Definitions of Conflict
Definitions of Conflict
Conflict is a fact of life, and conflict is sometimes magnified when people come together to work in groups. There are three theoretical positions on the meaning of conflict: conflict as a distinct behavioral phenomenon, conflict as an instrumental means, and conflict as social construction (Mikkelsen & Clegg, 2018). The distinct behavioral phenomenon view of conflict sees conflict as a “collision of actors” who collide due to perceived incompatible goals or views (Katz & Kahn, 1978). In this perspective, conflict occurs because of breakdowns in relationships. The instrumental means view of conflict approaches conflict as something that can be utilized. The focus is on reducing harmful or dysfunctional conflict and stimulating productive or constructive conflict. Finally, the social construction view of conflict recognizes conflict as inherently meaningless because it is people who assign meaning to conflict (Felstiner et al., 1980). Therefore, our personal relationships and frame of reference impact the way we interpret and view conflict. Interestingly, in this perspective conflict is always present and therefore can be subtle in its approach. “It is not always visible, acknowledged, or verbalized” (Mikkelsen & Clegg, 2018, p. 194). For example, Martha may be angry with Sing, but she may not vocalize her anger. Although she hasn’t said anything, the conflict between them is still present. This differs from conflict as a behavioral phenomenon in which the struggle is always expressed. Understanding the three different meanings of conflict is important in better grasping the complexity of conflict. Conflict is nuanced and it is always present as a part of organizational life. Learning how it functions helps us to better use it and to mitigate against it.
Intragroup conflict is believed to often occur due to perceived incompatibilities (De Dreu & Gefland, 2008). Intragroup conflict is conflict within a group and between its members. It impacts the groups viability by affecting group performance and member satisfaction and commitment (Behfar et al., 2011). This competition can be bad because it inhibits learning and information sharing in groups (Bendersky & Hays, 2012; Toma & Butera, 2009).
Although high levels of conflict interfere with group performance, a lack of conflict in groups can also signal a problem of complacency (Jehn, 1995). Furthermore, there are benefits to conflict. “Conflict within teams improves decision quality and strategic planning, financial performance, and organizational growth” (Jehn, 1995, p. 256). Also, conflict is considered necessary in order to process the high amounts of information and uncertainty that are present in groups (Van de Ven, 1976).
There are four different types of conflict: Task, Relational, Process, and Status. Most research in small group conflict focuses on task and relational conflict. Status conflict is the newest addition. In this next section, we will examine them closely.
Task conflict occurs when there is disagreement among group members on the task being performed. For example, Tim and Maria each have distinct ideas on how to best present their data to the team lead; this disagreement is a task conflict. Of the four types of intragroup conflict, task conflict is the most beneficial, specifically for nonroutine tasks. A nonroutine task is a task or project that is different from the standard daily tasks done by the group. Nonroutine tasks may require problem solving, creative brainstorming, and have a higher degree of uncertainty. In order for a group to be effective, the level of variety of the task should match the level of variety of perspectives and ideas in a group (Galbraith, 1973; Tushman & Nadler,1978). In other words, the more complex the task, the better it is to have diverse ideas. For this reason, it is necessary to create a group norm of an open environment that embraces and does not avoid conflict, facilitates group discussion and disagreement and generates a wider perspective of ideas. Group norms are the expectations, guidelines, and customs of the group that determine what actions and behaviors are acceptable. These norms can be unspoken and unconscious or they can be intentionally established by the group. Because group members are able to discuss diverse perspectives, the group is better able to understand and identify the issues, which leads to a more accurate assessment of the information (Amason, & Schweiger, 1994; Fiol, 1994; Putnam,1994). The increased understanding of the task and issues can facilitate a more critical evaluation and thoughtful consideration of alternative solutions that overcome confirmation bias and that result in a higher quality decision (de Wit, et al., 2012; Schwenk & Valacich, 1994). Confirmation bias is when we interpret newly acquired information in ways that confirm our existing beliefs.
Task related conflict can help the group identify potential problems, preventing premature consensus which decreases groupthink, generating positive task commitment, creating a sense that the group is working towards a shared goal, facilitating critical evaluation, and stimulating creative thinking that leads to enhanced innovation (Behfar, et al., 2011; de Wit, et al., 2012; Janis, 1982). There is an optimal level for task conflict. Too much task conflict can take away valuable time and lead to continuous talking with no consensus or action, but too little task conflict can also lead to a lack of urgency and subsequent inactivity, and it can lead to groupthink (Gersick, 1989; Van de Vliert & De Dreu, 1994). Groupthink occurs when group members prematurely reach consensus, agreeing to ideas without fully challenging them first. Groupthink is problematic because it lacks critical evaluation of ideas and prevents alternative options. In an attempt to achieve consensus, disagreement is suppressed, and hasty, undeveloped ideas may prevail.
There are four task types: creativity, decision-making, production, and project tasks (de Wit et al., 2012). A creativity task is focused on generating and developing new ideas and innovation. An example would be a marketing group tasked with brainstorming new advertising ideas for a campaign. A decision-making task is when groups need to reach consensus about a solution. A hiring committee focused on selecting the best candidate from a pool of applicants would be an example of a decision-making task. Production tasks are routine tasks where individuals strive to achieve a certain standard. A group working at a manufacturing plant who continuously runs the same task but who wishes to consistently provide a superior product would be an example of a production task. Finally, project tasks are geared towards problem solving and generating plans. A project team that is potentially over budget and works on figuring out a new fiscal plan of action would be an example of this type of task. Task conflict helps with creative, decision-making, and project tasks because it facilitates the exchanging of ideas; it, however, can stall process tasks (de Wit et al., 2012). Lengthy debate over adequately performed routine tasks decreases productivity and wastes time (Hackman et al., 1976; Jehn, 1995). Conversely, small amounts of discussion in which one reevaluates current ideas and standards can cause changes that upgrade and enhance performance (Hedberg et al., 1976; Jehn, 1995; Tjosvold, 1991). So, even for routine tasks, low levels of task conflict are often necessary for delegating tasks and allocating resources (Jehn, 1995).
Relationship conflict occurs when there is interpersonal antagonism between group members. The conflict is often due to incompatible differences in ideology, values, and identity. Drew and Peter don’t like one another. Peter thinks Drew talks too much, and Drew thinks Peter is stuck up. Due to their differences, Peter and Drew have difficulties communicating with one another; this is a relationship conflict. Of the four types of intragroup conflict, relationship conflict may be the most detrimental to the group. Relationship conflict has a significant influence on group processes and outcomes, and its effect on team outcomes is almost always negative (Behfar et al., 2011). The more highly interdependent the group, the greater effect the relationship conflict will have (Jehn, 1995).
Relationship conflict can inhibit group performance in three ways (Pelled, 1996). First, relationship conflict causes limited cognitive processing which reduces members ability to assess new information. Second, relationship conflict makes members less receptive to the ideas of others. Third, time and energy are rerouted from the task to resolve or avoid the conflict. Personal disagreements heighten member anxiety, reduce collaboration, may increase hostility in the group, inhibit cognitive functions, distract from the task, waste time, harm group creativity, and reduce work efficiency and performance (Behfar et al., 2011; de Wit et al., 2012). Relationship conflict is linked to negative emotions such as frustration and unease (Desivilya & Yagil, 2005; Walton & Dutton, 1969). These negative emotions prevent group members from enjoying their work and often cause psychological or physical withdrawal from the group (Jehn, 1995; Peterson, 1983; Ross, 1989).
Process conflict occurs over disagreements regarding task delegation and role responsibilities. For example, Kareem and Rahul both want to take lead on the team project. Their disagreement on who should be leader is an example of process conflict. There are two types of process conflict: logistical and contribution (Behfar et al., 2011). Logistical process disagreements are about “how to most effectively organize and utilize group resources to accomplish a task” (Behfar et al., 2011, p. 156). Delegation of member responsibilities and allocation of time and resources are examples of logistical decisions. Role assignments and task delegations may become highly personal because there are inferred implications about member capabilities and assumptions regarding levels of respect within the group (de Wit et al., 2012). Contribution process conflict is about whether group members are pulling their weight, or contributing work to the group. Uneven and unfair distribution of work from social loafers who do not complete their share of the work can cause feelings of resentment and dissatisfaction.
Process conflict can be detrimental to a productive work process. Process conflict is often the initiating cause of a conflict spiral (Behfar et al., 2011). A conflict spiral occurs when one counters a perceived slight with a negative or extreme response; this then leads to an escalating pattern of negative responses. For example, Bruce felt as though Geoff snubbed his idea during the team meeting, so he viciously attacked Geoff’s proposal. Geoff retaliated at the next meeting, thus continuing the escalating conflict. Arguing about who should do what or about how to do the work distracts from the task and causes task completion to take longer. These disagreements heighten uncertainty within the group and can cause feelings of dissatisfaction which prompt the desire to quit or switch groups (Jehn, 1997). Process conflict can detract from the task, cause ambiguity about what needs to be accomplished, can interfere with coordination among team members, and can decrease goal clarity (Behfar et al., 2011). A very small amount of process conflict that is quickly resolved through efficient duty assignment can however facilitate group performance (Jehn, 1997).
Status conflict occurs due to disputes over group members’ positions within the group hierarchy (Bendersky & Hays, 2012). Status conflict involves issues of power, authority, and unequal access to resources (Carton & Tewfik, 2016). Stacey is the newest hire on the team. Subsequently, she finds it challenging to have her opinions heard in the group. The others have told her to watch and learn how things are done first. Stacey feels as though the others are still waiting for her to prove herself. Her situation is an example of status conflict.
There are many ways in which status conflict manifests (Bendersky & Hays, 2012). These include, “asserting superior legitimacy or competence, attempting to assert dominance relative to others, devaluing another’s or inflating one’s own contributions, and/or mobilizing allies” (Bendersky & Hays, 2012, p. 329). Of the four types of intragroup conflict, status conflict prompts the most competitive behaviors (Bendersky & Hays, 2012). The competitive nature of status may negatively impact information sharing. Since status is not static and can be contested and negotiated, the manipulable nature of status can cause people to act in ways that are detrimental to the group.