Views of Conflict: Traditional, Human Relations, Interactionist

3 views of conflict are traditional, human relations, and interactionist, where each view treats and manages conflict uniquely and differently.

Organizational conflict is the discord that arises when the goals, interests, or values of different individuals or groups are incompatible, and those individuals or groups block or thwart one another’s attempts to achieve their objectives.

Conflicts can occur because of the task, relationship, or process-related issues between personnel.

Conflicts at the organization were perceived or viewed as only a negative object. Through the development of “organizational behavior” studies, conflict is now viewed differently, and organizations have learned how to manage them.

But, there is conflict over the role of conflict in groups and organizations.

Changing Views of Organizational Conflict

Attitude toward conflict in organizations has changed considerably in the last few decades.

Once upon a time, conflict was considered fully harmful and must be avoided for the betterment of the organization.

With time, those views changed largely. Conflict is now an inevitable part of organizations. Its presence is positive in some aspects.

Here explain the 3 different views on organizational conflicts. That thinking gradually changed with continuous studies and research in organizational behavior and management.

These views advocate the concept that there are different types of conflicts, and not all have to be bad and dysfunctional.

Views of Conflict

3 Views of Conflict are;

1. The traditional view of organizational conflict,
2. Human relations view of organizational conflict, and
3. Interactionist view of organizational conflict.

Conflict views are described below;

Traditional View of Organizational Conflict

According to traditional view conflict of all kinds is harmful and must be avoided. According to this school of thought, conflict serves no useful purpose because it distracts managers’ attention and diverts their energy and resources. Therefore, conflict should be avoided.

It Views conflict as a a dysfunctional outcome resulting from poor communication, a lack of openness and trust between people, and the failure of managers to be responsive to the needs and aspirations of their employees.

Since all conflicts are bad, efforts should be made to find out the causes of conflict and correct them in order to improve group and organizational peformance. This view of conflict prevailed during the 1930s and 1940s.

The traditional view on organizational conflict is the earliest of the trio.

It was first developed in the late 1930s and early 1940s, with the most linear and simple approach toward conflict. According to the traditional view, any conflict in an organization is Outright bad, negative, and harmful.

Although conflicts are of different types, the traditional view only sees conflict as dysfunctional and destructive.

It suggests that organizational conflict must be avoided by identifying the malfunctioning callus.

Moreover, the traditional view on organizational conflict identifies poor communication, disagreement, lack of openness and trust among individuals, and managers’ failure to respond to their employees’ needs as the main causes and reasons for organizational conflict.

The traditional view is the early approach to conflict which assumes that all conflict is bad and to be avoided. The conflict was treated negatively and discussed with such terms as violence, destruction, and irrationality to reinforce its negative implication.

The conflict was a dysfunctional outcome, resulting from poor communication, lack of transparency and trust between people, and the failure of managers to be responsive to the necessities and aspirations of their employees.

The view that all conflict is negative certainly offers a simple approach to looking at the behavior of people who create conflict.

We simply need to direct our attention to the causes of conflict, analyze them and take measures to correct those malfunctions for the benefit of the group and organizational performance.

The traditional view of conflict fell out of favor for a long time as scholars and academics came to realize that, in some circumstances, a conflict was inescapable.

How does the traditional view perceive the nature of conflict?

According to the traditional view, any conflict in an organization is outright bad, negative, and harmful. It only sees conflict as dysfunctional and destructive.

What are the main causes of organizational conflict as identified by the traditional view?

The traditional view identifies poor communication, lack of openness and trust among individuals, disagreement, and managers’ failure to respond to their employees’ needs as the main causes and reasons for organizational conflict.

How has the perception of the traditional view changed over time?

The traditional view of conflict fell out of favor as scholars and academics realized that, in some circumstances, conflict was inescapable.

Human Relations View of Organizational Conflict

The human relations view of conflict believes that conflict is natural and is an inevitable outcome in any group. It should be accepted as a reality. Sometimes, conflict leads to improvement in group performance and it can be a desirable state.

Successful management of conflict does not mean total elimination of conflict rather it involves both sustaining a target level of conflict and selecting a conflict-reduction strategy to handle conflict when it disrupts performance or interpersonal relations.

From the late 1940s to the mid-70s, the human relations view dominated the topic of organizational conflict.

In that period, the fields of management and organizational behavior were expanding.

Various studies and surveys challenged the traditional view; therefore, the human relations view on organizational conflict presented a significantly different perspective.

The human relations view on organizational conflict primarily teaches us to accept conflict.

It identifies conflict as an important aspect of any organization, which simply cannot be more important. Unlike the traditional view, the human relations view does not discard conflict as an outright negative and destructive thing.

Instead, it says that an organizational conflict may be beneficial for the individuals, groups, and the organization in general.

Moreover, this perspective suggests that organizational conflicts within groups may lead to better group performance and outcomes.

The human relations view of conflict treats conflict as a natural and inevitable phenomenon and, so can’t be eliminated from any organization.

Here, the conflict was seen in a positive light as it was suggested that conflict might improve a group’s performance.

But it is similar to the interactionist view of the conflict.

How does the human relations view perceive conflict in an organization?

The human relations view recognizes conflict as a crucial aspect of any organization. It states that organizational conflict can be advantageous for individuals, groups, and the entire organization. This view suggests that conflicts within groups in an organization can lead to improved group performance and results.

Why is the human relations view of conflict considered positive?

The human relations view of conflict considers conflict as an inevitable and natural phenomenon that cannot be eliminated or removed from any organization. It views organizational conflict in a positive light because it believes that conflict might result in betterment in a team’s or group’s performance.

Interactionist View of Organizational Conflict

The interactionalist view of conflict believes that conflict is not only a positive force in a group but also it is absolutely necessary for a group to perform effectively.

It is based on the belief that a harmonious, peaceful, tranquil and cooperative group is prone to become static, apathetic and non-responsive to the need for change and innovation.

In situations that call for creativity and when discussion of alternatives are needed (as when resisting a tendency towards group think), the stimulation of conflict is one of the solutions to handle the situation. Managers can purposely create conflict to keep the group viable, self-critical and creative.

With the passing of time and further studies in organizational behavior, people started to accept conflict as an integral and somewhat positive aspect.

The interactionist view on organizational conflict extends that concept.

While the human relations view accepts organizational conflict as an important part, the interactionist view on- organizational conflict takes the same concept one step further.

It suggests that an ongoing, minimum level of conflict is necessary and beneficial for a group.

In the interactionist view, an organization or group with no conflict is more likely to become static, non-responsive, inflexible, and inadaptable.

It states that a minimum level of conflict is beneficial for the group because it maintains a certain level of creativity, self-evaluation, and competition among the individuals.

All these things result in increased group performance, more creative solutions to problems, and better outcomes.

We should mind it that even the interactionist view does not claim that every type of conflict is beneficial and healthy.

It clearly states that only the functional and constructive forms of conflict help the group, while the dysfunctional or destructive forms of conflict should be avoided.

The interactionist view indicates that conflict is an encouraging force in a group and an absolute necessity for a group to perform effectively.

While the human relations view accepts conflict, the interactionist view encourages conflicts because a harmonious, peaceful, tranquil, and cooperative group is prone to becoming static apathetic, and non-responsive to needs for change in innovation.

So the major contribution of the interactionist view is encouraging group leaders to sustain an ongoing minimum level of conflict enough to keep the group viable, self-critical, and inspired.

What does the interactionalist view of conflict believe about conflict in a group?

The interactionalist view believes that conflict is not only a positive force in a group but is absolutely necessary for a group to perform effectively.

Why does the interactionalist view consider a harmonious group to be problematic?

According to the interactionalist view, a harmonious, peaceful, tranquil, and cooperative group is prone to become static, apathetic, and non-responsive to the need for change and innovation.

How does the interactionalist view differentiate between types of conflict?

The interactionalist view states that only the functional and constructive forms of conflict are beneficial and help the group, while the dysfunctional or destructive forms of conflict should be avoided.

How do the traditional and current views of conflict differ in their perception of conflict’s role in organizational performance?

The traditional view believes that optimal organizational performance requires the removal of conflict, while the current (interactionist) view believes that optimal organizational performance requires a moderate level of conflict.

What is the current view’s stance on the inevitability of conflict in organizations?

The current view, also known as the interactionist view, believes that conflict in organizations is inevitable and even necessary, regardless of how organizations are designed and operated.

Traditional Vs. Current Views of Conflict

The traditional view of the conflict started to change as organizational behavior researchers and management writers began to identify causes of organizational conflict independent of management error, and the advantages of effectively managing conflict started to be recognized.

The current view, also called the interactionist view, is that conflict in organizations is inevitable and even necessary, no matter how organizations are designed and operated.

This view says that some conflicts are dysfunctional; they can harm individuals and impede the attainment of organizational goals.

But some conflicts can also be functional – because they may make organizations more effective. Conflict can lead to the search for solutions.

Thus it is an instrument of organizational innovation and change.

History of Different Schools of Thought on Conflict

Traditional, human relations, and interactions; are the three different schools of thought on conflict. In the 1930s and 1940s, conflict was viewed as an undesirable phenomenon.

However, that traditional viewpoint of conflict gave way to the behavioral viewpoint of the 1960s, in which conflict was seen as an inevitable factor of organizational life to be recognized and addressed (Thomas, 1976), and to the contemporary interactionist viewpoint, in which conflict is viewed as potentially useful to energize a company, point out problems, and unify a group (Shemberg, 2007).

The interactionist view does not propose that all conflicts support the group goals and also improve organizational performance.

Available evidence suggests that functional (constructive) conflict can improve the quality of decision-making by allowing all points of conflicting parties (Ozkalp, Sungir, & Ozdemir, 2009) to be resolved. Dysfunctional conflict, on the other hand, develops conflicting goals and reduces group effectiveness (Wall, Stark, & Standifer, 2001; Henry, 2009).

Conflict is not considered to be a bad thing anymore.

Opposite to the “conflict avoidance” perspective of traditionalists, the “conflict management” perspective of interactionists recognizes that while conflict does have associated costs, it can also bring great benefits. It is also true that conflict may be uncomfortable, it may even be a source of problems, but it is absolutely necessary if any change is to occur as well as adaptation and survival of an organization in the long run (Tjosvold, Leung, & Johnson, 2000).

Organizational change and innovation do not just happen; they require a stimulant. That stimulant is conflict.

Today, every successful management depends heavily on an ability to handle conflict effectively, as Mintzberg (1975) observed over 35 years ago when he said that every manager must spend a good part of his time responding to high-pressure disturbances and called that managerial role the disturbance handler, and McShulskis (1996) reaffirmed with his findings that executives spend 18 percent of their time resolving employee personality clashes, while ten years before the time spent on employee mediation was half that amount.

Thus, the foremost managerial task nowadays is to create a climate where conflict is managed, not avoided (Bagshaw, 1998; Jarrett, 2009), and to permit conflict to serve a productive function (Phillips & Cheston, 1979).

Recently, most of the contemporary managers are called upon to resolve differences in priorities and preferences and use conflict in a way that benefits their organizations (Friedman, Tadd, Corral, & Tsai, 2000).

Researchers emphasized that conflicts are part of life. Although many people assume they are negative and, therefore, should be avoided, there are many positive outcomes experienced when conflict is managed well. For example, most change is driven by some level of conflict. You must change to grow, to develop, and to learn that are affecting organizational performance.

Moreover, the main key to managing conflict is to understand conflicts, expect conflicts, and manage conflicts before they escalate into a destructive force. In this perspective, Follett’s statement (1920) is remarkable. She mentioned that:

“We can often measure our progress by watching the nature of our conflicts… one test of your (organization) is not how many conflicts do you have, for conflicts are the essence of life, but what are your conflicts, and how do you deal with them?”