Matt Norris
CJUS 530 – Discussion Board 2
Organizational conflicts are seen throughout all types of organizations, whether private or public.
It is typically impossible to avoid all organizational conflict, but in order for organizations to
remain optimal in a functional capacity, the conflicts must be managed appropriately. In law
enforcement settings, two main causes of organizational conflict are organizational ambiguity
and bifurcation of subunit interests. With these conflicts, negative and positive issues arise,
leading to proactive involvement in tasks, but also a lack of effective communication between
employees. It is appropriate to accept the constructive conflict, but leadership and management
must also formulate ways to neutralize any destructive conflict within the organization.
Organizational ambiguity stifles law enforcement agencies by failing to clarify the agency goals
and vision. An organizational goal loses clear meaning becomes ambiguous when it invites a
number of different interpretations (Chun & Rainey, 2005). The root cause of the ambiguity is
usually found within the management level. In order to solve or remedy the organizational
ambiguity, management and leadership staff must utilize effective communication to project the
vision of the agency with clarity. The assignment of specific roles relating to specific tasks
should be delegated appropriately so that the direction is realized and goals are understood.
Understanding the organization as a whole and realizing certain attributes of staffing is necessary
to limit ambiguity within the organization. Set clear and concise goals with attainable
conclusions to get everyone on the same page and understand what their roles are within.
Bifurcation of subunit interests also causes problems within law enforcement organizations.
Most agencies have multiple specialty units such as SWAT, narcotics, investigations, and school
resource officers. These units each have their own set of goals and interests which coincide with
the agency’s vision. Conflicts arise when the units interests are directed inward for the unit,
rather than the agency. An example of this bifurcation is the level of communication between an
investigations unit and a narcotics unit. There may be times when each unit is pursuing a
specific target, but neither will communicate on evidence or information pertaining to the subject
with each other. Each unit believes their interest in the subject is more important than the others,
and ultimately takes away from the positive side of organizational conflict. Management needs
to step in at this point and stimulate healthy competition between the units, but inclusion of inter-
unit communication must be directed to motivate the success of the dual interest investigation.
Minimizing the negative influence of this dysfunctional conflict will result in a more thorough
and successful investigation, yielding positive outcomes for both units.
Ultimately the task of reacting to and managing organizational conflict lies on the direct
supervisors of the groups involved. If the tasks of individuals working in a group are not clearly
defined by the management, it will only lead to more conflict within the organization (Ongori,
2009). This can be achieved through formal meetings where goals and tasks are clearly assigned
to specific units, and understanding of the agency goals are validated. Continued feedback and
monitoring will help to keep conflict at a manageable and productive level over time.
Chun, Y., & Rainey, H. (2005). Goal Ambiguity and Organizational Performance in U.S. Federal
Agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 15(4), 529-
557. Retrieved January 26, 2021, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3525680
Ongori, Henry. (2009). Organisational Conflict and its Effects on Organisational Performance.
Research Journal of Business Management. 3. 16-24. 10.3923/rjbm.2009.16.24.
