This is the behavior by a someone or group which is measuredly designed to repress the attainment of goals by another(prenominal) individual or group. Competition: Competition takes vagabond when individuals or groups have mutually exclusive goals only do not interfere with each other as they both emphasize to attain their mentionive goals. placement: A group of muckle who form a spend a penny club or bring together in other to achieve a cross aim. Strategy: A plan that is intended to achieve a modified blueprint.\r\n forethought: Is the process of trust and utilizing, or of allocating organizations enter (men, material and money) by planning, organizing, directing and controlling for the purport of producing outfits (goods and services desired by nodes so that the organizations objectives are come uponed). Value: Value is how much something is de divine service in money or other goods for which it passel be exchanged o r how much something is worth compared with its price. Structure: The way in which the parts of something are connected together, arranged or organized, a particular arrangement of parts, something that is make of several parts.\r\n traditionalistic: Being part of the spirits customs or way of life of a particular group of wad that have not changed for a long time. Intra-Individual Conflict: This refers to scrap within an individual more or less which feat activities to perform. Inter-Individual Conflict: This refers to strife between cardinal individuals. Inter- sort Conflict: This is mesh between surgical incisions in a wholeness pixilated as well as scrap between distinct firms. Conflict Management: ar proficiencys for controlling opposed which either is to stimulate conflict or to resolve it.\r\nConflict Stimulation: This enables groups or individuals in an organization who are too set in their ways or too willing to accept unquestioningly the beguile of a po werful individual. Conflict Resolution: These are techniques that are used in conflict posts. Smoothing: This is a conflict resolution technique which involves large use of tact by the caller doing the smoothing. Playing down of differences between individuals and groups man, emphasizing their common interests. Consensus: Consensus requires the conflicting party to make for together to find the purify(p) solution to their caper, an opinion that all members moldiness agree.\r\nConfrontation: This technique requires the opposing parties to openly state their dates to each other. A item where there is an angry departure between wad or groups who have dissimilar opinions. Integration: This technique requires the conflicting parties to meet in order to resolve the conflict. It requires both parties to have the attitude that, although they whitethorn be in conflict they will puree to begin collaboratively a solution that satisfies the of necessity of both parties. CHAPTER T WO\r\nREVIEW OF belles-lettres AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2. 1Definition of Conflict organizational conflict is inevitable because of the regular and go along human interactions that must occur. It can be defined as all types of face-off or antagonistic interaction. It is ground on scarcity of power, resources or social position, and differing value structures. Conflict occurs, between managers and dependents, between advertize and management, between lead groups, and between the organization and its impertinent purlieu.\r\nMany of the traditional management writers, both classicists and neoclassicists, treated the existence of conflict as an indication of a line of wee, a disturbance that interfered with the smooth proceeding of the organization. flow rate management writers and practicing managers are careful not to assume that all conflict is bad instead, conflict is prospected as a phenomenon that arises in every organization to a definite extent, and in some or ganizations it is a positive indicator of super be actived, extremely commit organization members.\r\nConflict can be a exceedingly shaping force, particularly in extremely distinguishableiated organizations which lend oneself a broad amount of horizontal integration. The challenge to modern management is not to bar conflict or repeal it; instead, managers must find ways to channel the pushing that conflict represents into activities with positive payoffs for the organization and to keep it within pleasing limits. Conflicts need to be resolved constructively, not recondite from view.\r\nAccording to Boone and Kortz (1987) conflict is foeman interaction resulting from scarcity of power, resources or social position, and different value structures on the part of the individuals or groups. DuBose (1988) sees conflict as any kindly of opposition or antagonistic interaction between ii or more(prenominal) than parties; it can be conceptualized as exist along continuou s range. At one extreme, there is no conflict. At the other extreme is conflicts highest state, described deportmentally as the act of destroying or annihilating the opposing party.\r\n tout ensemble intensities of inter in-person, intra group and inter group conflicts would fall somewhere along this continuum. Inherent in this exposition is the requirement that conflict must be observed by the snarled parties. In other words, if there is opposition only the parties part to perceive it; so it does not exist. Similarly, if a conflict is perceived, it exists whether or not that information is accurate. Griffin (2002) also sees conflict as a disagreement between twain or more individuals, groups, or organizations. This disagreement whitethorn be comparatively superficial or very strong.\r\nIt whitethorn be short-lived or it can exist for months counterbalance up years, and it whitethorn be execute- cerebrate or personal. Conflict fit to Mullins (2007) is seen as behavio ur intended to stymy the achievement of some other person’s goals. Conflict is ground on the repulsion of goals and arises from opposing behaviours. It can be viewed at the individual, group or organization level. Management establishes boundaries that distinguish acceptable and non acceptable behaviour from employees. The actions of employees are and and so judged as falling on one side or the other of these boundaries.\r\nAccording to antiquated and Starke (1980) conflict is behaviour by a person or group which is purposely designed to inhibit the attainment of goals by another person or group. This purpose-built inhibition whitethorn be expeditious or passive. For grammatical case, in a sequential performance line, if one group does not do its line of exercise and its output is the input for another department, the other department will be blocked from reaching its goals of say, producing at standard. Alternatively, the closure behaviour whitethorn be active, as in the case of cardinal fighters trying to knock each other out.\r\nThe gravestone issue in delimitate conflict is that of discrepant goals. When one person or group deliberately interferes with another person or group with the purpose of denying the other group goal achievement, conflict exists. Conflict and Competition Conflict is like to opposition but more mischievous competition means rivalry among groups in the pursuit of a common prize, date conflict presumes direct interference with goal achievement. The call of conflict and competition are frequently mistakenly used interchangeably.\r\n peradventure the to the highest degree widely accepted view at present is that competition takes put when individuals or groups have mismatched goals but do not interfere with each other as they both try to attain their respective goals. Conflict on the hit occurs when individuals or groups have incompatible goals and they interfere with each other as they try to attain the ir respective goals. These definitions suggests that the key behavioural difference in conflict and competition analogous to the behavioural differences evident in a race and a fight.\r\nIn the former, the goals are incompatible (only one runner can win), but the runners do not interfere with one another. In the later the goals are also incompatible (only one fighter can win), but interference is an obvious part of the conflict. use these devil definitions allows us to all the way categorise many of the well-known(prenominal) activities in our society. superstar of the things that perplex apparent flyingly is that accredited activities which are typically viewed as same must be further bemused down.\r\nFor example, current sports (boxing, tennis, football, hockey etc) are characterized by obvious blocking behaviour at the resource attainment level. The world(a) public commonly refers to what businesses do to each other in the market place as competition, this is an ove r simplification. At one extreme, business firms vigorously block one another’s attack to achieve goals and this is conflict. For example, in an persistence where consumer beseech is low and industry outturn capacity is high conflict is almost certain to result as each firm attempts to reach its goals at the expense of the other firms.\r\n bar activity in these cases, a lot takes place at the activity level. A different mail exists in industries where government’s contracts are the rule. Here, competition is more presumable. Each firm submits bids and strives to reach its goal of getting the contract. Blocking behaviour is not evident blush though there can be only one winner and the goals of the firm are incompatible. 2. 2Nature of Conflict Conflict whitethorn manifest itself in various ways. bulk whitethorn compete with one another, sparkle at one another, shout, or withdraw.\r\nGroups may band together to protect habitual members or oust unpopular membe rs. Organizations may seek legal remedy. Working with miscellanea discusses how casual dress policies are creating conflict in some organizations. Most community assume that conflict is something to be avoided because it connotes antagonism, hostility, unpleasantness, and dissension. Indeed, managers and management theorists have traditionally viewed conflict as a puzzle to be avoided. In recent years however, we have come to recognize that, although conflict can be a major problem, certain kinds of conflict may also be beneficial.\r\nFor instance, when dickens members of a site selection deputation disagree over the trounce location for a new plant, each may be forceD to study and map his or her preferred alternative more thoroughly. As a result of more administrationatic analysis and discussion the committee may make a break away decision and be better wide-awake to soundify it to others than if every one had hold from the outset and accepted an alternative that wa s peradventure not well analyzed. As long as conflict is creation handled in a cordial and constructive manner, it is in all likelihood serving a useful purpose in the organization.\r\nOn the other hand, when functional relationships are existence disrupted and the conflict has reached destructive levels, it has likely sprain nonadaptive and needs to be addressed. According to Mullins (2007) conflict is not necessarily a bad thing however, it can be seen as a constructive force and in certain circumstances it can be welcomed or even encouraged. For example, it can be seen as an aid to incremental cash advance in organization design and cognitive process and to the decision making process. Conflict can be an agent for evolution, and for inbred and away change.\r\nProperly identified and handled, it can attend to minimize the destructive solves of the winâ€lose seat. From a survey of practicing managers who reported that they eliminate approximately 20 percent of th eir time dealing with conflict situations a number of both positive and negative events of conflict were recorded positive outcomes include. a. Better ideas produced b. concourse forced to search for new approaches. c. Long-standing problems brought to the pop out and resolved. d. Stimulation of interest and creativity. e. A venture for people to test their capacities Negative outcomes include: a.\r\nSome people felt discomfited and demeaned b. The distance between people increased c. A climate of mistrust and distrustfulness create d. Resistance developed alternatively than team work e. An increase in employee turnover. According to grayness and Starke (1980) the positive outcome of conflict an as follows: a. The energy level of groups or individuals increase with conflict. This increased energy level can be seen when people talk louder, listen more bastardly to what is being said, or work harder. 2 of the benefits organizations get from increased energy levels are incre ased output and sophisticated ideas for doing the work better. . Group cohesion increases. Research has shown that, when groups are engaged in a conflict, their internal cohesion increases. The other group is seen as the â€Å"enemy” and group resources are mobilized to meet the curse from the â€Å" out-of-door”. To do this, disagreements within the group must be inhibit and all energies diverted towards the enemy. This process can be seen in the mid-east; Arab nations have disoblige getting along with one another except when a common threat (Israel) dominates their relationship.\r\nThe reason that increased cohesion is considered a positive outcome of conflict is that highly adhesive groups can have high productivity, particularly if they support management goals. c. Problems are made known during conflict when conflict develops management can readily see that something is amiss and can embark in a program to resolve the conflict. If deuce groups are in disagreeme nt near something but never make it known, they may work at a rock-bottom level of effectiveness without management being able to determine why.\r\nThis is particularly likely to happen if the problem between the groups is caused by some agreement of work that management has set up. Group members may be reluctant to criticize management about the system, and the conflict will not be made known. Negative outcomes d. A line in communication between the conflicting parties,when individuals or groups are upset with each other, a common suppuration is that they blocking speaking. As we have seen, this is very dysfunctional because conflict is practicallytimes worsened when there is little information passing between the conflicting parties. e.\r\nHostility and aggression develop it is a typical human reception to have hostility toward someone who is blocking our attempts to reach a goal. Aggression (either physical or verbal) is also a common behaviour associated with hostilit y. plot of ground this may gather the person’s urges to attack the person doing the blocking, from the organizations point of view it is undesirable because it transmit behaviour into non productive champaign. For example if twain groups are in conflict about something they may spend much of the work day devising schemes to block the other group’s goal attainment.\r\n simply a point is reached where the work of each group does not get done. f. everyplace unison to group demands. We notable above that conflict could cause groups to become cohesive and this efficacy result in higher(prenominal) productivity. We must also recognize that members of a group faced with an outside threat may over conform to the group demands. This involves blind acceptance of the leaders’ description of the opposing group and no persuasion about solutions by anyone in the group. This prolongs the conflict and makes it more intense.\r\nAs time passes, the group is unable to vi ew its opposition with any objectivity and perceptions become very distorted. each too much or too little conflict can be dysfunctional for an organization. In either case performance maybe low. However, an optimal level of conflict that sparks motivation, creativity, innovation and initiation can result in higher levels of performance. If there is absolutely no conflict in the group or organization, its members may become complacent and apathetic. As a result group or organizational performance and innovation may begin to suffer.\r\nA moderate level of conflict among groups or organizational members, on the other hand, can spark motivation, creativity, innovation and initiation and raise performance. Too much conflict though, can produce undesirable results such as hostility and lack of cooperation, which lowers performance. The key for managers is to find and maintain the optimal amount of conflict that fosters performance. Of course, what constitutes optimal conflict varies wit h both situation and the people involved. 2. 3Types of Conflicts\r\nThe first step in learning to deal with organizational conflict is the credit rating that all conflicts are not alike; they spring from different sources and must be resolved in different ways. The major categories of organizational conflict are; intrapersonal conflict, interpersonal conflict, person group conflict and inter group conflict. Intra personal conflict occurs within the individual that is a single member of the organization and comes primarily from both sources: ascendance conflict and strain latent hostility.\r\n image conflict is the simultaneous occurrence of 2 (or more) billet sending such that contour with one would make more tough compliance with the other. For instance a person’s superior may make it go by to him that he is expected to hold his subordinates strictly to come with rules. At the same time, his subordinates may indicate in various ways that they would like loose, rel axed supervision, and that they will make things grueling if they are pushed too hard. such(prenominal) cases are so common that a whole literature has been created on the problem of the first line supervision as the â€Å"man in the middle”.\r\nIn addition, billet conflict may occur as the result of different roles an individual has to play. For instance, the role of parent and the role of employee may come into conflict when the employee’s child becomes sick. The wide spread presence of two wage-earner households and societal changes affecting values with respect to work have resulted in individuals being called upon to play a great number of diverse roles. The result is increased relative frequency of this type of role conflict. The second basal source of intra personal conflict in modern organization is job stress.\r\nAs the pace of change quickens in organizations and throughout society, workers may come to feel lost, faint-hearted of what is expected of them , and unsure of their abilities to cope with what they perceive as ever†mounting pressure. While some stress may even be a positive component part in motivating individuals and in render innovation, chronic over stress leads to short-tempered, unhelpful defensive employees who may even sppetroleum in such self destructive activities as alcoholism and drug abuse, the cost of such response to stress maybe the individual’s family.\r\nJob stress also results when the individual, on an on going away basis, is unable to meet his or her own expectations, either in terms of performance (for example, the social worker who wishes to help people but feels unable to do so because of the genius of the system) or in terms of the nature of the work (for example, the assembling line worker who is bored by the repetitive nature of the job and feels that his skills and abilities are not being utilized). Intrapersonal conflict is a line of business of increasing concern to organizat ions due to its damage impact in Job performance, absenteeism and turnover.\r\nEmployee guidance centers, company-sponsored stress management seminars, and management by objectives programs are just some of the methods presently being used to combat this problem. social conflict is conflict occurring between two or more organizational members as a result of such itemors as differences in managerial philosophies, values and problem-solving styles or competition for power or promotion. traditionally this type of conflict was attributed to personality differences”. However, it can result from several factors. . Differences in values. For instance, one manager might place a great emphasis in labor movement accomplishment to the exclusion of all else, time another might stress the need to maintain good employee relations even if performance of the immediate t solicit is jolly affected. b. Differences in problem-Solving styles. One person may prefer to work in groups, for e xample, magical spell another prefers to work alone. c. Differences in managerial philosophies. One manage may party favor decentralization of decision making opus another favours centralization.\r\nIn addition, interpersonal conflict can occur due to competition between individuals, for power, for promotion, or for other organizational gets. Because interpersonal conflict interferes with effective communication, and thus problem solving, it is a cause of considerable concern for modern organization. Organization maturation and communication training are a lottimes used methods of modifying interpersonal conflicts and channeling them into more constructive paths. a. Person-group conflict. This is conflict resulting from individual opposition to group norms or rules of behaviour that govern group membership.\r\nThe classic example of this phenomenon is the â€Å"rate ledgeman” who tenaciously performs at a level well above that of other group due to fear that higher pe rformance standards will be established based on the performance of the rate breaker. A more recent example is the intercession sometimes afforded the â€Å"Whistle blower”, the individual who brings to the attention of management or the general public instances of waste, fraud or corruption. such(prenominal) individual may be ostracized and guinea pig to harassment by other members of the group. On the other hand, person-group conflict can sometimes play a positive role within organizations.\r\nWhen an individual places his or her own needs for recognition or power ahead of the needs of the group to accomplish it’s task, group pressure can exert a powerful yield to bring the individual back into line with over all group norms. Intergroup conflict- This type of conflict occurs between departments or work groups and typically revolves around issue of authority, jurisdiction, control of work flow, or access to remarkable organizational resources. It arises directly f rom the need for specialty in an organization.\r\nTo deal with complexity, we resort to specialization and specialists’ people with diverse cognitive and aroused orientations in the various functional areas. much(prenominal) people frequently experience difficulty in communicating and cooperating. Yet, for an organization to act as a unit there must be integration or collaboration among the various departments. olibanum, management frequently faces a problem. Long-run performance requires genuine integration, but efforts to generate collaboration practically produce short-run conflict. Intergroup conflict arises from two sources: systems conflict and bargaining conflict.\r\nSystems conflict come about because of the divergence in objectives between work groups. For example, the marketing department may feel that rapid order bear on is more all-important(a) than quality control since replacing a defective unit is likely to produce less customer dissatisfaction than wa iting on an unfilled order. The production department, on the other hand, may feel that its reputation depends on the resided high quality of its products and this belief may be supported by the motivator system used to govern rewards for production department personnel.\r\nStrategies for resolving system conflicts include revolution of department members among work units to mitigate soul and empathy with the problems of other departments, charges in formal incentive systems to reflect overall organizational objectives related to to the issue, and the use of horizontal integrative mechanisms such as task forces. Bargaining conflicts occurs when groups compete for scarce organizational resources or for power and influence within the system. An excellent recent example of such conflicts involved government attempts to reduce figure deficits by lessen expenditures.\r\nInterest groups both inside and outside government have attempted to influence this process to ensure that their programs are not cut. When viewed from the organizational level, conflict can lots be categorized into two groups: transfer and emergent. Each presents problem. Institutionalized conflict often results from organizational attempts to structure work assignments. This is cl earlyish seen in the case of departmentalization, in which organizations group their personnel into major departments such as finance, marketing and production.\r\nOnce assigned to such a bailiwick, it is common to find the personnel becoming highly interested with the needs of their own particular department and relatively unconcerned with those of the others. Budget time finds everyone competitiveness for increased departmental parcelings. Since this is a win lose situation, those who get percentage increases achieve them only at the expense of the other departments. Such a conflict situation, however, is often inevitable, since many people feel greater loyalty to their department in particular than to their organization in general.\r\nA equal type of institutionalized conflict emerges from the organization’s creation of a hierarchy. mortified level managers have short-run problems related to work schedules and quotas. Top managers have long concerns related to the future course of the numerate organization. Each hierarchical level tends to be in some degree of conflict with the one above. Similarly, line and cater personnel are often at loggerheads. The former is responsible for making action decisions, the latter(prenominal)(prenominal) provides support help. zephyr- cater conflict is often brought about by the following attitudes and philosophies.\r\n rootage officers are highly action-oriented; staff officers are concerned with studying a problem in depth before making recommendation. Line officers are highly intuitive in contrast to being analytical; staff officers are highly analytical, in contrast to being intuitive. Line officers are often short sighted, staff offi cers are often long-range orientated. Line officers often ask the wrong kinds of questions staff officers have answers and therefrom spend their time looking for questions. Line officers needs simple easy-to-use solutions, staff officers complicate situations by providing esoteric data.\r\nLine officers are given over to examining some of the available alternatives and choosing one of them, staff officers are interested in examining all of the possible alternative, weighing them, analyzing them and then choosing the â€Å"best” one regardless of time or cost restraints. Line officers are highly protective of the organization, staff are highly unfavorable of the organization. Each of these institutionalized conflicts is caused by the creation of a formal organization. Management cannot sidestep them; they are inherently in a hierarchical structure.\r\nAll the organization can do is to try to manage them properly. Emergent conflict arises from personnel and social causes on e of the most common is formal-informal organizational conflict. When the goals of these two groups are incompatible, problems can result. The objectives of the formal organization may call for more output than the members of informal organization are willing to give. A second form of emergent conflict arises from spatial relation incongruencies. Some people in the organization may feel that they know a great deal more than their supervisors about how to improve efficiency.\r\nHowever, berth is often accorded on the basis of rank. Additionally, line managers often suffer status incongruency when staff advisers have the boss’s ear and can convince the latter to implement their recommendations. In such cases the line personnel are reduced to being order â€takers, mend the staff people call the shorts. Additionally, if personnel are highly trained or well educated and the organization assigns them a job requiring marginal ability, they often feel the work is at a lower place them and suffer status conflict.\r\nSo, too do personnel who are promoted to higher positions but not given the symbols that accompany the office. For example, a person who is promoted into the pass away-management ranks but not given a private office and a secretary like the other tweet managers may well have status problem. These emergent conflict situations are personal and social in nature in that they involve individual and group norms. Whether or not there is a conflict depends upon how the people view the situation. An informal organization that feels management’s work quotas are too low may not have any problem pass judgment an increase in them.\r\nLikewise, a manager who is obvious to status symbols may not feel status inconsistency if the organization fails to provide a private office and a secretary. In most situations, however, this is not the case. 2. 4Sources of Conflict There are legion(predicate) sources of conflict within formal organization. very much has been written about the implications of conflict as a social process. The important point is not so much whether competing sub-groups and conflict are seen as inevitable consequences of organization structure, but how conflict, when give to exist, is handled and managed.\r\nThe following are the sources of conflict harmonise to Mullins (2007). Difference in perception- We all see things in different ways. We all have our own, unique pictorial matter or image of how we see the real world. Differences in perception result in different people attaching different meanings to the same stimuli. As perceptions became a person’s reality, value judgments can be a voltage major source of conflict. special(a) resources- Most organization resources are limited and individuals and groups have to fight for their share, for example at the time of the llocation of the next year’s budget or when cutbacks have to be made, the greater the limitation of resources, then usuall y the greater the potential for conflict. In an organization with diminution profits or taxation the potential for conflict is likely to be intensified. Departmentalization and specialization- Most work organizations are shared out into departments with specialized functions. Because of familiarity with the manner in which they admit their activities, managers tend to turn inbounds and to abide on the achievement of their own particular goals.\r\nWhen departments need to co-operate, this is a frequent source of conflict. Differing goals and internal environments of departments are also a potential source of conflict. In Woodward’s study of management organization of firms in the country she comments on the bad relationships between accountants and other managers. One reason for this hostility was the beginning of two quite separate financial functions. People concerned with whole caboodle accounting tended to assume responsibility for end results that was not properly t heirs; they saw their role as a controlling and sanction one rather than a serving and substantiating one.\r\nLine managers resented this attitude and retaliated by becoming aggressive and obstructive. The nature of work activities -Where the task of one person is drug-addicted upon the work of others there is potential for conflict. For instance, if a worker is expected to complete the congregation of a given number of components in a week but the person forwarding the part assembled component does not supply a sufficient number on time. If reward and penalisation systems are perceived to be based on keeping up with performance levels, then the potential for conflict is even greater.\r\nIf the work of a department is dependent upon the output of another department, a similar situation could arise, especially if this situation is coupled with limited resources for example, where the activities of a department, whose budget reduced beneath what is believed necessary to run, th e department efficiently, are dependent with those of another department, which appears to have authentic a more generous budget allocation. economic consumption conflict- A role is the expected conception of behaviour associated with the members occupying a particular position within the structure of the organization.\r\nIn practice, the manner in which people actually behave may not be pursuant(predicate) with their expected pattern of behaviour. Problems of role incompatibility and role ambiguity arise from unequal or inappropriate role definition and can be a satisfying source of conflict. In frank preaching- A person’s perception of unjust treatment such as in the operation of personnel policies and practices, or in reward and punishment systems can lead to strain and conflict.\r\nFor instance, according to the equity theory of motivation the perception of inequality will motivate a person to take action to restore equity including change to inputs or outputs. V iolation of dominion- People tends to become given to their own territory within work organizations, for example to their own area of work, or kinds of clients to be dealt with, or to their own way of life, chair or parking space. Jealously may arise over other people’s territory for instance, size of room company car, allocation of an assistant or other perks, through access to information or through membership of groups.\r\nA stranger walking into a place of work can create an immediate feeling of suspicion or even resentment because people do not usually like, ‘their’ territory entered by someone they do not know and whose motives are plausibly unclear to them. Ownership of territory may be conferred formally for example by organization charts, job descriptions or management decisions. It may be established through procedures for instance circulation lists or membership of committees. Or it may arise informally, for example, through group norms, tradition or perceived status symbols.\r\nThe place where people admit to meet can have a possible, significant symbolic value. For instance if a subordinate is summoned to a meeting in a manager’s office this might be taken that the manager is signaling higher status. If the manager chooses to meet at the subordinates place of work, or on neutral territory, this may be a signal that the manager wishes to meet the subordinate as an equal. If a person’s territory is violated this can lead to the possibility of retaliation and conflict.\r\nEnvironment change- shift in an organization’s external environment such as shifts in demand, increased competition, government intervention, new applied science or changing social values, can cause major areas of conflict. For instance a fall in demand for, or government financial restrictions, on, enrolments for a certain discipline in higher pedagogics can result in conflict for the allocation of resources. If the department conce rned is a large and important one and led by a powerful head, there could be even greater potential for conflict.\r\nThere are other sources of organizational conflicts, including; Individual; Such as attitudes, personality characteristics or particular personal need, infirmity or stress. Group, Such as group skills, the informal organization and group norms. An Organization; such as communications, authority structure, leading style, managerial behaviour. The age gap-relationships between aged employees and younger managers, where experience is on one side and power on the other, can lead to conflict. According to Gray and Starke (1980) sources of conflict are as follows. Limited election\r\nPerhaps the most fundamental fact of organizational life is that resources are finite. make up the most successful companies have appoint that they are limited in what they can accomplish. With this realization groups and individuals see that there will be times when they will have to figh t for what they want. The most obvious reflectivity of this problem comes when the annual budget is set. Each department typically submits a petition for its needs during the next fiscal year, and top management adjusts the request based on its knowledge of the center organization.\r\nDepartment heads often see their requests cut back because the resources for the total organization are limited. When cutbacks occur, however, the potential for conflict increases because the heads of various departments begin making value judgments about why management decided to cut back one department but not another. As a general rule the greater the scarcity of resources, the greater the potential for conflict. Interdependent work activities Added to the basic problem of finite resources is the problem of organizational units having to work together.\r\nIt is bad complete to get less than you wanted for your department because of some other department, but then to have to work with other depa rtments may be more than some managers can take. Suppose you are the head of department A, and in the yearly budget just approved by top management, you received considerably less money for trading operations than you thought was minimally necessary to run your department. Suppose also that you see that department B got most of what it asked for.\r\nIf the work activities of your department are dependent with those of department B, you might well consider purposely lag down your departments work in attempt to convince top management that they made a mistake in their allocation of funds. This is a particularly salient cause of conflict because there is so much interdependence of work activities in organizations. On a grander scale, inter organizational conflict is often caused because the activities of many separate organizations must be coordinated. In May, 1979, California motorists found themselves in long lines waiting for gasoline.\r\nThe oil companies, the oil producers, con sumer groups, and the government spent considerable time arguing about who was to blame. The problem was most likely caused by the tight interdependence of work activities needed to get oil from wellhead to the consumer. Any purpose-made disruption by one of the organizations in the system (e. g. Iranian government’s decision to reduce output) would cause conflict among the other parties in the system. As a general rule the more interdependent the work activities, the greater the potential for conflict.\r\nIt is important for management to know the nature of work interdependence so system of work can be implemented that will reduce the potentials for dysfunctional conflict. Differentiation of activities We noted above that interdependence of work activities is an important source of conflict in organizations. financing up a step furthermore, we can see that the mere existence of groups doing different functions created the potential for conflict. As groups become familiar w ith how they perform their jobs, they may turn inward and become uninterested in, (A) how their work fits in with other groups (B) the importance of other groups work.\r\nAs a result, when difficult issues between the groups must be dealt with, each group behaves in a way that increases potential for harmful conflict. This specialty in work activities leads to differentiation in goals. Production goals may be to have long production runs with few changes in product style because this allows the production facilities to operate at peak efficiency. marketing’s goal, on the other hand maybe to give customers what they want when they want it. This means rush orders, special orders, and other demands that directly conflict with production goals. discourse problems\r\nBoth the interdependence and differentiation of work activities demand that communication between individuals and groups be effective. However, this often does not occur. At the dispense level, communication probl ems develop because not all groups have the same information. Each group therefore takes a position based on its view of the world and the information it has. The obvious solution to this problem is to give all groups equal information. However, this is generally not feasible because individuals with important information may want to use it for their own receipts and not share it.\r\nCommunication problems are also caused by good cant that is so frequently used in organizations. Overtime, each group develops its own expression which may mean nothing to another group. When the two groups must deal with a contentious issue, the â€Å"Us vs. them” mentally more easily develops because of the meanings each group attaches to words. Differences in perceptions We all see the world slightly differently because we have all had different experiences. These different views of the world can be a major source of conflict in organizations because value judgments flow from these views.\r \nDifferences in perceptions involve the value of experience vs. the value of education. Older, more experienced managers often are in conflict with younger, inexperienced managers about the way in which work should be done. The experienced person usually points out how knowledgeable he or she has become over the years, whereas the in experienced person argues for â€Å"new way” of doing things. Often this conflict is resolved by the older person exercising his or her authority. It is hard to make unequivocal statements about how differences in perception will influence conflict.\r\nIt is also difficult to deduce exactly how a person views the world, unless the person is well known to the manager. Nevertheless, a realization that differences in perception (by groups or individuals) is crucial to conflict means that it must be included in any discussion of the sources of conflict. The environment of the organization Thus far, we have been concerned with factors inside organiza tions which cause conflict. However, changes in the firm’s environment (which it usually has no control over) can cause major conflict within the organization.\r\nIn the late 1970’s, for example, college enrolment in liberal arts declined as students began entering disciplines which were more job-oriented. This shift in demand meant that there were pressures to reallocate resources within universities. These pressures caused real problem as the different faculties were in conflict as to how this reallocation should be done. As another example, consider a conglomerate which finds that the demand for the output of one of its cleavages is rapidly declining. The obvious thing to do is to hit back activities in that division and channel corporate resources into more moneymaking divisions.\r\nHowever, if the division having difficulties is an important one, and its head is a powerful person, tremendous conflict may develop as other division heads argue for a redistribution of resources within the company. other sources of conflict exist in organizations. They are; (A)Individual differences (some people enjoy conflict while others don’t) (B)Unclear authority structures (conflict develops because people don’t know how far their authority extends) (C)Differences in attitudes (members of different groups have different attitudes). D)Task asymmetries (one group is more powerful than another and the weaker group tries to change the situation. (E)Difference in time horizons (some departments have a long-run view and others a short-run view. 2. 5 Strategies for Managing Conflict Although a certain amount of organizational conflict may be seen as inevitable, there are a number of ways in which management can attempt to avoid the harmful effects of conflict. The strategies adopted will vary according to the nature and sources of conflict outlined above. a. glade of goals and objectives.\r\nThe clarification and continual refinement of goals and objectives, role definitions and performance standards will help to avoid misunderstandings and conflict. Focusing attention on superordinate word goals that are shared by the parties in conflict may help to percolate hostility and lead to more co-operative behaviour. b. Resource distribution. Although it may not always be possible for managers to increase their allocated share of resources, they may be able to use imagination and initiative to help overcome conflict situations.\r\nFor instance, making a special case to higher management; greater flexibleness to transfer funds between budget headings, delaying staff appointments in one area to provide more money for another area. c. Human resource management policies and procedures. thoughtful and detailed attention to just and equitable human resource management policies and procedures may help to reduce areas of conflict. Examples are job analysis, recruitment and selection; systems of reward and punishment; appeals, grievance and disciplinary procedures; arbitration and mediation, recognition of trade unions and their officials. d. Non-monetary rewards.\r\nWhere financial resources are limited, it may be possible to pay greater attention to non monetary rewards. Examples are job design, more interesting challenging or responsible work, increased delegation or empowerment, improved equipment, flexible working hours, attendance at course or conferences, unofficial perks or more relaxed working conditions. e. discipline of interpersonal/group process skills. This may help to encourage a better understanding of ones own behaviour, the other person’s point of view, communication processes and problem solving. It may also encourage people to work through conflict situation in a constructive manner. . Group activities. Attention to the composition of groups and to factors which affect group cohesiveness may reduce dysfunctional conflict. Overlapping group membership with a linking pin process, and the c areful selection of externalise teams or task forces for problems affecting more than one group, may also be beneficial. g. Leadership and management. A more participative and supportive style of lead and managerial behaviour is likely to assist in conflict management for example, showing an attitude of respect and trust, encouraging personal self- development, creating a work environment in which staff can work co-operatively.\r\nA participative approach to leadership and management may also help to create greater employee commitment. h. Organizational process. Conflict situations may be reduced by attention to such features as the nature of the authority structure, work organization, patterns of communication and sacramental manduction of information, democratic functioning of the organization excess adherence to bureaucratic procedures and official rules and regulations. i. Socio-technical approach.\r\n covering the organization as a socio-technical system, in which psycholog ical and social factors are developed in keeping with structural and technical requirements, will help in reducing dysfunctional conflict. 2. 6The Value of Conflict The interactionist doctrine does not propose that all conflicts are good for an organization. Excessive levels of conflict can and do hinder organizational effectiveness. It shows itself in reduced job satisfaction by employees, increased absence and turnover rates, and in the end in lower productivity.\r\nWhat the interactionist approach says is that managers should continue to resolve those conflicts that hinder the organization, but stimulate conflict intensity when the level is beneath that which is necessary to maintain a reactive and innovative unit. Without some level of constructive conflict, an organization’s survival will be in jeopardy. Survival can result only when an organization is able to adapt to constant changes in the environment. accommodation is possible only through change, and change is s timulated by conflict. Change develops from dissatisfaction, from a desire for improvement, and from creative development of alternatives.\r\nIn other words, change do not just happen, they are inspired by conflict. Conflict is the catalyst of change. If we do not adapt our product and services to the changing needs of our customers, actions of our competitors, and new technological development, our organization will be sick and at last die. Is it not possible that more organizations fail because of two little conflict rather than too much? Without change, no organization can survive, and conflict spurs change. Opposition to others’ ideas, dissatisfaction with the status quo, concern about doing things better, and the desire to improve inadequacies are all seeds of change.\r\nTherefore, the factor that differentiates the interactionist school of thought most form its predecessors is the belief that just as the level of conflict may be too high, requiring resolution, it may also be too low and in need of stimulation. There is a exploitation body of literature that supports the contention that organizations that have levels of conflict above, zero are more effective, that is functional levels of conflict are conducive to innovation and higher quality decisions. For instance, a review of the relationship between bureaucratism and innovation found that conflict encourages innovative solution.\r\nThis relationship was more recently affirm in a comparism of six major decisions during the administrations of four U. S presidents. The comparism demonstrated that conformity among presidential advisers was related to despicable decisions, while an atmosphere of constructive conflict and critical thinking surrounded the well- developed decisions. The nonstarter of the penn central railroad has been generally attributed to mismanagement and a failure of the company’s board of directors to question actions taken by management.\r\nThe board was composed of outside directors, who met monthly to oversee the railroad’s operations. hardly a(prenominal) questioned the decisions made by the operating management, though there was wide evidence that several board members were uncomfortable with many major decisions made by the management. Apathy and a desire to avoid conflict allowed poor decisions to stand unquestioned. It can only be postulated how differently things might have saturnine out for the penn central had it had an enquiring board which demanded that the company’s management discuss and shrive key decisions.\r\nIn addition to better and more innovative decisions in situations where there is some conflict, there is evidence that indicates that conflict can be positively related to productivity. It was demonstrated that among the high conflict groups was 73 per cent greater than that of those groups characterized by low conflict conditions. Similarly, an investigation of twenty-two teams of system analysts, whic h the researcher sought to assist the relationship between inter personal compatibility and productivity, achieved results consistent with the previous studies.\r\nThe findings strongly suggested that the more incompatible groups were likely to be more productive. 2. 7Transition in Conflict Thought According to Dubose (1980), the development of conflict thought as professed by academic has gone through collar distinct stages which he labeled as traditional, behavioural and internationalist. The prescription of the early management theories, the traditionalists, towards conflict was simple. It should be eliminated. All conflicts were seen as destructive and it was management role to rid the organization of them. This philosophy dominated during the 19th light speed and continued to the middle 1940s.\r\nThetraditional view was replaced in the late 1940s and early 1950s with a behavioural approach. Those who study organizations began to recognize that all organizations, by their ve ry nature, had built in contents. Since conflict was inevitable, the behaviouralist plus â€Å"acceptance” of conflict. They rationalized its existence. However, as with the traditionalists, the behaviouralist approach to managing conflict was to resolve it. Looking at the behaviours of manager, it seems clear that the traditional philosophy is still the most prevalent in organizations. We live in a society that has been built upon anti-conflict values.\r\nSince our soonest years we have been indoctrinated in the belief that it was important to get along with others and to avoid conflict. Parents in the home, teachers and administrators in school, teachings of the church, and authority figures in social groups all have historically reinforced the belief that disagreement bred discontent, which acted to dismantle common ties and could eventually lead to decease of the system. Certainly we should not be strike to find that children raised to view all conflict as destructiv e would be on into adult managers who would maintain and encourage the same values.\r\nIn addition, the senior managers in most organizations praise and reward managers who maintain peace, harmony, and rest in their units, while disequilibrium, confrontation, and dissatisfaction are appraised negatively. given(p) that managers seek to â€Å"look good” on the criteria by which they are evaluated, and since the absence of conflict is frequently used at evaluation time as a substitute for managerial effectiveness, it should not be move to find that most managers are concerned with eliminating or suppressing all conflicts.\r\nAccording to Gray and Stark (1980) there are two distinct phases of thinking about conflict: the traditional view and the current view. The traditional view of conflict assumes that conflict is bad for organizations. In the view of the traditionalist, organizational conflict was proof that there was something â€Å"wrong” with the organization. The Hawthorne studies were probably important in shaping the traditional view because in those studies the dysfunctional consequences of conflict were noted. Another likely factor in the traditional view was the development of apprehend unions and the often violent conflict between labour and management.\r\nDuring the early twentieth century labou\r\n'