Introduction to workplace conflict

Workplace conflict arises when individuals or groups perceive that their needs, interests, or goals are threatened by others. This can stem from miscommunication, where messages are misunderstood or unclear, or from beliefs that another person or group will have a negative impact.

Conflicts in the workplace can be categorised based on their nature, including those that are personal, task-related, or procedural.

Levels of group conflict

Conflicts can occur at different levels within an organisation.

Intra-individual conflict

Intra-individual conflict happens within a single person and revolves around making choices.

Types of intra-individual conflict:

• Approach-approach conflict - Choosing between two positive alternatives.
• Avoidance-avoidance conflict - Selecting between two negative options.
• Approach-avoidance conflict - Dealing with a situation that has both positive and negative aspects, for example, accepting a high-paying job in an undesirable location.

Inter-individual conflict

Inter-individual conflict occurs between two people and includes multiple components, as identified by researchers Barki and Hartwick in 2004.

Components of inter-individual conflict:

• Behavioural component - Involves interference.
• Cognitive component - Centres on disagreement.
• Affective component - Relates to negative emotions.

Intra-group conflict

Intra-group conflict takes place within a single team or department and focuses on internal dynamics.

Types of intra-group conflict:

• Process conflict - Disputes over how tasks are organised or carried out.
• Relationship conflict - Personal tensions between group members.
• Task conflict - Differences in views about the content or goals of the work itself.

Inter-group conflict

Inter-group conflict develops between different teams or departments, often fostering an "us versus them" mentality. This can strengthen loyalty within each group (ingroup cohesiveness) but create rivalry overall. Competition for limited resources, such as budgets or materials, frequently triggers this level of conflict.

Causes of organisational group conflict

Organisational group conflict arises from factors that affect how groups interact within a workplace. Researcher Miles identified key contributors in 1980, which include how often groups collaborate and inconsistencies in their roles.

Key factors contributing to group conflict

• Frequency of interaction - Groups that work together often may experience more friction.
• Status inconsistencies - When there are perceived imbalances in power or recognition between groups.
• Communication problems - Misunderstandings or lack of clear information exchange.
• Individual differences - Variations in personalities, values, or working styles among group members.

Additional causes include distrust, scarce resources, and organisational changes.

Causes of individual and situational interpersonal conflict

Interpersonal conflict between individuals can stem from personal traits or external circumstances.

Individual causes:

• Personality differences
• Clashes of values and interests
• Poor communication

Situational causes:

• Competition for scarce resources, such as awards or promotions
• Power and status differences

Thomas-Kilmann's conflict-handling modes

The Thomas-Kilmann model, developed in 1974, explains how people respond to conflict based on two key dimensions: assertiveness and cooperativeness. This model is measured using the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI), a questionnaire with forced-choice pairs of statements that assess preferences across five modes.

Workplace conflict behaviour is therefore a result of both personal predispositions and the situational requirements.

The five conflict-handling modes

1. Competing - High assertiveness and low cooperativeness; individuals pursue their own concerns.
2. Accommodating - Low assertiveness and high cooperativeness; people neglect their own needs.
3. Avoiding - Low assertiveness and low cooperativeness; conflict is sidestepped altogether.
4. Collaborating - High assertiveness and high cooperativeness; involves working with others.
5. Compromising - Moderate assertiveness and moderate cooperativeness; seeks a middle-ground solution.

Bullying at work

Bullying at work involves repeated aggressive behaviour towards an individual who feels unable to defend themselves or escape the situation.

Nature of bullying behaviours

• Work-related bullying - Altering tasks to make them more difficult.
• Social isolation - Excluding someone from group activities or communications.
• Ridicule - Spreading gossip, making insulting remarks.
• Verbal threats - Public criticism or humiliation in front of colleagues.
• Physical violence or threats - Rare but includes intimidation or actual harm.

Phases of bullying

Bullying often escalates through distinct stages, starting subtly and becoming more severe:

1. Aggressive behaviour - Subtle aggression begins, targeting one or more individuals.
2. Bullying - Aggression becomes more direct and frequent.
3. Stigmatisation and victimisation - The victim faces harassment, alienation, or offensive jokes.
4. Trauma - The ongoing abuse impacts the victim's mental or physical health.

Causes of bullying

• The bully's motivations - Driven by competition for status or jobs, envy, or personal insecurities.
• The victim's characteristics - The personality of the victim provokes aggression in others.
• Workplace factors - Poor organisational design, ineffective leadership, vulnerable positions for victims, or low ethical standards in the team.

Research on bullying: Einarsen (1999)

• Background - Einarsen conducted a review article in 1999 to synthesise existing research on workplace bullying.
• Aim - To examine and summarise the nature and causes of bullying in work environments.
• Methodology - A review article compiling and analysing data from existing research studies and publications.
• Results - Nature of bullying included work-related changes, social exclusion, ridicule, verbal threats, and rare physical violence. Phases progressed from subtle aggression to open bullying, stigmatisation, and eventual trauma. Causes were attributed to the bully's competitive or envious traits, the victim's personality provoking reactions, and workplace issues like poor design or leadership.
• Conclusions - Bullying involves predatory (unprovoked) and dispute-related (escalated from conflicts) types. Future studies should emphasise victims' experiences and differentiate between these forms.

Evaluation of research on conflict and bullying

Research into workplace conflict provides valuable insights but has strengths and limitations.

Strengths

• Reliability - Explanations of group conflict are supported by established theories, such as Sherif's 1962 realistic conflict theory. The TKI uses objective, quantitative data from forced-choice questions, allowing replication across diverse groups for consistent results. Einarsen's review draws on multiple studies, enhancing overall reliability.
• Usefulness - Identifying individual and situational causes helps organisations develop strategies to resolve conflicts. The Thomas-Kilmann modes enable people to assess their preferred styles and explore alternatives. Awareness of bullying phases, as in Einarsen, allows early intervention to protect victims and organisational reputation.

Limitations

• Ethics - Studies must balance minimising harm with providing benefits. Einarsen's suggestion that victims' personalities contribute to bullying can be unethical, as it risks blaming victims.
• Cultural differences - Explanations often emphasise individualistic factors like status and personality, which may not apply in collectivist cultures where group harmony is prioritised. In the Thomas-Kilmann model, people from collectivist backgrounds might favour avoiding or accommodating modes more than those from individualistic societies.
• Validity - Self-report methods in the TKI and Einarsen's sources are prone to social desirability bias.

Issues and debates in conflict research

Individual versus situational explanations

Research like Einarsen's considers both individual factors (such as personality traits of bullies and victims) and situational ones (like workplace design, leadership quality, and departmental ethics).

Idiographic versus nomothetic approaches

The Thomas-Kilmann model adopts a nomothetic approach, assuming all conflict behaviours fit into universal dimensions of assertiveness and cooperativeness, allowing for generalisable measurements. However, an idiographic perspective, using in-depth case studies or interviews, might reveal unique, context-specific responses to conflict.