CONFLICT MANAGEMENT The Psychology of conflict and conflict ...

56 JAFFEE
workers. This is followed by the shift toward a more humanistic approach to
human conflict management in organizations in the form of human relations
theory and practice. Rational bureaucracy represents the fourth theoretical
approach and organizational strategy for ensuring predictable control of the
human factor. This has prompted a fifth phase of organizational theorizing
described as “postbureaucratic.” All of these approaches to organizational
study are designed to understand and manage the human resource. The final
section of the chapter considers the most recent literature aimed at further
conceptualizing various modes of organizational conflict.
the funDaMental tensions GeneratinG orGanizational ConfliCt
All organizations embody two interrelated conflict-generating tensions
with which almost every organization theory has had to grapple. The first—
originating at the individual level—is based on the unique capacities of
humans, as opposed to other organizational inputs or factors of production,
to assess, subjectively evaluate, and act to change or resist their environments.
The second—operating at the organizational level—is the structural
differentiation of tasks, both vertically and horizontally, that produces identification
and loyalty to parts rather than the whole. These two fundamental
organizational tensions, often working in tandem, are not only responsible
for the historical legacy of organizational conflict, but have also stimulated
organizational theorizing and managerial strategizing.
Individual-Level Tension
At the most fundamental and general level, organizational conflict stems
from the unique capacities of humans. Humans, unlike other “factors of
production” or organizational inputs, have the capacity to assess subjectively
their environments and act to resist, alter, or counter perceived constraints.
When humans are embedded in organizational structures, there is
an inherent tension between the goals and objectives of organizational owners
and the valued discretion and autonomy of human agents. This human
factor tension has manifested itself in forms of conflict that have shaped the
history and evolution of organization theories and management practices.
Put another way, this tension both produces and is the product of the structures
and processes that we call “organization” or “administration.”
Two further examples of the human factor tension are worth noting.
First, Pondy’s (1967) widely applied stage model of organizational conflict
included the notion of “latent conflict,” defined as the “drive for autonomy.”
He further explained, “Autonomy needs form the basis of a conflict
when one party either seeks to exercise control over some activity
that another party regards as his own province or seeks to insulate itself
from such control” (p. 297). This is regarded here as an ever-present condition
in all organizations; that is, there is always a potential for resistance,