Ethics of managing interpersonal conflict in organizations PDF

Preview

Summary

M. Afzalur Rahim Ethics of Managing Interpersonal Conflict Jan Edward Garrett in Organizations Gabriel E Buntzman ABSTRACT. Mdmugh managers spend over twenty percent about 20 percent of managers' time is spent in. of their time in conflict management, organization theorists conflict management (...

Description

Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Ethics of managing interpersonal conflict in organizations Jan Garrett Journal of Business Ethics

Cite this paper

Downloaded from Academia.edu 

Get the citation in MLA, APA, or Chicago styles

Related papers

Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

T OWARD A T HEORY OF MANAGING ORGANIZAT IONAL CONFLICT Samsiyah Razali Emot ional Int elligence and Conflict Management St yles simona kuzyk T IT LE PAGE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN BUSINESS ORGANISAT ION: (A CASE ST UDY OF SPECIALIST H… Bala Bello

Ethics of Managing Interpersonal Conflict in Organizations

ABSTRACT. Mdmugh managers spend over twenty percent of their time in conflict management, organization theorists have provided veU few guidelines to help them do their job ethically. This paper attempts to provide some guidelines so that organizational members can use the styles of handling interpersonal conflict, such as integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising, with their superiors, subordinates, and peers ethically and effectively.It has been argued in this paper that, in general, each style of handling interpersonal conflict is appropriate if it is used to attain organization's proper end.

Managers are required to deal with different conflict situations almost routinely. One study shows that M. AffTzalurRahim is Professorof Management at Western Kentucky University. He holds B.Com. (Hons.) and M.Com, M.B.A., and Ph.D. degrees. Dr. Rahim teaches courses on organizational behavior, strategic management, and management of oganizationaI cot~ict. He is the author of over 65 articles and book chauers,five cases, and three researchinstruments on conflictand power. He is the author of six books,four of which are on conflict management. He is the editor of the International Journal of Conflict Management and the International Journal of Organizational Analysis.He # thefounder of the International Association for Conflict Management and President of the International Conference on Advances in Management. Jan Edward Garrett is Associate Professor in the Philosophy arid Religion Department at Western Kentucky University. His recentpublications include 'Persons,Kinds and Corporations:An Aristotelian Perspective,' which appeared in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, and 'Unredistributable Corporate Moral Responsibility,' which appeared in thisjournat. Gabriel F. Buntzman is Associate Professor of Management at Western Kentucky University. His current research interests concern relationships between ethics, conflict and the strategic management of organizations. His work in the area (conflict management has appeared in the International Journal of Conflict Managemerlt, the Journal of Psychology, and three books.

Journal of Business Ethics 11: 423--432, 1992. © 1992 KluwerAcademic Publishers.Printed in the Netherlands.

M. Afzalur Rahim Jan Edward Garrett Gabriel E Buntzman

about 20 percent of managers' time is spent in. conflict management (Thomas and Schmidt, 1976, p. 318). In spite of this fact, there is little in 1the way of explicit guidelines to help them do their job ethi-. cally. This paper is an attempt to provide some guidelines so that organizational members can handle different conflict situations with their superiors, subordinates, and peers ethically and effectively. The literature of organization theory makes judgements concerning usefulness, appropriateness, or functionality of' various methods under various circumstances. From an ethical perspective, these judgements are often limited by faihire to distinguish between usefulness for the individuals involved, usefulness for the organization involved, and usefulness for everyone affected, all things considered, over the long term. (On one important ethical theory, utilitarianism, the latter just is the basis of ethical judgment.) While on a very sophisticated interpretation of the facts, individual, firm, and social utilities may largely coincide, failure to distinguish between ordinary conceptions of these utilities may interfere with sound ethicaljudgment. In the summary of the behavioral literature that immediately follows, more than one such ambiguous judgment of appropriateness or usefulness is reported. Some of these judgments will need ~:o be revisited in the more explicitly ethical sections of this paper.

Behavioral perspectives for conflict management It is generally agreed by the organization theorists that organizational conflict should be managed rather than resolved to enhance individual, group, and systemwide effectiveness. The management of orga-

424

M. Afzalur Rahim,.Jan Edwad Garrett and Gabriel F. Buntzman

nizational conflict involves the diagnosis of and intervention in conflict at intrapersonal, interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup levels. A diagnosis should indicate whether there is need for intervention and the type of intervention needed. Intervention may be designed to attain and maintain a moderate amount of conflict at various levels and to enable the organizational members to learn the styles of handling interpersonal conflict so that the individual, group, and overall ol~anizational effectiveness are enhanced (Rahim, 1986). The difference between resolution and management of conflict is more than semantic. Conflict resolution implies reduction or elimination of conflict, whereas the management of conflict does not necessarily imply reduction or elimination of conflict. Several researchers have noted the positive consequences of conflict (Cosier and Dalton, 1990;Janis, 1971; Vdilson and Jerrell, 1981). Organizations in which there is litde or no conflict may stagnate. On the other hand, organizational conflict left uncontrolled may have dysfunctional effects. The consensus among organization theorists is that a moderate amount of conflict is necessary for attaining an optimum organizational effectiveness. Therefore, it appears that the relation between conflict and organizational effectiveness approximates an inverted-U function (Rahim and Bonoma, 1979). As such, Brown (1983) has suggested that, "conflict managemerit can require intervention to reduce conflict if there is too much, or intervention to promote conflict if there is too little" (p. 9).

Styles of handling interpersonal conflict There are various styles of behavior for handling interpersonal conflict. For conflicts to be managed functionally, one style may be more appropriate than another depending upon the situation. Mary P. Follett (1940) found three main ways of dealing with conflict: domination, compromise, and integration. She also found other ways of handling conflict in organizations, such as avoidance and suppression. Blake and Mouton (1964) first presented a conceptual scheme for classifying the modes (styles) for handling interpersonal conflicts into five types:

forcing, withdrawing, smoothing, compromising, and problem solving. Their scheme was reinterpreted by Thomas (1976). Rahim and Bonoma (1979) differentiated the styles of handling conflict on two basic dimensions, concern for self and for others. The first dimension explains the degree (high or low) to which a person attempts to satisfy his or her own concern. The second dimension explains the degree (high or low) to which a person wants to satisfy the concern of others. Combination of the two dimensions results in five specific styles of handling conflict (Rahim, 1983). A description of these styles of handling interpersonal conflict and the situations in which these are appropriate have been presented below. The details of these have been presented elsewhere (Rahim, 1986). (1) Integrating (high concern for self and others). This involves openness, exchange of information, and examination of differences to reach an effective solution acceptable to both parties. It is associated with problem solving which may lead to creative solutions. Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) found the problemsolving (integrating) mode to be more effective than other modes for attaining integration of the activities of different subsystems. When the issues are complex, this style is useful in utilizing the skills and information possessed by different parties to formulate solutions and successful implementations. This style may be appropriate for dealing with the strategic issues relating to objectives and policies, longrange planning, etc. (2) Obliging (low concern for self and high concern for others). This style is associated with attempting to play down the differences and emphasizing commonalities to satisfy the concern of the other party. An obliging person neglects his or her own concern to satisfy the concern of the other party. This style is useful when a party believes that he or she may be wrong or the other party is right and the issue is much more important to him or her. It can be used as a strategy when a party is willing to give up something with the hope of getting something in exchange from the other party when needed.

Etl#cs of Interpersonal Conflict Management (3) Dominating (high concern for self and low concern for others). This style has been identified with win-lose orientation or with forcing behavior to win one's posidon. A dominating or competing person goes all out to win his or her objective and, as a result, often ignores the needs and expectations of the other party. When the issues involved in a conflict are trivial or when speedy decision is required, this style may be appropriate. It is also appropriate when unpopular courses of action must be implemented. This style is appropriate for implementing the strategies and policies formulated by higher level management. (4) Avoiding (low concern for self and others). It has been associated with withdrawal, buckpassing, or sidestepping situations. An avoiding person fails to satisfy his or her own concern as well as the concern of the other party. This style is useful when the issue is trivial or where the potential dysfunctional effect of confronting the other parry outweighs the benefits of the resolution, of conflict. This style may be used to deal with some tactical or minor issues. (5) Compromising (intermediate in concern for self and others). It involves give-and-take whereby both parties give up something to make a mutually acceptable decision. It may mean splitting the difference, exchanging concessions, or seeking middleground position. tt may be appropriate when the goals of the conflicting parties are mutually exclusive or when both parties, who are equally powerful, e.g., labor and management, have reached a deadlock in their negotiation. This style may be of some use in dealing with strategic issues, but heavy reliance on this style may be dysfunctional. Although some behavioral scientists suggest that the integrative or problem-solving style is most appropriate for managing conflict (Blake and Mouton, 1964; Likert and Likert, 1976), it has been indicated by others that, for conflicts to be managed funcfonally, one style may, be more appropriate than another depending upon the situation (Rahim and Bonoma, 1979; Thomas, 1977). In general, integrating and to some extent compromising styles are appropriate for dealing with the strategic issues. The remaining styles can be used to deal with tactical or day-to-day problems.

425

A perspective for ethical evaluation of conflict management We begin from an Aristotelian perspective and assume that officials of organization, acting in their capacities as officials of the organization, make ethically correct decisions when they decide wisely in light of the organization's proper end (PE). Decisions in situations of conflict or practical disagreement are no exception. This starting point calls for some justification and clarification. Though a full justification-would divert us from our main task, we can say that an Aristotelian perspective is helpful because it differs from major alternatives in the following ways: (t) tt realistically presupposes the socially situated nature of the moral self. (2) The Aristotelian notion of the common good (which is our model for the key notion of "proper end") combines considerations of justice and utility in a common framework without tuing to reduce one to the other. (3) Aristotle's ethical and political writings interweave descriptive analysis and normative judgment, and so provide a model for our work here. To clarify the notion of an organization's proper end (PE), we can say that a self-sufficient organization or association has a PE identical to the good life for its members, or what comes to the same thing, the common good (Aristotle (1), I, 2; Aristotle (2), III, 6). Aa'istode regarded the city-state as such an association. A business organization, on the other hand, is not self-sufficient; it is a fragment of the larger social whole with which it interacts. Business organizations have productive or service functions; they exist largely for the sake of fulfilling needs which arise outside themselves. Nevertheless, as human associations, businesses have PE's analogous to the PE of more self-sufficient communities. A business's PE will include the fulfillment, within the firm's activity, of the moral and intellectual capacities of those attached to it. The good of the individual member includes conducting his or her life in accord with moral excellence (i..e.,in accord with justice) (Aristotle (t), I, 7; V, 1). Now, it cannot be just to trample on rights that other individuals really possess.. Hence violation of such rights is harmful to the rights-violator. So when the

426

M. Afzalur Rakim, Jan Edward Garrett and Gabriel F. Buntzman

good of this moral actor is part of an organization's PE, his or her violation of rights necessarily involves a disservice to that PE.

Ethics and leadership structure Ideally, an organization's leadership will be composed of the members who are most ethical and most capable of wise decision-making, while those deficient in justice and wisdom are excluded from the governing group. The model used here does not suppose that everyone in the best organization is a paragon of virtue; but the best organization requires that the least virtuous have the least power and/or the most supervision. Undesirable forms of disagreement, those least likely to reach satisfactory solutions, tend more to arise in organizations where this is less so. The word "wisdom" has been used so far without explanation. By "wisdom" in this context we mean the ability to choose correctly, in light of the facts of the situations in which one acts, actions which promote an organization's PE (Aristotle (1), VI, 5-13; Aristotle (2), III, 4). Only people of sufficiently just character possess insight into PEs. Just character, in turn, is a kind of disposition to do the right actions and feel emotions in the right way, at the right time, towards the right objects (Aristotle (1), II, 6). We can give some criteria for rightness, beginning with the purely formal criterion of justice ("treat cases equal in the relevant sense equally, cases unequal in the relevant sense unequally, to the extent of their inequality.") Further discussion of the general principles of justice is beyond the scope of this paper. For an introductory treatment see Velasquez (1988, Chap. 2). Aristotle recognizes a variety of organizational patterns or "constitutions." For our purposes, the most important way in which they vary is along a continuum from fully healthy to maximally perverse. Healthy organizations operate so as to serve the organization's PE; perverse ones to serve the narrow self-interest of the ruling group. Typical organizations fall between the extremes in this range. So, it should not be surprising that all or almost all organizations of significant size have some internal conflict, which would for Aristotle signify a degree of imperfection.

Practical reasoning in an organizational context ought to begin with an organization's PE; the task is then to specify the means, working back from means close to the end (let's call them primary means) to the means or actions which are in the power of subordinate members of the organization to immediately do (let us call them secondaJy means). Leadership typically takes responsibility for the primary means. In the healthy constitution, the nonleaders are consuited for the information they can provide, but they do not determine the primary means to the PE. The question how many persons should occupy the leading ranks in an organization is an important ethical one. Its answer is the same as the answer to the question: How many people possess the moral decency, quickness and subtlety of judgment, and sufficient education and experience to process correcdy the data on which decisions on primary means are to be based? Where these leadership conditions (perhaps with some other, more material ones such as sheer personal energy) are widely shared, collegial leadership is ethically superior, for collegial leadership will most effectively promote the organization's PE. Where one person possesses these conditions in an eminent degree and others do so only to a much smaller degree, one-person leadership is ethically most appropriate, with the best person in the top position, of course.

Four methods of discourse Conflict situations in human organizations are semantically meaningful and so can be considered linguistic objects. To discuss them, therefore, it may be useful to adapt Watson's (1985) dassification of four basic methods for organizing linguistic subjectmatter. Watson's distinctions are derived form the Aristotelian tradition, most immediately from philosopher-rhetorician McKeon (1951 ). These methods are logistic, problematic, dialectical, and agonistic. As Watson describes them, agonistic and dialectic method are "two-voiced," with dialectic tending towards a higher unity that leaves difference behind, while agonistic does not. Logistic and problematic are "single-voiced," with logistic proceeding linearly, e.g., from premise to conclusion or parts to whole, while problematic involves a

Ethics of Interpersonal Conflict Management circling through the parts to the whole and back, until a single consistent account is reached. Our concern is tess general than Watson's, for he was attempting an account of all possible coherent "texts." Our concern here is practical method, method for the sake of action, and more specifically, practical method within organizations.

Logistic method Perhaps the most familiar form of this method in business organizations is instrumental reasoning in a well-defined field of production or service. From a goal more or less given in advance, one reasons step by step to tile means (physical movements in the group's power) that should be adopted to reach the goal. This form of reasoning fits a hierarchical command structure and corresponds to the relationship between active ruler or ruler group and passive ruled section in most organizations. It is compatible with subordinates being consulted for information.

Problematic method This can take the form of a group problem-solving process which presupposes basic agreement on ends. Conflict is not deeply entrenched, although the parties, sensitive to different relevant considerations, may begin being unsure that the primary concerns of the others are compatible with their own. As discussion proceeds, however, a more balanced and mutually acceptable picture of the best course emerges. Insofar as all parties anticipate that basic agreement potentially exists, and that everyone is in the relatively short run able to reach it, this method is "single-voiced."

Dialectical method This is "two-voiced:" it involves an attempt by each of two parties in apparently basic disagreement to rationally persuade the other. Each probes the other's assumptions. Each must be willing to reflect upon the adequacy o£ his or her own and to change them when the evidence presented against them is weighty enough.

427

Agonistic m...