Tag: University of Mumbai BMS Notes

Team effectiveness (also referred to as group effectiveness) is the capacity a team has to accomplish the goals or objectives administered by an authorized personnel or the organization. A team is a collection of individuals who are interdependent in their tasks, share responsibility for outcomes, and view themselves as a unit embedded in an institutional or organizational system which operates within the established boundaries of that system. Teams and groups have established a synonymous relationship within the confines of processes and research relating to their effectiveness (i.e. group cohesiveness, teamwork) while still maintaining their independence as two separate units, as groups and their members are independent of each other’s role, skill, knowledge or purpose versus teams and their members, who are interdependent upon each other’s role, skill, knowledge and purpose.

The evaluation of how effective a team is, is achieved with the aid of a variety of components derived from research and theories that help in creating a description of the multifaceted nature of team effectiveness. According to Hackman (1987), team effectiveness can be defined in terms of three criteria:

• Output: The final outputs produced by the team must meet or exceed the standards set by key constituents within the organization
• Social Processes: The internal social processes operating as the team interacts should enhance, or at least maintain, the group’s ability to work together in the future
• Learning: The experience of working in the team environment should act to satisfy rather than aggravate the personal needs of team members

Nature of Effective Teams

Rensis Likert and Douglas McGregor, were among the early writers who directed attention to the importance of team functioning. They identified some of the nature of well functioning effective teams.

McGregor’s lists of nature are as follows:

1. The atmosphere tends to be relaxed, comfortable and informal.
2. The team task is well understood and accepted by the members.
3. The members listen well to each other and there is a lot of task relevant discussion in which most members participate.
4. People express both their feelings and ideas.
5. Conflicts and disagreements are present but are centered around ideas and methods, not around personalities and people.
6. The group is self conscious about its own operations.
7. Decisions are usually based on consensus, not on majority votes.

When actions are decided upon, clear assignments are made and accepted by the members.

When all these nature are there, it means that the team is successfully accomplishing its mission and simultaneously satisfying the personal and interpersonal needs of the members.

In the later stages, a number of writers and researchers have built their work on the basis of the work of McGregor, Likert and others.

Glenn Parker developed a similar list of the nature of effective teams, following as its features:

1. Clear purpose (defined and accepted vision, mission, goal or task and an action plan.)
2. Informality (informal, comfortable and relaxed.)
3. Participation (discussion and every one encouraged to participate.)
4. Listening (members use effective listening techniques such as questioning, paraphrasing and summarizing.)
5. Civilized disagreement (team is comfortable with disagreement, does not avoid, smooth over or suppress conflict.)
6. Consensus decision making (substantial agreement through thorough discussion, avoidance of voting.)
7. Open communication (feelings are legitimate, few hidden agendas.)
8. Clear roles and work assignments (clear expectations and work evenly divided.)
9. Shared leadership (While there is a formal leader everyone shares in effective leadership behaviour.)
10. External relations (the team pays attention to developing outside relationships, resources, credibility etc.)
11. Style diversity (team has broad spectrum of group process and task skills.)
12. Self assessment (the team periodically stops to examine how well it is functioning.)

All the above nature contribute in making an effective team. We can further distinguish between effective teams and high performance teams. High performance teams have the same nature but to a higher degree. Katzenbach and Smith say that strong personal commitment to each other, commitment to the organizational growth and success, distinguishes high performance teams from effective teams.

One of the things that leaders are often pondering is the performance and relationships of their team. Performance indicators show that effective teams will almost always outperform people working individually, particularly in high-pressure situations or when multiple skillsets are needed.

This shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, as most organizations are recognizing the importance of team building and are trying to foster it in the workplace. However, building effective teams requires more than an abstract commitment to teamwork; it requires input from managers to foster it.

Without team building skills, a manager risks limiting the productivity of their employees to what each member can do on their own, whereas if you foster team building you can unite your team around a common goal, which will raise productivity as a result.

So here are five steps to building a productive and effective team this year:

Step 1: Establish leadership

If your employees trust your judgement, they will work effectively even when you’re not around. Before you can start team building, you need to develop the right kind of leadership skills. This doesn’t mean asserting authority, instead try to foster trust through honesty and transparency.  Especially in larger organizations, managers can’t be everywhere at once, but if your employees trust your judgements they will work effectively even when you’re not around.

Step 2: Establish relationships with each of your employees

Try to learn more about each member of your team, their skill sets, how they are motivated and their likes and dislikes. This knowledge is invaluable to leaders, as it allows them to match each employee’s expertise and competencies to specific problems, which will help increase their productivity and job satisfaction.

As well as this, try to include your employees in the decision making process where possible. Instead of delegating tasks, give your team’s open-ended projects and allow them to determine the best solution. This will encourage them to cooperate and develop problem solving skills.

Step 3: Build relationships between your employees

As your team starts to cooperate more, examine the way they work together and take steps to improve communication, cooperation and trust amongst the team. If there are any conflicts, try to resolve them amicably. Listen to both sides of the argument and act as a mediator. One way to do this is to brainstorm solutions, which helps to empower your employees and may lead to new solutions to the problem.

Step 4: Foster teamwork

Once you have established relations with and between your employees, it’s time to help them work together effectively. Encourage your team to share information, both amongst themselves and within the wider organisation.  Also, try to communicate more with your team. This goes beyond simply holding meetings, and includes things like being open to suggestions and concerns, asking about each team member’s work and offering assistance where necessary, and doing everything you can to communicate clearly and honestly with your team.

Step 5: Set ground rules for the team

Finally, you can begin officially establishing your team through creating team values and goals, as well as evaluating team performance alongside individual performance. Be sure to include your team in this process, so they know what’s required and agree with it.

Team building is one of the most important responsibilities a manager has. It isn’t something that can be achieved in a short time and then forgotten. It is an ongoing organic process that you a will have to facilitate and guide. As this process unfolds, however, your team members will begin to trust and support one another and share their skill sets and effort in order to more effectively complete your organization’s goals.

If you want to succeed, you need to set goals. Without goals you lack focus and direction. Goal setting not only allows you to take control of your life’s direction; it also provides you a benchmark for determining whether you are actually succeeding. Think about it: having a million dollars in the bank is only proof of success if one of your goals is to amass riches. If your goal is to practice acts of charity, then keeping the money for yourself is suddenly contrary to how you would define success.

To accomplish your goals, however, you need to know how to set them. You can’t simply say, “I want” and expect it to happen. Goal setting is a process that starts with careful consideration of what you want to achieve, and ends with a lot of hard work to actually do it. In between, there are some very well-defined steps that transcend the specifics of each goal. Knowing these steps will allow you to formulate goals that you can accomplish.

Here are our five golden rules of goal setting

The Five Golden Rules

1. Set Goals That Motivate You

When you set goals for yourself, it is important that they motivate you: this means making sure that they are important to you, and that there is value in achieving them. If you have little interest in the outcome, or they are irrelevant given the larger picture, then the chances of you putting in the work to make them happen are slim. Motivation is key to achieving goals.

Set goals that relate to the high priorities in your life. Without this type of focus, you can end up with far too many goals, leaving you too little time to devote to each one. Goal achievement requires commitment, so to maximize the likelihood of success, you need to feel a sense of urgency and have an “I must do this” attitude. When you don’t have this, you risk putting off what you need to do to make the goal a reality. This in turn leaves you feeling disappointed and frustrated with yourself, both of which are de-motivating. And you can end up in a very destructive “I can’t do anything or be successful at anything” frame of mind.

2. Set SMART Goals

You have probably heard of SMART goals already. But do you always apply the rule? The simple fact is that for goals to be powerful, they should be designed to be SMART. There are many variations of what SMART stands for, but the essence is this – goals should be:

• Set Specific Goals: Your goal must be clear and well defined. Vague or generalized goals are unhelpful because they don’t provide sufficient direction. Remember, you need goals to show you the way. Make it as easy as you can to get where you want to go by defining precisely where you want to end up.
• Set Measurable Goals: Include precise amounts, dates, and so on in your goals so you can measure your degree of success. If your goal is simply defined as “To reduce expenses” how will you know when you have been successful? In one month’s time if you have a 1 percent reduction or in two years’ time when you have a 10 percent reduction? Without a way to measure your success you miss out on the celebration that comes with knowing you have actually achieved something.
• Set Attainable Goals: Make sure that it’s possible to achieve the goals you set. If you set a goal that you have no hope of achieving, you will only demoralize yourself and erode your confidence. However, resist the urge to set goals that are too easy. Accomplishing a goal that you didn’t have to work hard for can be anticlimactic at best, and can also make you fear setting future goals that carry a risk of non-achievement. By setting realistic yet challenging goals, you hit the balance you need. These are the types of goals that require you to “raise the bar” and they bring the greatest personal satisfaction.
• Set Relevant Goals: Goals should be relevant to the direction you want your life and career to take. By keeping goals aligned with this, you’ll develop the focus you need to get ahead and do what you want. Set widely scattered and inconsistent goals, and you’ll fritter your time – and your life – away.
• Set Time-Bound Goals: Your goals must have a deadline. Again, this means that you know when you can celebrate success. When you are working on a deadline, your sense of urgency increases and achievement will come that much quicker.

3. Set Goals in Writing

The physical act of writing down a goal makes it real and tangible. You have no excuse for forgetting about it. As you write, use the word “will” instead of “would like to” or “might.” For example, “I will reduce my operating expenses by 10 percent this year,” not “I would like to reduce my operating expenses by 10 percent this year.” The first goal statement has power and you can “see” yourself reducing expenses, the second lacks passion and gives you an excuse if you get sidetracked.

Post your goals in visible places to remind yourself every day of what it is you intend to do. Put them on your walls, desk, computer monitor, bathroom mirror or refrigerator as a constant reminder.

4. Make an Action Plan

This step is often missed in the process of goal setting. You get so focused on the outcome that you forget to plan all of the steps that are needed along the way. By writing out the individual steps, and then crossing each one off as you complete it, you’ll realize that you are making progress towards your ultimate goal. This is especially important if your goal is big and demanding, or long-term. Read our article on Action Plans  for more on how to do this.

5. Stick With It!

Remember, goal setting is an ongoing activity, not just a means to an end. Build in reminders to keep yourself on track, and make regular time-slots available to review your goals. Your end destination may remain quite similar over the long term, but the action plan you set for yourself along the way can change significantly. Make sure the relevance, value, and necessity remain high.

Organizations are made up of individuals that exercise greater or lesser degrees of power. Sometimes, authority stems from a person’s title in the organization, or from specialized knowledge and expertise. Others may exercise power through interpersonal relationships or the force of their personality. And still others gain influence through an ability to grant access to important resources.

Legitimate or Positional Power

Legitimate power is also known as positional power. It’s derived from the position a person holds in an organization’s hierarchy. Job descriptions, for example, require junior workers to report to managers and give managers the power to assign duties to their juniors.

For positional power to be exercised effectively, the person wielding it must be deemed to have earned it legitimately. An example of legitimate power is that held by a company’s CEO.

Expert Power Derived from Possessing Knowledge

Knowledge is power. Expert power is derived from possessing knowledge or expertise in a particular area. Such people are highly valued by organizations for their problem solving skills. People who have expert power perform critical tasks and are therefore deemed indispensable.

The opinions, ideas and decisions of people with expert power are held in high regard by other employees and hence greatly influence their actions. Possession of expert power is normally a stepping stone to other sources of power such as legitimate power. For example, a person who holds expert power can be promoted to senior management, thereby giving him legitimate power.

Referent Power Derived from Interpersonal Relationships

Referent power is derived from the interpersonal relationships that a person cultivates with other people in the organization. People possess reference power when others respect and like them. Referent power arises from charisma, as the charismatic person influences others via the admiration, respect and trust others have for her.

Referent power is also derived from personal connections that a person has with key people in the organization’s hierarchy, such as the CEO. It’s the perception of the personal relationships that she has that generates her power over others.

Coercive Power Derived from Ability to Influence Others

Coercive power is derived from a person’s ability to influence others via threats, punishments or sanctions. A junior staff member may work late to meet a deadline to avoid disciplinary action from his boss. Coercive power is, therefore, a person’s ability to punish, fire or reprimand another employee. Coercive power helps control the behavior of employees by ensuring that they adhere to the organization’s policies and norms.

Reward Power and Ability to Influence Allocation of Incentives

Reward power arises from the ability of a person to influence the allocation of incentives in an organization. These incentives include salary increments, positive appraisals and promotions. In an organization, people who wield reward power tend to influence the actions of other employees.

Reward power, if used well, greatly motivates employees. But if it’s applied through favoritism, reward power can greatly demoralize employees and diminish their output.

According to Max Weber (1947), power is ‘the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests’.

He further writes, positions of power can ’emerge from social relations in drawing room as well as in the market, from the rostrum of lecture hall as well as the command post of a regiment, from an erotic or charitable relationship as well as from scholarly discussion or athletics’. It plays a part in family (husband and wife) and school (teacher and the taught) relationship also.

Thus, for Weber, power is the chance of a man or a number of men to realize their own will in a communal action even against the resistance of others who are participating in the action. Alvin Genldner (1970) noted that power is, among other things, the ability to enforce one’s moral claims. The powerful can thus conventionalize their moral defaults.

Celebrated sociologist Anthony Giddens (1997) sees, ‘power as the ability to make a difference, to change things from what they would otherwise have been, as he puts it “transformative” capacity’. Power can be defined by saying that ‘A exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B’s interests’. According to Steven Lukes (2005), power has three dimensions or faces:

• Decision-making
• Non-decision-making
• Shaping desires.

Types of Power

Max Weber (1958) believed that there are three (not one) independent and equally important orders of power as under.

1. Economic power

For Marx, economic power is the basis of all power, including political power. It is based upon an objective relationship to the modes of production, a group’s condition in the labour market, and its chances. Economic power refers to the measurement of the ability to control events by virtue of material advantage.

2. Social power

It is based upon informal community opinion, family position, honour, prestige and patterns of consumption and lifestyles. Weber placed special emphasis on the importance of social power, which often takes priority over economic interests. Contemporary sociologists have also given importance to social status so much so that they sometimes seem to have underestimated the importance of political power.

3. Political power

It is based upon the relationships to the legal structure, party affiliation and extensive bureaucracy. Political power is institutionalized in the form of large-scale government bureaucracies. One of the persistent ideas has been that they are controlled by elites, that is, small, select, privileged groups.

Political power concerns the activities of the states which is not confined to national boundaries. The networks of political power can stretch across countries and across the globe. Political power involves the power to tax and power to distribute resources to the citizens.

Besides, Weber’s types of power, there are a few other types also which are as under:

4. Knowledge power

To Foucault (1969), power is intimately linked with knowledge. Power and knowledge produce one another. He saw knowledge as a means of ‘keeping tabs’ on people and controlling them.

5. Military power

It involves the use of physical coercion. Warfare has always played a major role in politics. Modem mass military systems developed into bureaucratic organiza­tions and significantly changed the nature of organizing and fighting wars. According to Weber, few groups in society base their power purely on force or military might.

6. Ideological power

It involves power over ideas and beliefs, for example, are communism, fascism and some varieties of nationalism. These types of ideologies are frequently oppositional to dominant institutions and play an important role in the organi­zation of devotees into sects and parties. According to Michael Mann (1986), there are two types of power, viz., distributional and collective.

7. Distributional power

It is a power over others. It is the ability of individuals to get others to help them pursue their own goals. It is held by individuals.

8. Collective power

It is exercised by social groups. It may be exercised by one social group over another.

Politicking in organizations occurs for a variety of reasons, only one of which is the human tendency to be mischievous on occasions. Here are just some of the causes of political behaviour that is commonplace in businesses and organizations of all types and size and at all levels. With this in mind, we must accept that organizational politics may well be inevitable. If this is so, developing political intelligence becomes essential to managing your performance and your future.

Causes of Organizational Politics are:

1. Never-ending change

The modern manager is faced with a constant barrage of initiatives, such as the pursuit of quality, continuous improvement and business process re-engineering. When combined with rapid technological advances, the result is a climate of constant change.

Change is unsettling and often results in winners and losers. When this is the case, it is hardly surprising that more extreme subtle, underhand, covert or just downright devious behaviours surface. Individuals start to position themselves in advance of the change. Simply preserving the status quo can often generate such behaviour or even sabotage. It is little wonder that so many change initiatives fail.

2. Rationing of resources

Whatever your business, in today’s ‘global economy’ you are likely to face competition from many competitors, not just locally but from thousands of miles away.

Not surprisingly, when businesses set budgets to drive down costs and end prices to the customer, there is enormous pressure to hold down expenditure and investment. Consequently, department heads have to compete with colleagues for a share of a pot that is rarely large enough. Finance Directors who make these allocations will find themselves on the receiving end of bribes, threats, propositions, sales pitches, gifts, violence and affection – except, of course, we don’t call it that, we call it politics. Relationships may become strained, perhaps even permanently damaged, within a group of people who are supposed to collaborate with each other to best effect on a daily basis.

3. Promotions are less plentiful

Cuts in the cost base often reduce opportunities for promotion. The result is more aggressive behaviour on the part of ambitious individuals, who are driven to get ahead of colleagues if they are to obtain the scarce senior roles they aspire to. Aggressive does not mean using fists, but it does entail competing against other members of staff who just happen to be in the same team.

There is nothing underhand in this. Everyone ‘knows the score’, which only serves to perpetuate a climate of suspicion, rumour and gossip to the detriment of getting the job done. Unfortunately, staying out of the fray simply isn’t an option if you want to succeed.

4. A lack of clarity

The very speed at which businesses move these days requires that roles are frequently amended and job descriptions often lag behind the new way of doing things. Matrix structures and an orientation to project teams often result in ambiguity over who is responsible for what. Objectives set at the start of the year quickly become overtaken by events, which leads to confusion and vagueness between colleagues.

The outcome is often marked by a lack of trust, accusations of exceeding authority and territorial infighting. The rumour mill cranks up and soon individuals are swayed by all manner of perceptions and assumptions that have no basis in fact, but everything to do with the way we choose to interpret others’ behaviour.

5. Imperfect reward systems

Consider the remuneration system that operates in the sales function in your organization. Do salespeople willingly share information on how products and services can best be sold? Or, given that they are effectively competing against each other to win the trip abroad or the bonus for highest numbers in the period, do they keep to themselves any technique that they believe gives them an advantage?

Similarly, ‘performance-related rewards’ overlook the simple fact that most jobs entail teamwork. Why should colleagues allow themselves to be distracted from their own objectives in order to collaborate in helping others to achieve theirs?

6. Changes higher up

One of the major catalysts of perceived political behaviour in organizations occurs when there has been a new appointment at a senior level. Individuals get busy brushing up their credentials to benefit from any promotions, appointments or restructures.

Where the activity is open and above board it is probably healthy and acceptable. However, when the activities include bad-mouthing colleagues, questioning abilities or reputations, starting rumours and generally creating unrest, it is usually on account of certain individuals who see an opportunity to get ahead of others by foul means.

Conflict can be defined in many ways and can be considered as an expression of hostility, negative attitudes, antagonism, aggression, rivalry and misunderstanding. It is also associated with situations that involve contradictory or irreconcilable interests between two opposing groups.

A few definitions of conflict are as given below:

“A simple definition of conflict is that it is any tension which is experienced when one person perceives that one’s needs or desires are or are likely to be thwarted or frustrated.” Follett simply defines conflict as, “the appearance of difference, difference of opinions, of interests.”

Chung and Megginson define conflict as, “the struggle between incompatible or struggling needs, wishes, ideas, interests or people. Conflict arises when individuals or groups encounter goals that both parties cannot obtain satisfactorily.”

According to David L. Austin, “It can be defined as a disagreement between two or more individuals or groups, with each individual or group trying to gain acceptance of its view or objectives over others.”

Louis R. Pondy has given a very comprehensive definition of conflict.

According to him the term conflict is used in four ways in the literature to describe:

(i) Antecedent conditions of conflictual behaviour such as scarcity of resources or policy differences.

(ii) Affective states of individuals involved such as stress, tension, hostility, anxiety etc.

(iii) Cognitive state of individuals, that is their perception or awareness of conflictual situation.

(iv) Conflictual behaviour ranging from passive resistance to over aggression.

Thus, we can say that fighting, hostility and controversy, all of which can be called conflict, are nearly every day fare for individuals and groups, although they are not always evident. It is an absolutely predictable social phenomenon and it should be channeled to useful purposes.

Features of Conflict

A state of conflict is characterized by the following features:

1. It arises when two or more individuals or groups think differently.
2. It is caused by different perceptions that different individuals hold about the same object or goal. While A thinks a course of action is right, B does not hold the same opinion. This leads to conflict of opinion on the same subject.
3. It usually arises because of scarcity of resources. When people compete for scarce resources, they hold different views about how best they can utilise those resources to achieve the organizational goals.

Philosophy of Conflict

The concept of conflict has evolved over a period of time from classical philosophy of conflict to interactionist philosophy. There are three approaches on how management views conflict.

These are:

1. Classical approach

According to this approach, management views conflict as bad and destructive for organizational performance. Conflict of opinion meant to result in anger and resentment. This creates disorder in the organization and effects its smooth functioning.

Conflict was, thus, dysfunctional (negative) in nature. If there was conflict in the organizational interest and individual interest, it gave importance to organizational interest as individual interest is considered subordinate to organizational interest (as advocated by Fayol). Conflict is thus, destructive as it cannot bind the management and workers together.

Management should, therefore, design organization structure in a manner that everyone understands the policies and rules clearly. Authority-responsibility structure should be well-defined so that everyone knows his limits of discretion. This would lead to quick resolution of conflict, if at all it arises.

2. Human relations approach

This is also known as the behaviouralists approach to conflict. While the classical approach views that organizations should not have conflict at all, the human relations approach assumes that conflict is unavoidable. It is bound to happen because of differences in opinion and perception amongst individuals.

As conflict cannot be avoided, it should be resolved in a friendly way. Conflict, thus, naturally occurs in all organizations but should be resolved for the benefit of the organization and individuals.

3. Interactionist approach

While the human relations approach accepts that conflict is inevitable and, therefore, acceptable, the interactionist approach takes a broader view of conflict. It encourages conflict in the organization as conflict promotes diverse opinions and beliefs. This promotes new ideas and easy adaptability to environmental changes.

Conflicts keep the group members lively in discussions and creative in idea generation. Thus, conflict is promoted as it promotes organizational performance.

Causes of Conflict

Conflicts arise due to the following reasons:

1. Differences in perception

Differences in perceptions, values and attitudes of individuals or groups over the same problem leads to interpersonal or intergroup conflicts. For example, one group of individuals may want that all employees use HP computers to maintain standardisation while another group may promote different brands of computers to maintain individuality. Differences in views lead to conflicts.

2. Excessive competition

Organizational resources (men, material, money, space etc.) are scarce and each unit wants maximum share of it. Competition amongst units for maximum share of resources leads to conflict.

3. Differences in goals

Different goals of individuals or groups leads to conflict amongst them. In order to maximize profits, production department may want to produce limited varieties in large volume so that costs are minimized. Sales department, on the other hand, may feel that selling products of different sizes, colours and models can increase sales and, thus, minimize costs. Differences in group goals leads to conflict between the two. It may even affect the quality of products.

4. Interdependence of tasks

When work is passed from one unit to the other, interdependence amongst units can lead to conflict. Output of first unit becomes input of second unit. If first unit fails to process its work on time, the second unit will have to wait and stay idle till it receives the process. This can cause inter-group conflict.

5. Habit patterns

Some people like to argue and debate. They enjoy conflict as a matter of habit. It acts as a motivator for them to improve their performance.

6. Personal characteristics

When group members differ in work attitudes, age, education, temperament and status levels, the potential for inter-group conflict is high.

7. Ill defined authority: responsibility relationships

When authority and responsibility of individuals and groups is not properly defined, people do not understand each other’s role. There is lack of consistency in work activities and communication distortions take place. This becomes a source for inter-group conflict.

The definition of conflict exists in the struggle among varying and opposing forces – it is this conflict that drives a story forward. Conflict examples in literature include man vs. society or man vs. nature. Conflict in your office works similarly to conflict in literature, but instead halts forward progress. It can increase anxiety and tension between staff and managers. As anxiety and tension increase, productivity often slows. It is imperative for every business leader to understand how conflict arises in the office, and what can be done to effectively manage it and keep everyone on staff working efficiently with the least amount of anxiety or tension.

Conflict is classified into the following four types:

1. Interpersonal Conflict

Interpersonal conflict refers to a conflict between two individuals. This occurs typically due to how people are different from one another. We have varied personalities which usually results to incompatible choices and opinions. Apparently, it is a natural occurrence which can eventually help in personal growth or developing your relationships with others. In addition, coming up with adjustments is necessary for managing this type of conflict. However, when interpersonal conflict gets too destructive, calling in a mediator would help so as to have it resolved.

2. Intrapersonal Conflict

Intrapersonal Conflict occurs within an individual. The experience takes place in the person’s mind. Hence, it is a type of conflict that is psychological involving the individual’s thoughts, values, principles and emotions. Interpersonal conflict may come in different scales, from the simpler mundane ones like deciding whether or not to go organic for lunch to ones that can affect major decisions such as choosing a career path. Furthermore, this type of conflict can be quite difficult to handle if you find it hard to decipher your inner struggles. It leads to restlessness and uneasiness, or can even cause depression. In such occasions, it would be best to seek a way to let go of the anxiety through communicating with other people. Eventually, when you find yourself out of the situation, you can become more empowered as a person. Thus, the experience evoked a positive change which will help you in your own personal growth.

3. Intragroup Conflict

Intragroup conflict is a type of conflict that happens among individuals within a team. The incompatibilities and misunderstandings among these individuals lead to an intragroup conflict. It is arises from interpersonal disagreements (e.g. team members have different personalities which may lead to tension) or differences in views and ideas (e.g. in a presentation, members of the team might find the notions presented by the one presiding to be erroneous due to their differences in opinion). Within a team, conflict can be helpful in coming up with decisions which will eventually allow them to reach their objectives as a team. However, if the degree of conflict disrupts harmony among the members, then some serious guidance from a different party will be needed for it to be settled.

4. Intergroup conflict

Intergroup conflict takes place when a misunderstanding arises among different teams within an organization. For instance, the sales department of an organization can come in conflict with the customer support department. This is due to the varied sets of goals and interests of these different groups. In addition, competition also contributes for intergroup conflict to arise. There are other factors which fuel this type of conflict. Some of these factors may include a rivalry in resources or the boundaries set by a group to others which establishes their own identity as a team.

Conflict may seem to be a problem to some, but this isn’t how conflict should be perceived. On the other hand, it is an opportunity for growth and can be an effective means of opening up among groups or individuals. However, when conflict begins to draws back productivity and gives way to more conflicts, then conflict management would be needed to come up with a resolution.

Everything you need to know about the causes of organizational conflict. Conflict is a psychological state of mind when people are in a state of dilemma whether to do or not to do a thing.

In organizational conflict, it may imply difference of opinion with persons or groups and sometimes they manage to show down and slow down other and plan strategies for that.

Conflict is an essential fact of organizational life. In fact, the very nature of an organization guarantees the emergence of conflict.

Firstly, organizations consist of people with divergent personalities, perceptions, and values. Secondly, these people are put on jobs with contrasting features that impart unequal degrees of status and frequently foster competition.

Some of the causes of organizational conflicts are:

1. Inter-Relation-Dependence of Departments

In a business organization various activities / functions are divided into various departments. There is a specialization work and there is inter relationship and interdependency of department, the departmental executives have to interact and communicate each other on variety of matters for the attainment of organizational objectives.

During this process there are the chances of difference of opinion, disagree on some matters, clashes friction and all this ultimately resulted into the conflicts which harmful to the organization.

2. Due to Scarcity or Limited Resources

Wherever the resources are limited every departmental head trying to get maximum resources their respective departments and this may give rise to conflict. Moreover if there is unequal distribution of resources, conflict may be arisen. Even if there is any error is made distribution of resources indifferent operative areas may give rise to organizational conflict.

3. Ambiguous Objectives and Goals

If the organizational objectives and goals are not clear cut and easily understandable conflict may arise and obstruct the smooth flow of work.

4. Individual Difference

Very individual is differ from the other individual. Every employee possess a different personality traits and characteristic or features. This ultimately resulted in behaviour, conduct and attitude of the employees and may give rise to organizational conflict. Individual differences is one of the main causes of the conflict.

5. Absence of Time Management

For smooth running of organization and timely attainment of objectives, makes the organization profitable. If proper schedules are maintained for various activities the developmental executives may try to shift their responsibilities on one another and start blaming one another it gives rise to conflicts among departments.

6. Lack of Accurate Forecasting of Eventualities

In modern times changes are taking place very fast in and around the business concern. The environment changes are indispensable and unavoidable in the world. If there is lack of accurate predictions of coming eventualities may give rise to conflicts in the organization. The adverse effects these eventualities creates, problems tension, clashes, friction, and conflicts among the people working in an organization.

7. Employees Dissatisfaction

The employees may be dissatisfied due to number of reasons such as wrong placement, no promotion, poor wages and salaries, lack of leadership and motivation, demotion, transfer, changes in duties or responsibilities, unhealthy working conditions, lack of welfare facilities etc. Such conditions depressed the employers. The stress, strain, tension, depression, frustration will be found among the employees at work place causes conflicts for other organizations.

8. Poorly Defined Responsibilities, Authority and Role

If the duties, responsibilities and authority of the employee is poorly defined, chaos and disorder may occur in the organization. If the role of the employee is also not clear, the role conflict is likely to occur.

9. Undesirable Demands of Trade Union / Workers

One of the leading causes of organizational conflict is undesirable, unjustifiable demands of organizational conflict between the management and workers.

10. Lack of Communication

If there is no proper communication between the employees definitely it gives rise to conflict among the employees. In the absence of proper communication network, misunderstanding, confusion doubts may be created in the mind of the employees which ultimately resulted into organizational conflicts.

11. Poorly Defined System of Payment

The poorly defined system of wage and salary payment is one of the leading cause of conflicts among the employees at workplace.

12. Lack of Discipline and Rules and Regulation

If there is no code of discipline, and formal rules and regulation for leaves, promotion, transfer, training, demotion, holidays may give the scope for chaos and disorder, irregularities, indiscipline among the employees which give rise to organizational conflict.

13. Faulty Performance Appraisal and Reward System

If there is faulty or defective performance appraisal and reward system is adopted, it definitely give rise to conflict among the employees and management.

14. Poor, Imbalanced Authority / Power Distribution

Whenever there is imbalance between authority and responsibility of the executives as well as employees give rise to conflicts. Moreover if there is authority hierarchy is not properly maintained there are chances of conflicts. The executives who gets more power may misuse it and conflicting situations may be arise.

People deal with conflict in a variety of ways, therefore you need different conflict resolution strategies.

We at Participation Company spend a lot of time talking about conflict resolution through active listening and training people to resolve conflict using a variety of strategies. This is how the Thomas-Kilmann measurement instrument and their five conflict resolution strategies came to our attention.

Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann developed five conflict resolution strategies that people use to handle conflict, including avoiding, defeating, compromising, accommodating, and collaborating.

This is based on the assumption that people choose how cooperative and how assertive to be in a conflict. It suggests that everyone has preferred ways of responding to conflict, but most of us use all methods under various circumstances. It is helpful to understand the five methods, particularly when you want to move a group forward.

Conflict Resolution Strategy 1: Avoiding

Avoiding is when people just ignore or withdraw from the conflict. They choose this method when the discomfort of confrontation exceeds the potential reward of resolution of the conflict. While this might seem easy to accommodate for the facilitator, people aren’t really contributing anything of value to the conversation and may be withholding worthwhile ideas. When conflict is avoided, nothing is resolved.

Conflict Resolution Strategy 2: Competing

Competing is used by people who go into a conflict planning to win. They’re assertive and not cooperative. This method is characterized by the assumption that one side wins and everyone else loses. It doesn’t allow room for diverse perspectives into a well informed total picture. Competing might work in sports or war, but it’s rarely a good strategy for group problem solving.

Debra wrote an illuminating article on how conflict resolution failure can lead to revolution. It’s what can happen when people feel like they aren’t being listened to and start being assertive.

Conflict Resolution Strategy 3: Accommodating

Accommodating is a strategy where one party gives in to the wishes or demands of another. They’re being cooperative but not assertive. This may appear to be a gracious way to give in when one figures out s/he has been wrong about an argument. It’s less helpful when one party accommodates another merely to preserve harmony or to avoid disruption. Like avoidance, it can result in unresolved issues. Too much accommodation can result in groups where the most assertive parties commandeer the process and take control of most conversations.

Conflict Resolution Strategy 4: Collaborating

Collaborating is the method used when people are both assertive and cooperative. A group may learn to allow each participant to make a contribution with the possibility of co-creating a shared solution that everyone can support.

A great way to collaborate and overcome conflict is to reach out and touch them.

Conflict Resolution Strategy 5: Compromising

Another strategy is compromising, where participants are partially assertive and cooperative. The concept is that everyone gives up a little bit of what they want, and no one gets everything they want. The perception of the best outcome when working by compromise is that which “splits the difference.” Compromise is perceived as being fair, even if no one is particularly happy with the final outcome.