Effects of Conflict on Employee and Organizational Performance Essay Sample free essay sample

Abstraction: Conflict exists in all types of working environments. If you are working with people or interact with people on a day-to-day footing. at some point you will be involved in or hold to cover with some signifier of struggle. Every employee hopes for a healthy. struggle free working environment. Conflict within the working environment has a direct impact on an employee’s occupation satisfaction and public presentation and on that of the organization’s public presentation. This paper is an effort to understand and cognize the consequence. causes. types and schemes on pull offing employee’s occupation satisfaction and occupation public presentation when holding to be involved in. or hold had to cover with any type of struggle. 1. 1INTRODUCTION Today. the bulk of concern organisations are making concern in a turbulent environment where there is a changeless hunt to happen a manner to better their fight and public presentation ( Dodd. 2003 ) . With mention to organisations. struggle is the dissension between employees. sections. directors or groups of people within the concern. Disagreements may happen due to differences in points of position. political orientation or unhealthy competition that may give to either a positive or to a negative effect. No affair what type of struggle or degree of struggle occurs. there a figure of functional and dysfunctional effects that can originate from that struggle ( Esquivel and kleiner. 1997 ) . In add-on. organisational struggle is regarded as the strife that happens when the ends. involvements or values of different persons or groups are incompatible with those persons or groups block or thwart each other in effort to make their aims. Conflict is an inevitable portion of the organisational life since the ends of assorted stakeholders such as directors and staff have assorted and different points of position and are incompatible ( Jones et al. . 2000 ) . Conflict is a fact o f life in any organisation every bit long as people compete for occupations. resources. power. acknowledgment and security ( Adomi and Anie. 2005 ) . As the term and sound of â€Å"conflict† by and large has a intension of something negative for most persons. it can hold an consequence of both a positive and a negative. Research workers have stated that most organisations need more struggle. non less ( Rico. 1964 ) . It has besides been stated that the absence of struggle may be an indicant of autarchy. uniformity. stagnancy and mental fastness ; the presence of struggle may be declarative of democracy. diverseness. growing. and self-actualization ( Pondy. 1992 ) . Furthermore. struggle is considered psychologically and socially healthy. It is psychologically healthy because it provides an mercantile establishment for defeats and gives a feeling of engagement for those involved in the struggle ( Tjosvold. 1998 ) . In most organisations today. employees are organized into manageable groups in order to make a common end. therefore doing the chance of struggle to be high. There is no 1 beginning of struggle that occurs in organisations at all degrees of direction ( Barker et Al. . 1987 ) . In the societal kingdom of struggle. struggle occurs but is handled by household members. friends and relations. The same attack applies when the struggle is within the organisation. when struggle arises ; it needs to be resolved by direction for the interest of growing of the organisation. endurance and enhance employee and organisation public presentation. However. struggles are seldom resolved easy. to a certain extend most struggles are managed. as persons work out difference ( Barker. 1987 ) . 1. 2 Causes of Conflict With any organisation. there are many causes of struggle ; nevertheless. the struggle with an Individual normally arises when an person is ill-defined about what they are expected to make. this happens when the director or supervisor in charged has non clearly defined their outlooks to the employee ( Henry. 2009 ) . A study conducted by Psychometrics Canada. surveyed 357 HR professional’s employees about what they see as the chief causes of struggle. employees frequently report that personality. leading. communicating and the work environment drama considerable functions. Personality clangs and warring self-importances. scored the highest per centum of 86 % of the bulk of respondents indicated being a frequent struggle. Lack of leading is the 2nd most normally mentioned cause evaluation at 73 % . Poor leading from the top of the organisation plays a important portion in bring forthing struggle at work. Issues related to communicating and work environment followed closely with a mark of 67 % describing deficiency of honestness and openness as their cause of struggle. and 64 % indicate that work is stress is their chief cause. Over half of those surveyed identified hiting a 59 % as the cause of clang of values as their chief cause of struggle within an organisation. Incompatible personalities. which are psychological. might impact the employees non to acquire along with each other and this trouble might take to struggles. which consequence from formal interactions with other employees ( Robbins. 1987 ) . Conflicts would originate between persons and groups if the ends are non specified for single within a group ( Duke. 1999 ) . Additionally. the followers are other beginnings of struggles within an or ganisation viz. : sharing of resources particularly manpower. money stuffs. equipment and infinite required among sections. When resources may be scarce. people will ever hold to vie for them and the terminal consequence will take to conflict. 1. 3 Types of ConflictThere are three basic types of struggle: undertaking struggle. interpersonal struggle and procedural Conflict. These types of struggle so divide into what is identified within the organisation as either perpendicular or horizontal ( Imazai. 2002 ) . Task struggle can be productive by bettering the quality of determinations and critical thought procedures. Interpersonal struggle is used to bespeak the dissension that most people call a personality clang. This type of clang may show in the signifier of counter comments associating to personal features of another employee. or ignore any organisational ends to antagonise another group member. This type of struggle is expressed through more elusive gestural behaviours. For illustration. there may be frigid stares or. or to an utmost pure turning away of oculus contact. Interpersonal struggle may be inevitable and must be managed for optimum group co-existence. Another illustration of interpersonal struggle is turning away ( Robert. 1969 ) . Procedural struggle exists when assorted group members disagree about the stairss in which to take in carry throughing a group end. New processs may be formulated and a new docket suggested. Procedural struggle. like undertaking struggle. may be productive ( Barker. 1987 ) . Harmonizing to research compiled by O M Hotepo. perpendicular struggle occurs in groups of different hierarchal degrees. such as supervisors and salesmen. whereas horizontal struggle occurs between persons of the same degree. such as directors in the same organisation. In perpendicular struggle. differences in position and power between groups are in general larger than in that of the horizontal struggle ( Robbins. 1983 ) because these facets tend to equalise in tantamount hierarchal degrees. When a perpendicular struggle occurs between staff employees and disposal. their beginnings refer to: ( I ) psychological distance: workers don’t feel involved in the organisation and experience as if their demands are non being met. ( two ) power and position: employees feel powerless and alienated. ( three ) differences in values and political orientation: this is the difference represents personal beliefs on aims and ends of an organisation and ( four ) scarce resources: dissensions si ng benefits. salary and work conditions. In perpendicular struggle. persons in lower organisational degree seek to avoid struggles with direction degrees ( Brewer. 2002 ) . It is expected that the top direction equals perceive more struggle internally between their groups than those of lower place ( Pondy. 1992 ) . This happens because of the undermentioned grounds: ( I ) people in direction. are engaged in non-routine activities and development of policies. where the orientation for the actions are less clear and opportunities for dissension. bigger and ; ( two ) people in higher direction. instead than the lower degrees. are likely less flexible in their points of position. Conflict declaration at this point becomes more hard. Vertical struggle is researches examine the short-run and long term effects of sensed equity in organisational struggles between employees and supervisors ( Imazai. 2002 ) . This writer concluded that employee’s equity is of import in the declaration or organisational struggles. That when employees realize that there was equity in the struggle declaration. the bond between the group was merely strengthened. It was added that the sensed and distributive equity increased occupation satisfaction. 1. 4 Reason Conflict Occurs Conflict is clearly associated with power and can emerge when end accomplishment of an Organization is avoided ( Jung. 2003 ) . It is besides believed that people are cognizant of the factors that generate struggles such as scarceness. obstructor and incompatible involvement or ends ( Robinson. 1983 ) . Assorted grounds that cause struggle to intensify are as follows: ( I ) sections turn. people lose contact with other sections. or members of a section start to believe otherwise from other countries: ( two ) the addition of accent in the fiscal steps as a tool for motive for directors and the constitution of different net income centres inside an integrated concern system stop up crating many struggles ; ( three ) the increasing rise of accent in functional specialisation. political relations or publicity and recruiting reinforce the isolation of sections. bring forthing struggles ; ( four ) today there is more room for workers to demo unfavorable judgment among each other. while this freedom of address can be good for society as a whole. in organisational context can be transformed into struggles and ( V ) consumers demand lower monetary values. better quality in merchandises and services. making force per unit areas so that sections work more efficaciously which can ensue in strug gles among sections ( Ikeda. 2005 ) . Not all struggles are bad and non all struggles are good. harmonizing to Hocker and Wilmot ( 1995 ) . Conflict can make negative impact to groups but may besides take to positive effects depending on the nature of the struggle. Unresolved struggles tend to turn into bigger struggles. the more it grows. the greater the opportunity of roll uping more jobs ( Knippen and Green. 1999 ) . Similarly. some of these jobs which might originate due to conflict. are deficiency of cooperation. hapless communicating. wasted and contagious struggle ( Knippen and Green. 1999 ) . 2. 1 Controlling and Managing Conflict There are many ways that struggle can be managed. some concentrating on interpersonal relationships and some on construction alterations within the organisation. Robinson and Clifford ( 1974 ) . advocates that pull offing struggle toward constructive action is the best attack in deciding struggle in an organisation. When struggle arises. it needs to be handled suitably so that it can ensue in a positive action instead than that of a negative consequence. Parker ( 1974 ) argued that if struggles arise and are non managed decently. it will take to holds of work. disinterest and deficiency of action and in utmost instances might take to finish dislocation of the group. Knippen and Green ( 1999 ) argued that the best manner to manage struggle objectively is to follow six measure procedure that involves depicting the struggle state of affairs to the other individual. inquiring the other individual how he/she sees the struggle state of affairs. reacting the manner the other individual sees the state of affairs. jointly make up ones minding how to decide the struggle. doing committedness to decide the struggles. and assuring to be committed in the hereafter to go on deciding struggles that may originate. Another manner to managing organisational struggle is to set or do structural alterations within the organisation. This means modifying and incorporating the aims of groups with different point of views. Furthermore. the organisation construction may hold to be changed and authority-responsibility relationships clarified ( Knippen and Green. 1999 ) . The eventuality Theory harmonizing to Derr ( 1975 ) is one of the conceptual tools utile for pull offing organisational struggle. He stated that there are three major struggle direction attacks from which interviewer can pull to explicate an attack appropriate for deciding a difference ; Collaboration. Bargaining and Power drama. The appropriate usage of these methods depends on the person and the province of the organisation. Derr ( 1975 ) continues to specify Collaboration as affecting people come uping their differences ( seting it all on the tabular array ) . and so work on the jobs until they have reached a common solution. By utilizing this attack. it is assumed that people will be motivated to voice their differences and put in the clip to hold them resolved. Dickering on the other manus assumes that neither party will emerge experiencing the issue was resolved from the confrontation but that both. through dialogue. can acquire something they do non hold at the beginning. or more of something needed. normally by giving up something of lesser value and importance to them. The triumph is normally imbalanced where as one party by and large wins more than the other ; by the adept usage of tactical trades. the employee can acquire the maximal possible from the other side. The concluding attack is Power Play ; it differs from the other two attacks because its accent is on strictly self-interest. In coaction and dickering the two sides join forces to seek to decide their jobs. when power is the dominant manner. the actions are one-sided or in alliances moving one-sidedly ( Derr. 1975 ) . Causes of Conflicts| Conflict Management Technologies| | COLLABORATION| BARGAINING| POWER PLAY|External pressures| Open systems planning| Negotiation| Force and menaces of force. usage of Torahs co-option. strategic usage of information. alliance building| Individual stress| Counseling. coaching. job solving| Contracting| Transfer. careful occupation description| Power Struggles| Build organisational clime. do determinations near to information beginning. best thoughts prevail. promote engagement job solving| Negotiation. work out substantial issues of scarce resource. allotment. set up power party| Use of legitimate authorization. co-option. alliance edifice. favour system| Low interdependence| Increasing group interaction| Negotiation to heighten interaction| Use of legitimate authorization to construction more interaction| Role differences. distinction. high interdependence| Team edifice. communicating accomplishments. job work outing. confrontive manner. imagination. 3rd party audience. climate| | Support with formal authorization an d rewards| Beginning: Derr. G. B. ( 1975 ) : Major causes of organisational struggle: Diagnosis for action ; Working paper. Naval Postgraduate School. Monterey. California 2. 2 Methods to decide ConflictIn researching ways to decide struggle within organisations study conducted of one hundred 30 directors from authorities section. and private companies. This study was conducted by Ongori Henry in Botswana. Botswana. His decision of methods to decide struggle was that most struggles in organisations are resolved by the involved compromising. followed by utilizing mediation to decide struggles. In add-on other attacks are besides supplemented in deciding struggles. This survey places strong duty on direction to use more than one attack to decide the struggles within the organisation. The survey besides indicates that turning away and backdown are attacks frequently used in their organisation. but are non given precedence compared to other attacks of compromising or promoting unfastened communicating. 3. 1 Effectss of Conflict Conflict depending the type. cause or ground can impact persons and organisations otherwise. No one individual will ever react or respond the same manner about everything. If struggles are managed decently. the result may non stop up negatively. If the organisation would utilize the best class of action. the organisation could in fact increase its public presentation in footings of using the scarce resources and accomplishing the aims of the organisation ( Jehn. 1995 ) . Conflict can better determination doing results. particularly on task-related struggle and group productiveness by increasing the quality of unfavorable judgment and persons following a â€Å"devil’s advocate† type function ( Amason. 1996 ) . Research has besides found that undertaking related struggle is good to the organisation since it allows the exchange of thoughts and help better public presentation amongst the group members ( Jehn. 1995 ) . Other benefits include group acquisition and truth in state of affairs appraisal ( Fiol. 1994 ) . Robinson ( 1994 ) advocate that pull offing struggle toward constructive action is the best attack in deciding struggle within an organisation. Conflicts as stated before can hold both positive and negative consequences for the person every bit good as for the organisation. Field study consequences ( 2009 ) from survey of 90 six directors from Hotels. Airlines. Road Transport and Insurance companies indicated that positive consequences for the employee from struggle can take to constructing cooperation. helps the person to develop. better the employees accomplishments on how to pull off such struggles. improves choice determinations. and increases their innovativeness and productiveness. Negative consequences for the employee from struggle are interferes with organisation operations. deficiency of cooperation. cachexia of clip and resources. no coherence to organisation. and no productiveness. Harmonizing to Brookins ( 2008 ) struggle for an employee consequences in mental wellness concerns doing defeat and feeling of being unrecognized. The consequence is the employee becomes stressed. which adversely affects their professional and personal lives. They may see jobs kiping. loss of appetency or gluttony. concerns and go unapproachable. Employees involved in struggle frequently show a lessening in their productiveness. The clip covering with the struggle interferes with their occupation public presentation ; their focal point has shifted from the ends to dish the dirting about the struggle or venting about their defeats. Many employees when holding to cover or confront unsolved struggle frequently leave the organisation all together. Violence has even occurred in some organisational state of affairs because a struggle has escalates without any mediation. and an intense state of affairs may originate between its employees. 4. Decision Conflicts are portion of our human nature and sometime ineluctable. We understand that any struggle that has an consequence on an employee can besides hold a strong consequence on the organisation and must be resolved. Pawlak ( 1998 ) suggests that struggle analysis and its declarations has an of import function in private. public and political organisations. every bit good as in judicial and work differences. in military operations and many other establishments. The cause of the struggles becomes irrelevant if they are neer resolved. Though struggle is normally viewed as a negative. it is capable of increasing organisational productiveness. thereby bettering the organisational public presentation. All this is achieved by turn toing the employee’s struggle to extinguish any farther negative consequence. Conflict direction systems should be integrated within the organisation. This procedure begins with appraisal and enquiry. addresses the design. execution and rating ( Ford. 20 07 ) . If struggles occur. which they will. struggles should construct the spirit of teamwork and cooperation among the employees of an organisation ( Henry. 2009 ) . Resources Barker. L. L. j. w. Kathy. K. W. Watson and R. J. Kibler. 1987. Groups in Process: an Introduction to Small Group Communication. 3rd Edn. Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs. N. J. Brewer. N. . Mitchell. P. . Weber. N. 2002. Gender function. Organizational Status. and Conflict Management Styles. The International Journal of Conflict Management. 12 ( 1 ) : 78-94 Derr. G. B. 1975. Major Causes of Organizational Conflict: Diagnosis for Action. Working paper. Naval postgraduate School. Monterey. California Duke. C. . 1999. Organizational struggles impacting engineering commercialisation from non-profit research labs. J. Prod. Brand Manage. . 4 ( 5 ) : 5-15 Fiol. C. M. . 1994. Consensus. diverseness and acquisition in Organizations. J. Org. Sci. . 5 ( 3 ) :403-420. Hocker. J. L. and W. w. Wilmot. 1995. Interpersonal Conflict. 4th Edn. The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. Jehn. K. . 1995. A multi-method scrutiny of the benefits and hurts of inter-group struggle. Administr. Sci. Q. . 40 ( 1 ) : 256-282 Knippen. J. T. and T. B. Green. 1999. Managing struggles. J. Workplace Learning. 11 ( 1 ) : 27-32 Jung. S. 2003. The Effects of Organizational Culture on Conflict Resolution in Marketing. Journal of American Academy of Business. 3: 242-246. Ikeda. A. A. . Veludo-de-Oliverira. Campomar M. C. 2005. Organizational Conflicts Perceived by marketing Executives. Electronic Journal of Business and Organization Studies. 10 ( 1 ) :22-28 Pawlak. Z. 1998. An Inquiry into Anantomy of Conflicts. Journal of Information Sciences. 109: 65-68 Pondy. L. R. 1992. Contemplations on Organizational Conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 13: 257-261 Robinson. J. . Roy W. J. . Clifford. R. A. 1974. Conflict Management in community Groups. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. North Cardinal Regional Extension Publication No. 36-45 Robbins. S. P. 1983. Organizational Behavior. Prentice Hall. Englewood Cliffs. ISBN 978-960-474-161-8 Tjosvold. D. 1998. Concerted and Competitive Goal Approach to Conflict: Accomplishments and Challenges. Applied Psychology: an International Review. 47 ( 3 ) : 285-342.