The Challenges of Distributed Authority (20221211)

How do we deal with day-to-day issues?

By Dr. Reg Butterfield

Image: Gerald Altmann via Pixabay.com

17-minutes read + glossary

In our previous newsletters we have discussed moving away from the traditional hierarchical system of organisational design and management. During those discussions we argued the case for distributed authority so that decisions could be made when and where necessary as opposed to going through some version of the scalar process, which is typical of most of the predominant models of hierarchical bureaucratic organisations.

In our 13, 20, and 27 November newsletters we discussed the use of principles to assist in this process of distributed authority, particularly decision-making. However, there is much more to the day-to-day management process than just decision-making. The predominant roles of management are planning, organising, controlling, and leading.

Inherent within these four sets of activities is the necessity to provide an environment that is conducive to enabling people to do what they are mandated to do, enabling them to achieve their best in terms of performance, supporting their development, and retaining the skills and attributes of those people, all within the bounds of a healthy work environment that is as minimally intrusive on their personal lives as possible.

Most organisations are far away from such an environment and almost all our newsletters contain examples to illustrate this point. The following ones explicitly explain many of the difficulties currently enjoyed by organisations and their workforces: 8 May 2022 — The Big Quit; 22 May 2022 — Management Taboos; 14 August 2022 — The Quiet Quitters; and 16, 23, and 30 October 2022 — Performance Management, the impact, and issues around current methods of ensuring worker compliance as opposed to improving motivation and engagement.

Today’s newsletter picks up the symptom (or outcome) of many of the issues that we have discussed and is crucial to consider when introducing any ‘new’ approach to management — the subject of Conflict.

What is conflict?

Conflict has generated a diverse set of views throughout society and over millennia. Whilst Karl Marx seemed to view society in constant conflict — particularly classes, political historians lay great emphasis and time on wars and their results, whilst economic historians stress the nonconflictual aspects of human life such as production, consumption, earning, technical change, human learning and more. Freud stressed the internal conflict to make sense of human behaviour, whilst others such as the behaviourists on the whole stress stimulus-response processes, which are not very conflictual.

If we glance at the literature and arts, there is arguably a predominance of peacefulness as opposed to conflict albeit both are present, and some artists are more influenced by one over the other dependent on the period and genre.

If we examine biological evolution, competition is more important than conflict, which makes sense as conflict creates instability. Whilst all conflict involves images of competition, by no means does all competition include conflict.

It seems that conflict is an integral component of how people function and as the examples above illustrate, the term could be classified according to a wide range of parameters and variables. For example, a search of the Internet reveals some attempts to capture this range, and the following is but one example:

“Conflict is defined as a clash between individuals arising out of a difference in thought process, attitudes, understanding, interests, requirements and even sometimes perceptions”.

A more flexible approach that removes the need for detailed differentiation is offered by management author Stephen P. Robbins:

“… a process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something that the first party cares about.” (1998, p. 434).

My colleagues Dr Ross Wirth, Silvia Calleja, and I will use the more general approach of Robbins during our discussions in this newsletter.

Conflict in organisations is inevitable

Conflict is probably one of the most unpredictable outcomes when people work in groups (Madalina, 2016) and is an inevitable part of organisational life, as the goals of stakeholders can differ or be incompatible (Adomi & Ozioma, 2006: Agbo, M., 2020). In any organisation, managers devote a lot of time to resolving conflicts and their consequences.

According to Ilgaz (2014) 60–80% of all difficulties in organisations come from strained relationships among employees and that managers can spend between 25–40% of their time tackling workplace conflicts.

Some people may feel that it is wrong to have so many strained relationships and conflicts within an organisation, yet a common observation is that conflict can provide a source of growth and creativity. If this is true, then the challenge is how to harness this and create a positive outcome because poor conflict management can lead to the incorrect distribution of energy within the workforce and communication errors, which can result in missed opportunities. However, as we will discuss later, the idea is not entirely as it may seem and conflict is not as good a catalyst for growth and creativity as people may believe (de Wit, et al, 2013).

Siira (2012) states that organisational conflict applies to the outcomes of the human interaction that commences with the declaration of a member of the organisation that their values, attitudes, or goals are not compatible with the attitude, values or goals that have been set by the organisation and needs to be followed by the members of the organisation.

[It is this very same set of dimensions that the younger generation are rallying against and use as base criteria when searching for and deciding on employment/employer.]

In daily work, the incompatibility of opinions may arise from several variations such as two members of the organisation working in the same group, between two groups of members in the organisation, or within a person who is a working member of an organisation. Thus, conflict situations have an impact on the overall effectiveness of organisations by disrupting harmony between participants in the organisation. In our earlier 21 and 28 August 2022 newsletters (Weaving Organisations and Communities) we have discussed the need for harmony through inclusion and belonging if we wish to have true collaboration across organisations and the necessary synergies that this develops.

Katzenbach & Smith, (2015) highlight some of the areas that can create conflict in organisations, all of which are harmony disturbers, such as, (i) clash between the formal power and authority and the sufferers or the affected groups and individuals, (ii) disputes over the issues of division of revenues, (iii) ways in which the task at hand might be accomplished, (iv) the working hours and techniques of the employees, and (v) jurisdictional disagreements among the departments, individuals, and among the management and the employee unions that exist within the concern. It is important to note here that items (i), (ii), (iii), and (v) are very much associated with problems encountered in traditional hierarchical bureaucratic organisations that we endeavour to replace with a new approach, which we call Futocracy. Item (iv) is very much a topic mentioned earlier around expectations of young employees.

Making sense of conflict has been approached with different philosophies and perceptions over time. A predominant view, sometimes referred to as the traditional view, is mainly based on group behaviour of the 1930s and 1940s where a rigid, formalistic approach was pertained. In this mindset conflict was viewed as negative and had to be avoided at all costs by players. An alternative approach emerged from the human relations theorists. They stipulated that conflict is a natural phenomenon and that it is inevitable and as such it should be managed (Reynecke, 1997).

These perspectives have to some degree become outdated and it is now generally accepted that conflict should be measured in terms of functionality, i.e., whether it manifests as functional and contributes to personal/organisational growth, or whether it is dysfunctional and impedes group/individual performance (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 2000; Caudron, 2000, Neuper, 1996). This decision about positive or negative conflict is traditionally left for the leader or manager to decide and act accordingly, albeit they are not always able to either notice or understand the situation because their contact with employees is often distant and/or infrequent. Today, with hybrid organisations becoming more prominent we suggest that this problem of ‘out-of-sight-and-hearing’ will likely exacerbate the situation.

Relationship between Conflict, Performance, and Organisational design

If conflict is to be seen as an opportunity for organisational growth and creativity, it could be assumed that the management across and within such an organisation would be consistent to achieve such outcomes. However, Slabbert’s (2014) study of conflict management styles in traditional organisations offers a different view. He identified that the styles of conflict resolution related to the existence of a strict organisational hierarchy, with significant differences between levels but very little deviation within both middle and junior managers.

His study clearly identified that middle managers utilised high assertiveness/low cooperation styles, while junior managers (their subordinates within the parameters of the study) manifested directly opposite styles, i.e., low assertiveness/high cooperation. The relationship which appears to emerge is one of dominance-subservience.

The organisational behaviour that evolves from this type of relationship essentially portrays a downward cascading of orders/instructions and silent acquiescence from the more junior employees. Within these relationships, there would be little opportunity for initiative, self-direction, and autonomy. This situation is in stark contrast with the motivational factors encouraged by a collaborative approach and/or the adaptive forms of leadership espoused as important for modern organisations.

The design of authority in an organisation’s structure determines the chances of conflict arising (Sonnentag, Unger & Nägel, 2013). In the case above, a top-down approach has led to a situation that can lead to confusion amongst the workforce due to inconsistency between lower and middle management. Lack of consistency also enables communication problems to creep in and open wedges of conflict, such as inter-group conflicts (ibid).

Whilst Shabani et al (2022) also identified this link between organisational structure, its associated management and the way in which conflict is dealt, they also found these were linked to performance. It indicated that the dominance and avoiding styles had a negative influence, whereas obliging style had the greatest positive impact. Shabani’s results were also similar to those of Vokic and Sontor (2019).

[NB: For readers who are not familiar with the descriptive labels used in figures 1 and 2, there is a brief description extracted from Rahim, et al (2000) at the end of this newsletter.]

Using the Rahim’s Dual Concern Model (2002) Shabani’s study compared 100 private and 100 public organisation managers. Figure 1 shows the conflict management styles used by each sector, whilst figure 2 compares the conflict management styles by business ownership.

Figure 1: Conflict management styles by sector (Shabani et al, 2022, p. 765)

Figure 2: Conflict management styles by business ownership (ibid)

These studies, and many more, indicate that the design of an organisation and its associated management style affects the way in which conflict is managed or dealt with. This in turn impacts positively or negatively on the organisation’s performance.

This begs the question of how the design of an organisation can assist in reducing the inevitable rise of conflicts within an organisation? To assist in answering this question we explore the main causes of conflict and their relationship to organisational design.

Major causes of conflict:

There are many causes of organisational conflicts, and they are shown below:

Expectations of management — all employees are expected to meet targets that are set by management, and can lead to different opinions of how to meet the targets or whether it is even possible to achieve them.

Communication and Information — this is a major cause of conflict where a member may need some information from another colleague who does not reply or provide the information in the correct, appropriate, or timely manner.

Misunderstanding — probably the most frequent cause of conflict. One member of the organisation misinterprets the information that has been conveyed to them. This may lead to the creation of a number of conflicts that may prove disturbing towards the overall growth of the organisation (Chen et al, 2012).

Lack of Accountability — where the responsibilities of the member are not clearly stated. In this situation any dispute or where a mistake has arisen, no member of the concerned team or group is ready to take responsibility. This may lead to conflicts between the employees of the organisation.

These tend to result in three types of conflict: relational, task, and process conflict. The challenge is to find ways of reducing the instance of these by design whilst still allowing for differences of opinion in a positive sense of behaviour.

A simple example of how organisational design can encourage conflict can be observed in the case of a matrix-structured organisation. Decisional conflicts are almost built-in, as it is specified in the structure itself that an employee should report to two bosses (Gelfand et al, 2012). This type of a structure will almost always lead to confusion as the organisation is segmented into smaller parts, always having two opinions on one issue. [We discussed the problems with matrix organisations in our 5 June 2022 newsletter (A complex journey).]

Outcomes of Conflict:

The outcomes of conflict are also important to understand as they can be helpful in the organisational and management design process. Equally, they can form part of the test to see the extent to which the new design reduces or removes any of the outcomes. Some of these are listed below:

· Mental stress is caused by the parties involved in the conflict.

· Mutual discontentment is harboured between the two conflicting parties.

· During issues or arguments, feelings of defeat or domination might be felt. This can reduce individual morale or in severe cases could lead to feelings of harassment.

· A group under constant subordinate conflict might feel threatened.

· Communication breakdown is a common outcome of conflict as well.

· Extreme and repetitive case of conflict can lead to resignation of an employee.

· An atmosphere of mistrust builds up and obstructs proper functioning of the team.

· Productivity is usually reduced, if the conflicts are not resolved (Russ, 2013).

Whilst these are negative, there can also be some positive or favourable outcomes of conflict:

· Conflicts can create activities where a broad range of ideas are considered, and result in a better and more universally accepted idea across the organisation.

· Inaccurate assumptions on various topics are surfaced and help clear misunderstandings.

· There can be an overall increase in creativity and participation around the workplace.

· Individual views that might be sensitive and necessary are acknowledged as well as corrected, which in turn supports learning

· Often after a conflict is resolved the relationship between co-workers improves.

· People understand each other differently after a conflict, which can reduce the likelihood of further conflict.

· Conflicts also release pent up strain (Horton, Bayerl & Jacobs, 2014).

Can Conflict Management Theory help us design the organisation?

Conflict management is the practice of being able to identify and handle conflicts sensibly, fairly, and efficiently. It is often considered to be and defined as the opportunity to

strengthen relationships and improve situations, which we argue is also a major role of organisational design and associated structure. We go even further and suggest it is also one of the foundations of good management systems; relationship building.

There are five major approaches that are common to most approaches to conflict management, each with implications and likely outcomes. These are:

Avoidance or Withdrawal

The individual tries to ignore the conflict passively instead of resolving it. The person remains neutral to avoid the conflict entirely.

Accommodation or smoothing:

In this style, a more submissive approach is observed. The individual gives in passively to the other party to resolve the conflict. They ‘smooth’ over the differences in mentality to preserve harmony. This method sometimes defines precedence and does not completely involve the participants as one gives in, though this resolves the situation and enhances the ego of the other party (Ellis & Abbott, 2012).

Compromise

Bargaining is involved in this case, which considers the interests of each party to create a win-win situation. A give-and-take policy is applied in this style, keeping in mind what is acceptable to each party. Hence, in this case a win-win scenario is arguably created thus satisfying both the parties involved in the conflict. This may lead to everyone feeling like a dead end in some situations (lose-lose) though this shows good will and creates friendship (Sudha & Khan, 2013).

Competitive or authoritative

In this case, one of the two parties tries to resolve the conflict via aggressive behaviour or by force or authoritative influence. This style usually results in a less satisfied party and a victorious one (win-lose). The victor usually obtains some form of gains. This style is at risk of establishing a battleground for the next conflict and can give rise to a series of conflicts. It may also cause the loss or withdrawal of important parties from the organisation (Collewaert & Fassin, 2013).

Collaboration

This is considered as the most acceptable style of conflict resolution. The parties try to resolve the problems jointly with the most optimal solution acceptable to all the parties. Although this creates an everybody-wins-scenario this is usually very hard to always achieve, particularly in scalar hierarchical bureaucratic organisations that ‘encourage’ a silo mindset and approach to work.

There is another aspect of collaboration that is often missed. Collaboration as a part of day-to-day behaviour can pre-empt potential conflict situations. This enables the parties involved to find another way forward, which can be seen as a ‘third way’ that is jointly owned and the potential conflict removed.

Reflection

Whilst all the approaches shown here can lead to the resolution of a conflict pertaining at a particular time, not all are conducive to forming a longer-term approach that reduces the potential for conflict recurring. The exception to this is the possibility of eliminating conflict through collaboration and foresight. This opportunity for eliminating or significantly reducing the potential for conflict through collaboration is reinforced if the organisation design and management processes lend themselves to the mindsets and behaviours necessary for continued harmony and collaboration.

In the absence of a suitable environment, Nielsen & Einarsen (2012) state that, in addition to the five approaches above, there is a high chance of resolving conflict if the qualities of good interpersonal skills, self-awareness, empathy, sympathy, confidence, clarity in conversation and other such qualities are found in management or those involved in trying to resolve the differences. Experience and research indicate that this is seldom the case and as such it is little wonder that dealing with conflict is a challenge in most organisations.

Conclusion

Whilst there are many approaches available to reduce or remove incidences of conflict, collaboration seems to be the most effective if the organisational design and management processes support such an approach. It is clear from prior discussions highlighted earlier in this newsletter, that current organisational designs and management that rely on the more traditional hierarchical bureaucratic style is less conducive to reducing conflict potential.

We have also shown that the management style has a direct impact on the resolution of conflict and organisational performance. The dominating approach being more negatively associated with performance than that of obliging.

This understanding of conflict, its causes, and its management approaches, supports our emerging view that a collaborative and communityship design is probably the preferred approach for New Era organisations and management.

Given that organisations are either involved in international cross-border activity and/or populating their teams and functions using people from a wide range of countries, it is necessary to consider whether this impacts on what conflict means and how it is managed or reduced. Follow our discussion in this area in subsequent newsletters.

Elaboration of the labels used in figures 1 and 2 — Rahim et al (2000):

Obliging: This style expresses low concern for oneself and great concern for others. It is also known as the style of accommodation, non-confrontation, surrender, or loser-winner. This style is an attempt to minimize common differences and satisfy the other party; thus, it is an element of self-sacrifice and obedience to the orders of another person.

Dominating: This style, also known as also called controlling, competitive, winner-loser, or zero-sum, presents a high concern for oneself and low for the other. People with a dominant style do everything to achieve their goal and ignore the needs of the other party; thus, dominant individuals intend to be winners at all costs and impose their will on subordinates using the power given to them by position.

Avoiding: This style, also called ignorance style, presents a low concern for oneself, indicating the public refusal to admit that there is any conflict that requires to be addressed. It is a strategy used when concerns and conflicts are ignored by not addressing the problem at all.

Compromising: This style poses a moderate concern for oneself and the other. In this style, both parties give up something to make a mutually acceptable decision. A person with such a style gives up more than a dominant person.

Integrating: This style includes a high concern for oneself and the others and is also described as the style of problem-solving, cooperation, solution orientation, and winner — winner. It involves active cooperation between the parties to achieve a satisfactory solution for both parties.

Major references:

Adomi, E. E., & Ozioma Anie, S. (2006). “Conflict management in Nigerian university libraries”. Library Management, 27(8), 520–530. doi:10.1108/01435120610686098.

Agbo, M. U. (2020). “Effects of Conflict Management on Organizational Performance (A Study of Broadcasting Corporation of Abia State)”. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 20(6), 312–329.

Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (2000). “Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational Teams”. Personnel Psychology, 53, 625–642.

Caudron, S. (2000). “Keeping team conflict alive: Conflict can be a good thing. Here’s what you can do to make the most of this creative force”. Public Management, 82, 5–9.

Chen, X. H., Zhao, K., Liu, X., & Dash Wu, D. (2012). “Improving employees’ job satisfaction and innovation performance using conflict management”. International Journal of Conflict Management, 23(2), 151–172.

Collewaert, V., & Fassin, Y. (2013). “Conflicts between entrepreneurs and investors: the impact of perceived unethical behavior”. Small Business Economics, 40(3), 635–649.

de Wit, F. R. C., Jehn, K. A., and Scheepers, D. (2013) “Task conflict, information processing, and decision-making: The damaging effect of relationship conflict”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier Inc., 122, p. 177–189

Ellis, P., & Abbott, J. (2012). “Strategies for managing conflict within the team”. British Journal of Cardiac Nursing, 7(3), 138–140.

Gelfand, M. J., Leslie, L. M., Keller, K., & de Dreu, C. (2012). “Conflict cultures in organizations: How leaders shape conflict cultures and their organizational-level Consequences”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(6), 1131.

Horton, K. E., Bayerl, P. S., & Jacobs, G. (2014). “Identity conflicts at work: An integrative

Framework”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1).

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (2015). “The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization”. Harvard Business Review Press

Ilgaz Z. (2014) “Conflict Resolution: When Should Leaders Step In?” Forbes, May 15, 2014: https://www.forbes.com/sites/85broads/2014/05/15/conflict-resolution-when-should-leaders-step-in/

Madalina, O. (2016). “Conflict management, a new challenge”. Procedia Economics and Finance, 39, 807–814. doi:10.1016/S2212–5671(16)30255–6.

Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2012). “Outcomes of exposure to workplace bullying: A meta-analytic review”. Work & Stress, 26(4), 309–332.

Neuper, T. P. (1996). “Sources of power and conflict handling styles of supervisors”. Unpublished Masters Dissertation. In Slabber, A. D., (2004) “Conflict management styles in traditional organisations”, The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 83–92

Rahim, M. A., Magner, N. R., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). “Do justice perceptions influence styles of handling conflict with supervisors?: What justice perceptions, precisely?”, International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1), 9–31. doi:10.1108/eb022833.

Rahim, M. A. (2002). “Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict”. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(3), 206–235. doi:10.1108/eb022874.

Reynecke, L. (1997). “The relation between personality dimensions and styles to handle interpersonal conflict”. Unpublished Masters Dissertation. In Slabber, A. D., (2004) “Conflict management styles in traditional organisations”, The Social Science Journal 41 (2004) 83–92

Robbins, S. P. (1998). “Organization Behavior, Concepts, Controvercies, Application”, seventh edition, Englewood Cliffs.

Russ, T. L. (2013). “The relationship between Theory X/Y: assumptions and communication

Apprehension”. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34(3), 238–249.

Shabani, G., Behluli, A. & Qerimi F. (2022) “The Impact of Conflict Management Styles on Organizational Performance: A Comparative Analysis”, Emerging Science Journal (ISSN: 2610–9182) Vol. 6, №4, August.

Siira, K. (2012). “Conceptualizing managerial influence in organizational conflict — a qualitative examination”. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 5(2), 182–209.

Sonnentag, S., Unger, D., & Nägel, I. J. (2013). “Workplace conflict and employee well-being: The moderating role of detachment from work during off job time”. International Journal of ConflictManagement, 24(2), 166–183.

Sudha, K. S., & Khan, W. (2013). “Personality and motivational traits as correlates of workplace deviance among public and private sector employees”. Journal of Psychology, 4(1), 25–32.

Vokić, N. P., & Sontor, S. (2009). “Conflict management styles in Croatian enterprises–The relationship between individual characteristics and conflict handling styles”. FEB Working Series, Paper №09–05, Faculty of Economics and Business, Zagreb, Croatia.