Analisis Jurnal Konflik

ANALISIS JURNAL
Disusun Oleh :
APRY SISWANTI (AK19010)
YUSTINA LARAS P (AK19033)
PRODI SARJANA ADMINISTRASI KESEHATAN

FAKULTAS KESEHATAN
UNIVERSITAS KUSUMA HUSADA
TAHUN PELAJARAN 2019/2020
1 Judul Toward A Theory Of Managing Organizational
Conflict
2 Nama Jurnal The International Journal of Conflict Management
3 Volume dan Halaman
a. Volume Volume 13
b. Halaman 206-235
4 Penulis M. Afzalur Rahim
5 Bulan dan Tahun
a. Bulan -
b. Tahun 2002
6 Reviewer Apry Siswanti (AK19010) & Yustina Laras P
(AK19033)
7 Tanggal Mengerjakan 16 Mei 2020
8 Abstrak Manajemen konflik organisasi melibatkan diagnosis
dan intervensi dalam konflik afektif dan substantif di
interpersonal, tingkat intragroup, dan antarkelompok
dan gaya (strategi) dulu menangani konflik ini.
Diagnosis harus menunjukkan apakah perlu untuk
intervensi dan jenis intervensi yang diperlukan. Secara
umum, suatu intervensi dirancang (a) untuk mencapai
dan mempertahankan jumlah yang moderat konflik
substantif dalam tugas-tugas non-rutin di berbagai
tingkatan, (b) hingga mengurangi konflik afektif di
semua tingkatan, dan (c) untuk memungkinkan
anggota organisasi untuk memilih dan menggunakan
gaya yang sesuai menangani konflik sehingga
berbagai situasi dapat ditangani secara efektif.
Pembelajaran dan efektivitas organisasi dapat
ditingkatkan melalui diagnosis yang tepat dan proses
dan intervensi struktural di Indonesia konflik.
9 Penelitian
a. Subjek
b. Metode Kualitatif
c. Analisis Univariat
d. Hasil Penelitian Di bidang pengelolaan konflik dalam organisasi yang
kompleks, ada beberapa tantangan penelitian. Yang
utama terdaftar sebagai berikut:
1. Beberapa penelitian terbaru menyelidiki hubungan
afektif intragroup dan konflik substantif terhadap
produktivitas dan kepuasan. Kita perlu studi
menyelidiki hubungan (1) konflik afektif dan
substantif antarpribadi untuk kinerja dan kepuasan
kerja individu, dan (2) afektif dan antarkelompok
konflik substantif untuk kolaborasi dan kepuasan
antarkelompok.
2. Kita perlu tahu lebih banyak tentang efek konflik
afektif dan substantif pada produktivitas dalam
berbagai kondisi tugas (mis., terstruktur vs.
tidak terstruktur) dan teknologi (unit, massa, proses
berkelanjutan).
3. Ada dua penelitian kualitatif yang membahas
bagaimana lima gaya penanganan konflik harus
digunakan untuk menghadapi situasi yang berbeda
secara efektif (Rahim, 1997; Thomas, 1977).
Dibutuhkan lebih banyak studi untuk menilai
efektivitas masing-masing gaya untuk menghadapi
situasi yang berbeda.
4. Ada beberapa pendahulunya konflik dan gaya
penanganan konflik (untuk ulasan lihat Rahim, 2001).
Diperlukan lebih banyak studi untuk mengidentifikasi
dengan jelas faktor proses dan struktural yang
memengaruhi gaya konflik dan penanganan konflik.
5. Ada beberapa penelitian tentang hubungan antara
kepribadian dan gaya penanganan konflik
interpersonal (untuk tinjauan lihat Moberg, 1998;
Antonioni, 1998). Dibutuhkan lebih banyak studi
untuk membangun hubungan yang jelas antara
kepribadian dan gaya.
6. Ada beberapa studi lintas budaya tentang gaya
penanganan konflik (Ting-Toomey et al., 1991). Kita
perlu melakukan lebih banyak studi lintas budaya
gaya dan efek dari berbagai jenis konflik pada kinerja
dan kepuasan kerja. Kami juga membutuhkan studi
lintas budaya tentang konflik substantif dan afektif.
Informasi yang dihasilkan dari studi ini akan
membantu meningkatkan manajemen konflik dalam
organisasi kontemporer. Dengan kata lain, konflik
teori manajemen yang disajikan dalam makalah ini
cenderung disempurnakan sebagai studi yang relevan
diterbitkan dari waktu ke waktu.
10. Kelebihan dan Kekurangan
a. Kelebihan Penyajian runtut dan baik
b. Kekurangan Bahasa berbelit-belit, letak hasil penelitianpun
tersembunyi
1 Judul Narrative mediation and discursive positioning
inorganisational conflicts
2 Nama Jurnal Explorations: An E-Journal of Narrative Practice
a. Volume Volume 2
b. Halaman 24–35
4 Penulis Nikolaj Kure
5 Bulan dan Tahun
a. Bulan -
b. Tahun 2010
(AK19033)
8 Abstrak Dalam makalah ini, saya memperluas penggunaan
praktik naratif di bidang mediasi organisasi.
Mengembangkan pendekatan mediasi yang diajukan
oleh John Winslade, Gerald Monk, Alison Cotter, dan
Sara Cobb, saya mengusulkan untuk membuat konsep
organisasi sebagai bidang diskursif hierarkis yang
membentuk pola konflik organisasi. Atas dasar ini,
saya menyarankan empat tujuan mediasi untuk
mediator naratif yang terlibat dalam penyelesaian
konflik organisasi: merangsang rasa kontingensi;
mengeksternalkan konflik; menemukan pengalaman
organisasi yang tersembunyi; dan membangun cerita
alternatif tentang praktik organisasi. Dalam proses
penelitian partisipatif dengan organisasi kesehatan
Denmark, saya mencoba mencapai tujuan-tujuan ini
melalui peta posisi 1 dan praktik saksi luar. Dengan
demikian, artikel ini berkontribusi pada pemahaman
teoritis tentang konflik organisasi serta penggunaan
praktik naratif dalam penyelesaian konflik tersebut.
9 Penelitian
a. Subjek Orang yang menjalani interview
b. Metode Kualitatif
c. Analisis Bivariat
d. Hasil Penelitian Dalam tulisan ini, saya telah mencoba menerapkan
praktik naratif sebagai alat mediasi dalam pengaturan
organisasi. Ambisi ini sangat terinspirasi oleh karya-
karya inovatif John Winslade, Gerald Monk, Alison
Cotter, dan Sara Cobb, yang telah menyelidiki potensi
mediasi yang dimiliki oleh teknik naratif. Berdiri di
pundak para pelopor ini, saya telah mengatakan empat
tujuan untuk mediator naratif yang semuanya
memungkinkan anggota organisasi untuk mengatur
ulang formasi diskursif yang mengkondisikan pola
konflik organisasi. Tujuan-tujuan ini adalah: untuk
merangsang rasa kontingensi; untuk
mengeksternalkan konflik; untuk menemukan kembali
pengalaman organisasi yang tersembunyi dengan nilai
dan praktik yang disukai; dan untuk membangun
narasi baru yang mendukung nilai dan praktik pilihan
ini. Saya ingin menekankan bahwa cara menggunakan
praktik naratif ini mencerminkan satu kemungkinan
masuk ke bidang mediasi organisasi. Namun, saya
berharap dapat menunjukkan bahwa praktik naratif
berpotensi untuk penyelesaian konflik dalam konteks
organisasi, yang diharapkan akan dieksplorasi dan
diperluas lebih lanjut di masa depan.
a. Kelebihan Semua data dan isi lengkap, bahasa mudah dipahami
b. Kekurangan Penyajian data kurang rapi,tidak ada bulat terbit jurnal
1 Judul Organisational Conflict and its Effects on
Organisational Performance
2 Nama Jurnal Research jurnal Bussiness Management
a. Volume Volume 2
b. Halaman 136-144
4 Penulis Onogory Henry
5 Bulan dan Tahun
a. Bulan -
b. Tahun 2010
(AK19033)
8 Abstrak Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui
penyebab, jenis, efek dan strategi tentang cara
mengelola konflik dalam organisasi secara efektif
untuk meningkatkan kinerja organisasi. Oleh karena
itu, merupakan tanggung jawab utama manajemen
untuk menerapkan undang-undang yang tepat tentang
bagaimana cara mengurangi konflik. Penelitian ini
berkontribusi pada tubuh literatur yang ada:
khususnya akan mengilhami para petani untuk
mengembangkan strategi yang tepat tentang
bagaimana mengelola konflik dalam organisasi
mereka secara efektif. Sampel kenyamanan dari
seratus tiga puluh manajer dipilih untuk studi dari
departemen pemerintah, parastatal, dan negara bagian.
Metode tabular digunakan untuk menganalisis data.
Temuan menunjukkan bahwa penyebab utama konflik
orgamizasional adalah sumber daya yang terbatas.
9 Penelitian
a. Subjek Pekerja
b. Metode Kuantitatif
c. Analisis Bivariat
d. Hasil Penelitian Hasil dari penelitian menunjukkan bahwa konflik
organisasi memang ada dalam organisasi. Penyebab
utama konflik organisasi adalah berbagi sumber daya
yang tidak terbatas. Karyawan selalu bersaing untuk
mendapatkan sumber daya yang langka. Oleh karena
itu, tanggung jawab utama manajer untuk memastikan
bahwa sumber daya langka yang tersedia digunakan
dengan benar untuk kepentingan organisasi dan
pemangku kepentingan lainnya. Ini. pendekatan ke
tingkat tertentu akan meminimalkan kemungkinan
timbulnya konflik dalam organisasi. Kriteria evaluasi
kinerja Ermployee harus dijabarkan dengan jelas dan
dikomunikasikan kepada semua karyawan. Karyawan
harus dievaluasi secara tidak memihak dengan
mempertimbangkan standar kinerja yang ditetapkan.
Oleh karena itu, untuk menghindari situasi konflik
yang timbul dalam organisasi terkait dengan evaluasi
kinerja, standar yang ditetapkan oleh manajer harus
spesifik, terukur, dapat dicapai dan realistis dan harus
memiliki batas waktu (SMART). Selain itu karyawan
harus mendapatkan laporan kemajuan kinerja mereka.
Ini akan membuat karyawan mengetahui kekuatan dan
kelemahan mereka. Temuan empiris menunjukkan
bahwa orgulasi dipengaruhi secara negatif oleh
konflik dalam hal kinerja dan pemborosan sumber
daya yang langka. Demikian pula konflik
crganisasional memang memiliki efek positif bagi
organisasi terutama dalam meningkatkan inovasi
organisasi dan menanamkan kualitas keputusan dalam
organisasi. Selain itu konflik membangun ikatan kerja
tim dan kerja sama di antara para pekerja di organisasi
tersebut. Ini terjadi terutama ketika mereka bersatu
untuk menyelesaikan konflik
a. Kelebihan Penyajian sangat jelas
b. Kekurangan Tidak terdapat bulan terbit jurnal, bahasa agak berbelit
The International Journal of Conflict Management
2002, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 206−235
TOWARD A THEORY OF MANAGING

ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT
M. Afzalur Rahim
Center for Advanced Studies in Management
The management of organizational conflict involves the diagnosis of and

intervention in affective and substantive conflicts at the interpersonal,
intragroup, and intergroup levels and the styles (strategies) used to
handle these conflicts. A diagnosis should indicate whether there is need
for an intervention and the type of intervention needed. In general, an
intervention is designed (a) to attain and maintain a moderate amount
of substantive conflict in nonroutine tasks at various levels, (b) to
reduce affective conflict at all levels, and (c) to enable the
organizational members to select and use the appropriate styles of
handling conflict so that various situations can be effectively dealt with.
Organizational learning and effectiveness can be enhanced through an
appropriate diagnosis of and process and structural interventions in
conflict.
Even though conflict is often said to be functional for organizations, most
recommendations relating to organizational conflict still fall within the spectrum of
conflict reduction, resolution, or minimization. Action recommendations from the
current organizational conflict literature show a disturbing lag when compared to
functional set of background assumptions that are often endorsed. These recom-
mendations are usually designed to deal with conflict at the dyadic or group levels
and are not appropriate for macro-level changes in an organization. Insofar as it
could be determined, the literature on organizational conflict is deficient (with
minor exceptions) in three major areas:
1. There is no clear set of rules to suggest when conflict ought to be main-
tained at a certain level, when reduced, when ignored, and when enhanced.
2. There is no clear set of guidelines to suggest how conflict can be reduced,
ignored, or enhanced to increase organizational learning and effectiveness.
Note: The author wishes to thank Michael E. Roloff and three anonymous reviewers for
critical comments and suggestions.
M. A. RAHIM 207
3. There is no clear set of rules to indicate how conflict involving different

situations can be managed effectively.
This paper addresses these issues at a macro level and provides a design for
managing interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup conflicts. All these can be use-
ful to the management practitioner as well as the academician.
Nature of Conflict
According to Roloff (1987), "organizational conflict occurs when members
engage in activities that are incompatible with those of colleagues within their net-
work, members of other collectivities, or unaffiliated individuals who utilize the
services or products of the organization" (p. 496). We broaden this definition by
conceptualizing conflict as an interactive process manifested in incompatibility,
disagreement, or dissonance within or between social entities (i.e., individual,
group, organization, etc.). Calling conflict an interactive process does not preclude
the possibilities of intraindividual conflict, for it is known that a person often inter-
acts with self. Obviously, one also interacts with others. Conflict may occur when:
1. A party is required to engage in an activity that is incongruent with his or
her needs or interests.
2. A party holds behavioral preferences, the satisfaction of which is
incompatible with another person's implementation of his or her preferences.
3. A party wants some mutually desirable resource that is in short supply,
such that the wants of everyone may not be satisfied fully.
4. A party possesses attitudes, values, skills, and goals that are salient in
directing his or her behavior but are perceived to be exclusive of the attitudes, val-
ues, skills, and goals held by the other(s).
5. Two parties have partially exclusive behavioral preferences regarding their
joint actions.
6. Two parties are interdependent in the performance of functions or activi-
ties.
This definition is much more inclusive, which implies that conflict can relate
to incompatible preferences, goals, and not just activities. It should be recognized
that in order for conflict to occur, it has to exceed the threshold level of intensity
before the parties experience (or become aware of) any conflict. This principle of
conflict threshold is consistent with Baron's (1990) contention that opposed inter-
ests must be recognized by parties for conflict to exist.
Managing Conflict
The emphasis of this paper is away from the resolution of conflict to the man-
agement of conflict. The difference between resolution and management of conflict
is more than semantic (Robbins, 1978). Conflict resolution implies reduction,
elimination, or termination of conflict. A large number of studies on negotiation,
bargaining, mediation, and arbitration fall into the conflict resolution category. In a
review of literature on conflict and conflict management, Wall and Callister (1995)
made the following comments:
The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

208 CONFLICT MANAGEMENT THEORY
we raised three of the most important questions in this article: is moderate

conflict desirable? Is too little conflict as dysfunctional as too much? And
should leaders, at times, promote conflict to attain organizational goals? Our
tentative answers to these questions are no, no, and no. (p. 545)
Wall and Callister's approach to handling conflict is inconsistent with the rec-
ognition of scholars who suggest that organizational conflict has both functional
and dysfunctional outcomes (Jehn, 1995; Mitroff, 1998; Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin,
1999). Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, and Bourgeois (1998) suggested that conflict in top
management is inevitable and it is usually valuable. "Conflict at senior levels sur-
rounding appropriate paths of actionwhat may be termed 'substantive,' 'cogni-
tive,' or 'issue-oriented' conflict is essential for effective strategic choice" (p. 142).
Therefore, it is our conclusion that Wall and Callister's fall within the realm of con-
flict resolution, which involves reduction, or termination of conflict. This amounts
to throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
What we need for contemporary organizations is conflict management and
not conflict resolution. Conflict management does not necessarily imply avoidance,
reduction, or termination of conflict. It involves designing effective macro-level
strategies to minimize the dysfunctions of conflict and enhancing the constructive
functions of conflict in order to enhance learning and effectiveness in an organiza-
tion.
Organizational learning is a significant construct and a number of contempo-
rary organization theorists have indicated that the issue for the organizations is not
whether they want to learn; they must learn as fast as they can (Argysis & Schon,
1996; Schein, 1993; Senge, 1990). Luthans, Rubach, and Marsnik (1995) con-
cluded from their review of organizational learning literature that "the presence of
tension and conflict seem to be essential characteristics of the learning organiza-
tion. The tension and conflict will be evidenced by questioning, inquiry, disequilib-
rium, and a challenging of the status quo" (p. 30). Unfortunately, the literature on
organizational conflict does not provide a clear link between conflict management
strategies and organizational learning and effectiveness. Argyris (1994) suggests
that existing theories encourage self-reinforcing and anti-learning processes which
can best be described as "quasi-resolution of conflict" (p. 3). Several scholars have
indicated the need for accommodating tensions and managing conflict construc-
tively or the potential for collective learning will not be realized (Pascale, 1990;
Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994). The implicit assumption here is
that conflict management need to be strengthened at a macro-level for encouraging
learning and effectiveness.
Several conflict management scholars (Amason, 1996; Jehn, Northcraft, &
Neale, 1999; Rahim, 2001) have suggested that conflict management strategies
involve recognition of the following:
1. Certain types of conflicts, which may have negative effects on individual
and group performance, may have to be reduced. These conflicts are generally
caused by the negative reactions of organizational members (e.g., personal attacks
of group members, racial disharmony, sexual harassment).

M. A. RAHIM 209
2. There are other types of conflicts that may have positive effects on the
individual and group performance. These conflicts relate to disagreements relating
to tasks, policies, and other organizational issues. Conflict management strategies
involve generation and maintenance of a moderate amount of these conflicts.
3. Organizational members while interacting with each other will be required
to deal with their disagreements constructively. This calls for learning how to use
different conflict-handling styles to deal with various situations effectively.
Criteria for Conflict Management
In order for conflict management strategies to be effective, they should satisfy
certain criteria. These have been derived from the diverse literature on organization
theory and organizational behavior. The following criteria are particularly useful
for conflict management, but in general, they may be useful for decision making in
management:
1. Organizational Learning and Effectiveness. Conflict management strate-
gies should be designed to enhance organizational learning (Luthans et al., 1995;
Tompkins, 1995). It is expected that organizational learning will lead to long-term
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.
2. Needs of Stakeholders. Conflict management strategies should be
designed to satisfy the needs and expectations of the strategic constituencies
(stakeholders) and to attain a balance among them. Mitroff (1998) strongly
suggests picking the right stakeholders to solve the right problems. 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. It is
expected that this process will lead to satisfaction of the relevant stakeholders.
3. Ethics. Mitroff (1998) is a strong advocate of ethical management. He
concluded that "if we can't define a problem so that it leads to ethical actions that
benefit humankind, then either we haven't defined or are currently unable to define
the problem properly.
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. To manage conflicts ethically, organizations should institutionalize the
positions of employee advocate, customer and supplier advocate, as well as envi-
ronmental and stockholder advocates. Only if these advocates are heard by deci-
sion-makers in organizations may we hope for an improved record of ethically
managed organizational conflict (Rahim, Garrett, & Buntzman, 1992). The disas-
trous outcomes in Enron and Worldcom probably could be avoided if this process
was legitimized in these organizations.

Conflict Management Strategy

Existing literature on conflict management is deficient on strategies needed to
manage conflict at the macro-level, which can satisfy the above criteria. An effec-
tive conflict management strategy should:
1. Minimize Affective Conflicts at Various Levels. Affective conflict refers
to inconsistency in interpersonal relationships, which occurs when organizational
members become aware that their feelings and emotions regarding some of the
issues are incompatible. "Summarily stated, relationship conflicts interfere with
task-related effort because members focus on reducing threats, increasing power,
and attempting to build cohesion rather than working on task . . . The conflict
causes members to be negative, irritable, suspicious, and resentful" (Jehn, 1997,
pp. 531–532).
A. Evidence indicates that affective conflict impedes group performance. It
affects group performance by limiting information processing ability and cognitive
functioning of group members and antagonistic attributions of group members'
behavior (Amason, 1996; Baron, 1997; Jehn, 1995; Jehn et al., 1999; Wall &
Nolan, 1986).
B. Affective conflict diminishes group loyalty, workgroup commitment,
intent to stay in the present organization, and job satisfaction (Amason, 1996; Jehn,
1995, 1997; Jehn et al., 1999). These result from higher levels of stress and anxi-
ety, and conflict escalation.
2. Attain and Maintain a Moderate Amount of Substantive Conflict.
Substantive conflict occurs when two or more organizational members disagree on
their task or content issues. Substantive conflict is very similar to issue conflict,
which occurs when two or more social entities disagree on the recognition and
solution to a task problem. A study by Jehn (1995) suggests that a moderate level
of substantive conflict is beneficial as it stimulates discussion and debate, which
help groups to attain higher level of performance. "Groups with an absence of task
conflict may miss new ways to enhance their performance, while very high levels
of task conflict may interfere with task completion" (Jehn, 1997, p. 532). Evidence
indicates that substantive conflict is positively associated with beneficial outcomes:
A. Groups that report substantive conflict are able to make better decisions
than those that do not (Amason, 1996; Cosier & Rose, 1977; Fiol, 1994; Putnam,
1994; Schweiger, Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986). Substantive conflict encourages
greater understanding of the issues, which leads to better decisions.
B. Groups that report substantive conflict generally have higher performance.
This conflict can improve group performance through better understanding of vari-
ous viewpoints and alternative solutions (Bourgeois, 1985; Eisenhardt & Schoon-
hoven, 1990; Jehn, 1995, 1997; Jehn et al., 1999). It should be noted that the bene-
ficial effects of substantive conflict on performance were found only in groups
performing nonroutine tasks, but not groups performing standardized or routine
tasks.
Although substantive conflict enhances group performance, like affective
conflict, it can diminish group loyalty, workgroup commitment, intent to stay in the
present organization, and job satisfaction (Jehn, 1997; Jehn et al., 1999). As a

M. A. RAHIM 211
result, interventions for conflict management should be designed to develop cul-

tural norms to support disagreement among group members in connection with
tasks and other related management issues without generating affective conflict.
3. Select and Use Appropriate Conflict Management Strategies. As will
be seen later, there are various styles of behavior, such as integrating, obliging,
dominating, avoiding, and compromising, which can be used to deal with conflict.
Organizational members would require training and on-the-job experience to select
and use the styles of handling interpersonal conflict so that various conflict situa-
tions can be appropriately dealt with. In general, managing conflict to enhance
learning and effectiveness require the use of integrating or problem solving style
(Rahim, 2001; see also Gray, 1989).
Paradox of Conflict
Guetzkow and Gyr (1954) suggested two dimensions of conflict which are
useful for managing conflict––one consisting of disagreements relating to task
issues and the other consisting of emotional or interpersonal issues which lead to
conflict. These two dimensions of conflict have been given a variety of labels––
e.g., substantive and affective conflicts (Guetzkow & Gyr, 1954), task and relation-
ship conflicts (Pinkley, 1990; Jehn, 1997), cognitive and affective conflicts (Ama-
son, 1996), and task and emotional conflicts (Ross & Ross, 1989).
In recent years several researchers (Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1995; Pearson,
Ensley, & Amason, 2002) have empirically investigated these two dimensions of
conflict. They suggest that the distinction between these two types of conflict is
valid and that they have differential effects in the workplace.
Several earlier researchers have noted the positive consequences of conflict
(Assael, 1969; Evan, 1965; Hall & Williams, 1966; Janis, 1982; Peltz, 1967).
Organizations in which there is little or no conflict may stagnate. On the other
hand, organizational conflict left uncontrolled may have dysfunctional effects. The
consensus among the 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 & Bonoma, 1979). As such, Brown
(1983) has suggested that "conflict management can require intervention to reduce
conflict if there is too much, or intervention to promote conflict if there is too little"
(p. 9). Following studies by Amason (1996) and Jehn (1997), it appears that the
relationship suggested by Rahim and Bonoma and Brown is appropriate for sub-
stantive, but not affective conflict.
One of the problems of managing conflict is that the two dimensions of con-
flict are positively correlated. Past studies have reported significant positive corre-
lations between these conflicts that range between .34 and .88 (cf. Simmons &
Peterson, 2000). Only one study by Jehn (1995) reported a negative correlation (–
.17) between these conflicts. This indicates that in the process of enhancing sub-
stantive conflicts, affective conflict may also be increased. Amason and Schweiger
(1997) noted that the danger of "encouraging disagreement may yield results that
are no better and may well be worse than avoiding conflict altogether. . . . The
problem is that our ability to stimulate conflict outstrips our knowledge of how to

manage its effects" (p. 108). This chapter reports a strategy for managing conflict
to deal with this issue.
Organizational Learning
One of the major objectives of managing conflict in contemporary organiza-
tions is to enhance organizational learning that involves knowledge acquisition,
knowledge distribution, information interpretation, and organizational memoriza-
tion (i.e., preserving information for future access and use). This enables organiza-
tional members to collectively engage in the process of diagnosis of and interven-
tion in problems. Argyris and Schön (1996) define learning as "detection and cor-
rection of error" and discuss two types of organizational learning: single-loop and
double-loop learning. Single-loop learning involves the diagnosis of and interven-
tion in problems without changing the underlying policies, assumptions, and goals.
In other words, single-loop learning results in cognitive and behavioral changes
within an existing paradigm (the old paradigm or mindset). Double-loop learning
occurs when the diagnosis and intervention require changes in the underlying poli-
cies, assumptions, and goals. In other words, double-loop learning involves cogni-
tive and behavioral changes outside the existing paradigm (the new paradigm or
mindset). Double-loop learning is very similar to second-order learning, or "learn-
ing how to learn." Bateson (1972) describes this type of learning as deutero-learn-
ing. An intervention for conflict management should promote double-loop rather
than single-loop organizational learning.
It should be noted that individual learning is a necessary but not adequate
condition for organizational learning. There must be processes and structures for
transferring what is learned by individuals to the collective. In other words, organ-
izational learning occurs when members of the collective have successfully learned
from the individuals. There must also be mechanisms for preserving and accessing
knowledge acquired by the collective.
Existing conflict resolution strategies, which have been described as dispute
resolution or dispute management, emphasize negotiation or bargaining, mediation,
and arbitration. These conflict resolution strategies are designed to deal with con-
flict at the micro-level within the existing structure and processes of an organiza-
tion. In other words, these strategies do not involve significant change in the func-
tioning of the organizations. As such these strategies maintain status quo which
lead to single-loop learning (see Argyris, 1994).
The strategies for managing conflict presented in this paper would involve
macro-level changes to encourage double-loop learning. Learning organizations
such as Motorola, Dow Corning, General Electric, and Honda have adapted strate-
gies of conflict management that are likely to encourage double-loop learning.
Characteristics of the Old Paradigm

Individual Defensive Reasoning
Argyris (1994) and Argyris and Schön (1996) have persuasively argued and
provided evidence that double-loop learning is inhibited by defensive reasoning of
organizational members. This type of reasoning takes place when members fail to

M. A. RAHIM 213
take responsibility for their decisions and attempt to protect themselves against the
complaints of errors of judgement, incompetence, or procrastination by blaming
others. This psychological reaction has something to do with the mental models
humans develop early in life for dealing with embarrassing or threatening situa-
tions. Other scholars have described this type of defensive behavior as executive
blindness. As a result of this, "Organizational members become committed to a
pattern of behavior. They escalate their commitment to that pattern out of self-justi-
fication. In a desire to avoid embarrassment and threat, few if any challenges are
made to the wisdom and viability of these behaviors. They persist even when rapid
and fundamental shifts in the competitive environment render these patterns of
behavior obsolete and destructive to the well-being of the organization" (Beer &
Spector, 1993, p. 642).
Organizational Defensive Routines
Organizational defensive routines consist of procedures, policies, practices,
and actions that prevent employees from having to experience embarrassment or
threat. Also these routines prevent them from examining the nature and causes of
that embarrassment or threat. Argyris (1990) has described the effects of these rou-
tines as follows:
Organizational defensive routines make it highly likely that individuals,
groups, intergroups, and organizations will not detect and correct errors that
are embarrassing and threatening because the fundamental rules are (1)
bypass the errors and act as if they were not being done, (2) make the bypass
undiscussable, and (3) make its undiscussability undiscussable. (p. 43)
Conflict management in the old paradigm did not recognize defensive rea-
soning of employees and organizational defensive routines as significant factors
that limit an organization's capacity to respond to the environment. It is not possi-
ble to design an effective conflict management program unless the problems of
defensive reactions and routines are recognized and confronted.
Problem Solving
Individual defensive reasoning and organizational defensive routines impede
members of an organization to engage in problem solving process effectively.
Creative problem solving involves the processes of problem recognition, solving
problems, and implementation (see Figure 1):
1. Problem Recognition involves:
A. Problem sensing
B. Problem formulation
2. Solving Problems involve:
A. Recommending solutions to problems
B. Preparing plans for intervention
3. Implementation involves:
A. Putting plans into action
B. Review of outcomes

Figure 1
Problem-Solving Process
Because existing conflict management strategies have neglected to recognize

and deal with the problems of defensive reactions of employees and organizational
defensive routines, organizations do not have the culture that encourages members
to engage in real problem solving process. The first phase of problem solving is
problem recognition, which involves confronting political and other risky prob-
lems. Even if some organizational members overcome their defensive reactions,
organizational defensive routines will not allow them to formulate the real prob-
lems. Organizational members who create "dissent" become the bad "guys. "
In contemporary organizations, problem formulation in the problem recogni-
tion phase is often distorted. As a result, old policies, procedures, and practices
continue to be followed although they may have been rendered ineffective due to
changes in the external environment. This typically results in Type III error, which
has been defined "as the probability of having solved the wrong problem when one
should have solved the right problem" (Mitroff & Featheringham, 1974, p. 383; see
also Mitroff, 1998). Type I and Type II errors are well known in statistics, but
Type III error is not a statistical error. Type III error is associated with the prob-
ability of solving a wrong problem. Type III errors (E3) occur prior to Type I and
Type II and it is also more basic. "Uncritical thinkers focus on and attempt to
minimize Type I and Type II errors; critical thinkers focus on the Type III Error
before they get caught up in Type I and Type II Errors. In other words, critical
thinkers first attempt to insure that they are working on the right problem before
they attempt to solve it in detail" (Mitroff, 1998, p. 18).
Organizational members may have to deal with another type of error. Some-
times good plans for intervention may not be put into action or a part of the plan
may be put into action for a variety of reasons. This results in Type IV error: the

M. A. RAHIM 215
probability of not implementing a solution properly (Kilmann & Mitroff, 1979).

Effective conflict management strategies should be able to minimize Type III and
Type IV errors.
Mitroff's (1998) excellent book, Smart Thinking for Crazy Times, has pro-
vided detailed guidelines for avoiding Type III Error E3 to solve the right problem.
These are summarized as follows:
1. Select the Right Stakeholders. Managers often assume that stakeholders
share their opinion or try to select stakeholders who share the same opinion. To
avoid E3, Mitroff suggests that managers need stakeholders who challenge their
views.
2. Expand Your Options. To avoid E3, managers should look at problems
from more than one perspective: scientific/technical, interpersonal/social, existen-
tial, and systemic. An individual or group can determine whether an E3 is commit-
ted "by comparing two very different formulations of a problem. A single formula-
tion of a problem is a virtual prescription for disaster" (Mitroff, 1998, p. 61).
3. Phrase Problems Correctly. Phrasing a problem incorrectly may lead to
E3.
The effectiveness of the formulation of a problem depends to a great extent on
the language one uses.
4. Extend the Boundaries of Problems. Managers should enlarge the
boundary or scope of a problem so that it is inclusive enough. In other words,
“never draw the boundaries of an important problem too narrowly; broaden the
scope of every important problem up to and just beyond your comfort zone”
(Mitroff, 1998, p. 29).
5. Think Systemically. Managers should not focus on a part of the problem
or ignore connection between parts. Failure to think and act systemically can lead
to E3.
Conditions for Effective Conflict Management
Traditional conflict management does not question whether the structure and
processes of an organization is deficient which are causing dysfunctional conflict.
It tries to resolve or reduce conflict between parties at the micro-level within the
existing system. Effective conflict management involves change at the macro-level
in the organization so that substantive conflict is encouraged and affective conflict
is minimized at the individual, group, intergroup, and organizational levels. To do
this there must be changes in leadership, culture, and design of an organization.
Studies on the management of organizational conflict have taken two direc-
tions. Some researchers have attempted to measure the amount or intensity of con-
flict at various organizational levels and to explore the sources of such conflict.
Implicit in these studies is that a moderate amount of conflict may be maintained
for increasing organizational effectiveness by altering the sources of conflict. Oth-
ers have attempted to relate the various styles of handling interpersonal conflict of
the organizational participants and their effects on quality of problem solution or
attainment of social system objectives. It becomes evident from this discussion that
the distinction between the "amount of conflict" at various levels and the "styles of

handling interpersonal conflict," is essential for a proper understanding of the

nature of conflict management.
Amount of Conflict
The previous discussion was mainly based on the notion of the amount of
conflict. In recent years some researchers have used the indices of incompatibility,
annoyance, disputes, disagreement, etc. to measure the intensity of conflict at vari-
ous levels. These are measures of the amount of conflict, which are quite distinct
from the styles of handling conflict.
Substantive and Affective Conflict. Organizational conflict––substantive or
affective––may be classified as intraorganizational (i.e., conflict within an organi-
zation) or interorganizational (i.e., conflict between two or more organizations).
Intraorganizational conflict may also be classified on the basis of levels (individ-
ual, group, etc.) at which it occurs. On this basis intraorganizational conflict may
be classified as interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup. Interpersonal conflict,
also known as dyadic conflict, refers to disagreement or incompatibility between
two or more organizational members of the same or different hierarchical levels or
units. Intragroup conflict, also known as intradepartmental conflict, refers to con-
flict among members of a group, or between two or more subgroups within a group
in connection with its goals, tasks, procedures, etc. Intergroup conflict, also known
as interdepartmental conflict, refers to conflict between two or more units or
groups within an organization.
There are various processes and structures that affect substantive and affec-
tive conflict at these three levels. The management of conflict partly involves the
diagnosis of and intervention in these factors to reduce affective conflict and to
attain and maintain a moderate amount of substantive conflict at each level.
Styles of Handling Conflict
One of these "processes" is the various styles of behavior by which interper-
sonal conflict may be handled. Mary P. Follett (1926/1940) 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 suppres-
sion. 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. They described the
five modes of handling conflict on the basis of the attitudes of the manager: con-
cern for production and for people. Thomas (1976) reinterpreted their scheme. He
considered the intentions of a party (cooperativeness, i.e., attempting to satisfy the
other party's concerns; and assertiveness, i.e., attempting to satisfy one's own con-
cerns) in classifying the modes of handling conflict into five types. Pruitt's (1983)
dual-concern model (concern for self and concern for others) suggests that there
are four styles of handling conflict: yielding, problem solving, inaction, and con-
tending. He did not recognize compromising as a distinct style.
Rahim and Bonoma (1979) differentiated the styles of handling conflict on
two basic dimensions: concern for self and concern for others. The first dimension
explains the degree (high or low) to which a person attempts to satisfy his or her

M. A. RAHIM 217
own concern. The second dimension explains the degree (high or low) to which a
person attempts to satisfy the concern of others. It should be pointed out that these
dimensions portray the motivational orientations of a given individual during con-
flict. Studies by Ruble and Thomas (1976) and Van de Vliert and Kabanoff (1990)
yielded general support for these dimensions. Combination of the two dimensions
results in five specific styles of handling interpersonal conflict, as shown in Figure
2 (Rahim & Bonoma, 1979, p. 1327).
Figure 2
The Dual Concern Model of the Styles
of Handling Interpersonal Conflict
Management scholars now agree that there is no one best approach to make
decisions, to lead, and to motivate. The contingency approach (also called situ-
ational approach), which is the hallmark of contemporary management, has
replaced the simplistic "one best" approach. Consider, for example, the decision
theory of leadership, which states that each of the five leadership styles (1 = Auto-
cratic . . . 5 = Participative) is appropriate depending on the situations. The theory
considers two situations: the quality of the decision (i.e., the extent to which it will
affect important group processes) and acceptance of the decision (i.e., the degree of
commitment of employees needed for its implementation). The theory suggests that
when the decision quality and acceptance are both low, the leader should use auto-
cratic style. On the contrary, if the decision quality and acceptance are both high,
the leaders should use participative style. Therefore, it appears that effective lead-
ership depends upon matching leadership styles with situations. Failure to match
these two variables will lead to ineffective leadership.

Taking lead from the contingency approach, it is possible to develop a con-

tingency theory of conflict management. For example, in a conflict situation char-
acterized by low decision quality and acceptance, the dominating style may be jus-
tified. In the reverse condition (high decision quality and high decision accep-
tance), using the integrating style is the most appropriate to use.
The strategies of conflict management presented in this paper are consistent
with the contemporary leadership theories in organizations: Fiedler's (1967) con-
tingency theory of leadership, House's (1971) path-goal theory of leadership, and
Vroom and Yetton's (1973) decision theory of leadership. According to these theo-
ries, there is no one best style for dealing with different situations effectively.
Whether a particular leadership style is appropriate (or inappropriate), depends on
situation(s).
The theory of conflict management presented above is flexible in terms of the
situations or factors to be considered in selecting and making use of a conflict
style. A style is considered appropriate for a conflict situation if its use leads to
effective formulation and/or solution to a problem.
Although some behavioral scientists suggest that integrating or problem-
solving style is most appropriate for managing conflict (Blake & Mouton, 1964;
Likert & Likert, 1976), it has been indicated by others that, for conflicts to be man-
aged functionally, one style may be more appropriate than another depending upon
the situation (Rahim, 2001; Rahim & 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. A summary of the styles of handling interpersonal conflict
and the situations in which these are appropriate have been presented in Table 1.
1. Integrating (high concern for self and others) style is associated with
problem solving, i.e., the diagnosis of and intervention in the right problems. The
use of this style involves openness, exchanging information, looking for
alternatives, and examination of differences to reach an effective solution
acceptable to both parties.
This is useful for effectively dealing with complex problems. When one party
alone cannot solve the problem––i.e., when synthesis of ideas is needed to come up
with better solution to a problem, this style is appropriate. It is also useful in util-
izing the skills, information, and other resources possessed by different parties to
define or redefine a problem and to formulate effective alternative solutions for it,
and/or commitment is needed from parties for effective implementation of a solu-
tion. This can be done provided that there is enough time for problem solving.
Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) found this mode (style) to be more effective than oth-
ers in attaining integration of the activities of different subsystems in an organiza-
tion. Pruitt and Carnevale (1993) provided some evidence from laboratory studies
that problem solving style is the best in managing social conflict. This style is
appropriate for dealing with the strategic issues pertaining to an organization's
objectives and policies, long-range planning, etc.
2. Obliging (low concern for self and high concern for others) style is associ-
ated with attempting to play down the differences and emphasizing commonalities

M. A. RAHIM 219
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.
Table 1
Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict and the
Situations Where They Are Appropriate or Inappropriate
Conflict style Situations where appropriate Situations where inappropriate
Integrating 1. Issues are complex. 1. Task or problem is simple.

2. Synthesis of ideas is needed to 2. Immediate decision is required.
come up with better solutions. 3. Other parties are unconcerned
3. Commitment is needed from other about outcome.
Parties for successful implementation. 4. Other parties do not have
4. Time is available for problem solving. problem-solving skills.
5. One party alone cannot solve the problem.
6. Resources possessed by different parties
are needed to solve their common
problems.
Obliging 1. You believe that you may be wrong. 1. Issue is important to you.
2. Issue is more important to the other party. 2. You believe that you are right.
3. You are willing to give up something in 3. The other party is wrong or
exchange for something from the unethical.
other party in the future.
4. You are dealing from a position of
weakness.
5. Preserving relationship is important.
Dominating 1. Issue is trivial. 1. Issue is complex.
2. Speedy decision is needed. 2. Issue is not important to you.
3. Unpopular course of action is 3. Both parties are equally
implemented. powerful.
4. Necessary to overcome assertive 4. Decision does not have to be
subordinates. made quickly.
5. Unfavorable decision by the other 5. Subordinates possess high
party may be costly to you. degree of competence.
6. Subordinates lack expertise to make
technical decisions.
7. Issue is important to you.
Avoiding 1. Issue is trivial. 1. Issue is important to you.
2. Potential dysfunctional effect of 2. It is your responsibility to
confronting the other party outweighs make decision.
benefits of resolution. 3. Parties are unwilling to defer,
3. Cooling off period is needed. issue must be resolved.
4. Prompt attention is needed.
Compromising 1. Goals of parties are mutually exclusive. 1. One party is more powerful.
2. Parties are equally powerful. 2. Problem is complex enough
3. Consensus cannot be reached. needing problem-solving
4. Integrating or dominating style approach.
is not successful.
5. Temporary solution to a complex
problem is needed.

This style is useful when a party is not familiar with the issues involved in a
conflict or the other party is right and the issue is much more important to the other
party. This style may be used as a strategy when a party is willing to give up
something with the hope of getting some benefit from the other party when needed.
This style may be appropriate when a party is dealing from a position of weakness
or believes that preserving relationship is important.
This style is inappropriate if the issue involved in a conflict is important to
the party and the party believes that he or she is right. It is also inappropriate when
a party believes that the other party is wrong or unethical.
3. Dominating (high concern for self and low concern for others) style has
been identified with win–lose orientation or with forcing behavior to win one's
position. 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.
This style is appropriate when the issues involved in a conflict are important
to the party or an unfavorable decision by the other party may be harmful to this
party. A supervisor may use this style if the issues involve routine matters or
speedy decision is required. A supervisor may have to use it to deal with subordi-
nates who are very assertive or they do not have expertise to make technical deci-
sions. This is also effective in dealing with the implementation of unpopular
courses of action.
This style is inappropriate when the issues involved in conflict are complex
and there is enough time to make a good decision. When both parties are equally
powerful, using this style by one or both parties may lead to stalemate. Unless they
change their styles, they may not be able to break the deadlock. This style is inap-
propriate when the issues are not important to the party. Subordinates, who possess
high degree of competence, may not like a supervisor who uses this authoritarian
style.
4. Avoiding (low concern for self and others) style 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 may be used when the potential dysfunctional effect of confronting
the other party outweighs the benefits of the resolution of conflict. This may be
used to deal with some trivial or minor issues or a cooling off period is needed
before a complex problem can be effectively dealt with.
This style is inappropriate when the issues are important to a party. This style
is also inappropriate when it is the responsibility of the party to make decisions,
when the parties are unwilling to wait, or when prompt action is required.
5. Compromising (intermediate in concern for self and others) style involves
give-and-take whereby both parties give up something to make a mutually accept-
able decision.
This style is useful when the goals of the conflicting parties are mutually
exclusive or when both parties, e.g., labor and management, are equally powerful
and have reached an impasse in their negotiation process. This can be used when
consensus can not be reached, the parties need a temporary solution to a complex
problem, or other styles have been used and found to be ineffective in dealing with
the issues effectively. This style seems most useful for avoiding protracted conflict.

M. A. RAHIM 221
This style is inappropriate for dealing with complex problems needing prob-
lem-solving approach. Unfortunately, very often management practitioners use this
style to deal with complex problems, and, as a result, fail to identify real problems
and formulate effective solutions to these problems. This style may be inappropri-
ate if a party is more powerful than another and believes that his or her position is
right.
Integrative and Distributive Dimensions
It has been suggested by Prein (1976) and Thomas (1976) that further insights
into the five styles of handling interpersonal conflict may be obtained by organiz-
ing them according to the integrative and distributive dimensions of labor–man-
agement bargaining suggested by Walton and McKersie (1965). Follett's
(1926/1940) conceptualization is the forerunner of Walton and McKersie's (1965)
distinction between these dimensions. Figure 3 shows the five styles of handling
interpersonal conflict and their reclassifications into the integrative and distributive
dimensions.
Figure 3
The Dual Concern Model: Problem Solving and Bargaining Dimensions
of the Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict
The integrative dimension—Integrating style minus Avoiding stylerepre-

sents a party's concern (high–low) for self and others. The distributive dimension

Dominating style minus Obliging stylerepresents a party's concern (high–low)

for self or others. These two dimensions represent the problem solving and bar-
gaining styles for handling conflict, respectively. A problem solving style repre-
sents a party's pursuit of own and others' concerns, whereas the bargaining style
represents a party's pursuit of own or others' concerns. A High–High use of the
problem solving style indicates attempts to increase the satisfaction of concerns of
both parties by finding unique solutions to the problems acceptable to them. A
Low–Low use of this style indicates reduction of satisfaction of the concerns of
both parties as a result of their failure to confront and solve their problems. A
High–Low use of the bargaining style indicates attempts to obtain high satisfaction
of concerns of self and providing low satisfaction of concerns of others. A Low–
High use of this style indicates attempts to obtain the opposite. Compromising is
the point of intersection of the two dimensions, that is, a middle ground position
where a party has an intermediate level of concerns for own and others.
The problem-solving dimension is appropriate for managing strategic conflict
for enhancing double-loop organizational learning and effectiveness. The bargain-
ing dimension is appropriate for managing tactical or routine day-to-day conflict.
This approach to conflict management will maintain single-loop learning.
To summarize, the design for conflict management discussed above suggests
that effective management of conflict involves the following processes:
1. A moderate amount of substantive conflict should be attained and main-
tained for nonroutine tasks.
2. Affective conflict should be minimized.
3. Organizational members should learn to select and use each of the five
styles of handling conflict depending on the nature of the situations.
Managing Conflict Process
The management of organizational conflict involves the processes of diagno-
sis of and intervention in conflict. Diagnosis provides the basis for intervention.
This process is shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4
Process of Managing Conflict

M. A. RAHIM 223
Diagnosis
As discussed before, the first step in the problem solving process is problem
recognition, which involves problem sensing, and problem formulation. The field
of management has developed solutions to numerous problems, but it has neglected
to investigate and develop the process of problem recognition. Problem finding or
recognition requires appropriate diagnosis of the problems, a step which is
neglected in many contemporary organizations. As a result, very often interven-
tions are recommended without proper understanding of the nature of the prob-
lem(s). This can lead to ineffective outcomes.
Identification or diagnosis of the problems of conflict in an organization must
precede any intervention designed to manage the conflict. Several writers specifi-
cally suggested the need for the diagnosis of conflict through some formal and
informal approaches (Brown, 1979; DuBrin, 1972; Rahim, 2001). Proper diagnosis
of the causes and effects of different types of conflict in an organization is impor-
tant because its underlying causes and effects may not be what they appear on the
surface. We also need to know (a) whether an organization has too little, moderate,
or too much affective and substantive conflict, and (b) whether the organizational
members are appropriately selecting and using the five styles of handling conflict
to deal with different situations properly. If an intervention is made without a
proper diagnosis of conflict, then there is the probability that a change agent may
try to solve a wrong problem. This may lead to Type III error. The management of
organizational conflict involves a systematic diagnosis of the problems in order to
minimize the Type III error.
The above discussion is consistent with the literature of organization devel-
opment, which indicates that organizational diagnosis is essential for effective
change program (see French & Bell, 1999; Burke, 1994). The management
researchers and practitioners have particularly neglected the diagnostic aspect of
conflict management. A comprehensive diagnosis involves the measurement of
conflict, its sources, and effectiveness, and analysis of relations among them.
Measurement
A comprehensive diagnosis involves these measurements:
1. The amount of substantive and affective conflict at the interpersonal,
intragroup, and intergroup levels;
2. The styles of handling interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup conflicts of
the organizational members;
3. The sources of (1) and (2); and
4. Individual, group, and organizational learning and effectiveness.
Analysis
The analysis of data collected above should include:
1. The amount of substantive and affective conflict and the styles of handling
conflict classified by departments, units, divisions, etc. and whether they are differ-
ent from their corresponding national norms.
2. The relationships of the amount of conflict and conflict styles to their
sources.

3. The relationships of the amount of conflict and conflict styles to learning

and effectiveness.
The results of diagnosis should indicate whether there is any need for and the
type of intervention necessary for managing conflict. The results of diagnosis
should be discussed preferably by a representative group of managers, who are
concerned with the management of conflict, with the help of an outside expert who
specializes in conflict research and training. A discussion of the results should
enable the managers to identify the problems of conflict, if any, that should be
effectively managed.
The above approach may be used to conduct a comprehensive diagnosis of
conflict, but not every organization requires such a diagnosis. A management prac-
titioner or consultant should decide when and to what extent a diagnosis is needed
for a proper understanding of a conflict problem.
In order to perform a systematic diagnosis of conflict there is need to measure
affective and substantive conflicts at the interpersonal, intragroup, and intergroup
levels. The instrument developed by Jehn (1994) to measure the affective and sub-
stantive conflicts at the group level can be used. The items of this instrument may
be altered to measure these conflicts also at the interpersonal and intergroup levels.
Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventory–II (ROCI–II) may be used to meas-
ure the styles of handling interpersonal conflict (Rahim, 1983a,b, 2001). This
instrument uses a 5–point Likert scale, and the responses to items are averaged to
create subscales. A higher score indicates a greater amount of conflict or greater
use of a conflict-handling style. The ROCI–II measures Integrating (IN), Obliging
(OB), Dominating (DO), Avoiding (AV), and Compromising (CO) styles, which
can be used to calculate the Problem Solving (PS) and Bargaining (BA) dimen-
sions (see Figure 3) of the conflict styles of an employee:
PS = IN – AV
BA = DO – OB
Since the ROCI–II measures the five styles with a 5–point scale, the subscales
for PS and BA dimensions range between + 4 and – 4. A positive value for the PS
subscale indicates a party's perception of the extent to which the concerns of both
parties are satisfied. A negative value indicates a party's perception of the extent to
which the satisfaction of concerns of both the parties is reduced. Whereas a score
of + 4 represents maximum satisfaction of concerns received by both parties, a – 4
score represents no satisfaction of concerns received by both parties as a result of
the resolution of their conflict.
A value in the BA subscale indicates a party's perception of the ratio of satis-
faction of concerns received by self and the other party. A value of + 4 indicates
maximum satisfaction of concerns received by self and no satisfaction of concerns
received by the other party. A value of – 4 indicates no satisfaction of concerns
received by self and maximum satisfaction of concerns received by the other party.
The percentile and reference group norms of the five styles of handling interper-
sonal conflict have been reported elsewhere (Rahim, 2001). These data on norms
are important for diagnosis.

M. A. RAHIM 225
A number of studies have shown that cooperative styles, such as integrating,

obliging, and compromising are correlated with positive outcomes and non-coop-
erative styles, such as dominating and avoiding and correlated with negative out-
comes (cf. Burke, 1969; Korbanik, Baril, & Watson, 1993; Rahim, Magner, &
Shapiro, 2000; Johnson, 1989). Therefore, for managing conflict a positive score
on the PS subscale and slightly negative score on the BA subscale are appropriate.
Data collected through the questionnaires should not be the sole basis of a
diagnosis. In-depth interviews with the conflicting parties and observation are
needed to gain a better understanding of the nature of conflict and the type of inter-
vention needed.
Intervention
A proper diagnosis should indicate whether there is any need for intervention
and the type of intervention required. An intervention may be needed if there is too
much affective conflict, or too little or too much substantive conflict, and/or the
organizational members are not handling their conflict effectively. The national
norms of conflict reported by Rahim (2001) could provide some rough guidelines
to decide whether an organization has too little or too much of a particular type of
conflict. In addition to this, data from in-depth interviews are needed to determine
the effectiveness of the styles of handling interpersonal conflict of the organiza-
tional members.
There are two basic approaches to intervention in conflict: process and struc-
tural (Rahim & Bonoma, 1979). Beer and Walton (1987) described these as
human-process and technostructural approaches of intervention for organization
development. A process refers to the sequence of events or activities that are
undertaken to bring about some desired outcome. There are certain processes in an
organization, such as communication, decision making, leadership, etc. which are
necessary for making the social system work. Structure refers to the stable
arrangement of task, technological, and other factors so that organizational mem-
bers can work together effectively. In order to accomplish the goals of an organi-
zation, both process and structure require proper integration.
Process. This intervention attempts to improve organizational effectiveness
by changing the intensity of affective and substantive conflicts and members' styles
of handling interpersonal conflict. The process approach is mainly designed to
manage conflict by helping the organizational participants learn how to match the
uses of the styles of handling interpersonal conflict with different situations. In
other words, this intervention enables the organizational members to make effec-
tive uses of the five styles of handling interpersonal conflict depending on the
nature of the situations. Changes in the levels of affective and substantive conflicts
will require changes in organizational processes, such as culture and leadership.
Changes in culture and leadership processes will also support the organizational
members' newly acquired skills of conflict management.
Applied behavioral scientists have developed organizational development
strategies and techniques for improving the organizational effectiveness (Beer &
Walton, 1987; Burke, 1994; French, Bell, & Zawacki, 1989; Golembiewski, 1998),

which may be adapted for managing organizational conflict. French and Bell
(1999) defined organization development as a:
long-term effort, led and supported by top management, to improve an
organization's visioning, empowerment, learning, and problem-solving
processes, through an ongoing, collaborative management of organiza-
tion culture––with special emphasis on the culture of intact work teams
and other team configurations––using the consultant–facilitator role and
the theory and technology of applied behavioral science, including
action research. (p. 26)
Traditionally, the conflict resolution theorists emphasized the areas of agree-
ment or commonality existing between conflicting entities by suppression or
avoidance of the areas of disagreement. This probably encourages single-loop
learning. Organizational development interventions, on the contrary, are designed
to help the organizational participants to learn mainly the integrative or collabora-
tive style of behavior through which to find the "real" causes of conflict and arrive
at functional solutions. This approach is needed for encouraging double-loop
learning. For example, Watkins and Golembiewski (1995) have suggested how
organization development theory and practice might change to create collective
learning. Organizational development strategies focused on learning are especially
useful in managing strategic conflict where integrating style is more appropriate
than other styles.
Lectures, videos, cases, and exercises can be used for learning conflict man-
agement. Rahim (2001) has reported several cases and exercises on conflict, such
as transactional analysis, management of differences, team building, intergroup
problem solving, and organizational mirroring, which can be used to train organ-
izational members in conflict management. Argyris (1994) has indicated that cases
from managers' own organizations can be used to overcome defensive reactions of
the supervisors and employees.
Other intervention techniques can be useful to bring about a change in learn-
ing and innovation in an organization. These include cultural assimilator training
developed by Fiedler, Mitchell, and Triandis (1971), which can be adapted as part
of the reframing process. An organizational consultant can use observation and
interview data to construct causal cognitive maps that link ineffective organiza-
tional performance to managerial policies and practices. Also role plays along with
psychoanalytic reframing techniques, such as generative metaphors, storytelling,
and reflective/inquiry skills training are useful in challenging managers and
employees to discard their old ways of thinking and to see the relevance of
humanistic orientation. Another technique that may be useful for managing strate-
gic conflict is Mitroff and Emshoff’s (1979) dialectical inquiry. This is based on
the Hegelian dialectic, which involves a process of change through the conflict of
opposite forces.
As suggested by French and Bell (1999) learning new behavior requires sup-
port from top management (which probably requires transformational leadership)
and collaborative organizational culture. Following is a discussion of the nature of
leadership and culture that can support effective conflict management.

M. A. RAHIM 227
Leadership. Senge (1990) maintains that a different set of leadership roles

will be needed with more emphasis on leaders as teachers, stewards, and designers.
These leaders, "articulate a clear and challenging vision for their firm based on
their insights into key industry trends that can be the catalyst for redefining the
foundation of competition. . . . they focus on developing the people around them,
motivating them to want to learn and take greater responsibility. . . . they lead in
'unlearning'––the conscious effort to challenge traditional assumptions about the
company and its environment" (Slater, 1995, p. 33). General Electric's former CEO
Jack Welch and Chrysler's former CEO Lee Iacoca fit this description of leader-
ship.
To some extent this type of leadership fits Bass's (1985) description of trans-
formational leadership that has three distinct factors: charisma, intellectual stimu-
lation, and individualized consideration. Transformational leaders encourage their
subordinates to engage in critical and innovative thinking that are needed for
problem solving. These leaders, sometimes referred to as charismatic leaders, use
their personal power to inspire employees to new ways of thinking and problem
solving. Substantial evidence now exists indicating that transformational leadership
(as measured by the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire; Bass, 1985) is posi-
tively associated with unit performance (Bass & Yammarino, 1991; Hater & Bass,
1988; Keller, 1992).
Conflict and tension will go up as more people challenge the old ways of
thinking and doing things. As result, the problems are surfaced (problem recogni-
tion), which leads to recommendations for change in the process and structure
(solving problems), and implementation of recommendations.
Organizational Culture. Conflict management to support organizational
learning and long-term effectiveness would require cultures which support experi-
mentation, risk taking, openness, diverse viewpoints, continuous questioning and
inquiry, and sharing of information and knowledge. This implies that employees
would be encouraged to take responsibility for their errors and not blame others for
their mistakes or incompetence.
Such a culture would encourage substantive or task-related conflict and dis-
courages affective or emotional conflict. For example, Honda Corporation encour-
ages its employees to explicitly surface and handle conflict in a constructive way.
Honda holds sessions in which employees can openly (but politely) question
supervisors and challenge the status quo. "This is not an empty ritual but a vital
force in keeping Honda on its toes. It sustains a restless, self-questioning atmos-
phere that one expects to see in new ventures––yet Honda is into its fourth genera-
tion of management. Its founders retired in 1970" (Pascale, 1990, p. 26).
Conflict management requires experimentation and risk taking. Garvin (1993,
1999) indicated that effective programs require an incentive system that encour-
ages risk taking. An organization may have to reward failures; otherwise organiza-
tional members will learn to do what is safe and avoid risk-taking behaviors. B. F.
Skinner's operant conditioning, which refers to voluntary learning of behavior
through positive reinforcement, is particularly appropriate here. This was acknowl-
edged by Schein (1993): "This is the kind of learning symbolized by the use of the
carrot instead of the stick, the creation of incentives to do the right thing, and the

immediate rewarding of correct behavior. In this model, errors and wrong behavior
are not punished but are ignored so that the learner remains focused on improving
and refining correct behavior" (p. 86). Managers need to know how to use rein-
forcements to elicit conflict management behaviors which are not only associated
with effective performance and creativity, but also with risk taking for improving
long-term performance.
Kerr (1995) in updating his classic article, "On the Folly of Rewarding A,
While Hoping for B," discussed numerous reward systems which are ineffective
because they "are fouled up in that the types of behavior rewarded are those which
the rewarder is trying to discourage, while the behavior desired is not being
rewarded at all" (p. 7). This situation has not changed during the last two decades
and is unlikely to change to a significant extent in the future (Dechant & Veiga,
1995, p. 16).
Structural. This intervention attempts to improve the organizational
effectiveness by changing the organization's structural design characteristics, which
include differentiation and integration mechanisms, hierarchy, procedures, reward
system, etc. This approach mainly attempts to manage conflict by altering the
perceptions of the intensity of conflict of the organizational members at various
levels.
Conflicts, which result from the organization's structural design, can be man-
aged effectively by appropriate change in such design. Evidence indicates that
there is no one best design for all organizations. Whether a mechanistic (bureau-
cratic) or organic (organismic) design is appropriate for an organization or one or
more of its subsystems depends on the organization's environment (stable or
dynamic). Studies by Lawrence and Lorsch (1967; see also Lawrence, 2001) and
Morse and Lorsch (1970) led to the development of the contingency theory of
organization design which suggests that mechanistic design is appropriate for
departments which respond to the stable environment, but organic design is appro-
priate for departments which are responsible for unstable environment. The greater
the congruence between the design and environment, the more effective is the
management of conflict and the greater is the organizational effectiveness. Organ-
izational development interventions generally recommend the adoption of organic–
adaptive structures, which encourage effective management of conflict.
Although Duncan and Weiss (1979) indicated more than two decades ago the
need for designing organizations for encouraging organizational learning, scholars
have not yet provided adequate attention to this issue. Many organizations have
responded to competitive pressures by creating flatter, decentralized, and less com-
plex designs than others. The shift is reflected in new organizational forms, such as
the modular organization, virtual corporation, and the horizontal organization. One
of the recent Business Week reports by Byrne (1993, pp. 78–79) discussed seven of
the key elements of the horizontal corporation:
1. Organize around process, not task.
2. Flatten hierarchy.
3. Use teams to manage everything.
4. Let customers drive performance.

M. A. RAHIM 229
5. Reward team performance.

6. Maximize supplier and customer contact.
7. Inform and train all employees.
Many organizations have responded to competitive pressures by downsizing.
Unfortunately, downsizing does little to alter the single-loop learning and conse-
quently the basic way work gets done in a company. To do that takes a different
model, the organic design. This design is flatter, decentralized, and less complex
than others. Some of the biggest corporations, such as GE, Xerox, DuPont, and
Motorola are moving in this direction. Unfortunately changes in organization
design, without corresponding changes in culture, may not alter single-loop learn-
ing and consequently the basic ways of doing work.
An organizational consultant may decide to use both process and structural
intervention approaches for managing conflict. It should be noted that although
process intervention is primarily designed to alter the styles of handling conflict of
the organizational members through education and training, such an intervention
might also affect their perception of the amount of conflict. On the other hand, the
structural intervention is primarily designed to alter the amount of conflict by
changing certain structural design characteristics; such an intervention may also
affect the styles of handling conflict.
Discussion
The studies of organizational conflict have taken two directions. One group of
studies used the measures of the amount of conflict. Implicit in these studies is that
affective conflicts may have to be minimized and moderate amounts of substantive
conflict may have to be attained by altering the sources of conflict. Other studies
have looked at the various styles of handling conflict of the organization members,
such as integrating, obliging, dominating, avoiding, and compromising. For con-
flicts to be managed functionally, one style may be more appropriate than another
depending upon the situation.
The management of organizational conflict involves the diagnosis of and
intervention in conflict. A proper diagnosis should include the measures of the
amount of conflict, the styles of handling interpersonal conflict, sources of conflict,
and learning and effectiveness. It should also indicate the relationships of the
amount of conflict and conflict-handling styles to their sources and learning and
effectiveness.
Intervention is needed if there is too much affective conflict, or too much
substantive conflict for routine tasks, or too little or too much substantive conflict
for nonroutine tasks, and that conflicts are not handled effectively to deal with dif-
ferent situations. There are two types of intervention: process and structural. The
process approach is mainly designed to manage conflict by changing the levels of
affective and substantive conflicts and by enabling organizational participants to
learn the various styles of handling conflict and their appropriate uses. The struc-
tural approach is mainly designed to manage conflict by changing the organiza-
tion's structural design characteristics. A structural intervention aims mainly at
attaining and maintaining a moderate amount of substantive conflict for nonroutine

tasks and reducing the incidence of affective conflict by altering the sources of
these conflicts.
In sum, organizational conflict must not necessarily be reduced, suppressed,
or eliminated, but managed to enhance organizational learning and effectiveness.
The management of conflict at the individual, group, and intergroup levels involves
(1) reduction of affective conflict, (2) attainment and maintenance of a moderate
amount of substantive conflict for nonroutine tasks at each level, and (3) enabling
the organizational participants to learn the various styles of handling interpersonal
conflict for dealing with different conflict situations effectively. Effective conflict
management should result in organizational learning and effectiveness. The deci-
sions that are made in the process of managing conflict must be ethical and should
satisfy the needs and expectations of the relevant stakeholders.
Directions for Future Research
In the area of managing conflict in complex organizations, there are several
research challenges. The major ones are listed as follows:
1. Several recent studies investigated the relationships of intragroup affective
and substantive conflicts to productivity and satisfaction. We need studies to
investigate the relationships of (1) interpersonal affective and substantive conflicts
to individual job performance and satisfaction, and (2) of intergroup affective and
substantive conflicts to intergroup collaboration and satisfaction.
2. We need to know more about the effects of affective and substantive con-
flicts on productivity under different conditions of task (e.g., structured vs.
unstructured) and technology (unit, mass, continuous process).
3. There are two qualitative studies that discuss how the five styles of han-
dling conflict should be used to deal with different situations effectively (Rahim,
1997; Thomas, 1977). More studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of each
style to deal with different situations.
4. There are several antecedents of conflict and styles of handling conflict
(for a review see Rahim, 2001). More studies are needed to clearly identify the
process and structural factors that influence conflict and conflict-handling styles.
5. There have been several studies on the relationship between personality
and the styles of handling interpersonal conflict (for a review see Moberg, 1998;
Antonioni, 1998). More studies are needed to establish clear links between person-
ality and styles.
6. There have been some cross-cultural studies on the styles of handling con-
flict (Ting-Toomey et al., 1991). We need to have more cross-cultural studies on
styles and the effects of various types of conflict on job performance and satisfac-
tion. We also need cross-cultural studies on substantive and affective conflicts.
Information generated from these studies would help to improve the man-
agement of conflict in contemporary organizations. In other words, the conflict
management theory presented in this paper is likely to be refined as relevant stud-
ies are published from time to time.

M. A. RAHIM 231
References
Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on
strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of
Management Journal, 39, 123–148.
Amason, A. C., & Schweiger, D. M. (1997). The effects of conflict on strategic decision
making effectiveness and organizational performance. In C. K. W. DeDreu & E. Van de
Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations (pp. 101–115). London: Sage.
Antonioni, D. (1998). Relationship between the big five personality factors and conflict
management style. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9, 336−355.
Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses: Facilitating organizational
learning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Argyris, C. (1994). On organizational learning. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1996). Organizational learning–II. Reading MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Assael, H. (1969). Constructive role of interorganizational conflict. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 14, 573–582.
Baron, R. A. (1990). Conflict in organizations. In K. R. Rurphy & F. E. Saal (Eds.),
Psychology in organizations: Integrating science and practice (pp. 197–216). Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Baron, R. A. (1997). Positive effects of conflict: Insights from social cognition. In C. K. W.
DeDreu & E. Van de Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations (pp. 177–191).
London: Sage.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free
Press.
Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). Congruence of self and others' leadership ratings
of naval officers for understanding successful leadership. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 40, 437–454.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. San Francisco: Chadler.
Beer, M., & Spector, B. (1993). Organizational diagnosis: Its role in organizational learning.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 71, 642–650.
Beer, M., & Walton, A. E. (1987). Organizational change and development. Annual Review
of Psychology, 38, 339–367.
Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.
Brown, L. D. (1979). Managing conflict among groups. In D. A. Kolb, I. M. Rubin & J. M.
McIntyre (Eds.), Organizational psychology: A book of readings (3rd Ed., pp. 377–389).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Brown, L. D. (1983). Managing conflict at organizational interfaces. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Burgeois, L. J. (1985). Strategic goals, environmental uncertainty, and economic
performance in volatile environments. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 548–573.
Burke, R. J. (1969). Methods of resolving superior–subordinate conflict: The constructive
use of subordinate differences and disagreements. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 5, 393–411.
Burke, W. W. (1994). Organization development: A process of learning and changing (2nd
ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Byrne, J. A. (1993, December 20). The horizontal corporation: It's about managing across,
not up and down. Business Week, pp. 76–81.
Cosier, R. A., & Rose, G. L. (1977). Cognitive conflict and goal conflict effects on task
performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 378–391.

Dechant, K., & Veiga, J. (1995). More on the folly. Academy of Management Executive, 9,
15–16.
DuBrin, A. J. (1972). The practice of managerial psychology: Concepts and methods of
manager and organization development (pp. 211–227). New York: Pergamon Press.
Duncan, R., & Weiss, A. (1979). Organizational learning: Implications for organizational
design. In B. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 75–123).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Eisenhardt, K. M., Kahwajy, J. L., & Bourgeois, L. J. (1998). Conflict and strategic choice:
How top management teams disagree. In D. C. Hambrick, D. A. Nadler, & M. L.
Tushman (Eds.), Navigating change: How CEOs, top teams, and boards steer
transformation (pp. 141−169). Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Eisenhardt, K., & Schoonhoven, C. (1990). Organizational growth: Linking founding team,
strategy, environment, and growth among U.S. semiconductor ventures, 1878–1988.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 504–529.
Evan, W. M. (1965). Conflict and performance in R & D organizations. Some preliminary
findings. Industrial Management Review, 7 (1), 37–46.
Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fiedler, F., Mitchell, T., & Triandis, H. (1971). The cultural assimilator: An approach to
cross-cultural training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 95–102.
Fiol, C. M. (1994). Consensus, diversity and learning organizations. Organization Science,
5, 403–420.
Follett, M. P. (1940). Constructive conflict. In H. C. Metcalf & L. Urwick (Eds.), Dynamic
administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett (pp. 30–49). New York:
Harper & Row. (originally published 1926).
French, W. L., & Bell, C. H., Jr. (1999). Organization development (6th Ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
French, W. L., Bell, C. H., Jr., & Zawacki, R. A. (Eds.). (1989). Organization development:
Theory, practice, & research (3rd Ed.). Homewood, IL: BIP/Irwin.
Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review, 71 (4),
78–92.
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San
Diego, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Golembiewski, R. T. (1998). Dealing with doubt and cynicism about organization change,
the old-fashioned way: Empirical data about success rates in OD and QWL. In M. A.
Rahim, R. T. Golembiewski, & C. C. Lundberg (Eds.), Current topics in management
(Vol. 3, pp. 17–35). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Guetzkow, H., & Gyr, J. (1954). An analysis of conflict in decision-making groups. Human
Relations, 7, 367–381.
Hall, J., & Williams, M. S. (1966). A comparison of decision-making performances in
established and ad-hoc groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 214–
222.
Hater, J. J., & Bass, B. M. (1988). Superiors' evaluations and subordinates' perceptions of
transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 695–
702.
House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leadership effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 16, 321–338.
Janis, I. J. (1982). Groupthink (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Miffilin.
Jehn, K. A. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and
disadvantages of value-based intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 5, 223–238.

M. A. RAHIM 233
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and determinants of

intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.
Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions of organizational
groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530–557.
Jehn, K. A., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (1999). Why differences make a difference:
A field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 44, 741–763.
Keller, R. T. (1992). Transformational leadership and the performance of research and
development project groups. Journal of Management, 18, 489–501.
Kerr, S. (1995). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management
Executive, 9, 7–14. (originally published 1975)
Kilmann, R. H., & Mitroff, I. I. (1979). Problem defining and the consulting/intervention
process. California Management Review, 21 (3), 26–33.
Korbanik, K., Baril, G. L., & Watson, C. (1993). Managers' conflict management style and
leadership effectiveness: The moderating effects of gender. Sex Roles, 29, 405–420.
Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Sapienza, H. J. (1995). Building commitment,
attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice.
Academy of Management Journal, 38, 60–84.
Lawrence, P. R. (2001). The contingency approach to organization design. In R. T.
Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 7−17). New York:
Marcel Dekker.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex
organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1–47.
Likert, R., & Likert, J. G. (1976). New ways of managing conflict. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Luthans, F., Rubach, M. J., & Marsnik, P. (1995). Going beyond total quality: The
characteristics, techniques, and measures of learning organizations. International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3, 24–44.
Mitroff, I. I. (1998). Smart thinking for crazy times: The art of solving the right problems.
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Mitroff, I. I., & Emshoff, J. R. (1979). On strategic assumption-making: A dialectical
approach to policy and planning. Academy of Management Review, 4, 1–12.
Mitroff, I. I., & Featheringham, T. R. (1974). On systemic problem solving and the error of
the third kind. Behavioral Science, 19, 383–393.
Moberg, P. J. (1998). Predicting conflict strategy with personality traits: Incremental validity
and the five factor model. International Journal of Conflict Management, 9, 258–285.
Morse, J. J., & Lorsch, J. W. (1970). Beyond Theory Y. Harvard Business Review, 48 (3),
61–68.
Pascale, R. T. (1990). Managing on the edge: How the smartest companies use conflict to
stay ahead. New York: Simon and Schuler.
Pearson, A. W., Ensley, M. D., & Amason, A. C. (2002). An assessment and refinement of
Jehn's intragroup conflict scale. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13,
110−126.
Pelled, L. H., & Eisenhardt, K. M., & Xin, K. R. (1999). Exploring the black box: An
analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 44, 1–28.
Peltz, D. (1967). Creative tensions in the research and development climate. Science, 157,
160–165.
Pinkley, R. L. (1990). Dimensions of conflict frame: Disputant interpretations of conflict.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 117–126.
Prein, H. C. M. (1976). Stijlen van conflicthantering [Styles of handling conflict].
Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 31, 321–346.

Pruitt, D. G. (1983). Strategic choice in negotiation. American Behavioral Scientist, 27,

167−194.
Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation and social conflict. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Putman, L. L. (1994). Productive conflict: Negotiation as implicit coordination.
International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 285–299.
Rahim, M. A. (1983a). Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventories–I & II. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Rahim, M. A. (1983b). Rahim Organizational Conflict Inventories: Professional manual.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Rahim, M. A. (1983c). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy of
Rahim, M. A. (1997). Styles of managing organizational conflict: A critical review and
synthesis of theory and research. In M. A. Rahim, R. T. Golembiewski, & L. E. Pate
(Eds.), Current topics in management (Vol. 2, pp. 61–77). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Rahim, M. A. (2001). Managing conflict in organizations (3rd Ed.). Westport, CT: Quorum
Books.
Rahim, M. A., & Bonoma, T. V. (1979). Managing organizational conflict: A model for
diagnosis and intervention. Psychological Reports, 44, 1323–1344.
Rahim, M. A., Garrett, J. E., & Buntzman, G. F. (1992). Ethics of managing interpersonal
conflict in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 87–96.
Rahim, M. A., Magner, N. R., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). Do fairness perceptions influence
styles of handling conflict with supervisors: What fairness perceptions, precisely?
Robbins, S. P. (1978). "Conflict management" and "conflict resolution" are not synonymous
terms. California Management Review, 21 (2), 67–75.
Roloff, M. E. (1987). Communication and conflict. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.),
Handbook of communication science (pp. 484–534). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ross, R. S., & Ross, J. R. (1989). Small groups in organizational settings. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Rubin, J. Z., & Brown, B. R. (1975). The social psychology of bargaining and negotiation.
New York: Academic Press.
Ruble, T. L., & Thomas, K. W. (1976). Support for a two-dimensional model for conflict
behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 143–155.
Schweiger, D., Sandberg, W., & Ragan, J. W. (1986). Group approaches for improving
strategic decision making: A comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry, devil's
advocacy, and consensus approaches to strategic decision making. Academy of
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
New York: Doubleday.
Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., & Smith, B. J. (1994). The fifth
discipline fieldbook. New York: Doubleday.
Schein, E. H. (1993). How can organizations learn faster? The challenge of entering the
green room. Sloan Management Review, 35 (2), 85–92.
Simmons, T. L., & Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top
management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology,
85, 102–111.
Slater, S. F. (1995, November–December). Learning to change. Business Horizons, pp. 13–
20.

M. A. RAHIM 235
Thomas, K. W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),

Handbbok in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 889–935). Chicago: Rand
McNally.
Thomas, K. W. (1977). Toward multi-dimensional values in teaching: The example of
conflict behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 2, 484–490.
Ting-Toomey, S., Gao, G., Trubisky, P., Yang, Z., Kim, H. S., Lin, S.-L., & Nishida, T.
(1991). Culture, face maintenance, and conflict styles of handling interpersonal conflict:
A study in five cultures. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 275–296.
Tompkins, T. C. (1995). Role of diffusion in collective learning. International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 3, 69-85.
Van de Vliert, E., & de Drew, C. (1994). Optimizing performance by conflict stimulation.
Van de Vliert, E., & Kabanoff, B. (1990). Toward theory-based measures of conflict
management. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 199–209.
Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh, PA:
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Wall, J. A., Jr., & Callister, R. R. (1995). Conflict and its management. Journal of
Management, 21, 515–558.
Wall, V. D., Jr., & Nolan, L. L. (1986). Perceptions of inequity, satisfaction, and conflict in
task in task-oriented groups. Human Relations, 39, 1033–1052.
Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An
analysis of a social interaction system. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Watkins, K. E., & Golembiewski, R. T. (1995). Rethinking organization development for
the learning organization. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 3, 86–101.
Biographical Note
M. Afzalur Rahim
Center for Advanced Studies in Management
1574 Mallory Court
Bowlilng Green, KY 42103–1300
Phone/Fax: 270–782–2898/2601
Email: mgt2000@aol.com
Dr. Rahim is the Founding Editor of the International Journal of Organizational Analysis
and International Journal of Conflict Management. He is the founder of the International
Association for Conflict Management and International Conference on Advances in Man-
agement. He is a Professor of Management at Western Kentucky University. Dr. Rahim is
the author/co-author of 21 books and 150 articles, book chapters, case studies, and research
instruments. His articles have been published, among others, in Academy of Management
Journal, Human Relations, International Journal of Conflict Management, International
Journal of Organizational Analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Journal of Business
Ethics, Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, Journal of Management,
Journal of Small Business Management, Journal of Social Psychology, Multivariate Behav-
ioral Research, and Perceptual and Motor Skills. His current research interests are in the
areas of cross-cultural emotional intelligence, organizational learning, conflict management,
organizational justice, and leader power.
Received: September 14, 2002
Accepted by Michael E. Roloff after two revisions: February 8, 2003
♥

Explorations: An E-Journal of Narrative Practice
2010, Issue 2, 24–35. Copyright © Dulwich Centre Foundation
ISSN 1837–798X www.dulwichcentre.com.au/e‐journal.html

Narrative mediation and discursive positioning in

organisational conflicts
By Nikolaj Kure

Nikolaj Kure obtained his PhD in September 2008 at the University of
Aarhus, in Denmark, for a project on narrative techniques as a means for
organisational change. He now holds a position as assistant professor at
the Centre for Corporate Communication, University of Aarhus. His major
research areas include: organisational change, narrative practices, conflict
resolution, and organisational decision‐making. He can be contacted at:
nku@asb.dk

Abstract
In this paper, I expand on the use of narrative practices in the field of organisational mediation.
Building on the mediation approach put forward by John Winslade, Gerald Monk, Alison Cotter, and Sara
Cobb, I propose to conceptualise the organisation as a hierarchical discursive field that shapes
organisational conflict patterns. On this basis, I suggest four mediation goals for the narrative mediator
who engages in organisational conflict resolution: stimulating a sense of contingency; externalising the
conflict; discovering hidden organisational experience; and building alternative stories about
organisational practices. In a participatory research process with a Danish health organisation, I try to
reach these goals by means of position map 1 and outsider‐witness practices. Thus, the article contributes
to the theoretical understanding of organisational conflicts as well as to the use of narrative practices in
the resolution of such conflicts.1
Keywords: organisational discourses, organizations, power, narrative mediation

www.dulwichcentre.com.au/explorations-2010-2-nikolaj-kure.pdf
24

As documented in a number of contexts, narrative practices have been astonishingly helpful
in therapeutic settings (see, for example, Freedman & Combs, 1996; Payne, 2006; White, 2007;
White & Epston, 1990; Zimmermann & Dickerson, 1996). During the last ten to fifteen years,
this promising trajectory has led mediators to apply narrative techniques within the realm of
conflict resolution (Cobb, 1993, 1994, 2004; Winslade, 2003, 2006; Winslade & Monk, 2000,
2008; Winslade, Monk, & Cotter, 1998). The theoretical cornerstone that supports these
mediation practices is Foucault’s concept of the discourse as ‘practices that systematically form
the objects of which they speak’ (Foucault, 1969, p. 49). Concretely, a discourse is understood as
a local semantic system that shapes the identities of the parties in a relationship by functioning
as a background for ‘position calls’ (Davies & Harré, 1990; Drewery, 2005; Winslade, 2006). A
position call is an invitation to assume a relational identity, for instance, when a manager meets
an employee’s suggestion at a meeting with the following response, ‘Please, let’s be reasonable
for a second’. In responding this way, the manager positions the employee as ‘irrational’
whereas she herself is constructed as ‘rational’. In this sense, the manager uses a culturally
privileged discourse, the discourse of rationality, to shape social positions of relative power and
disadvantage; the ‘rational’ manager as the privileged, the ‘irrational’ employee as the
disadvantaged.
Conflicts are seen as the results of such polarising positioning practices. Thus, narrative
mediators do not understand conflicts as effects of objective, contradictory interests that should
be mediated; rather conflicts are seen as expressions of positioning practices that marginalise
or negatively define persons in conversations (such as positioning the employee as ‘irrational’).
Narrative mediation, consequently, focuses on the expansion of the discursive resources that
are drawn upon in such polarising positioning practices (Winslade, 2006). The main goal in this
context is to create the conditions for the growth of alternative relationship stories that
challenge the dominating discourses in the relationship. In the above example, the mediator
would engage in opening space for new stories about the manager/employee relationship, for
instance, by examining the participants’ hopes and intentions which may foster new stories
about the relationship as a space for ‘creativity’ or ‘honesty’ (and not just ‘rationality’). In effect,
this would help constitute a new discursive background that does not fit into the events of the
dispute and opens for less polarising and marginalising positioning practices.
A number of studies have convincingly shown that narrative mediation is fruitful in the
resolution of conflicts that involve a relation of relatively little complexity, for example
conflicting couples (Winslade, 2003; Winslade & Monk, 2008) or disputing neighbours (Monk,
Winslade, Crocket, & Epston, 1997; Winslade, Monk, & Cotter, 1998). However, Holmgren
(2008) has recently shown that narrative practices also contain the potential as mediation tools
in complex organisational contexts. The present paper aims at bringing narrative practices
further into this little‐explored territory by developing new ideas about the use of narrative
practices as a third party mediation tool in organisations. To this end, I start off by reflecting on
how organisations can be understood as webs of privileged and marginalised discourses that
function as a background for position calls. By means of a participatory research process with a
Danish health organisation, I hope to show that this framework is helpful when understanding
conflicts in organisations. I end the paper with a number of reflections on possible ways of using
narrative practices as intervention tools in organisational settings.

25

Discursive positioning and organisational conflict
Inspired by Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse theory (Laclau, 1990; Laclau, 2005; Laclau &
Mouffe, 1985), I proceed to conceptualise an organisation as a hierarchic web of dominating and
marginalised discourses that condition conflicts. I suggest that the idea of a ‘discursive
hierarchy’ is a key concept when understanding conflict patterns in organisations. This concept
helps us understand how some dominating discourses offer privileged subject positions from
which some (privileged) members are entitled to negatively define others, ultimately resulting
in ‘polarised positions’.
Building on Foucault’s concepts of discourse and subjectivity, Laclau and Mouffe (1985)
define the subject as ‘a subject position within a discursive structure’ (p. 115). Identity is not
given by an inner individual core, but is constituted in the network of discourses that ‘recruit’
subjects to assume certain positions. Thus, organisational identities are made possible by
discursive systems of meaning that offer positions from which to act and speak. Subject
positions are organised by so‐called ‘nodal points’ (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985, p. 112); a term
originally used to describe the ‘buttons’ in a sofa to which the cover and lining is attached.
Transferred to a discursive context, the term signifies the central and prominent sign that
organises and keeps a discourse together. For example, a democratic management discourse is
organised by the nodal point of ‘democracy’, which structures the social actions of the
democratic manager. In other words, by structuring the discourse, the nodal point constitutes
an overarching intention in the position, for instance, to ensure that all management initiatives
are somehow democratic.
A central point in the discourse theory is the assumption that all discourses strive to
control social practices (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985, p. 137). If we accept this, we can think of
organisational discourses as systems of meaning that aim at determining different fields of
practice in an organisation (for example, the fields of management, cooperation, decision‐
making, and so on) by pushing their subject positions forward as ‘logical’ identities. Laclau and
Mouffe, however, insist that no discourse is ever able to establish itself as the only thinkable
resource for identity. For example, a democratic management discourse may try to fixate all
managers as democratic managers, but the discourse always finds itself challenged and
disturbed by competing discourses that offer alternative positions from which to act and speak.
For example, an authoritarian management discourse could compete with a democratic
management discourse.
This point is a derivative of the distinct poststructuralist dimension implicit in the
Laclauian discourse theory. Thus, Laclau and Mouffe draw heavily on the French
poststructuralist, Jacques Derrida (2004), who shows that any discourse is constituted by
setting a ‘constitutive difference’ with regard to other competing discourses. Paradoxically,
struggling discourses function as each other’s condition of existence (Laclau, 1990, p. 39),
which, by implication, rules out the possibility of total discursive dominance. Instead, at least
two competing discourses will operate on the same field of practice, battling to present their
subject position as ‘proper’ or ‘normal’. In effect, the organisation is the scene for a never‐
finalised discursive struggle, where some discourses, in the course of time, gain a prioritised,
however temporary, right in the production of social reality.
I propose that, imagining organisations as unstable, discursive hierarchies is a fruitful
pathway into understanding organisational conflict patterns. It allows us to analyse how some
organisational members are systematically subject to negative definitions, due to an unequal
distribution of power and privilege in the organisation. For instance, we can imagine an

26

organisation in which an authoritarian management discourse dominates and defines the
authoritarian manager as the ‘proper’ manager. In this discursive context, managers recruited
by a democratic management discourse are at risk of being positioned as suspect, unproductive,
and even abnormal. These democratic managers may be negatively defined along the lines of, ‘In
this organisation, the manager is the one making the decisions and, if you think you can leave it
to your employees, then you’re wrong!’ In other words, the hierarchic structure legitimises
practices of negative positioning and paves the way for normalising judgements.
According to Honneth (1995), situations of negative positioning are likely to give rise to a
‘struggle for acknowledgement’. When our discursive intention is devalued or rejected as unfit,
we will struggle to regain a sense of value. However, the struggle for acknowledgement is often
carried out as a destructive strategy that challenges other people’s preferred identities. Thus,
the initial negative definition sparks off cyclical and reciprocal patterns of negative positioning
practices that ultimately result in ‘polarised positions’. In this line of thought, conflict patterns
can be seen as the end results of the organisation’s discursive hierarchy that distributes unequal
relations of power and entitlements in the organisation. A conflict, thus, is not an expression of
some people being inherently ‘destructive’, ‘bad’ or ‘conflict provoking’ (described by Winslade
& Monk, 2000, as an ‘essentialist’ account of persons), but is seen as an implication of a
discursive structure that fuels ‘polarised positions’.
Analysis of an organisational conflict
In this section, I attempt to show how a conflict in a Danish health organisation can be
analysed as a result of discursive power operations. The organisation, called Centre for Motoric
Disabilitites (CMD), is a research unit that treats patients based on an interdisciplinary logic.2 It
is believed that back pain is not simply the result of physical/mechanical breakdowns but is
driven by a network of physical, psychological and social factors. Consequently, a medical
doctor, a social worker, a physiotherapist, a psychologist, and an occupational therapist, are all
part of the team responsible for deciding which treatment should be chosen for the specific
patient. Members of the organisation have recently experienced patterns of conflict and
frustration in their decision‐making practices. The conflict has not yet assumed a gargantuan
size with fixed polarised positions, but it does play a significant negative role in the
organisation’s life. In order to understand how discourses condition the conflict, I have
interviewed all team members and participated in a number of staff meetings.
Two members, the physiotherapist Thomas, and the psychologist Pernille, seem to be
particularly victimised by the conflict, as they experience a high degree of frustration and a lack
of recognition of their perspectives and competences. These patterns, as I will show, can be
understood as a result of a discursive battle between the discourses of ‘difference’ and ‘equality’,
of which the latter seems to prevail. When analysing the interview transcripts, it becomes clear
that Thomas and Pernille share the same decision‐making rationale. They both prefer to
observe the patient strictly from their own mono‐functional perspective, and seem to assume
that the best treatment is reached if the team members stick to their particular perspectives
when diagnosing the patient. Furthermore, both Thomas and Pernille prefer to word their
treatment proposals as knowledge‐based assessments, for instance, illustrated by Pernille:

27

Pernille: We want to do the treatment that is documented.
Interviewer: Yes.
Pernille: That is the expert, where the expert can …
Interviewer: Yes, what can the expert do?
Pernille: What we know works, what we know works.
Here Pernille describes how she prefers to discuss treatment proposals from an expert
position; based on ‘what we know works’ and what ‘is documented’, Pernille finds herself
obliged to formulate her observations of the patients as expert assessments. On this basis, we
can argue that Thomas and Pernille intend to activate the differences among the team members
to the benefit of the patients. In other words, the position from which Pernille and Thomas
speak and act is singled out by a discourse of difference that shapes a decision‐making practice
where differences in team members’ functional perspectives and knowledge resources are
highlighted and valued. The discourse of difference has ‘recruited’ Thomas and Pernille, whose
actions are structured by an overall intention of making differences in perspectives and
knowledge explicit in order for the team to reach an effective solution. However, both Pernille
and Thomas experience that they are consistently urged to suppress this ambition. For instance,
Thomas describes how he finds himself forced to apply a more ‘broad’ perspective when
diagnosing a patient:
Physiotherapist: Well, with this broad perspective in mind, I first of all need to assess
whether physiotherapy matters, is it relevant at all to engage in physiotherapeutic
exercises?
Interviewer: What do you need to consider?
Physiotherapist: I need to consider that because the team … well you could say that we
should get a broad picture of the patient, so I need to consider whether physiotherapy
matters.
Interviewer: What does this mean?
Physiotherapist: Well, you could say that if the patient has so many psycho‐social
problems that it doesn’t make sense to demand that he exercises twice a week, you
can’t make that demand.
Interviewer: No, no.
Physiotherapist: Sometimes you need to hold that back.
Interviewer: And what does that make you do when you see a patient like that?
Physiotherapist: Well, sometimes … What I’m getting at is that sometimes I think that
the patients do not get enough physiotherapeutic treatment.
Interviewer: Okay.
Physiotherapist: Sometimes I think that they [the patients] are not getting enough
support for the physical training.
The quotation shows that Thomas prefers to make the strict physiotherapeutic demand
that patients should exercise in situations when they do not ‘get enough physiotherapeutic
treatment’. In making his particular perspective explicit, Thomas highlights his difference from
the other team members in order to enhance the diagnostic quality. At the same time, however,
Thomas describes how he is unable to offer this mono‐functional observation to the team, ‘You
can’t do that’, and, ‘Sometimes you need to hold that [the observation that the patient could

28

benefit from physiotherapy] back’. Thomas finds himself compelled to secure a ‘broad
perspective’ on the patient and to subordinate his specific mono‐functional observations to a
cross‐functional gaze. In other words, Thomas seems to be subjected to a negative definition, as
his intention to apply his specific functional perspective is not acknowledged in the
organisation. Thomas’ intentions are not seen by his fellow team members, as he is indirectly
told that his practices are not come il faut and appropriate in the organisation. Thomas, in short,
is subjected to a normalising power process that compels him to assume a more ‘correct’ and
privileged position in the decision practices, in this case the position of taking a ‘broad
perspective’ on the patient.
I will argue that these processes of negative definitions, particularly aimed at Thomas and
Pernille, are powered by a discourse of equality that has managed to suppress the discourse of
difference. Thus, my interviews with the team members show that two practices dominate the
decision behaviour in the team, both structured by a discourse of equality. First, the majority of
the members diagnose the patient using a cross‐functional gaze. In doing so, the observer
directs her vision to all dimensions of the patient (the physiological, the social, and the
psychological) and does not limit her observations to a strict mono‐functional gaze. Second,
closely related to this holistic observation, the team members display a dominating practice of
communicating about the patient in a reflective and tentative manner. Illustratively, the
occupational therapist, Josephine, describes how she words a treatment suggestion as a
hypothetical reflection:
‘In that case I might think that I will propose that she [the patient] consults Pernille [the
psychologist].’
Here, Josephine applies a double‐tentative communicative mode: before she can even begin
to propose a treatment suggestion, she must reflect upon whether she wants to propose her
suggestion or not. These social actions adopted by a majority of the team members are, I will
argue, structured by a discourse of equality. When the member observes the patient holistically,
she integrates all perspectives in her vision, thereby symbolically valuing all perspectives as
equally important. When the member words her treatment proposal as a tentative reflection,
she does not vouch for her proposal as being more valuable than others but recognises that
other proposals are equally justifiable. In short, the preferred way of making decisions in the
organisation seems to be structured by an idea of equality, which disposes the team members to
symbolically show that all perspectives are equally valuable in the treatment of the patient.
Summing up, the analysis indicates that two discourses, one of equality and one of
difference, are both striving to define the proper social behaviour in the organisation’s decision
processes. Neither of the discourses is able to fully obtain this goal, but the empirical material
suggests that the discourse of equality plays a privileged role. In the context of mediation, the
crucial point to be made, I suggest, is that the configuration of discursive dominance and
suppression is exactly what structures the repeated negative definitions of Pernille and Thomas.
The discourse of equality has assumed a privileged role in defining the preferred decision‐
making practices which legitimises and nurtures negative definitions of Pernille and Thomas.
Put differently, the hierarchy of marginalised and privileged discourses functions as a
legitimising background for the praise of some practices and the disparagement of others. In
this case, Pernille and Thomas, being recruited by a marginalised discourse of difference, are an
easy prey for repeated negative definitions, which ultimately sparks off frustration and creates
the foundation for patterns of polarising positioning.

29

Narrative mediation in organisational conflicts
The above analysis supports Art Fisher’s idea that there are no ‘innocent places’ (Fisher,
2005). Even in a context where equality is the ruling logic, we still find a discursive power field
that privileges and marginalises some actions and some subjects. Even in the realm of equality,
there is normalising power. Importantly, this analysis does not imply a nihilistic or relativist
stance where all discourses are equally justifiable and ethical. On the contrary, it highlights the
importance of a continuous ethical reflection on the discursive power operations in
organisations. In this context then, what is the task of the narrative mediator? When no promise
of a power neutral place can be given, which are the aims of the mediator engaged in
organisational conflicts, such as the one described above? I suggest that the overarching task of
the narrative mediator is to support a dialogue that enables the group to rearrange the
discursive background that, prior to the mediation, legitimises negative positioning practices.
Such a discursive rearrangement will not create a power‐free space where no conflict will take
place; however, it will constitute a discursive background that redistributes the current
relations of relative privilege among the organisation’s members. Metaphorically speaking, a
discursive rearrangement will wet the discursive gun powder and, in effect, short‐circuit the
existing conflict patterns.
Before reflecting on how to do this in practice, two theoretical points should be clarified.
First, I assume that the telling of alternative stories will reshape the discursive hierarchy in the
organisation. Thus, I propose that an organisation’s discursive formation is produced and
hierarchised through collective narrative processes. For example, the team at CMD may share a
number of successful experiences with the holistic treatment approach. If such experiences are
knitted into a story that highlights the value of equality, the discourse of equality is supported
and regenerated. In other words, if alternative stories about organisational practices can be
constructed, the discursive configuration may be challenged or rearranged. Secondly, I suggest
distinguishing between the use of narrative practices in relations of relatively little complexity
(such as couples, disputing neighbours etc.), and in multi‐relational contexts such as
organisations. As mediators (Winslade, 2006; Winslade et al., 1998) have pointed out, narrative
mediation in two‐person relations should focus on the construction of new stories of the specific
conflict relation. However, when the task is to change social patterns in organisations, it seems
more helpful to support the building of alternative stories about the organisation’s practices
(for instance, alternative stories about decision‐making). This may be a subtle distinction but, I
suspect, an important one. Thus, if the mediator aims at the re‐telling of specific problematic
relations in the organisation, the intervention may not reach the organisational discourses that
constitute the background for the conflict‐provoking positioning. The mediator may resolve
conflicts involving specific members but will not intervene at an organisational level. Therefore,
I propose that the narrative mediator’s aim should be to cooperate with the organisational
members in exploring preferred organisational practices and values, and stimulate the
emergence of narratives that support these practices.
In a two‐day seminar with the CMD team, I experimented in using a range of narrative
practices to this end. The goals of the mediation process were: to stimulate a sense of
contingency; to externalise the conflict; to rediscover hidden organisational experience with
preferred values and practices; and to build new narratives that support these preferred values
and practices.

30

Stimulating an organisational sense of contingency
When engaging in the resolution of organisational conflicts, mediators are often met with
the conception that conflicts are inherent and unchangeable parts of the organisation. Conflicts
are seen as the results of disputes between fundamentally contradictory and irreconcilable
parties. In this context, I propose that the first mediation goal is to create a sense of contingency;
that is to advocate the idea that conflicts are the results of decisions that can be undone. In this
respect, the narrative mediator’s task is to establish an unstable and open discursive field that
disturbs the existing conception of conflicts as immanent and fixed. In practice, the mediator
may initiate the process by meta‐communicating that change is indeed possible, for example, by
elaborating on previous conflict resolution experiences, by creating a sense of urgency in
resolving the conflicts, by emphasising the importance of change in the organisation, or by
allowing participants to express their hopes and expectations in the mediation process.
Externalising conversations
As I have hoped to show above, the conflict at CMD is not anchored in ‘bad’ or ‘conflict‐
provoking’ persons, but rests in the normalising effects of the organisation’s discursive web.
Consistent with this analysis, the mediator, throughout the two‐day seminar, speaks in the
rhetorical mode described in narrative therapy as an externalising conversation (White &
Epston, 1990; Winslade et al., 1998). He talks of the conflict as an ‘it’ that has momentarily taken
control of the organisation and invites the participants to do the same. By using this rhetorical
figure, the change agent meta‐communicates that the problem is the problem, whereas the
persons involved are recipients of its evil effects. In effect, the externalising conversation mode
allows the participants to separate themselves from the conflict, which helps avoid the
identification of culprits or rascals and, furthermore, makes the conflict tangible and
addressable.
In the beginning of the two‐day seminar, the participants are invited to see the conflict as
an ‘imagined other’ (Winslade et al., 1998) that has forced its way into the organisation. In pairs,
the participants are asked to reflect on, ‘Which problems have taken over or influenced the
organisation?’ These ‘others’ are written on a blackboard, symbolically constituting the common
enemies that stand in the way of a preferred future. The participants are now asked to interview
each other in pairs, using an interview guide prepared by the change agent. This technology is a
development of traditional narrative practices where the therapist/mediator interviews the
clients/conflict participants. However, in settings with many participants who should all have a
chance to voice their stories, the structure of participants interviewing each other is a way of
making this possible in the allocated timeframe. In the first section of the interview, the
interviewer invites the interviewee to elaborate on the problems or dilemmas that most
significantly influence his/her work life, and to signify these problems/dilemmas with
appropriate names. The interviewee is asked, ‘What would you describe as suitable names for
the problems or dilemmas that influence your team?’ Then, the participants come up with their
individual naming such as ‘insecurity’ or ‘management absence’. Next, the effects of the
problems are mapped by questions such as: ‘How does “X” make you think and feel about
yourself in the organisation?’; ‘What would you call the atmosphere that “X” creates in the
team?’; and ‘What would you call the position or mood that “X” creates for you as a colleague?’
In articulating problems as external forces, this line of interviewing undermines the idea that
the conflict is caused by flaws located inside the participants and paves the way for a resistance
against the conflict.

31

Discovering hidden organisational experience
The invitation to resistance begins by asking the participants to take a position against the
problems. Thus, the participants are asked to evaluate the effects of the problem: ‘Do you like
the effects that the problems have on the team?’ If the participants evaluate negatively (‘No, I do
not like the effects of the problems’), questions that examine hidden experiences of alternative
organisational practices, competences and values can be introduced. Spotting these untold
experiences takes place via a range of questions that aim at making the participants justify their
negative evaluation by describing preferred practices in the organisation. The participants are
invited to elaborate on questions such as: ‘When you do not like the effects of the problems, can
you describe how you would prefer the team members to act and communicate?’; ‘Which values
in the organisation would support this preferred practice?’; and, ‘Which competences in the
organisation would gain a bit more space if your preferred organisation became reality?’ After
each of the questions described here, follow‐up questions are made which have the participants
give examples from their everyday life. When responding to these questions, hitherto un‐storied
events, which highlight hidden values or competences, become visible. For example, a
participant elaborates on a concrete process with a patient where each team member offered a
diagnosis specifically based on their functional perspective. In her opinion, this procedure was
valuable as it resulted in a precise diagnosis and an effective treatment. Thus, an ‘invisible’ or
forgotten event that articulates the value of using members’ differences is highlighted and,
thereby, becomes a part of the organisation’s reality.
Building alternative stories about organisational practices
The process of spotting hidden organisational experience establishes the building stones
for stories challenging the dominating discourses in the organisation. However, as Winslade et
al. (1998) stress, a narrative is not just a chronological list of events. The recovered events,
therefore, must be woven into a coherent storyline featuring thematic consistency and
characters that develop and demonstrate competences and values. This ‘performing of meaning’
(Bruner, 1986) is stimulated by means of the technique described in narrative therapy as the
‘outsider‐witness group’ (White, 2007). This process starts by each pair offering a summary of
their interviews to all participants. Meanwhile, the group has been divided into smaller groups
of two or three who are asked to witness their colleague’s account of un‐storied events and
hidden values. The technique includes four steps. First, the outsider‐witness group selects an
expression they have particularly noticed in the summaries of the interviews. For example, the
persons in the witness group might say, ‘We noticed that she said that she preferred to use
functional perspectives more actively in decision‐making’. The exact phrasing should be used in
order to make sure that there is a direct link to the concrete utterances. The second task is to
offer an image of the person telling the story, which aims at highlighting the intentions,
competences and values of the person being witnessed. For example, the outsider‐witness
group could say, ‘We see her as a lioness fighting for the patients’ well‐being’. In the third phase,
the outsider‐witness teams are asked to reflect on how the story resonates in their own
organisational lives, for example, by saying, ‘We have talked about how we recognise the
ambition to take more care of our patients’. Finally, the outsider‐witness group accounts for
how the story has transported them to see or think differently about practices in the
organisation. They might respond, ‘We have talked about how using our functional perspectives
a little bit more might add quality to our decisions’.

32

This process aims at opening the space for crafting alternative narratives of organisational
practices. The flurry of newly recovered events constitutes new narrative material that can be
organised into narratives articulating hitherto untold organisational values and practices. The
participants are thus given the opportunity to collectively author alternative stories by linking
events into a coherent storyline about the organisation’s preferred practices and values.
The mediation potential of narrative practices
The emergence of new narratives may potentially challenge the grip of the conflict at CMD.
As analysed above, the conflict is driven by a discursive formation that legitimises negative
definitions of certain members. However, this process is interrupted if the team manages to
author a narrative that highlights the value of using and honouring differences between
members. In this sense, telling alternative stories is a way of resisting discursive power
processes and shaping a new space of action in the organisation. Qualitative interviews with
team members after the seminar indicate that the above processes have in fact instigated a
discursive change. For instance, Kurt, the medical doctor and the formal team manager, realised
the differences in the team in terms of power position, education and competences:
Kurt: We [in management] do not have the exact same role as the others in the team.
And that’s how it should be.
Interviewer: And that’s okay?
Kurt: Yes, it is, that’s the way it is.
Interviewer: And did you realise that during the seminar?
Kurt: Yes, more clearly. Well, when we started this project, it was like everyone was
equal. No matter what, I was equal with the others, Julie was equal, everyone was equal.
And Johan was equal, but we are not! That’s an illusion. We have different roles to play,
different competences, different educations, so we are not equal, we don’t have the
same role in the team, we don’t and that has become clearer.

The occupational therapist, Ursula, makes a similar observation:
Ursula: In a way it has become clearer to me what class in the hierarchy I belong to,
what I can do essentially.
Interviewer: Yes.
Ursula: For example, in relation to the team’s future, I cannot do much more than shout
and express that now we should do this or that. But it is Kurt’s task to talk to the top‐
management; Kurt has got to do that. That is the hierarchy.
Interviewer: Okay.
Ursula: Now we would like to know what will happen to our team in the future, then I
can make that clear to my leader, who is Kurt, who should take it a step further. That
has somehow become clearer to me but in a good way, I mean now I don’t have to
blame myself for not acting, because I don’t have the position to do so.
It is noteworthy that Kurt and Ursula both see the actualisation of the differences among
members as a value. To Kurt, playing different roles in the team is ‘how it should be’, and
respecting the formal hierarchy helps Ursula avoid blaming herself for not taking action on

33

strategic matters. Thus, the team members seem to have built a story that articulates the
practice of applying differences as valuable. In theoretical terms, the participants have caused a
discursive reconfiguration that places the discourse of difference at the heart of the discursive
formation. The telling of new stories has constituted an alternative discursive frame that values
expressions of differences as legitimate decision practices. On this basis, without being too
conclusive, it can be argued that the use of narrative practices has redistributed the privilege
and power in the organisation and, therefore, seem to hold a potential as mediation tools in
organisational settings.
Concluding remarks
In this paper, I have tried to apply narrative practices as mediation tools in organisational
settings. This ambition is highly inspired by the groundbreaking works of John Winslade, Gerald
Monk, Alison Cotter, and Sara Cobb, who have investigated the mediation potential held by
narrative techniques. Standing on the shoulders of these frontrunners, I have worded four goals
for the narrative mediator all of which allow the organisation’s members to rearrange the
discursive formation that conditions organisational conflict patterns. These goals were: to
stimulate a sense of contingency; to externalise the conflict; to rediscover hidden organisational
experience with preferred values and practices; and to build new narratives that support these
preferred values and practices. I would like to emphasise that this way of using narrative
practices reflects one possible entry into the field of organisational mediation. However, I do
hope to have shown that narrative practices hold a potential for conflict resolution in
organisational contexts, which will, hopefully, be explored and expanded further in the future.
Notes
1. I would like to thank Allan Holmgren, Anne Stærk, and Iben Andersen who have all been deeply
involved in the process that has led to this paper. Furthermore, I would like to thank the members at The
Centre for Motoric Disabilities for their insightful participation in the process.
2. The names of the organisation and its members have been changed in agreement with the organisation.
References
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Cobb, S. (1993). Empowerment and mediation: A narrative perspective. Negotiation Journal, 9 (3), 245–
259. doi:10.1111/j.1571‐9979.1993.tb00706.x
Cobb, S. (1994). A narrative perspective on mediation: Toward the materialization of the ‘storytelling
metaphor. In J. Folger & T. Jones (Eds.), New directions in mediation communications research and
perspectives (pp. 48–66). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cobb, S. (2004). Fostering coexistence in identity‐based conflicts: Towards a narrative approach. In A.
Chayes & M. Minow (Eds.), Imagine coexistence (pp. 29 4– 310) . San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.
Davies, B., & Harré, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. Journal for the Theory of
Social Behaviour, 20 (1), 43– 63. doi:10.1111/j.1468‐5914.1990.tb00174.x
Derrida, J. (2004). Positions. (A. Bass, Trans.). London, England: Continuum.

34

Drewery, W. (2005). Why we should watch what we say: Position calls, every day speech, and the
production of relational subjectivity. Theory and Psychology, 15(3), 305–324.
doi:10.1177/0959354305053217
Fisher, A. (2005). Power and the promise of innocent places. Narrative Network News, (34), 12–14.
Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). Narrative therapy: The social construction of preferred realities. New
York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Foucault, M. (1969). The archeology of knowledge (Alan Sheridan, Trans.). London, England: Tavistock.
Holmgren, A. (2008). Outsider‐witness practices in organisational disputes. In J. Winslade & G. Monk
(Eds.), Practicing narrative mediation: Loosening the grip of conflict (pp. 166–185). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey‐Bass.
Honneth, A. (1995). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. (J. Anderson,
Trans.) Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Laclau, E. (1990). New reflections on the revolution of our time. London, England: Verso.
Laclau, E. (2005). On populist reason. London, England: Verso.
Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Towards a radical democratic politics.
London, England: Verso.
Monk, G., Winslade, J., Crocket, K., & Epston, D. (Eds.). (1997). Narrative therapy in practice: The
archeology of hope. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.
Payne, M. (2006). Narrative therapy: An introduction for counsellors. London, England: Sage.
White, M. (2007). Maps of narrative practice. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Winslade, J. (2003). Narrative mediation: Assisting in the renegotiation of discursive positions. The
International Journal of Narrative Therapy and Community Work, (4), 64–75.
Winslade, J. (2006). Mediation with a focus on discursive positioning. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 23(4),
501‐515. doi:10.1002/crq.152
Winslade, J., & Monk, G. (2000). Narrative mediation: A new approach to conflict resolution. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey‐Bass.
Winslade, J., & Monk, G. (2008). Practicing narrative mediation: Loosening the grip of conflict. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass.
Winslade, J., Monk, G., & Cotter, A. (1998). A narrative approach to the practice of mediation. Negotiation
Journal, 14(1), 21–41. doi:10.1111/j.1571‐9979.1998.tb00146.x
Zimmerman, J., & Dickerson, V. (1996). If problems talked: Narrative therapy in action. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.

35

Analisis Jurnal Konflik

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Analisis Jurnal Konflik

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

ANALISIS JURNAL

PRODI SARJANA ADMINISTRASI KESEHATAN

TOWARD A THEORY OF MANAGING

The management of organizational conflict involves the diagnosis of and

3. There is no clear set of rules to indicate how conflict involving different

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

we raised three of the most important questions in this article: is moderate

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

Conflict Management Strategy

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

result, interventions for conflict management should be designed to develop cul-

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

Characteristics of the Old Paradigm

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

Because existing conflict management strategies have neglected to recognize

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

probability of not implementing a solution properly (Kilmann & Mitroff, 1979).

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

handling interpersonal conflict," is essential for a proper understanding of the

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

Taking lead from the contingency approach, it is possible to develop a con-

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

Conflict style Situations where appropriate Situations where inappropriate

Integrating 1. Issues are complex. 1. Task or problem is simple.

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

The integrative dimension—Integrating style minus Avoiding stylerepre-

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

Dominating style minus Obliging stylerepresents a party's concern (high–low)

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

3. The relationships of the amount of conflict and conflict styles to learning

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

A number of studies have shown that cooperative styles, such as integrating,

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

Leadership. Senge (1990) maintains that a different set of leadership roles

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

5. Reward team performance.

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and determinants of

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

Pruitt, D. G. (1983). Strategic choice in negotiation. American Behavioral Scientist, 27,

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

Thomas, K. W. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),

The International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2002

Narrative mediation and discursive positioning in

Explorations: An E-Journal of Narrative Practice

Explorations: An E-Journal of Narrative Practice

Explorations: An E-Journal of Narrative Practice

Analysis of an organisational conflict

Explorations: An E-Journal of Narrative Practice

Explorations: An E-Journal of Narrative Practice

Explorations: An E-Journal of Narrative Practice

Explorations: An E-Journal of Narrative Practice

Explorations: An E-Journal of Narrative Practice