Management Conflict Overall conflict management should aim to minimize affective conflicts at all levels, attain and maintain

a moderate amount of substantive conflict, and use the appropriate conflict management strategy--to effectively bring about the first two goals, and also to match the status and concerns of the two parties in conflict (Rahim, 2002). In order for conflict management strategies to be effective, they should satisfy certain criteria. The below criteria are particularly useful for not only conflict management, but also decision making in management. Organization Learning and Effectiveness- In order to attain this objective, conflict management strategies should be designed to enhance critical and innovative thinking to learn the process of diagnosis and intervention in the right problems. Needs of Stakeholders- Sometimes multiple parties are involved in a conflict in an organization and the challenge of conflict management would be to involve these parties in a problem solving process that will lead to collective learning and organizational effectiveness. organizations should institutionalize the positions of employee advocate, customer and supplier advocate, as well as environmental and stockholder advocates. Ethics - A wise leader must behave ethically, and to do so the leader should be open to new information and be willing to change his or her mind. By the same token subordinates and other stakeholders have an ethical duty to speak out against the decisions of supervisors when consequences of these decisions are likely to be serious. Without an understanding of ethics, conflict cannot be handled (Batcheldor, 2000). Steps to Manage The first step is reactionary by assessing and reacting to the conflict. The second step is proactive by determining how the employee reacted to the decision. The manager tries to take (create) a new approach, and once again tries to discern how the employee reacts. Once the manager feels that the best decision for the organization has been chosen, and the employee feels justified, then the manager decides if this is a single case conflict, or one that should be written as policy. The entire process starts as a reactive situation but then moves towards a proactive decision. It is based on obtaining an outcome that best fits the organization, but emphasizes the perception of justice for the employee. The chart below shows the interaction of the procedures. Maccoby and Studder identify five steps to managing conflict. Anticipate Take time to obtain information that can lead to conflict. Prevent Develop strategies before the conflict occurs. Identify If it is interpersonal or procedural, move to quickly manage it. Manage Remember that conflict is emotional Resolve React, without blame, and you will learn through dialogue. (Maccoby & Studder, p.50) Melissa Taylors research on Locus of Control is directly related to individual abilities of communication, especially as it pertains to interpersonal conflict. She also states that conflicts should be solution driven which are creative and integrative. They should be non-confrontational, and they should still maintain control, utilizing non-verbal messages to achieve the outcome.(Taylor, p. 449)

Rahim, Antonioni, and Psenickas 2001 article deals with two types of leaders. Those that have concern for themselves, and those that have concern for others. (Rahim, Antonioni & Psenicka, 2001, p.195) They also have degrees of conflict management style. Integrating involves opening up, creating dialogue, and exploring differences to choose an effective solution for both groups. This style is positively associated with individual and organizational outcomes. (Rahim et al., p. 197) Obliging tries to find the same interests of the parties, while trying to minimize the true feeling of the conflict, to satisfy the other party. Dominating is a coercive manager who forces their own way. Avoiding is ignoring the problem in hopes that it will go away. Compromising is a manger that is willing to make concessions and the employee makes concessions for a mutual agreement. (Rahim et al., p.196) The avoiding and dominating styles are considered ineffective in management. The following chart shows the interaction between the styles. (Rahim et al., p. 196)

Counselling When personal conflict leads to frustration and loss of efficiency, counseling may prove to be a helpful antidote. Although few organizations can afford the luxury of having professional counselors on the staff, given some training, managers may be able to perform this function. Nondirective counseling, or "listening with understanding," is little more than being a good listenersomething every manager should be.[1] Sometimes the simple process of being able to vent one's feelingsthat is, to express them to a concerned and understanding listener, is enough to relieve frustration and make it possible for the frustrated individual to advance to a problem-solving frame of mind, better able to cope with a personal difficulty that is affecting his work adversely. The nondirective approach is one effective way for managers to deal with frustrated subordinates and co-workers.[2] There are other more direct and more diagnostic ways that might be used in appropriate circumstances. The great strength of the nondirective approach (nondirective counseling is based on the clientcentered therapy of Carl Rogers), however, lies in its simplicity, its effectiveness, and the fact that it deliberately avoids the manager-counselor's diagnosing and interpreting emotional problems, which would call for special psychological training. No one has ever been harmed by being listened to sympathetically and understandingly. On the contrary, this approach has helped many people to cope with problems that were interfering with their effectiveness on the job.

Organizational Conflict Organizational conflict is a state of discord caused by the actual or perceived opposition of needs, values and interests between people working together. Conflict takes many forms in organizations. There is the inevitable clash between formal authority and power and those individuals and groups affected. There are disputes over how revenues should be divided, how the work should be done, and how long and hard people should work. There are jurisdictional disagreements among individuals, departments, and between unions and management. There are subtler forms of conflict involving rivalries, jealousies, personality clashes, role definitions, and struggles for power and favor. There is also conflict within individuals between competing needs and demands to which individuals respond in different ways. Conflict: 1. Personal Conflict: Role Conflict 2. Organizational conflict theories: Maturity-Immaturity theory Negative effects of group conflicts The win-lose conflict in groups may have some of the following negative effects: 1. Divert time and energy from the main issues 2. Delay decisions 3. Create deadlocks 4. Drive unaggressive committee members to the sidelines 5. Interfere with listening 6. Obstruct exploration of more alternatives 7. Decrease or destroy sensitivity 8. Cause members to drop out or resign from committees 9. Arouse anger that disrupts a meeting 10. Interfere with empathy 11. Leave losers resentful 12. Incline underdogs to sabotage 13. Provoke personal abuse 14. Cause defensiveness Strategies for Managing Group Conflicts 1. Avoidance - a management strategy which includes nonattention or creating a total separation of the combatants or a partial separation that allows limited interaction[7] 2. Smoothing - technique which stresses the achievement of harmony between disputants[7] 3. Dominance or Power Intervention - the imposition of a solution by higher management, other than the level at which the conflict exists[7] 4. Compromise - strategy that seeks a resolution which satisfies at least part of the each party's position[7] 5. Confrontation - strategy featuring a thorough and frank discussion of the sources and types of conflict and achieving a resolution that is in the best interest of the group, but that may be at the expense of one or all of the conflicting parties [7] A trained conflict resolver can begin with an economical intervention, such as getting group members to clarify and reaffirm shared goals. If necessary, they move through a systematic series of interventions, such as testing the members' ability and willingness to compromise; resorting to confrontation, enforced counseling, and/or termination as last resorts.[8]

Decision Making It is important to differentiate between problem analysis and decision making. The concepts are completely separate from one another. Traditionally it is argued that problem analysis must be done first, so that the information gathered in that process may be used towards decision making.[4] Problem analysis 1. Analyze performance, what should the results be against what they actually are 2. Problems are merely deviations from performance standards 3. Problem must be precisely identified and described 4. Problems are caused by a change from a distinctive feature 5. Something can always be used to distinguish between what has and hasn't been effected by a cause 6. Causes to problems can be deducted from relevant changes found in analyzing the problem 7. Most likely cause to a problem is the one that exactly explains all the facts Decision making 1. Objectives must first be established 2. Objectives must be classified and placed in order of importance 3. Alternative actions must be developed 4. The alternative must be evaluated against all the objectives 5. The alternative that is able to achieve all the objectives is the tentative decision 6. The tentative decision is evaluated for more possible consequences 7. The decisive actions are taken, and additional actions are taken to prevent any adverse consequences from becoming problems and starting both systems (problem analysis and decision making) all over again 8. There are steps that are generally followed that result in a decision model that can be used to determine an optimal production plan.[5] 9. In a situation featuring conflict, role-playing is helpful for predicting decisions to be made by involved parties.[6] Decision planning Making a decision without planning is fairly common, but does not often end well. Planning allows for decisions to be made comfortably and in a smart way. Planning makes decision making a lot more simpler than it is. Decision will get four benefits out of planning: 1. Planning give chance to the establishment of independent goals. It is a conscious and directed series of choices. 2. Planning provides a standard of measurement. It is a measurement of whether you are going towards or further away from your goal. 3. Planning converts values to action. You think twice about the plan and decide what will help advance your plan best. 4. Planning allows to limited resources to be committed in an orderly way. Always govern the use of what is limited to you (e.g. money, time, etc.)[7] Decision making stages Developed by B. Aubrey Fisher, there are four stages that should be involved in all group decision making. These stages, or sometimes called phases, are important for the decision making process to begin 1. Orientation stage This phase is where members meet for the first time and start to get to know each other.

2. Conflict stage Once group members become familiar with each other, disputes, little fights and arguments occur. Group members eventually work it out. 3. Emergence stage The group begins to clear up vague opinions by talking about them. 4. Reinforcement stage Members finally make a decision, while justifying themselves that it was the right decision. It is said that critical norms in a group improves the quality of decisions, while the majority of opinions (called consensus norms) do not. This is due to collaboration between one another, and when group members get used to, and familiar with, each other, they will tend to argue and create more of a dispute to agree upon one decision. This does not mean that all group members fully agree they may not want argue further just to be liked by other group members or to "fit in".[12] Cognitive and personal biases Biases can creep into our decision making processes. Many different people have made a decision about the same question (e.g. "Should I have a doctor look at this troubling breast cancer symptom I've discovered?" "Why did I ignore the evidence that the project was going over budget?") and then craft potential cognitive interventions aimed at improving decision making outcomes. Here is a list of commonly debated cognitive biases. 1. Selective search for evidence (a.k.a. Confirmation bias in psychology) (Scott Plous, 1993) We tend to be willing to gather facts that support certain conclusions but disregard other facts that support different conclusions. Individuals who are highly defensive in this manner show significantly greater left prefrontal cortex activity as measured by EEG than do less defensive individuals.[15] 2. Premature termination of search for evidence We tend to accept the first alternative that looks like it might work. 3. Inertia Unwillingness to change thought patterns that we have used in the past in the face of new circumstances. 4. Selective perception We actively screen-out information that we do not think is important. (See prejudice.) In one demonstration of this effect, discounting of arguments with which one disagrees (by judging them as untrue or irrelevant) was decreased by selective activation of right prefrontal cortex.[16] 5. Wishful thinking or optimism bias We tend to want to see things in a positive light and this can distort our perception and thinking.[17] 6. Choice-supportive bias occurs when we distort our memories of chosen and rejected options to make the chosen options seem more attractive. 7. Recency We tend to place more attention on more recent information and either ignore or forget more distant information. (See semantic priming.) The opposite effect in the first set of data or other information is termed Primacy effect (Plous, 1993). 8. Repetition bias A willingness to believe what we have been told most often and by the greatest number of different sources. 9. Anchoring and adjustment Decisions are unduly influenced by initial information that shapes our view of subsequent information. 10. Group think peer pressure to conform to the opinions held by the group.

11. Source credibility bias We reject something if we have a bias against the person, organization, or group to which the person belongs: We are inclined to accept a statement by someone we like. (See prejudice.) 12. Incremental decision making and escalating commitment We look at a decision as a small step in a process and this tends to perpetuate a series of similar decisions. This can be contrasted with zero-based decision making. (See slippery slope.) 13. Attribution asymmetry We tend to attribute our success to our abilities and talents, but we attribute our failures to bad luck and external factors. We attribute other's success to good luck, and their failures to their mistakes. 14. Role fulfillment (Self-fulfilling prophecy) We conform to the decision making expectations that others have of someone in our position. 15. Underestimating uncertainty and the illusion of control We tend to underestimate future uncertainty because we tend to believe we have more control over events than we really do. We believe we have control to minimize potential problems in our decisions. 16. Framing bias is best avoided by using numeracy with absolute measures of efficacy.[18] Reference class forecasting was developed to eliminate or reduce cognitive biases in decision making.