Words: 732
Through a series of cases, he illustrates how conflicts between groups can fled their source In an Inconsistent chain of responsibility, opposing values, prestige within the larger organization and a lack of checks and balances, to name a few. What this shows, is that troubles are often caused by a difference in point of views and legitimacy in authority. Without Introducing a clear conflict resolution methodology, Seller proposes two different types of resolution. The first resolution type Is to reorganize the organizational workflow when the source of the conflict is authority.
Indeed, the goal here is to balance the authority and prestige of the different groups composing the organization allowing for a more consistent workflow. The second resolution type Involves Interrupt training or counseling. The goal of this strategy Is to Integrate differing viewpoints by making warring groups understand they dependent on one another. Blake and Mouton [2] introduce two simple conflict management approaches to resolve conflicts or tensions between groups or functions. The first method called the Interpersonal facilitator approach revolves around a neutral facilitator mediating between conflicting parties.
The approach does not define a conflict resolution process but demonstrates when and how the facilitator must act to remove roadblocks, share messages between groups or simply get involved in the discussions. This Is a classic mediating approach that works well if tensions or personal chemistry prevents direct communication between parties and when a decision, even an imperfect one, is required in a short time frame in order to avoid total breakdown. The second method called the interface conflict-solving approach still involves a neutral Individual but this time to facilitate the conflict resolution recess.
Indeed, In this approach the conflicting groups deal directly with each other in a series of steps. The first step establishes the rules of engagement. Then, each group defines the conflict at hand from their own perspectives, share their views with the other parties involved and finally, consolidate all the views in a single statement agreed by all. The role of the facilitator Is to enforce the rules and ensure that discussions do not deviate for subject during plenary discussions. He is otherwise uninvolved in the contents of the discussions, contrary to the first approach. Comparison and Analysis
The first step in resolving interrupt conflicts Is to be able to Identify the presence of a conflict and to diagnose Its source. In that aspect, both articles come short. Seller threads along the organizational structure perspective and thus, limits diagnosis 1 OFF Indeed, there are several dimensions that can help identify and diagnose interrupt conflicts: organizational structure (power, authority, role and responsibilities, goals compatibility and processes), culture (group cohesion, values, symbols, attitudes and perceptions), communication (mutual understanding, cooperation, leadership behaviors and trust).
Once a proper diagnosis of the source of conflict is completed, one can use the proper tools to find a resolution to the conflict. Depending on the nature of the relationships between the groups and the severity of the conflict, there are four strategies one can take: avoidance, in the case where both the relationship and issue are not important, accommodation, in the case where the relationship is more important than the issue, competition, in the case the issue is more important that the relationship, and compromise, when the groups need to preserve the allegations and thus, resolve the conflict.
High intensity conflicts in organizations will require some kind of compromise from all parties involved. Blake and Mouton detailed two approaches (interpersonal facilitator and interface conflict-resolution) from the compromise strategy and provided a decision grid on when to best apply each approach. In contrast, Seller focuses on organizational reorganization and leaves it to the reader to search for specific conflict resolution approaches.
Some solutions that were not mentioned by the authors but that could be useful in specific asses are: cooperation by edict from upper management, should the situation become critical, leadership replacement if the conflict lies at that level of the hierarchy, personnel rotation in order to diffuse interpersonal conflicts and flexible reporting relationships in order to foster collaboration between groups. In addition, neither article proposes a way to mitigate conflict escalation between feuding groups. However, both acknowledge that conflicts can quickly degenerate and take proportions that can harm the well-being of the organization.