UNDERSTANDING Organizational Conflict

Theorists of Organizational Conflict

Many theories exist that detail and analyze the conflicts that exist in organizations, and in society. They are often focused on the power dynamics that exist, as well as the opposing needs, values, and interests of people involved. Some of the more influential theorists in conflict and organizational management include:

Portrait of Karl Marx (1818-1883) [Photograph]. Wikimedia Commons. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Karl_Marx.jpg

Karl Marx

Marx theorized that conflict is what drives change (Turner, 2005). By having opposing stances, a subject can be analyzed with more detail and reveals underlying issues, such as power imbalances and resource scarcity (Hamon, 2016). He believed that by giving the subject a platform we can better understand it, as well as our own thought ands needs surrounding it. Marx' work also suggests that due to the self-serving nature of human beings and an awareness of limited resources, conflict amongst both individuals and groups is inevitable (Hamon, 2016).

Much of Marx works centre around the issues between varying societal classes, and the impact human nature has on individuals in each class. Just like varying levels of social class, an organization has varying levels in its hierarchy, and therefore is equally as prone to power-driven conflicts (Hamon, 2016). Marx works had a large focus on understanding the dynamics that exist in conflict and the behavior of those involved, but did so in a more somber fashion, believing that these imbalances are just part of life. It was this gap that lead to the works of those like Lester Frank Ward, who sought out to actively address the disparities that exist and influence conflict.

Lester F. Ward [Photograph]. Wikipedia. http://www2.asanet.org/governance/lesterward.html

Lester Frank Ward

Contrasting the work of Marx, Ward theorized that conflict extends beyond the dynamic that exist between classes or varying levels of power (Aho, 1975). Ward suggested that external conflicts in society are traced back to intrapersonal origins, such as altruism versus fame/honour, or emotion versus intellect (Hawkins, 1997). Ward was also an advocate for racial and gender equality, and acknowledged that many conflicts may involve historically marginalized groups as well (Aho, 1975). By recognizing this, Ward suggested that the needs and opinions of everyone involved in a conflict are not the same, and that remembering this will provide a more thoughtful and robust conversation when working towards a resolution.

Ward suggested that the conflict of war was a natural evolutionary process, but likened it to any ineffective resolution strategy, he described it as slow, painful, and oblivious to the feelings and wellbeing of most involved (Hawkins, 1997). He used it as a glaring example of how damaging conflict can be, and how a more holistic and collaborative approach must be sought out when settling differences (Hawkins, 1997).

Mary Parker Follet (1868-1933) (Photograph] Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mary_Parker_Follett_(1868- 1933).jpg

Mary Parker Follett

Often identified as the “mother of conflict resolution” Follett is known for keeping people at the centre of organizational management (Gehani & Gehani, 2007). Follett theorized that by empowering people and leveling existing power dynamics, people are more inclined to collaborate and find a solution that meets the needs of all parties involved (Bathurst & Monin, 2010). Follett advocated for organizations to establish consistent employee engagement that would anticipate and address conflict rather than avoid it (Peek, 2023). By creating an environment that allows for longitudinal collaboration throughout an organization on a specific conflict, people will likely feel encouraged to use same approach again in the future.

Follett believed that conflict was essential within organizations and should not be viewed as an opportunity to compromise, but rather, an opportunity for dissenting parties to collaborate to develop innovative solutions - what she termed “integrative invention” (Gehani & Gehani, 2007; Peek, 2023). Follett et al. (2003) stated that "There are three ways of dealing with difference: domination, compromise, and integration. By domination only one side gets what it wants; by compromise neither side gets what it wants; by integration we find a way by which both sides may get what they wish." (p. 213).

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse