This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.
Can conflicts be positive? It can also be argued that conflicts are not necessarily bad. Conflict releases energy at every level of human activity- energy that can produce positive, constructive results. Conflicts tend to have a motivational value; they drive or energize an individual to tackle a situation.
For example, think of any of the personal or organizational problems that you may have faced in near future. It was probably difficult for you to resolve them at that time.
But if the same problems were to recur, surely you would have more confidence to tackle them at present than you had earlier when they first occurred.
It may even be amusing to think that such problems bothered you then, even though they appear so simple now. In certain instances they have also emerged as the captains of the industry. Given below is the list of consequences of conflict.
Beneficial Consequences - Motivate individuals to do better and to work harder. For example employee benefits of the preset day are an outcome of the union —management conflicts over the past decades. For example, a union leader may call for a strike to assert his superiority or to stabilize his leadership.
Here we are trying to give a solution to a conflict turning it in a constructive side. If one party exercises the principles of interaction, listens, and us the six steps of collaborative resolution, that party may be able to end the conflict constructively. At the very least, he or she may be able to prevent the conflict from turning into a fight by choosing an alternative to destructive interaction?
Resolving a conflict ends the dispute by satisfying the interests of both parties. Managing a conflict contains specialized interaction that prevents a dispute from becoming a destructive battle.
Managing a conflict attends to the personal issues so as to allow for a constructive relationship, even though the objective issues may not be resolvable. For example, the former Soviet Union and the United States managed their conflict during the Cold War by using a variety of mechanisms.
The objective issues in the dispute were not resolved, and neither were the personal issues, which contained significant perceptual differences.
However, both sides attended significantly to the relationship to keep the disagreement from turning into a destructive battle. Our goal in conflict always should be to seek a resolution based on mutual gain. Realistically, however, resolution is not always possible. When this is the case, we must manage the conflict to ensure that the relationship is constructive and that open communication is maintained.
We Listen to Conflict to understand the other party and demonstrate the acceptance required to maintain the relationship 1. The Framework for conflict resolution When conflicts arise, we assess a variety of factors before selecting our approach to the situation.
We may choose to compete, or dominate, where we try to impose our will on the other side through physical or psychological means, or we may choose to accommodate, or surrender, and cede victory to the other side.
Likewise, we may decide to withdraw by either doing nothing or refusing to participate in the conflict altogether, or we may collaborate and reach a constructive and mutually acceptable solution.
And if none of those approaches proves effective, we might choose third-party intervention, a form of collaboration in which an individual or group external to the conflict intercedes to move both parties toward agreement.
While each of the above orientations represents a way to manage conflict, only two collaboration and third-party intervention-are, by definition, focused on mutual gain and resolution.
These two approaches consider the interests of both parties and are most likely to use empathic listening as the primary tool to enhance understanding.
The other methods deal unilaterally with the conflict and fail to manage the interdependence of the dispute.
In order to understand the mechanisms behind the four orientations to conflict, it is useful to examine how these orientations can be applied.
The study of negotiation, one form of conflict resolution, provides two opposite approaches for dealing with disputes. Most often, we think of negotiation in the formal sense seen in the business or diplomatic environment, where two or more parties bargain to reach agreement.
However, two types of negotiation, competitive bargaining and collaboration, also provide good models for understanding different ways of resolving our conflicts.
Competitive Bargaining When most people think of negotiation, they think of competitive bargaining.CASE STUDY P.
Valerie DeCosey Professor Nicole Hatcher MHA July 7, CASE STUDY In the case study Team and Team Processes, Nurse A and Nurse B have two different concepts of what is team work.
Johnson () states that,” a . Learn about conflict behavior in organizations. The conflict resolution requires great managerial skills. Here we are trying to give a solution to a conflict turning it in a constructive side. While each of the above orientations represents a way to manage conflict, only two collaboration and third-party intervention-are, by definition.
Management theorists often disagree with one another when it comes to defining conflict and assessing its role in organizations. The literature suggests that there have been three relatively distinct phases in the development of thinking about conflict in the organizational settings.
Causes of Conflict in an Organization. The causes of conflict fall into three distinct categories. Accordingly, these causes can be restructured and placed into one of these categories. These categories deal with communicational, behavioral and structural aspects.
Organizational behavior is the study of both group and individual performance and activity within an organization. Internal and external perspectives are two theories of how organizational. CHAPTER ONE-Understanding Organizational Behaviour (one hour) CHAPTER TWO-Effectiveness in organizations Intergroup Behavior and Conflict—groups can cooperate and/or compete with each other in organizations; conflict resulting from competition may be either.