CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

8. CONFLICT ESCALATION IN ORGANIZATIONS 247
the form of retaliation, a contentious response to annoyance from another
party. Hence, a long section will be devoted to the conditions that affect
the likelihood and extent of this phenomenon. That section will be followed
by a discussion of the structural changes that occur if escalation
becomes a persistent part of the relationship between two parties. The
penultimate section will suggest some methods for avoiding or coping
with severe escalation. At the end of the chapter, some suggestions for
future research on escalation will be made.
iMPaCt of esCalation
Escalation sometimes has positive consequences for individuals and
organizations. Selective escalation helps reveal the relative importance to
each party of the issues in the conflict, thus promoting the development of
logrolling solutions. In addition, the shock value of escalation can encourage
information gathering, problem solving, rethinking of faulty activities
or policies, and hence, needed social change (Bies, Tripp, & Kramer,
1997; Skarlicki & Folger, 2004). Furthermore, the fear of escalation can keep
managers in line (Bies et al., 1997).
However, escalation (especially severe escalation) is often harmful to
organizations. Many of the behaviors listed in Table 8.1 are directly harmful,
for example, work slowdown, theft, and sabotage. Escalation can also
lead to ill feeling and breakdown in working relationships. Escalation tends
to crowd out problem solving by encouraging strategic rather than integrative
thinking, by producing hostility to the other party’s welfare, and by
impeding creative thinking (Carnevale & Probst, 1998). This encourages
one-sided, win–lose decisions that fail to balance the multiple interests
that must be served for good organizational functioning (Brett, Shapiro,
& Lytle, 1998). In addition, fear of escalation can cause conflict avoidance:
important issues are swept under the rug. This is especially likely to occur
in workgroups where people are interdependent and trust is low (Tjosvold,
Leung, & Johnson, 2000). Prior escalation can encourage such fear.
esCalation sequenCes
There are two types of escalation sequences: unilateral and bilateral. In
unilateral sequences, only one party escalates. A trivial example is when the
chair of a meeting that has gone astray first suggests “Let’s get back to the
topic,” then demands “Come on guys, talk about the topic,” and finally gets
angry and bangs a fist on the table. The organizational change consultant
who finds resistance to his or her recommendations may reach a higher level
of escalation. At first, he or she calls meetings and puts pressure on employees,
then issues threats, and finally complains to upper management.