Understanding Conflict and Conflict Organization
Conflict (conflict) is a process that begins when one party has the perception that another party has negatively affected or will affect negatively something of concern or interest of the first party. While the Organization Conflict itself is a problem that arises in an organizational environment that problem either small or large problems. Surely there is no problem without a cause, so there is no conflict if there is no reason that cause conflict. The conflict in the organization is not always negative, because the conflict can be used as an excuse for an organization becomes better. Conflicts of this organization we can also distinguish the two different views. Two different views are the views and the views Interaction Traditional / interactionist.
The Traditional View
The earliest approach to the conflict is of the view that all conflict is a thing / bad events. Conflict viewed negatively and is used as the equation of terms such as violence, destruction, and irrationality, just to reinforce a negative connotation. Conflict of definition alone is dangerous and should be avoided. The traditional view (traditional) is in line with the attitude adopted by many people regarding the behavior of groups in the 1930's and 1940's. Conflict is seen as dysfunctional as a result of poor communication, lack of openness and trust among members, as well as the inability of managers to respond to the needs and aspirations of their employees.The view that all conflict is bad of course, a simple approach in observing the behavior of the person creating the conflict. Because all conflicts must be avoided, we only need to draw attention to the causes of conflict as well as correcting errors to improve the performance of groups and organizations. Although current research studies provide strong evidence to reject that approach to the reduction of conflict produces high performance group, but many of us are still evaluating the situation of conflict using outdated standards of this kind.
Interactionist view
Interactionist view (interactionist) or interactions encourage the emergence of conflict with the basic premise that a group of harmonious, peaceful, calm, and cooperative usually become static, apathetic, and unresponsive to the need perubanhan and innovation. Therefore, the largest donation interactionist view is to encourage group leaders to maintain the minimum level of conflict which is enough to keep the groups remained normal working, self-critical, and creative.Interactionist view did not mean to say that all conflicts are good. This is because some of the conflicts are usually support the achievement of group goals and improve the performance of other forms of conflict are functional (fungtional) and constructive. In addition, there are conflicts that hamper the performance of a group of other forms of conflict that difungsional (dysfungional) and destructive. In this course we can distinguish functional conflict with dysfunctional conflict, the evidence to be considered is the type of conflict. Specifically there are three types of conflict of duties, relationships, and processes.Thus the second explanation is the view I can conclude the difference from the traditional and interactionist views are in the traditional view of conflict is seen and believed that all conflicts are dangerous and should be avoided because of the conflict will bring a bad influence. While the interactionist view or interaction is seen or believed that all conflict is not only a positive action in an organization but also an absolute trust for an organization to achieve better performance. So the traditional view of conflict is considered a very bad thing while the interactionist view of conflict is considered as a good and positive thing for an organization.Conflict task (task conflict) associated with the charge and purpose of the work. Relationship conflict (relationship conflict) focuses on interpersonal relationships. Conflict process (process conflict) are associated with how a work is carried out. This explanation shows that the conflict relation is almost sealu dysfunctional, this is due to friction or hostility anatarpersonal inherent in relation to sharpen the contradictions of personality conflicts and reduce mutual perhatia, which in turn inhibits penyelesaiaan organizational tasks. However, the level of conflict processes and levels of task conflict are low to moderate bias into functional conflict. To be productive, conflict processes must be kept in low levels. Sharp and hot debate about who should do what, will become dysfunctional when it creates uncertainty about the role of each member of the task, extending the task completion time, and cause the members must do the tasks that had accumulated. Levels of task conflict is always showing low to moderate positive effect on group performance because fishing emergence of fresh ideas and good performance of the group who helped to be better.
Result of a Conflict
Results of a conflict are as follows:
* Enhance solidarity among members of the group (ingroup) which was in conflict with other groups.
* Rift between warring groups.
* Personality changes in individuals, such as the emergence of a sense of revenge, hatred, mutual suspicion, etc..
* Damage to property and loss of human life.
* Domination conquest even one of the parties involved in the conflict.
Theorists have claimed that the parties to the conflict can yield responses to conflict according to a two-dimensional scheme; understanding of the results of our goals and understanding for the purpose of any other party. This scheme will generate hypotheses as follows:
* High Definition for the two sides will result in an experiment to find the best way out.
* High Definition for the results of our own will only result in an attempt to "win" the conflict.
* High Definition for the other parties would only result in an experiment that provides "victory" for the conflict parties.
* There is no sense for both sides would result in trial to avoid conflicts.
Main Sources of Conflict Causes
The problem arises must have a cause, as well as the conflict must have causes that give rise to conflict. According to Robbins (1996), conflicts arise because there are conditions that melatar his back (antecedent conditions). The condition is also referred to as a source of conflict. This condition consists of three categories of Communication, Structure, and Personal Variables. In his explanation the main source of the causes of conflict are:
1. Poor communication, in the sense of communication that give rise to misunderstandings between the parties involved, can be a source of conflict. A study showed that semantic difficulties, exchange of information that is not enough, and disruption in the communication channel is a barrier to communication and to this condition would create a conflict. Understanding the structure in this case used in the sense that includes the size of the (group), the degree of specialization is given to group members, clarity of jurisdiction (working area), the match between the goals with the aim of the group members, leadership style, reward systems, and the degree of dependence between the groups. Research shows that group size and degree of specialization is the variable that drives the conflict. The bigger the group, and the more specialized activities, the greater the likelihood of conflict.
2. Personality characteristics that cause the individual has a unique (idiosyncrasies) and different from other individuals. The fact shows that certain personality types, for example, individuals who are highly authoritarian, and low respect for others, a source of potential conflict. If any of these conditions occur in clusters, and the members will realize that, then comes the perception that a conflict within the group. This is called the conflict is perceived (perceived conflict). Then if the individual involved emotionally, and they feel anxious, tense, frustrated, or appear hostile, then the conflict turned into a conflict that is felt (felt conflict). Furthermore, a conflict that has been realized and felt its existence it will turn into a real conflict, if the parties involved make it happen in the form of behavior. For example, verbal attacks, threats toward others, physical assaults, riots, strikes, and so on.
3. Individual differences, including differences in the establishment and feelings. Every human being is a unique individual. That is, each person has a stance and feeling different from one another. Differences establishment and feeling of something or a real environment can be a factor causing social conflict, because in living social relations, one is not always in line with the group. For example, when the musical performances take place in the neighborhood, of every citizen will feel different. Some are annoyed that noisy, but some are amused.
4. Culturally diverse in the world with different cultural background will certainly form the different personalities. Someone a little more will be affected by the patterns of thought and the establishment of the group. Different thoughts and convictions that will ultimately result in the individual differences that can lead to conflict.
5. The difference of interests between individuals or groups of Humans have feelings, and the establishment of different cultural backgrounds. Therefore, at the same time, each person or group has different interests. Sometimes people can do the same thing, but for different purposes.
Main Techniques to Solve Conflicts
The conflict arises because there is cause, then surely we can find a way out and solve the conflict so that the organization's environment, we are obliged to master and understand how to solve a conflict. In this explanation I will explain mengeanai four problem-solving techniques, namely:
1. Integrating (Problem Solving). = In this technique the interested parties together to identify problems encountered, and then seek, consider and select alternative solutions solving problems. This style is suitable to solve complex issues that are caused by misunderstanding (misunderstanding), but not appropriate to solve problems that occur due to different value systems. Its main drawback is the need of time in problem solving.
2. Dominating (Forcing). = Orientation yourself high, and low concern for the interests of others, encourage someone to use the tactic of "I win, you lose". This style is often called forcing (forcing) due to use of formal legality in solving problems. This style is suitable for use if the ways that are not popular be applied in solving the problem, the problem is solved is not too important, and time to take a decision already tight. But it is not suitable to handle problems that require the participation of those involved. The main strength of this style lies in the minimum time required. Weakness, often leading to resentment or a sense of reluctance to accept the decision by those involved.
3. Avoiding. = Avoidance tactic (avoiding) suitable to be used to resolve a trivial or frivolous. This style is not suited to resolve - malasah difficult or "bad". The strength of the avoidance strategy is if we confront a situation that is confusing or ambiguous (ambiguous Situations). As for weaknesses, solving the problem is only temporary and does not resolve the basic problem.
4. Compromising. = This style puts a person at a moderate position, which is balanced blend between its own interests and the interests of others. This is an approach of give and take (give-and-take approach) of the parties terlibat.Kompromi suitable for dealing with problems involving the parties have different goals but has the same strength. For example, in contract negotiations between unions and employers. The main strength of the compromise is in the process of democratic and neither party was defeated. But sometimes a temporary settlement of the conflict and prevent the emergence of creativity in problem solving.
source :
- Stephen P. Robbins – Timothy A. Judge, Perilaku Organisasi (Organizational Behavior), (ed.12). Salemba Empat.
- Gibson, James L., et al., 1977. Organisasi: Perilaku, Struktur, Proses. Alih bahasa oleh Adriani. Jakarta: Binarupa Aksara.
- Greenhalgh, Leonard, 1999. “Menangani Konflik”. Dalam A.Dale Timpe, (Ed.), Memimpin Manusia. Alih bahasa oleh Sofyan Cikmat. Jakarta: PT.Gramedia.
- http://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konflik
