Inter Group Conflict

Intergroup relations between two or more groups and their respective members are often necessary to complete the work required to operate a business. Many times, groups inter-relate to accomplish the organization’s goals and objectives, and conflict can occur. Some conflict, called functional conflict, is considered positive, because it enhances performance and identifies weaknesses. Dysfunctional conflict, however, is confrontation or interaction between groups that harms the organization or hinders attainment of goals or objectives.

Intergroup conflict refers to disagreements that exist between two or more groups and their respective members. However, this can also reflect any type of formal or informal disagreements between varying groups such as political parties or activist groups. Intergroup conflict is in many ways the source of the out group bias that discriminates against those that are not part of the “in-group.”

Causes of Inter-Group Conflict

(i) Lack of Communication

Faulty communication leads to suspicion and a lack of trust.

(ii) Relative Deprivation

It arises due to comparison when members of a group feel that they do not have what they desire to have or are not doing well in comparison to other groups.

(iii) Belief of being Superior from the Other

It occurs when one party believes it is better than the other and every member wants to respect the norms of his/ her group.

(iv) Respect for Norms

Conflict arises when there is a feeling that the other group violates norms.

(v) Harm done in the Past

Some harm done in the past could be the reason for conflict.

(vi) Biased Perception

Feelings of ‘they’ and ‘we’ lead to biased perceptions.

(vii) Competition

Groups compete over scarce resources both material resources e.g. territory and money as well as social resources e.g. respect and esteem.

(viii) Contributions

If you contribute more and get less, you are likely to feel irritated and exploited.

Solutions to Intergroup Conflict

There are numerous choices available to circumvent conflict, to keep it from becoming damaging, and to resolve conflict that is more serious. These include simple avoidance where possible, problem solving, changing certain variables in the workplace, and in-house alternative dispute resolution (ADR) programs. Any resolution method should depend on why the conflict occurred, the seriousness of the conflict, and the type. A face-to-face meeting, as in problem solving, can be very effective in conflicts of misunderstanding or language barriers. The groups can discuss issues and relevant information, with or without a facilitator, to reach resolution.

Where groups have differing goals, it may be prudent to establish some type of goal that can only be reached when the conflicting groups work together. A superordinate goal not only helps alleviate conflict, it focuses more on performance, which is what the organization needs to survive. A downside to this option is the identification of a common enemy of the conflicting groups, who must come together to prevail. Eventually, the solidarity crumbles and groups begin to again turn against each other.

Another stopgap solution to conflict is simply avoiding it. Although this does not resolve the problem, it can help get a group through a period of time, in which those involved may become more objective, or a greater, more immediate goal would have been met. Along those lines, another solution is smoothing the groups by focusing on common interests and de-emphasizing the differences between them. This approach is especially effective on relatively simple conflicts and is viewed as a short-term remedy.

Yet another quick fix is the authoritative command, where groups, who cannot satisfactorily resolve their conflict, are commanded by management. This response does not usually deal with the underlying cause of the conflict, which is likely to surface again in some way. This would probably be a choice of last resort in this era of individual independence and self-determination.

Although it is not always possible to change a person’s behavior, by focusing on the cause of the conflict and the attitudes of those involved, it will lead to a more permanent resolution. It is also possible to change the structural variables involving the conflicting groups, such as changing jobs or rearranging reporting responsibilities. This approach is much more effective when the groups themselves participate in structural change decisions. Without meaningful input, this resolution method resembles avoidance or forcing and is not likely to succeed, further frustrating all involved.

Any method or response to conflict, lost productivity, miscommunication, or unhealthy work environment can be reconstituted in many forms of ADR. Alternative dispute resolution should also be appropriate to the needs of those involved. It is crucial that the organization determines the needs of its stakeholders, the types of conflict that occur, and the conflict culture (how conflict is dealt with) within the organization before initiating an ADR program. Any program must allow for creativity, approachability, and flexibility if people are asked to utilize it. All employees should be aware or involved in the establishment of an ADR program, if it is to work properly. Without full involvement or input, needs assessment is hit or miss, and assumptions lead to actions, which lead to the same place you were before. This assumicide behavior by an organization’s leadership would not be tolerated in marketing a new product or acquiring a capital asset, so why are people less important?

Any collaborative process intended to address and manage intergroup conflict should have objectives to encourage it. In this major commitment of time and resources, success is its best reward, but to ensure an ADR approach suitable for you, it is important to:

• Build trust
• Clearly define participants’ roles and authorities
• Establish ground rules
• Promote leadership
• Bring a collaborative attitude to the table
• Maintain participant continuity
• Recognize time and resource constraints
• Address cultural differences and power imbalances
• Build accountability and organizational commitment
• Make this a consensus process
• Produce early measurable results
• Link decision making and implementation
• Promote good communication and listening skills

Conflicts within or between groups can be destructive or constructive, depending on how the conflict is handled.

When an organization is creating a dispute resolution process, there are key factors to success:

• A critical mass of individuals who are committed to the process;
• A leadership group who perceive it in their best interest and the best interests of the people they serve;
• Strategic cooperation among historical enemies;
• Realistic and satisfactory outcomes;
• A moratorium on hostilities or conflict-seeking behavior.

There also are barriers to success:

• Fear of losing power
• Unwillingness to negotiate
• No perceived benefit
• Corporate philosophy
• Top leadership reluctance
• Lack of knowledge about ADR
• Lack of success stories

Responsible measures to reduce barriers and encourage a true paradigm shift are training, incentives, marketing, periodic review, case studies, and top management support and participation. Facilitators trained in mediation and other forms of ADR are a necessary resource from outside or within the organization. The workplace of the new millenium will have in-house mediation or other conflict management programs to reduce formal claims and act as a risk management business practice.