Conflict in any organization is inevitable. What is important is the way that conflict is viewed and the way conflict is handled. As Robert Bacall discusses, there is the typical view of conflict as dysfunctional. In this view, when conflict occurs, it is assumed that “the organization is not designed or structured correctly or adequately” (Bacall 21). Fortunately or unfortunately, any dynamic environment is going to have conflict, and this is not a bad thing. To view conflict another way, some see it as a productive force. In this view, the keys to an organization’s success “lie not in structure, clarity, and orderliness, but in creativity, responsiveness, and adaptability” (Bacall, 21). In this way, every organization needs some conflict in order to think “outside the box.” Conflict is seen as a way to improve in every way. The last kind of conflict in an organization, Bacall calls “ugly” conflict. “Ugly conflict occurs when the manager (and perhaps employees) attempt to eliminate and suppress conflict in situations where it is impossible to do so” (Bacall 21).
Ugly conflict manifests itself in lots of complaining, no sense of common vision, and unresolved conflicts that have gone on over time. In an organization, everyone must work together for common change, which is why ugly conflict is so detrimental. There are management strategies in dealing with conflict that are absolutely detrimental to any organization. These strategies are doing nothing, telling people that the conflict is in the process of being resolved, being secretive or ordering people not to be in conflict (Bacall 22). Management must find better ways to deal with conflicts in order for an organization to move forward. The second article/study by Vacola supports these ideas in that it talks about how stressors in the workplace are so detrimental to organizational change. “A lack of a socially supportive environment, as expressed by bad work relationships, was found to be the strongest predictor of negative attitudes toward change, as shown in the regression analysis” (Vacola 169). Bacall’s negative strategies add more stress to workers; therefore, they are more reluctant to change.
Having strong interpersonal work relationships as a means of coping and support proved to be incredibly important when it comes to being open to change. Positive work relationships also correlate to strong employee commitment to an organization. When commitment is higher, resistance to change is lessened. Therefore, according to Vacola, there are several factors for management to consider if they really want to see their organization soar and change. “Handling conflicts, building supportive work relationships, and communicating effectively all contribute to the formation of positive attitudes to change, and therefore, to the success of change programme” (Vacola 170). Another consideration managers must consider is workload. If change creates increased workload, the change becomes undesirable, no matter how good it is. There are many factors that must first be examined and dealt with in the workplace in order to make that workplace an environment that is supportive of change. Managers must consider all these factors, lessen stress, and deal with workplace problems effectively to ensure that their employees are committed and ready for change.
The research of Tidd indicates that managers using a less active approach to conflict will have workers with less role uncertainty and conflict. When high levels of role conflict are unavoidable in the workplace, managers will be more successful in using more active approaches to dealing with conflicting role expectations. However, “when role conflict is relatively absent from the environment, an emphasis on a less active approach to conflict is suggested to improve an individual’s overall experience of work” (Tidd 17). However, Tidd also cautions against making too much of the causality. Things like stress can cause role uncertainty, and those variables are difficult to factor in. The next article by discusses the relationship between job demands and job resources. And obviously, there is a relationship between the two. According to this study, “Based on the empirical findings, a multiplicative interaction seemed to be the most consistent representation of the relation between job demands (i.e. demands or efforts), job resources (i.e. decision latitude or rewards), and strain (Vegchel 556 ). Basically, job demands cause stress, which leads to conflict, and job resources help alleviate stress.
In other ideas about conflict management, Suttefield did a study based on the military. This study supports the ideas listed above-that conflict can be a real detriment to any organization if not managed properly. The real problem is when change, risk, and conflict are unmanaged, as discussed in Vacola’s article. There are so many advantages to managing conflict appropriately and Suttefield ends with a plea to do exactly this. Given the practical importance of conflict management in organizations, it is vital to use and develop theory in this area to offer project managers practical frameworks that enable them to make better decisions” (Suttefield 235 ).
And to look at organizational stressors from yet another vantage point, we have the work of Cocchiara and Quick. Their article discusses the idea of stereotypes and how those negatively affect the workplace. Probably everyone is aware of the fact that negative stereotypes produce stressors that are detrimental to the work environment. However, not everyone is aware of the fact that positive stereotypes can do exactly the same. The unique experiences of minorities in the workplace are now being considered. Previous research states that blood pressure and heart health are related to stressors in the workplace. Performance has a high correlation to lack of stressors in the workplace. However, “performance stereotyping, like discrimination at the individual level, serve as additional stressors that lead to behavioral or medical consequences ranging from alcohol abuse to heart failure” (Cocchiara and Quick 782).
Additionally, “aggregating this situation to the organizational level may lead to any number of dysfunctional consequences, including poor motivation and morale, increased tardiness and absenteeism, and dysfunctional turnover” (Cocchiara and Quick 782 ). These two researchers focus specifically on the Asian race as being the model minority, and the fact that this pressure leads to stress in the workplace, even though the model minority myth would be thought of as a positive stereotype. While no studies have been done on the health effects of the Asian American race, it is assumed that the patterns would be similar for most ethnic minorities in relation to job stress. This kind of stress is called bad stress. The article discusses the tendency in using tertiary strategies, meaning to respond to stress only after it has manifested in opposition to using primary and secondary preventative techniques. It is uncertain relationship between active or passing coping mechanisms of minorities and stress, but once again, the overall health of the organization promotes optimal functioning, which is what any good manager wants.
In conclusion, these articles, while varied in subject matter basically say the same thing. It is important for a manager to address stressors in the workplace and be proactive about solving problems. To avoid stress is not the point. Stress can be necessary for an organization to be fully functioning and dynamic. However, bad stressors, such as employee issues are not helpful to any organization. A good manager will address these issues, even before they happen, in order to make the workplace “safe” for every individual. By doing this, the organization will function more cohesively and effectively.
The first step to managing stress effectively is not to ignore it, to deal with when it happens. In some environments, the approach may be more passive while in others the approach must be more active. In environments with numbers of minorities, it is important to provide training beforehand. Some sort of diversity training about stress in the workplace, specific to minorities might be helpful. Managers must be much more proactive than reactive in this kind of environment. The healthier employees are both mentally and physically, the more open they are to change and the more loyal they are to the organization.
Creating the kind of environment (through modeling) where people can sit down and talk to one another about difficulties as well as talk to a manager and really feel heard are essential for the vital workplace. Asking for feedback from employees is important, and when employees come up with good ideas, managers should put them into action. Creating work teams in order to take the load from the backs of individuals is good as long as team building and conflict management training is performed first. Creating the environment for openness and mutual support is key.
Stress management opportunities should be provided for employees as well as organizational change that creates a better environment for all. There are any number of clear steps that management can take to decrease stress and make employees more open to change including giving opportunities for employees to share in decision making that affects their job, being sure that the workload is appropriate, being open with employees about the future of their jobs and their roles and responsibilities, praising and celebrating good work, providing opportunities for employees to get to know each other, providing a zero harassment policy, and providing opportunities for career advancement.
