Chapter 6

Intergroup conflict in
Organizations
 A Contemporary Perspective on Intergroup
Conflict
• Consider the statement “any and all conflict is
bad and thus should be eliminated”
• conflict is neither inherently good nor bad, but
it is inevitable.
• conflict can have negative consequences
because it requires time and resources to deal
with it and because it diverts energy that
could more constructively be applied
elsewhere.
• Too little conflict, on the other hand, can also
be negative in that such a state can lead to
apathy and lethargy and provide little or no
impetus for change and innovation
• Some conflict situations produce nothing
positive.
• Other conflict situations, however, may be
beneficial if they are used as instruments for
change or innovation.
• Thus, in dealing with conflict the critical issue
is not so much the conflict itself but how it is
managed.
functional vs dysfunctional conflict
• functional conflict is a confrontation
between groups that enhances and
benefits the organization’s performance
• Dysfunctional conflict is a confrontation
or interaction between groups that
harms the organization or hinders the
achievement of organizational goals.
 Functional Conflict
• For example, two departments in a hospital may be in conflict
over the most efficient and adaptive method of delivering
health care to low income rural families.
• The two departments agree on the goal but not on the means
to achieve it.
• Whatever the outcome, low-income rural families probably will
end up with better medical care once the conflict is settled.
• Without this type of conflict in organizations, there would be
little commitment to change, and most groups likely would
become stagnant.
• Functional conflict can lead to increased awareness of
problems that need to be addressed, result in broader and
more productive searches for solutions, and generally
facilitate positive change, adaptation, and innovation.
 Dysfunctional Conflict
• Management must seek to eliminate dysfunctional
conflict.
• Beneficial conflicts can often turn into harmful ones.
• In most cases, the point at which functional conflict
becomes dysfunctional is impossible to identify
precisely.
• The same level of stress and conflict that creates a
healthy and positive movement toward goals in one
group may prove extremely disruptive and dysfunctional
in another group (or at a different time for the same
group).
• A group’s tolerance for stress and conflict
can also depend on the type of
organization it serves.
• Auto manufacturers, professional sports
teams, and police and fire departments
would have different points where
functional conflict becomes dysfunctional
than would organizations such as
universities, research and development
firms, and utility companies.
• A recent research study analyzed how an
initial conflict between different groups at a
community hospital in the Midwest escalated
into a full-blown “war.”
• The conflict began when physicians perceived
that the hospital administration (i.e., the CEO
and her administrative team) was ignoring or
blocking recommendations that could improve
the quality of patient care at the hospital.
• The physicians wanted to maintain control
over decisions that could affect their patients.
• The administration responded to this perceived
attack from the physicians by withholding even
more support for the physicians’
recommendations.
• The physicians responded by launching a
campaign to remove the CEO from her position.
• These retaliations and countermoves escalated,
ultimately costing the administrative and
medical groups countless hours of time, energy,
and stress that could have been better spent on
improving the quality of care for patients.
Relationship between Intergroup Conflict
and Organizational Performance
 What Causes Intergroup Conflict?
• Every group comes into at least partial
conflict with every other group with which
it interacts.
• This tendency is known as “the law of
inter-organizational conflict.”
• In this section we examine three of the
more important factors that contribute to
group conflict: work interdependence, goal
differences, and perceptual differences.
 Work Interdependence
• Work interdependence occurs when two or
more organizational groups must depend on one
another to complete their tasks.
• The conflict potential in such situations ranges
from relatively low to very high, depending on
the nature of the interdependence.
• Three distinct types of interdependence among
groups have been identified: pooled, sequential,
and reciprocal.
 Pooled interdependence
• Interdependence that requires no interaction
between groups because each group, in effect,
performs separately.
• However, the pooled performances of all the
groups determine how successful the
organization is.
• For example, the staff of a Xerox sales office in
one region may have no interaction with its peers
in another region.
• Similarly, two Dick’s Sporting Goods or Starbucks
stores will have little or no interaction.
• In both cases, however, the groups are
interdependent because the performance of
each must be adequate if the total
organization is to thrive.
• The conflict potential in pooled
interdependence is relatively low, and
management can rely on standard rules and
procedures developed at the main office for
coordination.
 Sequential interdependence

• An interdependence that requires one

group to complete its task before
another group can complete its task.
• Tasks are performed in a sequential
fashion.
• In a manufacturing plant, for example,
the product must be assembled before it
can be painted.
• Thus, the assembling department must
complete its task before the painting
department can begin painting.
• Under these circumstances, since the output
of one group serves as the input for another,
conflict between the groups is more likely to
occur.
• Coordinating this type of interdependence involves
effective use of the management function of
planning.
 interdependence
• An Interdependence that requires the output
of each group in an organization to serve as
input to other groups in the organization.
• Consider the relationships that exist between
the anesthesiology staff, nursing staff,
technician staff, and surgeons in a hospital
operating room.
• This relationship creates a high degree of
reciprocal interdependence.
• The same interdependence exists among
groups involved in space launchings.
• Another example is the interdependence
among airport control towers, flight
crews, ground operations, and
maintenance crews.
• Clearly, the potential for conflict is great in
any of these situations.
• Effective coordination involves management’s
skillful use of the organizational processes of
communication and decision making.
• All organizations have pooled interdependence
among groups.
• Complex organizations also have sequential
interdependence.
• The most complicated organizations experience
pooled, sequential, and reciprocal
interdependence among groups.
• The more complex the organization, the greater
are the potentials for conflict and the more
difficult is the task facing management.
 Goal Differences

• Ideally, interacting groups will always view their

goals as mutually compatible and behave in such
a way as to contribute to the attainment of both
sets of goals.
• Realistically, however, this is frequently not the
case.
• Several problems related to differences in goals
can create conflicts
• mutually exclusive goals
• limited resources
• different time horizons
 mutually exclusive goals
• Groups with mutually exclusive goals can find
themselves in conflict.
• For example, marketing departments usually have
a goal of maximizing sales, while credit
departments seek to minimize credit losses.
• Depending on which department prevails,
different customers might be selected.
• Some incompatible goals may be more apparent
than real; in these situations, conflicting groups
need to refocus on larger organizational objectives.
 limited resources
• When limited resources must be allocated between
groups, mutual dependencies increase and any
differences in goals become more apparent.
• If money, space, labor, and materials were unlimited,
every group could pursue its own goals.
• But in virtually all cases, resources must be allocated
or shared.
• When groups conclude that resources have not been
allocated in an equitable manner, pressures toward
conflict increase.
• When the limited resource is money, conflict
potential is particularly strong.
 Different time horizons
• Finally, the different time horizons needed by groups to
achieve their goals can be a source of conflict.
• Research scientists working for a pharmaceutical
manufacturer may have a time perspective of several years,
while the same firm’s manufacturing engineers may work
within time frames of several months.
• A bank president might focus on 5- and 10-year time spans,
while middle managers of the bank may concentrate on much
shorter periods.
• With such differences in time horizons, problems and issues
deemed critical by one group may be dismissed as
unimportant by another, and conflicts may erupt.
 Perceptual Differences
• Goal differences can be accompanied by differing
perceptions of reality, and disagreements over what
constitutes reality can lead to conflict.
• For instance, a problem in a hospital may be viewed in
one way by the medical staff and in another way by the
nursing staff.
• Alumni and faculty may have different perceptions
concerning the importance of a winning football program.
• Many factors cause organizational groups to form
differing perceptions of reality.
• Major factors include status in congruency, inaccurate
perceptions, and different perspectives.
 Status in-congruency
• Status in-congruency conflicts concerning the relative
status of different groups are common. Usually, many
different status standards are found in an organization,
rather than an absolute one.
• The result is many status hierarchies.
• For example, status conflicts often are created by work
patterns—which group initiates the work and which
group responds.
• Some sales departments are known for overselling the
features of a given product or service.
• Once the sale is complete, the customer
service department becomes frustrated at
having to work with these new, upset
customers.
• Academic snobbery is certainly a fact of
campus life at many colleges and universities.
• Members of a particular academic discipline
may perceive themselves, for one reason or
another, as having a higher status than those
of another discipline.
 Inaccurate perceptions
• Inaccurate perceptions often cause one group to
develop stereotypes about other groups.
• While the differences between groups may actually be
quite small, each group will tend to exaggerate them.
• Thus, you will hear that “all women executives are
aggressive,” or “all CEOs behave alike,” or “all
professors think their course is the only important
one.”
• When the differences between the groups are
emphasized, the stereotypes are reinforced, relations
deteriorate, and conflict develops.
 Different perspectives
• The example given earlier of alumni and
faculty having different perceptions
concerning the importance of a winning
football program is an example of different
perspectives.
• Alumni may wish for a winning football season
because that shows a form
• of institutional success in a very visible public
manner.
• Faculty, on the other hand, may see the football
program as a distraction from the school’s primary
objective of creating and disseminating
knowledge.
• The two groups simply may have a different view
of what is most important.
• Group goals, experience, values, and culture all
may contribute to different ways of seeing the
world.
• The different perspectives growing out of different
organizational cultures can explain why conflict
frequently results when companies are merged.
he Consequences of Dysfunctional Intergroup
Conflict
• Behavioral scientists have spent more than four
decades researching and analyzing how
dysfunctional intergroup conflict affects those
who experience it.
• They have found that groups placed in a conflict
situation tend to react in fairly predictable ways.
• We shall examine a number of the changes that
can occur within groups and between groups as
a result of dysfunctional intergroup conflict.
 Changes within Groups
• Many changes are likely to occur within groups
involved in intergroup conflict.
• Unfortunately, these changes generally result in
either a continuance or an escalation of the conflict.
• Includes:
– Increased Group Cohesiveness
– Emphasis on Loyalty
– Rise in Autocratic Leadership
– Focus on Activity
 Changes between Groups
• During conflicts, certain changes will probably
occur between the groups involved.
• Includes:
– Distorted Perceptions
– Negative Stereotyping
– Decreased Communications
 Managing Intergroup Conflict through
Resolution
• Since managers must live with intergroup conflict,
they must confront the problem of managing it.
• 13 In this section we will examine several approaches
to managing conflict.
• Exhibit 11.3 provides a framework, in the form of a
conflict-resolution grid, for examining these various
approaches.
• As the exhibit suggests, one way of viewing conflict
resolution efforts between groups is to examine the
extent to which a conflicting group has an internal and
external focus with respect to resolution strategies.
Conflict-Resolution Grid

Exhibit 11.3
• An internal focus represents the extent to which a group is
intent upon addressing its own concerns in a conflict situation.
• An external focus reflects the extent to which a group is intent
on addressing the concerns of the other group (or groups)
involved in the conflict.
• From this perspective, internal and external foci are not
opposite ends of the same dimension.
• Rather, they are two separate dimensions.
• Varying degrees of focus on these two dimensions lead to five
approaches to resolving intergroup conflict.
• Depending upon the nature and conditions of the conflict,
each of these five approaches can represent an effective
approach for conflict-resolution management.
• We will examine each of these approaches separately.
• Use a dominating approach on important issues where you are
certain you are right and where the benefit of a resolution
outweighs the drawback of possible negative feelings by the
dominated group.
• Use an accommodating approach in disputes that are of far
greater importance to the other group than they are to your
group.
• Use a problem-solving approach when both groups are willing to
invest time and effort to reach a resolution that maximizes
everyone’s outcome.
• Use an avoiding approach primarily as a temporary step to buy
more time.
• Use a compromising approach as a middle ground. It is a good
backup approach when other approaches (mainly dominating
and problem solving) fail to resolve the issue.