Philosophy of Conflict - iEduNote.com

Philosophers have different opinions about conflict and its management. Conflict management styles are becoming more and more complex. People’s attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, and values are changing because of changing culture. Management styles are changing to manage a diversified workforce and the challenge of globalization.

Therefore, philosophers’ opinions help the reader to understand the conflict at different times. Opinions of different philosophers, including the historical evolution of management, have been discussed briefly as follows.

Understand the Philosophy of Conflict.

Management in Antiquity

The need for a systematic study of management was not realized until the beginning of the present century, and the study of management as a distinct discipline is a product of the twentieth century. However, management practice in some forms did exist among human beings of the early generations while they lived together in groups.

Thus, management is as old as human civilization itself.

The Egyptians applied the management functions of planning, organizing, leading, and controlling to construct the pyramids. Alexander the Great employed staff organization to coordinate activities during the military campaign.

The Roman Empire developed a well-defined organizational structure that greatly facilitated communication and control. Management practices and concepts were discussed by Socrates in 400 B.C.

Plato described job specialization in 350 B.C., and Alfarabi listed several leadership traits in 900 A.D. In addition to this, management thoughts have come from the Roman Catholic Church, military organizations, and Cameralists of the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries.

These contributions centered around the fields of principles of specialization, selection, and training of subordinates and the effective use of staff in the performance of major activities. The important management breakthroughs and practices during antiquity are shown in the following figure:

During the whole periods depicted above, the developments in the field of management centered around the following:

Written rules and regulations for governance
Management practices to construct pyramids
An extensive set of laws and policies for governance
Different governing systems for cities and states
Organization structure for communication and control
An extensive organization structure for government agencies and the arts
Organization design and planning concepts to control the seas

Although the management function was practiced thousands of years back, it was not considered an important field of study for several centuries. Earlier management functions were centered around political activities leading to the expansion of empires and their maintenance.

The Roman Empire was, for example, essentially a governmental organization with unlimited taxation power. However, it was not interested in maximizing sales or minimizing costs.

Business management was then practically absent because, in the early days, there was hardly a large business organization until the 18th century when family businesses first emerged. In the later periods, i.e., the 19th century, however, a few people began to concern themselves with business management problems.

The pioneering personalities in this respect are James Watt, Matthew R. Boulton, Robert Owen, and Charles Babbage. The real development of management as a science was the work of Frederick Winslow Taylor and his associates during the Scientific Management movement that developed around 1900.

Classical Approach to Management Thought

Management thoughts in the post-Industrial Revolution era got momentum in the first quarter of the 20th century under the untiring efforts of many scholars and practicing managers led by Taylor in the U.S.A and Fayol in Europe.

Scientific Management and F. W. Taylor

Scientific Management, according to an early definition, refers to “that kind of management which conducts a business or affairs by standards established by facts or truths gained through systematic observation, experiment, or reasoning.” Promoters of this school of thought attempted to raise labor efficiency primarily by managing employees’ work on the shop floor.

Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915) is generally acknowledged as “the father of scientific management.” Because of an eye problem, he could not attend Harvard University. As a result, he started working as a common laborer in a small machine shop in Philadelphia, USA.

Later on, he worked as an apprentice, a foreman, and a master mechanic and rose to the eminence of a steel company chief engineer after obtaining an engineering degree through evening study.

This varied experience gave him ample opportunity to have firsthand knowledge and intimate insight into the problems and attitudes of workers and to explore great possibilities for improving the qualities of management in the workplace.

Wherever he worked, he found a very ineffective use of employees, unsystematic methods of work, and utterly poor cooperation between management and labor. He also observed gross inefficiency, waste, and widespread output restriction among workers, termed “systematic soldiering.”

Hence, Taylor committed himself to relentlessly pursuing “finding a better way” and developing and practicing the “science” of work—the underlying laws or principles governing various activities. He attempted to do it by using the systematic study of time, motion, and fatigue to identify the best way to do a job.

Taylor’s major concern throughout his life was to increase efficiency, which he considered the best recipe to serve the competing interests of both managers and workers for a larger share of a fixed economic pie. To him, the solution lies in increasing the size of the pie by raising productivity through scientific management.

He called for a “mental revolution” or a radical change of mind among workers and management to fuse the interests of both groups into a mutually rewarding one.

Mental Revolution and Taylor’s Principles:

Replacing rules of thumb with science (organized knowledge)
Obtaining harmony in group action rather than discord
Achieving cooperation of human beings, rather than chaotic individualism
Working for maximum output rather than restricted output
Developing all workers to the fullest extent possible for their own and their company’s highest prosperity.

Taylor’s theory of scientific management gave rise to a host of disciples who spread the “gospel of efficiency.” Carl Barth, Henry Gantt, Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, Harrington Emerson, and Morris Cook are his prominent followers who made valuable contributions to the growth of management in a scientific manner.

The essence of this school of thought is to constantly endeavor to find better means of management using scientific methods. Historically, it is associated with economic considerations such as cost-effectiveness, efficiency, and productivity.

The Universal Process or Operational Management Theory and Henri Fayol

Henri Fayol: As one of the oldest and most popular approaches to management thought, Henri Fayol’s theory holds that the administration of all organizations—whether “public or private” or “large or small”—requires the same rational process or functions.

This school is based on two assumptions; first, although the objective of an organization may differ (for example, business, government, education, or religion), there is a core management process that remains the same for all institutions.

Successful managers, therefore, are interchangeable among organizations of differing purposes.

Second, the universal management process can be reduced to a set of separate functions and related principles.

It has rightly been said by some scholars that “perhaps the real father of modern management theory is the French industrialist Henri Fayol.”

Despite the belated appearance of his classic work, Administration Industrielle et Generale, in the English-speaking world, Fayol’s book has left a permanent mark on twentieth-century management thinking. A successful industrialist, Fayol headed a steel and coal combine in France.

He is now considered the father of the universal process or operational management theory because he made universal generalizations about management based on his keen insight and practical management experience.

As opposed to Taylor, Fayol endeavors to deal with “classical administration.” He focuses his attention on the enterprise as a whole rather than on a single segment of it. He pioneered the concept of viewing management as being made up of functions, and his work supplied a comprehensive framework from which management could be studied and developed.

He also repeatedly emphasized that his principles apply not only to business but also to political, religious, philanthropic, military, and other undertakings.

Industrial Activities Identified by Fayol

Fayol identifies the following six major activities of any industrial or business organization:

Technical (production and manufacturing)
Commercial (buying, selling, and exchanging)
Financial (search for an optimum use of capital)
Security (safeguarding property and people)
Accounting (including statistics)
Managerial (planning, organization, command, coordination, and control)

While pointing out the existence of these activities in any business of any kind or size, Fayol particularly stresses the analysis of the sixth, devoting a substantial portion of his book (mentioned earlier) to this aspect of management. Weihrich and Koontz represent it in the following diagram.

Fayol’s Principles of Management

In addition to these six management activities, Fayol identifies fourteen universal principles of management aimed at showing managers how to carry out their functional duties. He himself followed them:

Division of labor: This improves the efficiency of labor through specialization, reducing labor time and increasing skill development.
Authority: This is the right to give orders which always carry responsibility commensurate with its privileges.
Discipline relies on respect for the rules, policies, and agreements governing an organization. Fayol ordains that discipline requires good superiors at all levels.
Unity of command means that subordinates should receive orders from one superior only, thus avoiding confusion and conflict.
Unity of direction: This means there should be unity in the directions a boss gives to his subordinates. There should not be any conflict in the directions given by a boss.
Subordination of individual interest to the common good: According to this principle, the needs of individuals and groups within an organization should not take precedence over the needs of the organization as a whole.
Remuneration: Wages should be equitable and satisfactory to employees and superiors.
Centralization: The levels at which decisions are to be made should depend on the specific situation; no level of centralization or decentralization is ideal for all situations.
Scalar chain: The relationship among all levels in the organizational hierarchy and exact lines of authority should be unmisDollarbly clear and usually followed at all times, except in special circumstances when some departure might be necessary.
Order: Here, Fayol means that there should be a place for everything and everyone, and everything and everyone should be in its place. This is essentially a principle of organization in the arrangement of things and people.
Equity: Employees should be treated equitably to elicit loyalty and devotion from them.
Stability of tenure: Viewing unnecessary turnover as both the cause and effect of bad management, Fayol points out its danger and costs.
Initiative: Subordinates should be encouraged to conceive and carry out ideas.
Esprit de corps: Teamwork, a sense of unity, and togetherness should be fostered and maintained.

Fayol was of the opinion that the application of these principles should be flexible enough to match each specific organizational situation. Subsequently, however, the rigid application of these functions by managers came under criticism.

But the fact remains that his contention that management is a continuous process beginning with planning and ending with controlling also remains popular today and can be found in nearly all management texts.

Behavioral and Human Relations Approach

The criticism of scientific and administrative management, as advocated by Taylor and Fayol, respectively, gave birth to the behavioral approach to management.

Several behavioral scientists criticized them for their indifference and insensitivity to the human side of management dealings. Instead of taking a mechanistic view of workers as creatures with only economic needs, behavioral scientists came to consider them as people with social and psychological needs, too, such as recognition, respect, social contact, freedom, and achievement.

To them, a business organization is a psycho-social system primarily focusing on the human side.

A good number of sociologists and psychologists like Abraham Maslow, Hugo Munsterberg, Rensis Likert, Douglas McGregor, Frederick Herzberg, Mary Parker Follet, and Chester Barnard are the major contributors to this school of thought, which some writers further subdivide into the Human Relations approach and the Human Behavioral approach, the latter being considered as a modified version of the former.

By far, the most important contribution to the human relations school of thought was made by Elton Mayo and his colleagues through their famous Hawthorne study. According to them, employees do not only have economic needs but also social and psychological needs, which are to be satisfied to motivate them.

McGregor, Likert, Chester Barnard, Kurt Lewin, and others, classified as exponents of the Human Behavioral school, modified the classical Human Behavior approach of Mayo. They considered the human side of the enterprise as an interactive subsystem of the total organizational system.

As distinguished from the classical human relations theory, the Human Behavioral school is devoid of emotional content and emphasizes the synchronization of group goals within the broader framework of management. It does not consider the goals of different groups of employees and managers as conflicting with each other but rather cooperative.

The Human Relations theory of management arose out of a reaction against the Scientific Management theory and Universal Management Process theory of Taylor and Fayol, respectively.

The main criticisms leveled against them are their indifference to and neglect of the human side of the enterprise. Employees, according to their critics, were viewed as mere parts to be fused into the job structure, disregarding their human needs and aspirations.

While Taylor and Fayol view people at work merely as economic beings, the Human Relations theorists emphasize the need to view them as social beings with social and psychological needs such as recognition, respect, achievement, and social contact.

This school regards a business organization as a psycho-social system with much emphasis on the human side. Human Relations experts believe that management should recognize the need of employees for recognition and social acceptance.

Therefore, managers need not only technical skills but also human relations skills to interact with their subordinates as human beings. Followers of this school believe that managers must know why their subordinates behave as they do and what psychological and social factors influence them.

According to these theorists, since groups provide members with feelings of acceptance and dignity, management can look upon the workgroup as a potential productive force.

Elton Mayo and Hawthorne Studies

Many sociologists and psychologists like McGregor, Likert, Munsterberg, Simon, etc., contributed to the development of the Human Relations School of Management. However, Elton Mayo and Hugo Munsterberg are considered pioneers of this school.

But by far the most important contribution to this school of thought was made by Elton Mayo and his associates through the Hawthorne plant of the Western Electric Company between 1927 and 1932.

The findings of Mayo and his colleagues from Hawthorne’s studies concluded that a human/social element operated in the workplace and that productivity increases were as much an outgrowth of group dynamics as of managerial demands and physical factors.

Another important suggestion that came from the Hawthorne studies was that social factors might be as powerful a determinant of worker productivity as financial motives.

Mayo found that informal workgroups grew out of the formal organization with their leaders, influence systems, norms for appropriate behavior, and pressures for conformity to maximum and minimum acceptable levels of performance.

According to Mayo and his colleagues, productivity improvement is the result of such social factors as morale, satisfactory interrelationships between members of a workgroup, a sense of belonging, and effective management.

This kind of management, with an understanding of human behavior, particularly group behavior, serves an enterprise through interpersonal skills such as motivating, counseling, leading, and communicating. “This phenomenon,” according to Weihrich and Koontz, “arising basically from people being noticed has been known as the Hawthorne effect.”

The most important contribution of Hawthorne’s studies is that employees or workers are social beings, and work in organizations is not merely a matter of machinery and methods but also of fitting them into a social system, resulting in a complete socio-technical system.

This led to the recognition of managers as people operating in a social system, and they must have some knowledge or understanding of behavioral sciences as applied to management.

In other words, Mayo and his associates underscored the need for a greater and deeper understanding of management’s social and behavioral aspects.

Critics of this school, however, point out that Mayo unreasonably heavily emphasized the social or human side as against organizational needs.

It is also criticized on the ground that this facilitates the exploitation of employees by keeping them satisfied and happy, manipulating their emotions, which, in fact, serve the management goal of increasing productivity.

Systems Approach to Management Thought

A system is a collection of parts that operate interdependently to achieve a common purpose. The parts of a system are subsystems. These subsystems are functionally related to each other and to the total system. An organization may, therefore, be viewed as a system made up of different parts in the form of departments or divisions.

According to the Systems Approach school, management involves managing and solving problems in each part of the organization. But this is to be done with the understanding that actions taken in one part of the organization affect other parts of the organization.

In solving problems, therefore, managers must view the organization as a dynamic whole, focusing on the interdependence and interrelationship of the various subsystems from the point of view of the organization’s overall effectiveness.

Adherents of the Systems Approach consider Universal Process, Scientific Management, and Human Relation theories as the study of management in fragments rather than in the round.

These theories assume that “the whole is equal to the sum of its parts.” Systems theorists, in contrast, “study management by putting things together, and they assume that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.”

To understand a system, it must be studied as a whole, and instead of explaining a whole in terms of its parts, the parts should be explained in terms of the whole.

Chester I. Barnard, Ludwig Von Bertalanffy, Russell Ackoff, Kenneth Boulding, and William Scott are among the writers who have influenced the Systems School of Management.

By far, the most important contribution to this school has been made by Chester I. Barnard. His classic treatise entitled “The Functions of the Executive,” published in 1938 is considered by some management scholars as “one of the most influential books published in the entire field of management.”

Like Fayol, Barnard established a new approach to management based on his lifelong experience as a top-level executive. But the approach of the former president of New Jersey Bell Telephone Company (1927-48) was different from Fayol’s. Barnard devised a more abstract systems approach.

In “The Functions of the Executive,” Barnard characterized all organizations as cooperative. Such a cooperative organization is a system of consciously coordinated activities needed by individuals to overcome their biological, physical, and social limitations.

According to him, “a Cooperative system is a complex of physical, biological, personal, and social components which are in a specific systematic relationship by reason of the cooperation of two or more persons for at least one definite end.” He emphasized the role of the individual and the importance of his cooperation as a strategic factor.

Barnard viewed willingness to serve, common purpose, and communication as three important elements in an organization (or a cooperative system). He considered that an organization would not exist if these three elements were not present and working interdependently.

His analysis of the manager’s job is really a social systems approach as Barnard looks for their major tasks in the system to understand and analyze the functions of executives where they operate.

In determining their tasks (for all kinds of managers), which are to maintain a system of cooperative effort in a formal organization, Barnard addresses himself first to the reasons for and the nature of cooperative systems.

Barnard was an early pioneer of the Systems perspective. His work encouraged subsequent management and organization theorists to study organizations as complex and dynamic wholes rather than piecemeal. Barnard led to the opening up of a promising horizon in the development of management thought.

The Systems Approach, too, has its critics. According to some management scholars, “Systems approach is long on intellectual appeal and catchy terminology and short on verifiable facts and practical advice.”

It is also criticized on grounds of complexity, particularly when it comes to the study of large and complex organizations. However, it may be said in conclusion that the “Systems approach is an instructive way of thinking rather than a collection of final answers to managing modern organizations.”

Contingency Approach

The Contingency Management theory evolved out of the Systems Approach to managing organizations. The Systems Approach advocates that managers recognize that organizations are systems comprising independent parts and that a change in one part affects the other parts, too.

This insight is important. However, over and above this, managers should also see how the parts fit together to be more effective. The Contingency Approach can help one better understand their interdependence.

According to the Contingency Approach, management is situational; no one best approach exists because each situation a manager faces is too different.

They are, however, of the view that situations are often similar to the extent that some management principles can be effectively applied. But for that, appropriate principles are to be identified. This can be done first by identifying the relevant contingency variables in the situation and then evaluating those variables.

The major contributors to this school of thought are Mary Parker Follet, Fiedler, Frement, Kast, James Rosenzweig, Katz, Robert Kahn, Tom Burns, G.M. Stalker, Robert Lawrence, and Richard Lawrence. This is perhaps the best approach as it encourages management to search for the correct situational factors for applying appropriate management principles effectively.

To quote Ivancevich et al., “In essence, the contingency approach to management involves identifying the important contingency variables in different situations, evaluating the variables, and then applying appropriate management knowledge and principles in selecting an effective approach to the situation.”

This is the best method for analysis as it encourages the manager to determine the situational factors most appropriate for effective management in all situations.

Scholars from different disciplines at different periods of time in the history of the Industrial Revolution, growth, and development have contributed to the different management schools.

Each scholar has taken great pains to stress his/her own point of view and point out weaknesses of other schools. This has created a lot of confusion and has given rise to a situation that Harold Koontz has termed as “The Management Theory Jungle.”

However, every theory or approach highlights a particular aspect of management and helps managers address their tasks with a particular insight. As a relatively young and growing discipline, management has undoubtedly benefited from the contributions of all these schools of thought.

Contemporary Management Approaches

Management is an asymmetric, dynamic, social process that must be applied according to the particular needs of time, place, and the individuals connected with it to effectively and efficiently realize the set goals and objectives.

Any management process and its style may be considered composed of two different structures: rational and human. The rational structure supports clear and adequate authority-responsibility parity for individual decision-making as quickly as needed.

The human structure supports holistic concern for the organization and all its human resources. The relative strength and coverage of these two structures are dictated by the socio-cultural setting of the country and the organization or by the place, people, and period of time.

Depending on the existing socio-cultural setting of a country and the place, people, and period of time, a particular management style will be appropriate if and when its practitioners can integrate, rather than superimpose, its two basic elements, namely the rational and the human structures, according to the requirements of its people, its business, and its organizational environment prevailing during the period.

In recent years, new issues and challenges in the field of management theory and practice have emerged.

No new paradigm has been formulated that replaces the traditional views, but most managers continue to strive toward a better understanding of how they can better compete and lead their organizations toward improved effectiveness.

Several scholars have attempted to develop new and imaginative management models and theories.

Although it is still too early to assess the merits and longevity of their ideas, the work of William Ouchi (Theory Z Approach), Henry Mintzberg (Managerial Roles Approach), McKinsey (7-S Approach), Thomas Peters and Robert Waterman (The Excellence Movement), and the Decision Support System, etc., have caught the attention of many managers.

Now let us discuss each of them as follows:

Theory Z: A Hybrid Approach

William Ouchi has developed this theory. The Theory Z approach adapts the elements of effective Japanese management systems to U.S. culture. The important features of Theory Z companies are:

Theory Z-based companies believe that the relationships among the workers, managers, and other groups are close and cooperative.

The central notion is creating an industrial team and a stable and cohesive work environment where employee needs for affiliation, independence, and control are met. The first step in this direction is to create and publicize a humanistic statement of corporate philosophy.

In Theory Z, selected Japanese managerial practices are adapted to the environment of the United States. Some large companies in the USA practice this approach. This theory also emphasizes the interpersonal skills that are needed for group interaction.

Yet despite the emphasis on group decision-making, responsibility remains with the individual. There is also an emphasis on informal and democratic relationships based on trust.

Ouchi’s ideas have been well received by practicing managers in different countries, and most of organizations are trying to implement his suggestions.

However, due to some criticisms that have been aroused, Theory Z is likely to be supplanted by more refined and valid models and theories as we learn more about the international domain of management. Despite them, Theory Z deserves special recognition because it gave early momentum to developing management theory in the global arena.

The Managerial Roles Approach

Mintzberg refers to the usual way of classifying managerial functions as roles. In this approach, he observed what managers actually do and, from such observations, came to conclusions about managerial activities (or roles).

Through examining the activities of CEOs in different organizations, Mintzberg came to the conclusion that managers do not only perform the classical managerial functions such as planning, organizing, coordinating, and controlling.

Instead, they engage in a variety of other activities. In this perspective, he identified the ten managerial roles, which are shown as under:

Interpersonal roles:

The figurehead role (performing ceremonial and social duties as the organization’s representative)
The leader role.
The liaison role (particularly with outsiders)

Informational roles:

The recipient role (receiving information about the operation of an enterprise)
The disseminator role (passing information to subordinates)
The spokesperson role (transmitting information to those outside the organization)

Decisional roles:

The entrepreneurial role
The disturbance-handler role
The resource-allocator role
The negotiator role (dealing with various persons and groups of persons).

In interpersonal roles, managers interact with workers, subordinates, peers, and also outsiders. In decisional roles, a manager seeks information for making decisions and then communicates to others. In informational roles, the managers are also involved in communication, but they focus especially on acquiring and disseminating information.

McKinsey’s 7-s Approach

The outstanding feature of the 7-S model is that it has been tested extensively by McKinsey consultants in their studies of many companies. At the same time, this framework has been used by respected business schools.

Perhaps the most surprising fact about the 7-S framework is that it supports and is similar to the framework of managerial functions such as planning, organizing, staffing, leading, and controlling. McKinsey’s 7-S framework for management analysis may be shown in the following way.

Structure: Organization structure and authority/responsibility relationship.
Strategy: Systematic action and allocation of resources to achieve company aims.
Systems: Procedures and processes such as information systems, manufacturing processes, budgeting, and control processes.
Style: The way management behaves and collectively spends its time to achieve organizational goals.
Staff: The people in the enterprise and their socialization into the organizational culture.
Shared Values: The values shared by the members of an organization.
Skills: Distinctive capabilities of an enterprise. In this approach, McKinsey consultants have identified the key aspects of the management system and have shown the interrelatedness of the variables, which ultimately leads to a positive contribution in the field of contemporary management theory.

Philosophical Contributions

Plato

Plato was of the opinion that tension within society is natural and, therefore, some conflict is inevitable. However, he felt that “… if a proper balance of the parts could be obtained, social conflict would be at a minimum.

Each segment of society must know the part it must play and be guided in such a fashion that all segments work together in harmony” (Schellenberg, 1996, p. 59). Plato suggested that such a balance of the parts could be obtained only with appropriate leadership. Plato suggested that the needs of society could be satisfied if private property could be eliminated.

To satisfy society’s needs, he felt the necessity to eliminate private property for those who would provide political leadership. Plato believed that leaders could not do their job properly if they were motivated by private interests.

Aristotle

Aristotle, however, believed that Plato’s philosophy called for “extreme unification” or communism and that this was neither practical nor possible. This is not to say that Aristotle saw much usefulness in social conflict. The conclusion is that both classical philosophers assigned social conflict a pathological status.

G.W.F. Hegel

Hegel and Karl Marx are nineteenth-century philosophers with different opinions about conflict.

Hegel’s philosophy is dominated by the notion of the dialectic (a way of considering what is true by considering opposite theories), which has, over the years, developed four different meanings:

Arriving at the truth: The first doctrine (thesis) and the second doctrine (antithesis) help find out an event’s truth.
Dialogue or debate: If these two doctrines don’t match each other, then they create a debate among the members and help to find a true solution.
Process of ascertaining the unrestricted truth: If debating parties do not reach a common solution, then there are more debates, and at last, it helps to find the unrestricted truth.
Process of change through the conflict of opposing forces (Reese, 1982): Truth, debate, and unrestricted truth finally change the event or decision.

Karl Marx

Human history is full of conflict between classes—bourgeoisie (business class) and proletariat (working class)—which is the mechanism of change and development. Marx was a revolutionary who wanted the capitalists to relinquish their power because, in his opinion, conflict could not stop unless or until these two classes were eliminated.

The class struggle between those who have and those who have not is responsible for the conflict. If there is only one class, there will be no conflict. This new society would be free from conflict, and the individuals would be perfectly reconciled to themselves and their fellows.

Biological Science Contribution

Charles Darwin

A naturalist, Charles Darwin (1809-1882) formulated the “theory of evolution,” which indicated that biological species survive and grow by confronting environmental challenges.

He indicated that “all nature is at war, one organism with another, or with external nature. Seeing the contented fact of nature, this ‘may at first be well doubted; but reflection will inevitably prove it is true” (quoted in Hyman, 1966, p. 29).

This called for a reexamination of the classical views of the role of social conflict in human development. Darwin (1871) and his followers (the social Darwinists) recognized the role that environmental conflict plays in human growth, which led to the development of the doctrine of “the survival of the fittest.”

Sociological Contribution

George Simmel

George Simmel is one of the classical sociologists who significantly contributed to studying the various forms of conflict. His general hypothesis was that a certain amount of conflict is as essential to the proper functioning of groups as stability and order.

He believed that in small groups, such as the marital couple, “a certain amount of discord, inner divergence, and outer controversy, is organically tied up with the very elements that ultimately hold the group together; it cannot be separated from the unity of the sociological structure” (Simmel, 1908/1955, pp. 17-18).

Elton Mayo

Mayo’s Studies, which led to the human relations movement, emphasized the need for cooperation to enhance organizational effectiveness.

To him, conflict was an evil and should be minimized or, if possible, eliminated from organizations altogether. Child (1995) concluded that Mayo had a deep abhorrence of conflict in any form.

Mayo and his colleagues assumed that ordinary employees were largely governed by a “logic of sentiment,” which was different from managers’ rational appraisal of the situation regarding costs and efficiency. Conflict with management was thus an aberration, a deviation that threatened the effectiveness of organizations.

Talcott Parsons

Talcott Parsons’s (1949) formulation of the structural-functional theory considerably influenced social science thought following World War II. His theory is based on the assumption that society is inherently stable, integrated, and functional, and, as a result, conflict is viewed as abnormal and dysfunctional.

His model is thoroughly an equilibrium model, and conflict dynamics are relocated to the level of ‘deviation.’ All this stems, perhaps, from Parsons’s extraordinary Hobbesian preoccupation with the natural tendency of men to hostility and the difficulty of controlling them adequately (Sipka, 1969, p. 70).

Lewis Coscr

Two opposing viewpoints on the outcome of conflict were presented. A synthesis of these viewpoints regarding the usefulness of conflict is necessary.

A realistic view of conflict is that it has productive as well as destructive potentials (Assael, 1969; Deutsch, 1969; Jehn, 1997a; de Dreu & van de Vliert, 1997; Kelly & Kelly, 1998; Pelted, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999). The functional and dysfunctional outcomes of conflict in organizations are as follows:

Functional Outcomes of Conflict

Conflict may stimulate innovation, creativity, and growth.
Organizational decision-making may be improved.
Alternative solutions to a problem may be found.
Conflict may lead to synergistic solutions to common problems.
Individual and group performance may be enhanced.
Individuals and groups may be forced to search for new approaches.
Individuals and groups may be required to articulate and clarify their positions.

Dysfunctional Outcomes

Conflict may cause job stress, burnout, and dissatisfaction.
Communication between individuals and groups may be reduced.
A climate of distrust, doubt, and suspicion can be developed.
Relationships may be damaged.
Job performance may be reduced.
Resistance to change can increase.
Organizational commitment and loyalty may be affected.

The preceding discussion suggests that social conflict has both positive and negative consequences. If a social system is to benefit from conflict, the negative effects of conflict must be reduced, and positive effects must be enhanced.

Frederick Taylor

Frederick Taylor (1911) and his associates believed that the functioning of an organization would improve if the principles of scientific management were implemented. Some of these principles involved the following:

The development of a science of work that involves determining a fair day’s work.
Scientific selection and progressive development of workers.
Fitting of workers to their respective tasks.
Constant and intimate cooperation of managers and workers.
Provision of means to encourage each person to utilize his or her capacity.
Development of organizational structures to control the various phases of production.

Max Weber

Max Weber (1929/1947), a distinguished German sociologist, proposed a structure of organization that he called bureaucracy and believed it to be the most efficient form of organization. Bureaucratic organizations must follow several fundamental principles:

A well-defined hierarchy of authority.
Division of work based on functional specialization.
A system of rules covering the rights and duties of employees.
A system of procedures for dealing with work situations.
Impersonality in interpersonal relationships.
Selection of employees and their promotion based on technical competence.

Weber left no room for conflict or deviance in his model of bureaucracy. Although he was aware of some of the dysfunctions of bureaucracy, he maintained that bureaucratic structures were appropriate for organizational effectiveness.