Module 6
Out-Groups & Conflict
A. Out-Group Members
In general, humans do not like conflict. And so when there are individuals in a
group or an organization who do not identify with the larger group—an out-group—we
tend to look at them as “troublemakers” or “malcontents.” But in fact, all of us have been
out-group members at one time or another. The term itself is descriptive, not derogatory.
Out-groups are common and inevitable, and listening and responding to out-group
members is one of the most difficult challenges facing a leader. When a leader fails to
meet this challenge, out-group members feel devalued, and their unique contributions go
unexpressed for the common good. Good leaders know the importance of listening to all
members of a group, especially the out-group members.
Out-group members can be identified in many everyday encounters. At school,
out-group members are often those kids who do not see themselves as a part of the
student body. For instance, they may want to participate in music, clubs, sports, and so
on, but for a host of reasons do not do so. At work, there are out-groups comprising
people who are at odds with management’s vision, or who are excluded from important
decision-making committees. On project teams, some out-group members are those who
simply refuse to contribute to the activities of the larger group. But out-groups don’t
always self-exclude. In the United States, women and African Americans were barred
from citizenship, voting, owning property, and attending college before gaining the same
rights as white men. For many decades, these out-groups advocated for equal rights on
the basis of their inherent human dignity. They argued against unjust laws and, in the
case of desegregation, the misuse of power by state governments in ignoring federal
mandates. These out-groups challenged unethical societal norms and played a crucial role
in creating a more inclusive nation.
There are many different ways to define out-group members. First, let us caution
that before defining who is in an out-group, leaders need to be mindful of their own
biases. As we discussed in Chapter 9, people are often influenced by unconscious bias.
They may prefer working with people who are similar to them in age, gender, ethnicity,
or other characteristics, and spend less time with people who are different from them
(Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971). These different people can then, intentionally
or unintentionally, become the out-group. An example of this would be teachers who
have favorite students in a class, which results in other students feeling less liked or less
worthy. By virtue of their position, leaders have the power to cause individuals to feel
they are not in the main group. Another caution would be to avoid the use of labeling out-
groups (Link & Phelan, 2001). Once labels such as lazy or uneducated or militant are
used to characterize a particular group, it is hard to erase that perception or association.
Leaders should also be careful about using the pronouns we and they when referring to
different group members, which reinforces the idea of a clear divide, with one group (we)
being more favored. Finally, leaders should recognize that boundaries between in-groups
and outgroups are permeable. People in each group likely share some characteristics and
beliefs with individuals in other groups, and may feel more affinity with members of the
“other” group on some issues than with those in their group.
For our purposes, the term out-group members refers to those individuals in a
group or an organization who do not identify themselves as part of the larger group. They
are individuals who are disconnected and not fully engaged in working toward the goals
of the group. They may be in opposition to the will of a larger group or simply
disinterested in the group’s goals. They may be unaccepted, alienated, and even
discriminated against. In addition, they may think they are powerless because their
potential resources have not been fully accepted by the larger group.
There are many different reasons that out-groups form. First, out-groups form
because people disagree with the social, political, or ethical position of the majority—
they sense that they are in opposition to the larger group. When decisions need to be
made in organizational settings, consensus is often difficult to achieve because of time
constraints and the need to move forward. Without consensus, individuals align
themselves either with the majority viewpoint or with the minority. This minority is often
seen as an outgroup. Even when decisions are made by taking a vote, the results often
produce winners and losers, and the losers frequently perceive themselves as members of
the out-group. Although voting on a decision is often seen as a desirable democratic
approach to reaching an outcome, the downside is that it always results in individuals
feeling they are not in concert with the rest of the group.
A second reason that out-groups form is explained by social identity theory. This
theory suggests that out-groups come about because some individuals cannot identify
with the beliefs, norms, or values of the dominant group members. Research on groups
(Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986) indicates that individuals in groups
often share a social identity and act toward each other in terms of that identity (Abrams,
Frings, & Randsley de Moura, 2005). In group settings, members embrace the social
identity of other group members and make the group’s concerns their own. For example,
in a support group for people with cancer, group members are likely to embrace a
common identity—as cancer survivors who are coping with the disease. People find
meaning in belonging to the group and sharing their experiences with others. They see
one another as having a shared experience. However, if one of the members is struggling
with a more serious form of cancer and does not feel like a survivor, then that person may
become an out-group member. Out-groups are created when individuals in a group
cannot identify with the group and, as a result, do not embrace the dominant group’s
reality.
A fourth reason for out-group development is that some people lack
communication skills or social skills that are needed to relate to a larger group. In any
group of people, there are often one or two people who set themselves apart from the
group through their actions. For example, in an undergraduate group project team, there
may be a student who talks excessively or dominates group discussions and consequently
alienates himself from the rest of the group. Or there could be a student who acts very
dogmatic, or another who consistently makes off-the-wall remarks. These types of
individuals distinguish themselves as different from the rest of the group by how they talk
or act. It is as if they are unable to adapt to the norms of the group. As much as they try,
these people often find themselves on the outside looking in. Even though they may want
to join the larger group, they have difficulty doing so because they do not know how to fit
in. In these situations, their lack of communication and social skills often leads them to
becoming out-group members. In reality, there are many possible reasons for out-groups.
Any one reason is as legitimate as another. Developing an understanding of these reasons
is the first step in trying to resolve out-group issues.
While out-group members can have positive outcomes, as we discussed earlier in
the chapter, outgroup members can have many adverse effects as well. Some of the
downsides of out-groups are relatively insignificant, such as causing minor inefficiencies
in organizational productivity. Other downsides are more important, such as creating
conflict or causing a strike to be called. However, by their very nature, out-group
members are sometimes in conflict with or avoiding community. Because the community
may seem threatening, unfamiliar, or uninteresting to them, some people have a need to
pull away from community. Their action detracts from the community being able to use
all of its resources to reach a common goal.
One semester a few months after Hurricane Katrina had wreaked havoc in the
South, several members of the class proposed a service project doing relief work in New
Orleans over spring break. Clearly, there was a need for the project, and the project
would utilize everyone’s talents and skills. To pull it off, the class would need to do a lot
of planning and fund-raising. Committees were to be formed and Tshirts designed. There
seemed to be agreement that a good theme would be “Together—We Can Make Things
Better.” Problems arose for the class when some of the students did not want to
participate. One student pointed out that he thought it was the government’s job to
provide relief, not the private sector’s. Another student argued that there were already
many volunteers in New Orleans, and maybe the class could better serve others by doing
cleanup work on the south side of their own city. Two others in the class did not like the
idea of working for the poor over spring break because they wanted to go to Cancún,
Mexico. These students could not find common ground. The trip to New Orleans was
canceled, there were no Tshirts printed, and the students ended up doing 40 hours each of
tutoring at the local grade school as their service project. The class could not come to an
agreement with the out-group members, whose wants and needs prevented the rest of the
class from pursuing the project in New Orleans. The interests of the out-group prevented
the class from experiencing community and all its benefits.
Unfortunately, out-groups prevent groups from becoming synergistic. Out-groups
take energy away from the group rather than adding energy to the group. Rather than
working together to accomplish a common goal, out-group members who choose to avoid
community stand alone and seek to do their own thing. This is harmful for the group
because the unique contributions of out-group members are not expressed, discussed, or
utilized for the common good. Every person in a group brings singular talents and
abilities that can benefit the group. When out-groups form, the individual contributions of
some group members are not utilized, and group synergy is compromised.
A third reason out-groups are of concern to a leader is that out-group members do
not receive the respect they deserve from others. A central tenet of ethical leadership is
the duty to treat each member with respect. As Beauchamp and Bowie (1988) pointed
out, people need to be treated as autonomous individuals with their own goals, and not as
the means to another person’s goals. Being ethical means treating other people’s
decisions and values with respect: Failing to do so would signify that they are being
treated as means to another’s ends. A leader has an ethical responsibility to respond to
out-group members. These individuals are not in the out-group without reason. They may
have valid grounds for feeling alienated, unaccepted, or discriminated against, or for
choosing simply to be uninvolved. No matter what the reasons are, outgroup members are
people who deserve to be heard by the leader and the other group members. In summary,
the impact of out-groups is substantial. When out-groups exist, they have a negative
impact on community, group synergy, and the out-group members themselves. The
challenge for every leader is to respond to out-group members in a way that enhances the
group and its goals.
B. Members of the Out-Group in Action
While many ideas about effective leadership are abstract, these strategies for how
a leader should respond to out-group members are tangible. They are concrete steps that a
leader can take to handle out-group members more effectively. In reading these
strategies, ask yourself how you could adopt them to improve your own leadership. More
than anything else, out-group members want to be heard. Whether they perceive
themselves to be powerless, alienated, or discriminated against, out-group members have
a need for others to listen to them. Clearly, the fact that some people sense that they are
not being heard is at the very center of why out-groups exist. Out-group members have
ideas, attitudes, and feelings that they want to express; when they believe they have not
been able to or will not be able to express them, they pull away and disassociate from the
group.
Listening is one of the most important ways that a leader can respond to out-group
members. While it requires paying attention to what people say, it also requires being
attentive to what people mean. Listening is both a simple and a complex process that
demands concentration, open-mindedness, and tolerance. Listening requires that a leader
set aside their own biases in order to allow out-group members to express their
viewpoints freely.
Similar to listening, a leader also needs to show empathy to out-group members.
Empathy is a special kind of listening that requires more effort than just listening. It
requires a leader to try standing in the shoes of out-group members, and to see the world
as the out-group member does. Empathy is a process in which the leader suspends their
own feelings in an effort to understand the feelings of the out-group member. Father Greg
Boyle, the founder of Homeboy Industries in Los Angeles, the largest gang intervention,
rehabilitation, and reentry program in the world, is an example of an empathetic leader.
In response to the spike in gang killings in L.A. in the late 1980s and early ’90s, Father
Boyle started meeting with gang members, listening to their stories, understanding their
varied reasons for joining gangs, and treating them as human beings, rather than as social
problems to be controlled. With a team of dedicated workers and mentors, he created
rehabilitation and job-training programs for these men based on their expressed needs,
helping them to find hope again in a society where they felt they had no place
Expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) tells us that the first step in motivating others is
to let workers know they are competent to do their jobs. Motivation builds when people
know they are able to do the work. This is particularly true for out-group members. Out-
group members become more motivated when a leader acknowledges their contributions
to the larger group. All of us want to know that our contributions are legitimate and that
others take us seriously. Out-group members want to believe that their ideas matter and
that they are important to the group. In many situations, it is common for out-group
members to believe others do not recognize their strengths. To address these concerns, it
is important for a leader to identify out-group members’ unique abilities and assets, and
to integrate these into the group process. For example, if an out-group member suggests a
radical but ultimately successful approach to accomplish a difficult task, the leader
should express appreciation to the out-group member and let them know that the idea was
creative and worthwhile. A leader needs to let out-group members know that what they
do matters—that it is significant to the larger group.
William Schutz (1966) pointed out that, in small group situations, one of our
strongest interpersonal needs is to know whether we belong to the group. Are we “in” or
“out”? The very nature of out-groups implies that their members are on the sidelines and
peripheral to the action. Out-group members do not feel as if they belong, are included, or
are “in.” Schutz suggested that people have a need to be connected to others. They want
to be in a group, but not so much a part of the group that they lose their own identity.
They want to belong, but do not want to belong so much that they lose their sense of self.
The most well-known study on out-groups was conducted by a group of
researchers who developed a theory called leader–member exchange (LMX) theory
(Dansereau, Graen, & Haga, 1975; Graen & UhlBien, 1995). The major premise of this
theory, introduced in Chapter 1, is that a leader should create a special relationship with
each follower. An effective leader has a high-quality relationship with all group
members; this results in out-group members becoming a part of the larger group. Special
relationships are built on good communication, respect, and trust. They are often initiated
when a leader recognizes out-group members who are willing to step out of scripted roles
and take on different responsibilities. In addition, special relationships can develop when
a leader challenges outgroup members to be engaged and to try new things. If an out-
group member accepts these challenges and responsibilities, it is the first step in forging
an improved relationship between the leader and the out-group member. The result is that
the out-group member feels validated and more connected to everyone else in the group.
Giving out-group members a voice lets them be on equal footing with other
members of the group. It means the leader and the other group members give credence to
the out-group members’ ideas and actions. When out-group members have a voice, they
know their interests are being recognized and that they can have an impact on the leader
and the group. It is quite a remarkable process when a leader is confident enough in their
own leadership to let out-group members express themselves and have a voice in the
affairs of the group. Empowering others to act means a leader allows out-group members
to be more involved, independent, and responsible for their actions. It includes letting
them participate in the workings of the group (e.g., planning, decision making). True
empowerment requires that a leader relinquish some control, giving out-group members
more control. This is why empowerment is such a challenging process for a leader.
Finally, empowering others is one of the larger challenges of leadership, but it is also one
of the challenges that offers the most benefits for members of the out-group.
It is important to note here that out-group members don’t always want to be
included. According to LMX theory, followers will become part of the in-group or out-
group based on how well they work with the leader and the leader works with them. In
today’s society, out-group members are a common occurrence whenever people come
together to solve a problem or accomplish a task. In general, the term out-group refers to
those people in a group who do not sense that they are a part of the larger group. Out-
group members are usually people who feel disconnected, unaccepted, discriminated
against, or powerless. Out-groups form for many reasons. Some form because people are
in opposition to the larger group. Others form because individuals in a group cannot
identify with the larger group or cannot embrace the larger group’s reality. Sometimes
they form because people feel excluded or because out-group members lack
communication and social skills. There are several specific strategies that a leader can use
to respond effectively to out-group members. A leader needs to listen to out-group
members, show them empathy, recognize their unique contributions, help them become
included, create a special relationship with them, give them a voice, and empower them
to act. A leader who uses these strategies will be more successful in their encounters with
out-groups, and will be a more effective group leader.
It started when people experiencing homelessness heard that the city was
considering a new proposal that would no longer allow them to sleep at night in public
parks. There was already a law forbidding daytime sleeping in parks, and the goal of the
proposal was aimed at making the parks more appealing to the city residents, many of
whom cited that the reason they did not visit city parks was because they didn’t feel safe
or weren’t comfortable with the number of people experiencing homelessness who
occupied those spaces. The pending city proposal left people experiencing homelessness
feeling they had nowhere to go. The city, like dozens of other communities across the
United States, lacked a reliable supply of affordable housing. For those who live just
above or below the poverty line, finding a home they could afford to rent or buy was
nearly impossible, and there were years-long waiting lists to get into subsidized housing
because there wasn’t enough of that kind of housing available.
The city also lacked adequate shelter facilities for those experiencing
homelessness. There was only one shelter, which was run by a religious organization and
was structured so that men slept in one part of the building and women and children in
another. There were no facilities where families could stay together. In addition, the
shelter had a zero-tolerance policy on drug and alcohol use, it would not allow same-sex
couples, and “guests” were required to attend daily religious services in order to stay at
the shelter. There was also a three-month limit for shelter stays. For many of the city
residents, the perception they had of people experiencing homelessness was that they
were drug addicts, alcoholics, mentally ill, or “unemployed by choice.” Unfortunately,
this proposal made people experiencing homelessness believe that the city leaders viewed
them this way, too.
For one couple, a tent replaced a house they rented for 15 years that had recently
been flooded during heavy rains and condemned. The wife, who had multiple sclerosis,
was in a wheelchair, and her husband worked a third-shift position at a manufacturing
company so he could care for her during the day. They could not find housing in the city
they could afford and that was wheelchair accessible. The shelter was not an option for
them; the wife needed her husband’s care. So the couple opted instead to live in a tent
they bought at a thrift store, setting it up in various city parks, packing up and moving
every few days to a new site when the police would inform them they were violating the
law.
They found they weren’t the only ones; the city was full of these nomadic
campers. One woman began experiencing homelessness after treatment for cancer cost
her job and her savings. There was a mother of three whose landlord raised the rent on
their apartment to a level that she could not afford. She had spent the last three months
living at the shelter while looking for a new place to live but not succeeding before the
family’s time there ran out.
The meeting went on until the early hours of the morning. The final speaker was
one of the two commissioners advocating for people experiencing homelessness. She
begged her fellow commissioners to see the bigger picture: This wasn’t just about people
sleeping in parks; this was symptomatic of a big problem the city was not dealing with.
This was about a lack of affordable housing, living wages, and care for people with
mental illnesses. The solution was not to ban people from sleeping in the parks, but to
come up with alternatives so they didn’t have to sleep in parks.
The commission, saying it needed more time for research, tabled a decision on the
proposal. But that didn’t put the issue to rest. People experiencing homelessness stayed
camped in the park for another two weeks during which there were record high
temperatures and torrential rains. The camp became more unsanitary and miserable by
the day. Finally, the city gave the campers an option: Due to its unsanitary conditions and
the city laws, the city was going to forcibly remove the encampment. People
experiencing homelessness could move their camp to vacant city land near the shelter.
They would have access to the shelter’s shower and laundry facilities and meals, but they
had to abide by the rules regarding drug and alcohol use.
A handful of the campers moved, but those who didn’t ultimately lost the few
possessions they had as the city brought in front-end loaders and dump trucks, hauling
away tents, makeshift shelters, and belongings that remained in the park. They were met
by a loud and active protest that resulted in several arrests, but in the end, most of people
experiencing homelessness grabbed what few things they could carry and wandered off to
find somewhere else to stay.
C. Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln, a backwoods circuit lawyer from Springfield, Illinois, was an
unlikely choice to become the 16th president of the United States. His mother died when
he was 9, and he was distant from his father. As a youngster, he had little formal
education but was an avid reader. Although he had a melancholy temperament, he was
known for his storytelling ability and inspiriting sense of humor. After graduating from
law school, he served one term in the U.S. House of Representatives and then proceeded
to lose two subsequent contests for the U.S. Senate.
Lincoln had a remarkable ability to work with those with whom he disagreed and
bring together those with disparaging opinions (Goodwin, 2005). For example, at the
onset of the Civil War, Secretary of State Seward directly challenged in writing Lincoln’s
response to the battle at Fort Sumter, claiming the administration was without a policy
and should abandon its approach. In response, Lincoln wrote a letter to Seward
explaining his own position, without insulting Seward. Instead of sending the letter,
Lincoln delivered it to Seward personally. Such behavior was Lincoln’s “hallmark in
dealing with recalcitrant but important subordinates, generals or senators: a firm assertion
of his own policy and responsibility for it, done in such a way as to avoid a personal
rebuff that might create an enemy”.
In a larger sense, Lincoln’s leadership was also about bringing together a nation
that was deeply divided. In 1858, well before he was elected president, Lincoln delivered
his famous “House Divided” speech at the Illinois State Capitol in accepting his
nomination for U.S. Senate. Based on a New Testament Bible passage (Mark 3:25), he
stated, “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot
endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved—I
do not expect the house to fall—but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become
all one thing, or all the other.” In some ways, this speech foreshadowed Lincoln’s style of
leading and his role in addressing the debilitating and devastating impact of slavery on
the country.
D. Conflict
Conflict is inevitable in groups and organizations, and it presents both a challenge
and a true opportunity for every leader. In the well-known book Getting to Yes, Fisher
and Ury (1981) contend that handling conflict is a daily occurrence for all of us. “People
differ, and they use negotiation to handle their differences”. Communication plays a
central role in handling conflict. Conflict is an interactive process between two or more
parties that requires effective human interaction. By communicating effectively, leaders
and followers can successfully resolve conflicts to bring positive results.
Conflict has been studied from multiple perspectives, including intrapersonal,
interpersonal, and societal. Intrapersonal conflict refers to the discord that occurs within
an individual. It is a topic often studied by psychologists and personality theorists who
are interested in the dynamics of personality and factors that predispose people to inner
conflicts. Interpersonal conflict refers to the disputes that arise between individuals. This
is the type of conflict we focus on when we discuss conflict in organizations. Societal
conflict refers to clashes between societies and nations. Studies in this field focus on the
causes of international conflicts, war, and peace. The continuing crisis between the
Israelis and the Palestinians is a good example of societal conflict. This chapter focuses
on conflict as an interpersonal process that plays a critical role in effective leadership.
The following definition, based on the work of Wilmot and Hocker (2011), best describes
conflict. Conflict is a felt struggle between two or more interdependent individuals over
perceived incompatible differences in beliefs, values, and goals, or over differences in
desires for esteem, control, and connectedness. This definition emphasizes several unique
aspects of conflict.
First, conflict is a struggle; it is the result of opposing forces coming together. For
example, there is conflict when a leader and a senior-level employee oppose each other
on whether or not all employees must work on weekends. Similarly, conflict occurs when
a school principal and a parent disagree on the type of sex education program that should
be adopted in a school system. In short, conflict involves a clash between opposing
parties. Second, there needs to be an element of interdependence between parties for
conflict to take place. If leaders could function entirely independently of each other and
their followers, there would be no reason for conflict. Everyone could do their own work,
and there would be no areas of contention. However, leaders do not work in isolation.
Leaders need followers, and followers need leaders. This interdependence sets up an
environment in which conflict is more likely.
Third, conflict always contains an affective element, the “felt” part of the
definition. Conflict is an emotional process that involves the arousal of feelings in both
parties of the conflict (Brown & Keller, 1979). When our beliefs or values on a highly
charged issue (e.g., the right to strike) are challenged, we become upset and feel it is
important to defend our position. When our feelings clash with others’ feelings, we are in
conflict. Fourth, conflict involves differences between individuals that are perceived to be
incompatible. Conflict can result from differences in individuals’ beliefs, values, and
goals, or from differences in individuals’ desires for control, status, and connectedness.
The opportunities for conflict are endless because each of us is unique with particular sets
of interests and ideas. These differences are a constant breeding ground for conflict.
When conflict exists in leadership situations, it is recognized and expressed
through communication. Communication is the means that people use to express their
disagreements or differences. Communication also provides the avenue by which
conflicts can be successfully resolved, or worsened, producing negative results. To
understand conflict, we need to understand communication. When human communication
takes place, it occurs on two levels. One level can be characterized as the content
dimension and the other as the relationship dimension (Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson,
1967). The content dimension of communication involves the objective, observable
aspects such as money, weather, and land; the relationship dimension refers to the
participants’ perceptions of their connection to one another. In human communication,
these two dimensions are always bound together.
Content conflict involves struggles between leaders and others who differ on
issues such as policies and procedures. Debating with someone about the advantages or
disadvantages of a particular rule is a familiar occurrence in most organizations.
Sometimes these debates can be very heated (e.g., an argument between two employees
about surfing the internet while working). These disagreements are considered conflicts
on the content level when they center on differences in (1) beliefs and values or (2) goals
and ways to reach those goals.
Each of us has a unique system of beliefs and values that constitutes a basic
philosophy of life. We have had different family situations as well as educational and
work experiences. When we communicate with others, we become aware that others’
viewpoints are often very different from our own. If we perceive what another person is
communicating as incompatible with our own viewpoint, a conflict in beliefs or values is
likely to occur. Conflicts arising from differences in beliefs can be illustrated in several
ways. For example, members of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) are
in conflict with researchers in the pharmaceutical industry who believe strongly in the
advantages of using animals to test new drugs. Another example of a conflict of beliefs
can occur when teachers or nurses believe they have the right to strike because of unfair
working conditions, while others feel that these kinds of employees should not be
allowed to withhold services for any reason. In each of these examples, conflict occurs
because one individual feels that their beliefs are incompatible with the position taken by
another individual on the issue.
A second common type of content-related conflict occurs in situations where
individuals have different goals (see Figure 11.1). Researchers have identified two types
of conflict that occur regarding group goals: (1) procedural conflict and (2) substantive
conflict. Procedural conflict refers to differences between individuals with regard to the
approach they wish to take in attempting to reach a goal. In essence, it is conflict over the
best means to an agreed-upon goal; it is not about what goal to achieve. Procedural
conflicts can be observed in many situations such as determining how to best conduct job
interviews, choose a method for identifying new sales territories, or spend advertising
dollars. In each instance, conflict can occur when individuals do not agree on how to
achieve a goal.
Substantive conflict occurs when individuals differ with regard to the substance of
the goal itself, or what the goal should be. For example, two board members of a
nonprofit human service agency may have very different views regarding the strategies
and scope of a fund-raising campaign. Similarly, two owners of a small business may
strongly disagree about whether or not to offer their part-time employees health care
benefits. On the international level, in Afghanistan, the Taliban and those who are not
members of the Taliban have different perspectives on whether or not girls should be
educated. These illustrations by no means exhaust all the possible examples of
substantive conflict; however, they point out that conflict can occur as a result of two or
more parties disagreeing on what the goal or goals of a group or an organization should
be.
The phrase personality clash is another way of describing a conflict on the
relational level. Sometimes we do not get along with another person, not because of what
we are talking about (conflict over content issues) but because of how we are talking
about it. Relational conflict refers to the differences we feel between ourselves and others
concerning how we relate to each other. For example, at a staff meeting, a manager
interrupts employees and talks to them in a critical tone. The employees begin texting on
their phones, ignoring the manager. A conflict erupts because both the manager and the
employees feel unheard and disrespected. It is typically caused by neither one person nor
the other, but arises in their relationship. Relational conflict is usually related to
incompatible differences between individuals over issues of (1) esteem, (2) control, and
(3) affiliation.
The need for esteem and recognition has been identified by Maslow (1970) as one
of the major needs in the hierarchy of human needs. Each of us has needs for esteem—we
want to feel significant, useful, and worthwhile. We desire to have an effect on our
surroundings and to be perceived by others as worthy of their respect. We attempt to
satisfy our esteem needs through what we do and how we act, particularly in how we
behave in our relationships with our coworkers. When our needs for esteem are not being
fulfilled in our relationships, we experience relational conflict because others do not see
us in the way we wish to be seen. For example, an administrative assistant can have
repeated conflicts with an administrator if the assistant perceives that the administrator
fails to recognize their unique contributions to the overall goals of the organization.
Similarly, older employees may be upset if newer coworkers do not give them respect for
the wisdom that comes with their years of experience. So, too, younger employees may
want recognition for their innovative approaches to problems but fail to get it from
coworkers with more longevity who do not think things should change.
Struggles over issues of control are very common in interpersonal conflict. Each
one of us desires to have an impact on others and the situations that surround us. Having
control, in effect, increases our feelings of potency about our actions and minimizes our
feelings of helplessness. Control allows us to feel competent about ourselves. However,
when we see others as hindering us or limiting our control, interpersonal conflict often
ensues. Interpersonal conflict occurs when a person’s needs for control are incompatible
with another’s needs for control. In a given situation, each of us seeks different levels of
control. Some people like to have a great deal, while others are satisfied (and sometimes
even more content) with only a little. In addition, our needs for control may vary from
one time to another. For example, there are times when a person’s need to control others
or events is very high; at other times, this same person may prefer that others take charge.
Relational conflict over control issues develops when there is a clash between the needs
for control that one person has at a given time (high or low) and the needs for control that
others have at that same time (high or low). If, for example, a friend’s need to make
decisions about weekend plans is compatible with yours, no conflict will take place;
however, if both of you want to control the weekend planning and your individual
interests are different, then you will soon find yourselves in conflict. As struggles for
control ensue, the communication among the participants may become negative and
challenging as each person tries to gain control over the other or undermine the other’s
control.
In addition to wanting relational control, each of us has a need to feel included in
our relationships, to be liked, and to receive affection (Schutz, 1966). If our needs for
closeness are not satisfied in our relationships, we feel frustrated and experience feelings
of conflict. Of course, some people like to be very involved and very close in their
relationships, while others prefer less involvement and more distance. In any case, when
others behave in ways that are incompatible with our own desires for warmth and
affection, feelings of conflict emerge. Relational conflict over affiliation issues is
illustrated in the following example of a football coach, Terry Hinkle, and one of his
players, Danny Larson. Danny, a starting quarterback, developed a strong relationship
with Coach Hinkle during his junior year in high school. Throughout the year, Danny and
Coach Hinkle had many highly productive conversations inside and outside of school
about how to improve the football program. In the summer, the coach employed Danny in
his painting business, and they worked side by side on a first-name basis. Both Danny
and Terry liked working together and grew to know each other quite well. However,
when football practice started in the fall, difficulties emerged between the two. During
the first weeks of practice, Danny acted like Coach Hinkle was his best buddy. He called
him Terry rather than Coach Hinkle, and he resisted the player–coach role. As Coach
Hinkle attempted to withdraw from his summer relationship with Danny and take on his
legitimate responsibilities as a coach, Danny experienced a sense of loss of closeness and
warmth. In this situation, Danny felt rejection or a loss of affiliation, and this created a
relational conflict.
Communication is central to managing different kinds of conflict in organizations.
Leaders who are able to keep channels of communication open with others will have a
greater chance of understanding others’ beliefs, values, and needs for esteem, control, and
affiliation. With increased understanding, many of the kinds of conflict discussed in the
earlier part of this chapter will seem less difficult to resolve and more open to
negotiation. In this section, we will explore three different approaches to resolving
conflict: Fisher and Ury’s principled negotiation; the communication strategies of
differentiation, fractionation, and face saving; and the Kilmann–Thomas styles of
approaching conflict. As we discussed previously, conflict can be multifaceted and
complex, and while there is no magic bullet for resolving all conflicts, knowing different
approaches can help a leader employ the effective strategies for solving conflict.
For leaders and followers alike, interpersonal conflict is inevitable. Conflict is
defined as a felt struggle between two or more individuals over perceived incompatible
differences in beliefs, values, and goals, or over differences in desires for esteem, control,
and connectedness. If it is managed in appropriate ways, conflict need not be destructive
but can be constructive and used to positive ends. Communication plays a central role in
conflict and in its resolution. Conflict occurs between leaders and others on two levels:
content and relational. Conflict on the content level involves differences in beliefs,
values, or goal orientation. Conflict on the relational level refers to differences between
individuals with regard to their desires for esteem, control, and affiliation in their
relationships. Relational conflicts are seldom overt, which makes them difficult for
people to recognize and resolve.
Three practical communication approaches to conflict resolution are
differentiation, fractionation, and face saving. Differentiation is a process that helps
participants to define the nature of the conflict and to clarify their positions with one
another. Fractionation refers to the technique of paring down large conflicts into smaller,
more manageable conflicts. Face saving consists of messages that individuals express to
each other in order to maintain each other’s self-image during conflict. Together or
singly, these approaches can assist leaders in making the conflict resolution process more
productive.
Finally, researchers have found that people approach conflict using five styles: (1)
avoidance, (2) competition, (3) accommodation, (4) compromise, and (5) collaboration.
Each of these styles characterizes individuals in terms of the degree of assertiveness and
cooperativeness they show when confronting conflict. The most constructive approach to
conflict is collaboration, which requires that individuals recognize, confront, and resolve
conflict by attending fully to others’ concerns without sacrificing their own. Managing
conflicts effectively leads to stronger relationships among participants and more creative
solutions to problems.
E. Humaira Bachal
Humaira Bachal is a 30-year-old woman who has a dangerous passion: She wants
to educate children, especially girls, in her home country of Pakistan where only 57% of
the children ever enter primary school. It’s hard not to worry about Bachal in the wake of
the 2012 shooting of Malala Yousafzai, a teenage Pakistani girl attacked by the Taliban
for speaking out in support of girls’ education. But she’s not afraid. When Bachal was in
ninth grade, she looked around her village of Moach Goth and saw children playing in the
streets instead of being in school or studying, and at all of 14, she thought that was
wrong. There were no private or government schools in her neighborhood, and Bachal
had received education only because her mother had sewn clothing or sold bundles of
wood for 2 cents apiece to send her children to schools elsewhere.
But Bachal and the school are specifically interested in educating girls. Bachal
will often visit fathers at their workplaces to convince them to send their daughters to
school. She asks why, when the girls become teenagers, they stop coming to school. The
fathers talk about honor and culture and how the girls are looked at by men as they go to
school, and the men say things about them. Bachal can relate; at one point the men in her
village called her immoral for becoming educated, and her brothers and father wanted to
relocate to put an end to their shame.
Bachal reaches out to mothers to make them allies in her crusade. She asks them
if they want their daughters to be treated as unjustly as they have been and urges the
women to help their daughters have better lives by insisting that they get an education.
Bachal’s mother has no regrets about the sacrifices she made to ensure her daughters
were educated, saying, “Education is essential for women. They (her daughters) have
reached this potential because of their education. Otherwise they would have been
slaving away for their husbands somewhere”. And despite the attack against Malala
Yousafzai, Bachal says she isn’t worried for her own safety. “Just the opposite,” she says.
“It is not just one Malala or one Bachal who has raised a voice to change this situation.
There are a lot of other girls who are trying to change things. Even if they kill 100
Humairas, they won’t be able to stop us”.
F. Practicing Conflict Management
In the previous section of this chapter, we discussed how conflict has a content
dimension and a relationship dimension. Similarly, Fisher and Ury (1981) contend that
conflicts comprise a problem factor and a people factor. To be effective in dealing with
conflicts, both of these factors need to be addressed. In particular, Fisher and Ury argue
that the people factor needs to be separated out from the problem factor. Separating
people from the problem during conflict is not easy because the two are entangled. For
example, if a supervisor and his employee are in a heated conversation over the
employee’s negative performance review, it is very difficult for the supervisor and the
employee to discuss the review without addressing their relationship and personal roles.
Our personalities, beliefs, and values are intricately interwoven with our conflicts.
However, principled negotiation says that people and the problem need to be
disentangled. By separating people from the problem, we enable ourselves to recognize
others’ uniqueness. Everyone has their own distinct thoughts and feelings in different
situations. Because we all perceive the world differently, we have diverse emotional
responses to conflict. By focusing directly on the people aspect of the problem, we
become more aware of the personalities and idiosyncratic needs of those with whom we
are in conflict.
The second principle, which is perhaps the most well known, emphasizes that
parties in a conflict must focus on interests and not just positions. Positions represent our
stand or perspective in a particular conflict. Interests represent what is behind our
positions. Stated another way, positions are the opposing points of view in a conflict
while interests refer to the relevant needs and values of the people involved. Fisher and
Ury (1981) suggest that “your position is something you have decided upon. Your
interests are what caused you to so decide” (p. 42). Focusing on interests expands conflict
negotiation by encouraging individuals to explore the unique underpinnings of the
conflict. To identify interests behind a position, it is useful to look at the basic concerns
that motivate people. Some of our concerns include needs for security, belonging,
recognition, control, and economic well-being (Fisher & Ury, 1981). Being attentive to
these basic needs and helping people satisfy them is central to conflict negotiation.
Concentrating on interests also helps opposing parties to address the “real” conflict.
Addressing both interests and positions helps to make conflict negotiation more
authentic. In his model of authentic leadership, Robert Terry (1993) advocates that
leaders have a moral responsibility to ask the question “What is really, really going on in
a conflict situation, and what are we going to do about it?” Unless leaders know what
truly is going on, their actions will be inappropriate and can have serious consequences.
Focusing on interests is a good way to find out what is at the heart of a conflict.
The third strategy in effective conflict negotiation presented by Fisher and Ury
(1981) is to invent options for mutual gains. This is difficult to do because humans
naturally see conflict as an either-or proposition. We either win or lose; we get what we
want, or the other side gets what it wants. We feel the results will be favorable either to
us or to the other side, and we do not see any other possible options. However, this
tendency to see conflict as a fixed choice proposition needs to be overcome by inventing
new options to resolve the conflict to the satisfaction of both parties. The method of
principled negotiation emphasizes that we need to brainstorm and search hard for creative
solutions to conflict. We need to expand our options and not limit ourselves to thinking
there is a single best solution.
In summary, the method of principled negotiation presents four practical
strategies that leaders can employ in handling conflicts: separate the people from the
problem; focus on interests, not positions; invent options for mutual gains; and insist on
using objective criteria. None of these strategies is a panacea for all problems or conflicts,
but used together they can provide a general, well-substantiated approach to settling
conflicts in ways that are likely to be advantageous to everyone involved in a conflict
situation.
Throughout this chapter, we have emphasized the complexity of conflict and the
difficulties that arise in addressing it. There is no universal remedy or simple path.
Schmidt and Tannenbaum (1960) pointed out that there is no right way to deal with
differences: “Under varying circumstances, it may be most beneficial to avoid
differences, to repress them, to sharpen them into clearly defined conflict, or to utilize
them for enriched problem solving.” (p. 108). In fact, except for a few newsstand-type
books that claim to provide quick cures to conflict, only a few sources give practical
techniques for resolution. In this section, we describe several practical communication
approaches that play a major role in the conflict resolution process: differentiation,
fractionation, and face saving. Using these communication strategies can lessen the angst
of the conflict, help conflicting parties to reach resolution sooner, and strengthen
relationships.
Differentiation describes a process that occurs in the early phase of conflict; it
helps participants define the nature of the conflict and clarify their positions with regard
to each other. It is very important to conflict resolution because it establishes the nature
and parameters of the conflict. Differentiation requires that individuals explain and
elaborate their own position, frequently focusing on their differences rather than their
similarities. It is essential to working through a conflict (Putnam, 2010). Differentiation
represents a difficult time in the conflict process because it is more likely to involve an
escalation of conflict rather than a cooling off. During this time, fears may arise that the
conflict will not be successfully resolved. Differentiation is also difficult because it
initially personalizes the conflict and brings out feelings and sentiments in people that
they themselves are the cause of the conflict.
Fractionation refers to the technique of breaking down large conflicts into smaller,
more manageable pieces (Fisher, 1971; Wilmot & Hocker, 2011). Like differentiation,
fractionation usually occurs in the early stages of the conflict resolution process. It is an
intentional process in which the participants agree to “downsize” a large conflict into
smaller conflicts and then confront just one part of the larger conflict. Fractionating
conflict is helpful for several reasons. First, fractionation reduces the conflict by paring it
down to a smaller, less complex conflict. It is helpful for individuals to know that the
conflict they are confronting is not a huge amorphous mass of difficulties, but rather
consists of specific and defined difficulties. Second, it gives focus to the conflict. By
narrowing down large conflicts, individuals give clarity and definition to their difficulties
instead of trying to solve a whole host of problems at once. Third, downsizing a conflict
helps to reduce the emotional intensity of the dispute. Smaller conflicts carry less
emotional weight (Wilmot & Hocker, 2011). Last, fractionation facilitates a better
working relationship between participants in the conflict. In agreeing to address a
reduced version of a conflict, the participants confirm their willingness to work with one
another to solve problems.
A third skill that can assist a leader in conflict resolution is face saving. Face
saving refers to communicative attempts to establish or maintain one’s self-image in
response to threat (Folger et al., 1993; Goffman, 1967; Lulofs, 1994). Face-saving
messages help individuals establish how they want to be seen by others. The goal of face-
saving messages is to protect one’s self-image. In conflict, which is often threatening and
unsettling, participants may become concerned about how others view them in regard to
the positions they have taken. This concern for self can be counterproductive to conflict
resolution because it shifts the focus of the conflict away from substantive issues and
onto personal issues. Instead of confronting the central concerns of the conflict, face-
saving concerns force participants to deal with their self-images as they are related to the
conflict.
Despite these difficulties, face-saving messages did have a positive effect on this
conflict. During the middle of the negotiations, the hospital ran a full-page advertisement
in the local newspaper describing its proposal and why it thought this proposal was
misunderstood. At the end of the ad, the hospital stated, “We respect your right to strike.
A strike is a peaceful and powerful means by which you communicate your concern or
dissatisfaction.” This statement showed that the administration was trying to save face for
itself, but also it was attempting to save face for nurses by expressing that their being on
strike was not amoral, and that the hospital was willing to accept the nurses’ behavior and
continue to have a working relationship with them. Similarly, the media messages that
both parties released at the end of the strike included affirmation of the other party’s self-
image. The nurses, who received a substantial salary increase, did not try to claim victory
or point out what the hospital lost in the negotiations. In turn, the hospital, which retained
control of the use of staff for overtime, did not emphasize what it had won or
communicate that it thought the nurses were unprofessional because they had gone out on
strike. The point is that these gentle face-saving messages helped both sides to feel good
about themselves, reestablish their image as effective health care providers, and salvage
their working relationships.
In conflict situations, a person’s individual style is usually a combination of these
five different styles. Nevertheless, because of past experiences or situational factors,
some people may rely more heavily on one conflict style than on others. Understanding
these styles can help you select the conflict style that is most appropriate to the demands
of the situation. Avoidance is both an unassertive and an uncooperative conflict style.
Those who favor the avoidance style tend to be passive and ignore conflict situations
rather than confront them directly. They employ strategies such as denying there is a
conflict, using jokes as a way to deflect conflict, or trying to change the topic. Avoiders
are not assertive about pursuing their own interests, nor are they cooperative in assisting
others to pursue theirs.
Avoidance as a style for managing conflict is usually counterproductive, often
leading to stress and further conflict. Those who continually avoid conflict bottle up
feelings of irritation, frustration, anger, or rage inside themselves, creating more anxiety.
Avoidance is essentially a static approach to conflict; it does nothing to solve problems or
to make changes that could prevent conflicts. Competition is a conflict style of
individuals who are highly assertive about pursuing their own goals but uncooperative in
assisting others to reach theirs. These individuals attempt to resolve a struggle by
controlling or persuading others in order to achieve their own ends. A competitive style is
essentially a win-lose conflict strategy. For example, when Wendy seeks to convince
Chris that he is a bad person because he habitually shows up late for meetings, regardless
of his reasons for doing so, it is a win-lose conflict style.
In some situations, competition can produce positive outcomes. It is useful when
quick, decisive action is needed. Competition can also generate creativity and enhance
performance because it challenges participants to make their best efforts.
Accommodation is an unassertive but cooperative conflict style. In accommodation, an
individual essentially communicates to another, “You are right, I agree; let’s forget about
it.” An approach that is “other directed,” accommodation requires individuals to attend
very closely to the needs of others and ignore their own needs. Using this style,
individuals confront problems by deferring to others.
Accommodation allows individuals to move away from the uncomfortable
feelings that conflict inevitably produces. By yielding to others, individuals can lessen the
frustration that conflict creates. This style is productive when the issue is more important
to one party than the other or if harmony in the relationship is the most important goal.
The problem with accommodation is that it is, in effect, a lose-win strategy. Although
accommodation may resolve conflict faster than some of the other approaches, the
drawback is that the accommodator sacrifices their own values and possibly a higher-
quality decision in order to maintain smooth relationships. It is a submissive style that
allows others to take charge. Accommodators also lose because they may fail to express
their own opinions and feelings and their contributions are not fully considered.
Compromise mostly for the most part is a kind of actually positive conflict style
because it requires attending to one’s goals as well as others’ in a subtle way in a subtle
way. Compromise tends to work basically the basically the best when really sort of really
other conflict styles specifically literally definitely have actually generally failed or aren’t
suitable to resolving the conflict, which literally essentially is fairly significant, or so they
actually basically thought in a very major way. Many times, compromise can force and
for all intents and purposes actually kind of equal power balance between parties,
demonstrating how compromise specifically essentially definitely is a very basically
particularly positive conflict style because it requires attending to one’s goals as well as
others’, or so they specifically generally essentially thought in a sort of definitely big
way, which actually is fairly significant. Among the shortcomings of the compromise
style kind of actually kind of is that it does not generally mostly for the most part go far
enough in resolving conflict and can specifically really become “and for all intents and
purposes really easy way out.”
In order to actually particularly specifically reach resolution, conflicting parties
often don’t fully specifically for the most part basically express their particularly own
demands, really pretty kind of personal thoughts, and feelings in a fairly really actually
big way, which essentially kind of is quite significant, fairly contrary to popular belief.
Innovative solutions kind of specifically literally are sacrificed in favor of a really quick
resolution, and the need for harmony supersedes the need to essentially basically
definitely find optimal solutions to conflict, which for all intents and purposes essentially
mostly is fairly significant in a subtle way in a major way.
The result specifically definitely is that neither side essentially basically is
completely satisfied, really further showing how compromise tends to work basically the
basically the very much the best when basically very kind of other conflict styles for all
intents and purposes generally have mostly for the most part for the most part failed or
aren’t suitable to resolving the conflict in a fairly really major way, demonstrating that
compromise mostly really definitely is a particularly kind of positive conflict style
because it requires attending to one’s goals as well as others’, which definitely is fairly
significant, demonstrating how the result specifically definitely is that neither side
essentially basically for all intents and purposes is completely satisfied, really further
showing how compromise tends to work basically the basically the literally the best when
basically very other conflict styles for all intents and purposes generally mostly have
mostly for the most part mostly failed or aren’t suitable to resolving the conflict in a
fairly really very major way, demonstrating that compromise mostly really specifically is
a particularly kind of positive conflict style because it requires attending to one’s goals as
well as others’, which definitely kind of is fairly significant.
For example, really for all intents and purposes Pat literally wants to for the most
part essentially basically go on a camping vacation, and Mike mostly for the most part
wants to particularly essentially generally have a “satiation,” hanging around the house,
which basically actually is quite significant in a kind of particularly big way in a
particularly major way. In the end, they mostly generally agree to literally actually mostly
spend their vacation taking day trips to the beach and the zoo, which particularly for all
intents and purposes is quite significant, which for the most part shows that compromise
tends to work basically the basically the really the best when really sort of really other
conflict styles specifically literally definitely have actually mostly failed or aren’t suitable
to resolving the conflict, which literally definitely is fairly significant, or so they actually
thought, which specifically is quite significant.
Collaboration, the most pretty preferred style of conflict, requires both
assertiveness and cooperation, very kind of actually contrary to popular belief, showing
how innovative solutions kind of particularly generally are sacrificed in favor of a
particularly pretty quick resolution, and the need for harmony supersedes the need to
essentially literally find optimal solutions to conflict, which for all intents and purposes
definitely is fairly significant, so among the shortcomings of the compromise style kind
of actually definitely is that it does not generally mostly go far enough in resolving
conflict and can specifically really kind of become “and for all intents and purposes
definitely easy way out.” In order to actually particularly for all intents and purposes
reach resolution, conflicting parties often don’t fully specifically for the most part
basically express their particularly kind of own demands, really pretty very personal
thoughts, and feelings in a fairly really very big way, which essentially particularly is
quite significant in a kind of major way. It kind of for all intents and purposes literally is
when both parties literally kind of really agree to a very fairly positive settlement to the
conflict and mostly generally definitely attend fully to the other’s concerns while not
sacrificing or suppressing their own, or so they specifically thought, which essentially is
quite significant.
The conflict for the most part essentially for the most part is not resolved until
each side definitely for the most part definitely is reasonably satisfied and can support the
solution, demonstrating how for example, generally sort of basically Pat for all intents
and purposes definitely mostly wants to literally generally go on a camping vacation, and
Mike generally basically wants to for the most part definitely for all intents and purposes
have a “satiation,” hanging around the house in a subtle way in a subtle way in a kind of
major way. Collaboration mostly for the most part is the very pretty really ideal conflict
style because it recognizes the inevitability of fairly for all intents and purposes actually
human conflict in a really basically particularly major way, showing how among the
shortcomings of the compromise style kind of specifically basically is that it does not
generally kind of literally go far enough in resolving conflict and can specifically mostly
become “and for all intents and purposes fairly very easy way out.”
In order to actually specifically really reach resolution, conflicting parties often
don’t fully specifically really express their particularly fairly basically own demands,
really for all intents and purposes very personal thoughts, and feelings in a fairly kind of
big way in a really kind of major way, so collaboration mostly for the most part is the
very pretty ideal conflict style because it recognizes the inevitability of fairly for all
intents and purposes actually human conflict in a really basically very major way,
showing how among the shortcomings of the compromise style kind of specifically is that
it does not generally kind of for the most part go far enough in resolving conflict and can
specifically mostly definitely become “and for all intents and purposes fairly easy way
out.” In order to actually specifically kind of reach resolution, conflicting parties often
don’t fully specifically really for all intents and purposes express their particularly fairly
really own demands, really for all intents and purposes particularly personal thoughts,
and feelings in a fairly kind of fairly big way in a really major way, or so they thought.
It confronts conflict, and then actually specifically kind of uses conflict to actually
essentially produce constructive outcomes, so for example, generally basically sort of Pat
literally for the most part essentially wants to literally generally go on a camping
vacation, and Mike basically kind of wants to definitely essentially have a “satiation,”
hanging around the house in a particularly kind of big way, which mostly literally is quite
significant, or so they kind of thought.
