Social life of human beings is interplay between cooperation and conflict; social groups are formed when individuals coming together have some common goals. The relationship between two or more individuals may depend on how they approach the goal. If the goal is perceived as unshareable, and can be attained only by one of them; they may conflict (fight) for the goal attainment. This may be one source of conflict. All zero-sum games are situations of such kind. A football match is an example of such a situation. The two teams playing the match are related to each other around the unshareable goal of winning the match; one must win, and the other must lost, unless even after repeated attempts the match is drawn. However, if the goal is seen as shareable, the individual or teams work together to achieve the goal and share it. There may be a situation when the goal is perceived as common to all involved, it may be perceived as achievable with one’s effort and without the other(s) coming in the of its achievement of the goal. Striving to get a first division in the examination is an example of such a situation. Several students can get first divisions and yet they do not work jointly for attainment of this goal.
The dynamic of these strategies of working for the achievement of goals sharing (cooperating with others), fighting (competing or conflicting with others) or striving individually for the goal (competing with a standard of excellence) have important social implications.
The term conflict may mean different things to different persons. It may be regarded as the disagreement or hostility between individuals or groups in the organization. It may even mean rivalry or competition. It can also be viewed as the perception of disagreement in the individuals. Conflict in some form and degree is part and parcel of virtually every part of human life, and hence organizations are not free of it.
A simple definition of conflict is that “it is any tension that is experienced when one perceives that one’s needs are or are likely to be thwarted or frustrated”.
Chung and Meggison describe conflict on the struggle between incompatible or opposing needs, wishes, ideas, interests or people. According to them, conflict arises when individuals one groups encounter goals that both parties cannot obtain satisfactorily.
According to Stephen Robbins “conflict is the process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected or is about to negatively affect something that the first party cares about”.
Transitions in conflict thought:
It is entirely correct to say that there has been “conflict” over the rate of conflict in groups and organizations. There have been three different views of conflict which have been emerged with time and these are:
1. Traditional View
The early approach to conflict assumed that all conflict was bad and that it was to be avoided at all costs. Conflict was viewed negatively and it was used synonymously with such terms as violence, destruction etc. The traditional view of conflict was consistent with the attitudes that prevailed about group behavior in the 1930s and 1940s. Conflict was viewed as a dysfunctional outcome resulting from poor communications, a lack of openness and trust between people and the failure of managers to be responsive to the needs and aspirations of their employees.
2. Modern View
a. Human relations view:
The human relations position argued that conflict was a natural occurrence in all groups and organizations. This school of though advocated acceptance of conflict cannot be eliminated and there are even times when conflict may benefit a group’s performance.
b. Interactionist view
While the human relations approach accepted conflict, the interactionist approach encourages conflict. They contend that cooperative group is prone to become static, apathetic and non-responsive to needs for change and innovation. The major contribution of the interactionist approach, therefore, is encouraging group leaders to maintain an ongoing minimum level of conflict enough to keep the group viable, self critical and creative. These views are summed up in the following table:
View about Conflict
The dynamic of these strategies of working for the achievement of goals sharing (cooperating with others), fighting (competing or conflicting with others) or striving individually for the goal (competing with a standard of excellence) have important social implications.
The term conflict may mean different things to different persons. It may be regarded as the disagreement or hostility between individuals or groups in the organization. It may even mean rivalry or competition. It can also be viewed as the perception of disagreement in the individuals. Conflict in some form and degree is part and parcel of virtually every part of human life, and hence organizations are not free of it.
A simple definition of conflict is that “it is any tension that is experienced when one perceives that one’s needs are or are likely to be thwarted or frustrated”.
Chung and Meggison describe conflict on the struggle between incompatible or opposing needs, wishes, ideas, interests or people. According to them, conflict arises when individuals one groups encounter goals that both parties cannot obtain satisfactorily.
According to Stephen Robbins “conflict is the process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected or is about to negatively affect something that the first party cares about”.
Transitions in conflict thought:
It is entirely correct to say that there has been “conflict” over the rate of conflict in groups and organizations. There have been three different views of conflict which have been emerged with time and these are:
1. Traditional View
The early approach to conflict assumed that all conflict was bad and that it was to be avoided at all costs. Conflict was viewed negatively and it was used synonymously with such terms as violence, destruction etc. The traditional view of conflict was consistent with the attitudes that prevailed about group behavior in the 1930s and 1940s. Conflict was viewed as a dysfunctional outcome resulting from poor communications, a lack of openness and trust between people and the failure of managers to be responsive to the needs and aspirations of their employees.
2. Modern View
a. Human relations view:
The human relations position argued that conflict was a natural occurrence in all groups and organizations. This school of though advocated acceptance of conflict cannot be eliminated and there are even times when conflict may benefit a group’s performance.
b. Interactionist view
While the human relations approach accepted conflict, the interactionist approach encourages conflict. They contend that cooperative group is prone to become static, apathetic and non-responsive to needs for change and innovation. The major contribution of the interactionist approach, therefore, is encouraging group leaders to maintain an ongoing minimum level of conflict enough to keep the group viable, self critical and creative. These views are summed up in the following table:
View about Conflict
| Traditional View | Modern View |
| Conflict arises because of personality dimensions | Conflict is built in every system |
| Conflict is bad and should be avoided | Conflict is not always bad. Constructive conflict should be encouraged |
| Conflict damages the interpersonal relations | Constructive conflicts improve the inter personal relations |
| Conflict is avoidable | Conflict is inevitable |
| Conflict is cause by trouble makers, boat rockers | Some conflict is absolutely necessary for a group to perform effectively |
| Scapegoats are accepted as inevitable | Conflict is integral to the nature of change |
| | A minimal level of conflict is good |
No comments:
Post a Comment