The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1044-4068.

htm

IJCMA 21,2

A re-evaluation of conict theory for the management of multiple, simultaneous conict episodes
James Speakman
IESEG School of Management, Catholic University of Lille, Lille, France, and

186
Received 7 May 2008 Accepted 25 May 2009

Lynette Ryals
Craneld School of Management, Craneld University, Craneld, UK
Abstract
Purpose This conceptual paper aims to draw upon recent complexity and organizational psychology literature to examine conict episodes, exploring the limitations of the predominant research paradigm that treats conict episodes as occurring in sequence, as discrete isolated incidents. Design/methodology/approach The paper addresses a long-standing issue in conict management research, which is that the predominant typology of conict is confusing. The complexity perspective challenges the fundamental paradigm, which has dominated research in the conict eld, in which conict episodes occur in sequence and in isolation, with managers using one predominant form of conict resolution behavior. Findings The ndings are two-fold: rst, the behavioral strategies adopted in the management of these conicts will be highly complex and will be determined by a number of inuencing factors; and second, this moves theory beyond the two dimensional duel concern perspective, in that the adaptable manager dealing with these multiple, simultaneous conicts will also need to consider the possible implications of their chosen strategy along with the changing micro environment in which they operate. Originality/value This paper adds value to the eld of conict theory by moving beyond two dimensions and exploring a sequential contingency perspective for conict management within the organization. It argues that multiple conict episodes can occur simultaneously, requiring managers to use differing behaviors for successful conict management. Keywords Conict management, Conict resolution, Organizational conict, Individual behaviour, Interpersonal relations Paper type Conceptual paper

International Journal of Conict Management Vol. 21 No. 2, 2010 pp. 186-201 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1044-4068 DOI 10.1108/10444061011037404

Introduction It is now over 40 years since Louis Pondy (1967) wrote his seminal article on conict within the organization and its management and almost 20 years since his reections on his earlier work were published (Pondy, 1989)[1]. In 1967 Pondy established what was for two decades the generally accepted paradigm of conict: that conict episodes occur as temporary disruptions to the otherwise cooperative relationships which make up the organization (Pondy, 1967). In his subsequent reections on his earlier work and that of others, Pondy proposed that conict is an inherent feature of organizational life, rather than an occasional breakdown of cooperation (Pondy, 1989). This radically challenged the previous paradigm. Indeed, Pondy (1989) even suggested that research into the phenomenon of cooperation within the organization could be benecial in providing further insight into conict within the organization, implying that it was cooperation, not

conict, which was the anomalous state requiring investigation. Yet, for almost two decades, Pondys conceptualization of conict as a natural state for the organization has remained largely unexplored despite the emergence of a complexity perspective which explores multiple elements of the conict situation or cooperative state. One possible reason why Pondys challenge has not been answered is that some confusion has arisen over the terms and typologies used for the classication of conict episodes. Consequently, debates about conict structure or composition have tended to dominate the research agenda. The potential for confusion arising from these various conict classications will be discussed in this paper. Where conict management behaviors have been studied, researchers have tended to focus on a two-dimensional approach or dual concern theory model (Thomas, 1976) which suggests that individuals adopt conict management behaviors based on their perceived self interests and those of others; i.e. concern for self (competitive behaviors) versus concern for other (accommodating behaviors). Although this approach to the research of conict and its management ts well with Pondys (1967) original paradigm, it is challenged by the complexity perspective that has emerged in psychology research. The complexity perspective of intraorganizational conict maintains that interpersonal relationships are more complex than hitherto thought, and that the unfolding conict is inuenced by a wide variety of conditions. Moreover the complexity perspective encourages the consideration of simultaneous complexity (more than one event occurring simultaneously) and of how the mode of conict management affects the outcomes (Munduate et al., 1999). This fresh perspective has enabled researchers to examine the point at which behavioral style is changed and the effect on the conict episode (Olekalns et al., 1996) and to look at how different behaviors are combined (Janssen et al., 1999). With the recent developments in the complexity perspective of conict management research (Van de Vliert et al., 1997; Munduate et al., 1999), the time has come to further explore the possible consequences of the complexity perspective: whether it is in fact the case that conict is an inherent condition within the organization (Pondy, 1989); whether conict episodes do not occur in isolation but occur frequently and simultaneously (Euwema et al., 2003); and whether complex sequences of adaptive behaviors are required to continually manage the constantly changing intraorganizational, conict environment. Before we can do this, and to provide a common ground for discourse, we rst need to examine some of the theories around conict typology that have arisen in the psychology and management literature and which may be the cause of some confusion. Conict terms and typologies Conict is a broad construct that has been studied extensively across several disciplines covering a wide range of social interactions. Previous conict research has identied four main levels of conict in the context of human behavior and relationships as summarized by Lewecki et al. (2003): (1) Intergroup conicts between groups of individuals which can range in size and complexity due to the many relationships involved, including international conict between nations. (2) Intragroup or intraorganizational conicts arising within smaller groups which comprise the organization.

A re-evaluation of conict theory

187

IJCMA 21,2

(3) Interpersonal conict; that is, conict at an individual level, conict between individuals, or conict between an individual and a group. (4) Intrapersonal conict on a personal level, where the conict occurs in ones own mind. Although these four levels of conict all appear across both the psychology and management literature, it is the third level (interpersonal conicts within the organization or the reactions an individual or group has to the perception that two parties have aspirations that cannot be achieved simultaneously) that has become the central eld of research within the organization (Putnem and Poole, 1987). In 1992, Thomas proposed a simplied denition of interpersonal conict as the process which begins when an individual or group feels negatively affected by another individual or group. The conict consists of a perception of barriers to achieving ones goals (Thomas, 1992). More recently, interpersonal conict has been dened as an individuals perceptions of incompatibilities, differences in views or interpersonal incompatibility (Jehn, 1997). Conict at this level has mostly been seen as adversarial and as having a negative effect upon relationships (Ford et al., 1975). These denitions presuppose that an opposition or incompatibility is perceived by both parties, that some interaction is taking place, and that both parties are able to inuence or get involved that is. that there is some degree of interdependence (Medina et al., 2004). Interpersonal conict could arise within organizations where, for example, customer-facing departments such as Sales make promises to customers that other departments then have to deliver. In this domain of intraorganizational, interpersonal conict, both Pondys (1966, 1967) work and recent developments adopting the complexity perspective are of particular interest This broad area of intraorganizational, interpersonal conict has been further subdivided into two types: relationship conict and task conict. Relationship conict arises between the actors through their subjective emotional positions, whereas task conict relates primarily to the more objective tasks or issues involved (Reid et al., 2004). A series of studies conrmed this duality between relationship and task. Wall and Nolan (1986) identied people oriented versus task oriented conict. In the early to mid-1990s Priem and Price (1991), Pinkley and Northcraft (1994), Jehn (1995) and Sessa (1996) all identied relationship and task as discrete aspects of conict. The picture became rather more complicated in the late 1990s. In 1995 Amason et al. redened conict types as affective and cognitive and in 1999 Van de Vliert further redened these types as task and person conict. In working toward a more comprehensive model of intraorganizational, interpersonal conict, Jameson (1999) suggested three dimensions for conict: (1) content; (2) relational; and (3) situational. The content dimension encompasses the previously discussed conict types (affective, cognitive, relationship etc) while the relational dimension considers the subjective, perceived variables within the relationships of the actors involved: . trust; . status;

188

. . . .

seriousness; degree of interdependence; record of success; and the number of actors involved.

A re-evaluation of conict theory

The situational dimension examines the variables which may be most relevant in selecting an appropriate conict management strategy. These include time pressure, the potential impact of the conict episode, the degree of escalation and the range of options available in the management of the conict episode (Jameson, 1999). Meanwhile, Sheppard (1992) criticized the multiplicity of terms that were being used to describe types of interpersonal conict, and the needless confusion that this caused. The result of the many approaches described above is that there is no general model for the typology of interpersonal conict within the organization. In the absence of such a model, other researchers have taken different approaches, using the antecedents of the conict episode to describe conict types. Examples of this proliferation include role conict (Walker et al., 1975), gender conict (Cheng, 1995) and goal conict (Tellefsen and Eyuboglu, 2002). This proliferation of terms or typologies has unsurprisingly led to confusion, most noticeably with the term interpersonal conict being used to describe purely relationship or emotional conict (Bradford et al., 2004) or conict being dened in terms of emotion only, adding to the wide range of terms already used (Bodtker and Jameson, 2001). Thus, at a time when international, interorganizational, intraorganizational, interpersonal and intrapersonal conicts are being extensively studied with conict dened and operationalized in a variety of ways, no widely accepted and consistent model has emerged to shape conict research (Reid et al., 2004). Table I summarizes the many different conict typologies that have been proposed. Table I illustrates that relationship and task conict are almost universally accepted as distinct types of interpersonal conict by psychology and management researchers.
Date 1986 1991 1994 1995 1995 1996 1996 1997 1999 1999 2000 2000 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 Author(s) Wall and Nolan Priem and Price Pinkley and Northcraft Jehn Amason et al. Sessa Amason Amason and Sapienza Jameson Janssen et al. Friedman et al. Jehn and Chatman Tellefsen and Eyuboglu Bradford et al. De Dreu and Weingart Reid et al. Tidd et al. Guerra et al. Conict typology People oriented, task oriented Relationship, task Relationship, task Relationship, task Cognitive, affective Task, person oriented Affective, cognitive Affective, cognitive Content, relational, situational Task, person oriented Relationship, task Task, relationship, process Goal conicts Interpersonal, task Relationship, task Relationship, task Relationship, task Relationship, task

189

Table I. A summary of the typologies of conict

IJCMA 21,2

190

In addition, many researchers have identied a third type of conict which relates to the environment in which managers operate, described as situational conict ( Jameson, 1999) or process conict ( Jehn and Chatman, 2000). We believe that a consistent conict typology is called for, to aid future research into the complex nature of intraorganizational conict. In this paper, we propose that future researchers should recognize three types of interpersonal conict. However, since the terms relationship and task are vulnerable to misinterpretation we advocate using the terms affective and cognitive (following Amason, 1996 and Amason and Sapienza, 1997), in conjunction with process (Jehn and Chatman, 2000), to describe the three types of interpersonal conict. These terms, which reect the more specic terminology used in the psychology literature, are dened in Table II. As Table II shows, the typology we propose is as follows. Affective Conict is a term describing conicts concerned with what people think and feel about their relationships including such dimensions as trust, status and degree of interdependence (Amason and Sapienza, 1997). Cognitive Conict describes conicts concerned with what people know and understand about their task, roles and functions. Process Conict relates to conicts arising from the situational context, the organization structure, strategy or culture (Amason and Sapienza, 1997; Jehn and Chatman, 2000). Using this typology for conict between individuals or groups of individuals within the organization avoids confusion over the use of the terms interpersonal, person or relationship often used when referring to affective conict, while task conict is clearly distinguished from process conict, addressing all the issues previously outlined. These terms will therefore be used throughout the remainder of this paper. Having argued that taxonomic confusion has hindered conict research through the misuse of existing taxonomies (Bradford et al., 2004) or where language has resulted in the use of different terms to describe the same conict type (see Table I), we now move on to consider the implications or consequences of intraorganizational conict and whether it is always negative or can have positive consequences (De Dreu, 1997). Consequences of conict: functional or dysfunctional? Some researchers exploring attitudes towards conict have considered the consequences of conict for individual and team performance (Jehn, 1995) and have found that interpersonal conict can have either functional (positive) or dysfunctional (negative) outcomes for team and individual performance (e.g. Amason, 1996). Moreover, the consequences of conict can be perceived and felt in different ways by different actors experiencing the conict episode (Jehn and Chatman, 2000). Thus, conict is situationally and perceptually relative.
Conict type Affective Denition Conicts concerned with what people think and feel about their relationships with other individuals or groups Conicts concerned with what people know and understand about their task Conicts arising from the situational context, the organization structure, strategy or culture

Table II. A proposed taxonomy of conict

Cognitive Process

The traditional view of conict takes the view that conict exists in opposition to co-operation and that conict is wholly dysfunctional, putting the focus on resolution rather than management (e.g. Pondy, 1966). This perspective can be traced forward to more recent work. Where conict is dened as the process which begins when one person or group feels negatively affected by another (Thomas, 1992), there is an implication of obstruction to either party achieving their goals, which is readily interpreted negatively. This can result in conict avoidance or suppression of conict management behavior, leading to perceived negative consequences on team or individual performance (De Dreu, 1997). Negatively-perceived conict episodes can increase tension and antagonism between individuals and lead to a lack of focus on the required task (Saavedra et al., 1993; Wall and Nolan, 1986) while avoidance and suppression can also have long term negative consequences such as stiing creativity, promoting groupthink and causing an escalation in any existing conict (De Dreu, 1997). Not surprisingly, where interdependence is negative (where one party wins at the expense of the other although they have some dependency in their relationship) any conict will be viewed negatively (Janssen et al., 1999). The perception of conict will also be negative where the conict is personal, resulting in personality clashes, increased stress and frustration. This type of relationship conict can impede the decision-making process as individuals focus on the personal aspects rather than the task related issues (Jehn, 1995). In contrast to the somewhat negative perception of intraorganizational conict outlined above, more recent conict management theory has begun to suggest that certain types of conict can have a positive effect upon relationships and that the best route to this outcome is through acceptance of, and effective management of, inevitable conict, rather than through conict avoidance or suppression (De Dreu, 1997). When individuals are in conict they have to address major issues, be more creative, and see different aspects of a problem. These challenges can mitigate groupthink and stimulate creativity (De Dreu, 1997). Naturally, where there is high positive interdependence (an agreeable outcome for both parties), the conict episode will be viewed much more positively (Janssen et al., 1999). Moreover, Jehn (1995) has suggested that task- and issue-based cognitive conict can have a positive effect on team performance. Groups who experience cognitive conict have a greater understanding of the assignments at hand and are able to make better decisions in dealing with issues as they arise (Simons and Peterson, 2000). For example, research has shown that, when individuals are exposed to a devils advocate, they are able to make better judgments than those not so exposed (Schwenk, 1990). Schulz-Hardt et al. (2002) suggested that groups make better decisions where they started in disagreement rather than agreement. In these examples, conict has a functional (useful and positive) outcome. We have argued that the notion of functional conict has shifted the eld of conict research away from conict resolution and towards consideration of the management behaviors which can be adopted in dealing with conict in order to gain the best possible outcome (De Dreu, 1997; Euwema et al., 2003). Next, we examine research into conict management behaviors and explore some of the managerial tools that have been developed to help managers to deal with intraorganizational, interpersonal conict. Conict management behaviors Conict management can be dened as the actions in which a person typically engages, in response to perceived interpersonal conict, in order to achieve a desired goal

A re-evaluation of conict theory

191

IJCMA 21,2

192

(Thomas, 1976). Demonstrably, conict management pays off: previous research has indicated that it is the way in which conict episodes are addressed which determines the outcome (Amason, 1996). However, there is disagreement between researchers as to the degree to which managers can and do adopt different conict management behaviors. Previous research has considered three different approaches: the one best way perspective (Sternberg and Soriano, 1984); the contingency or situational perspective (Thomas, 1992; Munduate et al., 1999; Nicotera, 1993); and the complexity or conglomerated perspective (Van de Vliert et al., 1999; Euwema et al., 2003). Arguably the simplest perspective on conict management behavior is the one best way perspective (Sternberg and Soriano, 1984), which agues that one conict management style or behavior (collaboration) is more effective than any other. However, it argues that individuals have a particular preferred behavioral predisposition to the way in which they handle conict. Thus, from the one best way perspective, the conict-avoiding manager may have a behavioral predisposition to avoidance strategies, whereas the accommodating manager may prefer accommodating solutions. In this paradigm, the most constructive solution is considered to be collaboration, since collaboration is always positively interdependent it has a joint best outcome, generally described as win/win (Van de Vliert et al., 1997). The one best way approach suggests that a more aggressive, competitive, negatively interdependent approach (in fact, any conict management approach other than collaborative) can result in suboptimal outcomes (Janssen et al., 1999). However, the one best way perspective raises more questions than it answers. It does not explain how managers are able to collaborate if they have a different behavioral predisposition, nor does it provide evidence that collaboration always produces the best outcome (Thomas, 1992). A more general problem with the one best way approach is that it may not be very useful: if managers truly have little or no control over their approach to conict management, the practical applications are limited. The one best way perspective does not consider the passage of time, that behaviors could be changed or modied during any interaction, nor the effect any previous encounters may have on the current experience (Van de Vliert et al., 1997). Moving beyond the one best way perspective, in which only collaborative behaviors are considered to provide the most desirable outcome, the contingency perspective maintains that the optimal conict management behavior depends on the specic conict situation, and that what is appropriate in one situation may not be appropriate in another (Thomas, 1992). In this paradigm, the best approach is dependent upon the particular set of circumstances. The implications, which are very different to the one best way perspective, are that individuals can and should select the conict management behavior that is most likely to produce the desired outcome. Thus, conict management behaviors are regarded as a matter of preference (rather than innate, as in the one best way view), and the outcome is dependent on the selection of the most appropriate mode of conict management behavior. Until recently, conict research has been heavily inuenced by the one best way and contingency perspectives, focusing on the effectiveness of a single mode of conict management behavior (primarily collaboration) during a single conict episode (Sternberg and Soriano, 1984). Thus the one best way and contingency perspectives do not necessarily offer a real-world view in which managers both can and do change their behaviors: adapting to the situation; perhaps trying different approaches to break

a deadlock or to improve their bargaining position; taking into account changing circumstances in the microenvironment; and the subsequent inuence upon the actions of individuals involved in any conict episode (Olekalns et al., 1996). A fresh approach is provided by the complexity perspective, which characterizes conicts as being dynamic and multi-dimensional. In such circumstances, the best behavioral style in dealing with any one conict episode may vary during, or between, conict episodes (Medina et al., 2004; Nicotera, 1993). For conict in a complex world, neither the one best way nor the contingency perspective would necessarily produce optimal results. If conict does not occur discretely and individually (Pondy, 1992a), existing approaches may not describe the world as managers actually experience it. Arguably, these approaches have articially limited conict research to a at, two-dimensional model. To address the shortcomings of traditional research and to incorporate the complexity perspective into conict management theory, we need to move beyond two dimensions (Van de Vliert et al., 1997). Beyond two dimensions of conict management theory Recent work by Van de Vliert et al. (1997) and Medina et al. (2004) has expanded current theory through consideration of the complexity perspective. The complexity perspective argues that any reaction to a conict episode consists of multiple behavioral components rather than one single conict management behavior. In the complexity perspective, using a mixture of accommodating, avoiding, competing, compromising and collaborating behaviors throughout the conict episode is considered to be the rule rather than the exception (Van de Vliert et al., 1997). To date, studies taking a complexity approach to conict management have adopted one of three different complexity perspectives. The rst examines simultaneous complexity and how different combinations of behaviors affect the outcome of the conict (Munduate et al., 1999). The second complexity approach focuses on the point of behavioral change and the outcome, examining either the behavioral phases through which the participants of a conict episode pass, or apply temporal complexity to look at the point at which behavioral style changes and the effect on the conict episode (Olekalns et al., 1996). The third approach is the sequential complexity or conglomerated perspective, which is concerned with the different modes of conict management behavior, how they are combined, and at what point they change during the interaction. The application of the complexity perspective to conict management research has revealed that managers use more than the ve behaviors suggested by the one best way perspective to manage conict. In their study of conglomerated conict management behavior, Euwema et al. (2003) argued that the traditional approach under-represents the individuals assertive modes of behavior and have as a result added confronting and process controlling, making seven possible behaviors: (1) competing; (2) collaborating; (3) avoiding; (4) compromising; (5) accommodating;

A re-evaluation of conict theory

193

IJCMA 21,2

(6) confronting; and (7) process controlling. Weingart et al. (1990) identied two types of sequential pattern: Reciprocity, responding to the other party with the same behavior; and Complementarity, responding with an opposing behavior. Applying a complexity perspective, the effectiveness of complementarity or reciprocity behaviors will be contingent upon the situation, the micro-environment, the number of conict episodes, and the types of conict present. The sequential pattern may in itself be complex, being dependent both upon the current situation and on varying behaviors throughout the interaction. A further, often unrecognized implication of complexity in conict is that each conict episode could be unique, being composed of different proportions of each of the affective, cognitive and process conict types (Jehn and Chatman, 2000). The implication for conict management strategy and the choice of the most appropriate behavior is immense. Therefore, a new perspective is needed, in which conict and the response to conict is viewed as dynamic and changing over time, with each conict episode having a unique composition requiring a specic but exible approach in order to obtain the best possible outcome. We propose that this might result in a manager changing behavior during a conict episode, or indeed a manager adopting different behaviors for a number of conict episodes occurring simultaneously. In the next section, we take all these complex factors into account and propose a single, dynamic and comprehensive model of conict management behavior. Multiple, simultaneous conict episodes We have shown that the eld of conict has become entangled in multiple terms and that research into conict management is struggling to reconcile two-dimensional models with the more complex situation encountered in the real world. A model is needed which considers the complexity of conict episodes and separates conict antecedents from conict types, recognizing that conict can relate to emotions and situations which have common antecedents. We propose that the way forward is to expand the conglomerated perspective into a sequential contingency perspective, in which the sequence of conict management behaviors adopted is dependent upon a number of inuencing factors in the micro-environment, the number of conict episodes being dealt with, their composition, and changes in the behaviors of the actors involved. A sequential contingency perspective The sequential contingency perspective for intraorganizational, interpersonal conict proposes the adoption of an alternative paradigm which is that conict is ever-present and ever-changing in terms of its nature or composition; and that it is the way in which these continuous conicts is managed which determines the outcome of any conict episode and the nature of any subsequent conicts. Figure 1 provides a visualization of Pondys (1992b) postmodern paradigm of conict and provides a foundation for the investigation of complex, multiple, simultaneous, intraorganizational conicts. This conceptual visualization of conict within the organization provides a three-dimensional representation of conict from the paradigm that conict is an inherent feature of organizational life. It shows how, at any one given point in time,

194

A re-evaluation of conict theory

195

Figure 1. A conceptual visualization of multiple, simultaneous conict

there can be a number of conict episodes experienced (y axis), each with different intensities (z axis) and duration (x axis). In addition, we have argued that each conict episode will have a unique composition, being made up of different proportions of cognitive, affective and process elements. The implications for conict management theory are twofold: rst, the behavioral strategies adopted in the management of these conicts will be highly complex and will be determined by a number of inuencing factors; and second, this moves theory beyond the two dimensional duel concern perspective, in that the adaptable manager dealing with these multiple, simultaneous conicts will also need to consider the possible implications of their chosen strategy along with the changing micro environment in which they operate. Using this three-dimensional conceptual visualization of conict within the organization we propose a sequential contingency model for managing interpersonal conict within the organization (Figure 2). The basic elements of the framework in Figure 2 consider all the dimensions of conict and its management as previously discussed: . the conict episode characteristics, the type and composition of any conict episode encountered (Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1995; Jehn, 1997; Pinkley and Northcraft, 1994); . the characteristics of the relationship(s) (Jehn, 1995); . the characteristics of the individuals involved; . the conict management behaviors; and . the outcome of previous conict episodes (Van de Vliert et al., 1997).

IJCMA 21,2

196

Figure 2. A sequential contingency model for managing intra-organizational, interpersonal conict

The basic postulate of the model is that conict is a constant and inherent condition of the organization (that is, that conict episodes do not occur as isolated, anomalous incidents). Additionally, the effectiveness of the conict management behaviors in terms of its functionality or dysfunctionality is contingent upon, and moderated by, the nature of the conict, the characteristics of the individuals and relationships involved, and experience of previous conict. Thus, this model provides a framework for dealing with multiple, simultaneous conict episodes moving beyond the tradition two-dimensional approach. Future research To date there has been little empirical research into the degree to which individuals are able to adapt their behavior during an interaction, or on the value of the complexity perspective in dealing with complex intraorganizational conict. The future research agenda needs to explore conict through Pondys (1992b) alternative paradigm and expand on these theoretical ndings by investigating intraorganizational, interpersonal conict in a number of ways. We therefore set out a research agenda framed in terms of four research propositions. First, taking the sequential contingency perspective and adopting Pondys (1989) alternative paradigm for conict within the organization, research is needed to establish the occurrence of conict. Pondy (1992b) argues that, rather than a sequence of discrete isolated incidents, conict is an inherent condition of social interaction within the organization and that conict episodes occur simultaneously not sequentially. This would imply that:

P1a. Conict is a constant condition of interorganizational, interpersonal relationships. P1b. Multiple conict episodes occur simultaneously. P1c. Conict episodes are complex, having differing compositions of affective, cognitive and process elements which change over time. The complexity perspective recognizes that different conict situations call for different management behaviors (Van de Vliert et al., 1997). This implies that managers can call upon a much wider range of approaches to conict management than previously thought. Moreover there is a further implication, which is that managers are able to adapt their behavior during conict episodes. Thus: P2a. Managers use different behaviors to manage multiple conicts at any one time. P2b. Managers change their behavior over time during the same conict episode. A substantial branch of recent conict management research has focused on the outcomes of conict and has suggested that not all conict is negative (De Dreu, 1997; Simons and Peterson, 2000; Schultz-Hardt et al., 2002; Schwenk, 1990). Given this, we need a greater understanding of the effect that the behavior adopted has on the conict experienced, whether it mitigated or agitated the situation, and the consequences for any subsequent conict (Amason, 1996). Thus: P3a. The behaviors that managers use affect the outcome of the conict. P3b. The behaviors that managers use affect subsequent conicts. Finally, re-visiting Pondys (1989) alternative paradigm and incorporating the additional perspectives that come from consideration of conict outcomes and the application of the complexity perspective, we argue that more research is needed into the relationship between the behaviors that managers adopt and whether these behaviors represent the conscious adaptation of an optimal approach to conict management. Thus: P4. Conict management involves adapting a set of behaviors through which a degree of co-operation is maintained, as opposed to the use of behavior(s) which resolve(s) discrete isolated incidents of conict.

A re-evaluation of conict theory

197

Our purpose in setting out a new model and research agenda for conict management research, together with a set of detailed research propositions, is to move the eld beyond the consideration of conict episodes as discrete, isolated incidents and to encourage the investigation of different behaviors in different circumstances and their effectiveness. Future research needs to consider the complexity of conict and adopt a research paradigm which considers the behavioral strategies within long term complex interpersonal relationships. Conclusion This paper has offered four contributions to the eld of conict and conict management. The rst is the clarication of conict typologies set out in Table II. The

IJCMA 21,2

198

second contribution is the notion that business managers handle multiple and simultaneous conict episodes that require different approaches to resolving them, so that the existing models proposed for conict management are unlikely to chime with their actual experience. The third contribution is to map this in the form of a new theoretical model for conict management (Figure 2). The fourth contribution is to use this theoretical model to set out a set of research propositions to shape research that will shed light on the real conicts that managers have to face. Just 40 years on, and intraorganizational conict theory itself appears to be in conict. In order to resolve the apparent differences in research approach and perspective researchers need to establish some common ground upon which new theory can be empirically tested, allowing conict management theory to move beyond two dimensions and to explore complexity whilst adding clarity.
Note 1. First presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, August 14, 1986.

References Amason, A. and Sapienza, H. (1997), The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conict, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 495-516. Amason, A.C. (1996), Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conict on strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 123-48. Bodtker, A.M. and Jameson, J.K. (2001), Emotion in conict formation and its transformation: application to organizational conict management, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 259-75. Bradford, K.D., Stringfellow, A. and Weitz, B.A. (2004), Managing conict to improve the effectiveness of retail networks, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 181-95. Cheng, C. (1995), Multi-level gender conict analysis and organizational change, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 26-39. De Dreu, C.K.W. (1997), Productive conict: the importance of conict management and conict issue, in De Dreu, C.K.M. and Van de Vliert, E. (Eds), Using Conict in Organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 9-22. Euwema, M.C., Van de Vliert, E. and Bakker, A.B. (2003), Substantive and relational effectiveness of organizational conict behavior, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 119-39. Ford, N.M., Walker, O.C. Jr and Churchill, G.A. (1975), Expectation specic measures of the intersender conict and role ambiguity experienced by salesmen, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 95-112. Jameson, J.K. (1999), Toward a comprehensive model for the assessment and management of intraorganizational conict: developing the framework, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 268-94. Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E. and Veenstra, C. (1999), How task and person conict shape the role of positive interdependence in management teams, Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 117-42.

Jehn, K.A. (1995), A multi-method examination of the benets and detriments of intragroup conict, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 256-82. Jehn, K.A. (1997), A qualitative analysis of conict types and dimensions in organizational groups, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 530-57. Jehn, K.A. and Chatman, J.A. (2000), The inuence of proportional and perceptual conict composition on team performance, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 56-73. Lewicki, R., Saunders, D., Barry, B. and Minton, J. (2003), Essentials of Negotiation, 3rd ed., McGraw Hill, Singapore. Medina, J.M., Dorado, M.A., de Cisneros, I.F.J., Arevalo, A. and Munduate, L. (2004), Behavioral sequences in the effectiveness of conict management, Psychology in Spain, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 38-47. Munduate, L., Ganaza, J., Peiro, J.M. and Euwema, M. (1999), Patterns of styles in conict management and effectiveness, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 5-24. Nicotera, A.M. (1993), Beyond two dimensions: a grounded theory model of conict-handling behavior, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 282-306. Olekalns, M., Smith, P.L. and Walsh, T. (1996), The process of negotiating: strategy and timing as predictors of outcomes, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 68-77. Pinkley, R.L. and Northcraft, G.B. (1994), Conict frames of reference: implications for dispute processes and outcomes, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 193-205. Pondy, L.R. (1966), A systems theory of organizational conict, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 246-56. Pondy, L.R. (1967), Organizational conict: concepts and models, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 296-320. Pondy, L.R. (1989), Reections on organizational conict, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 94-8. Pondy, L.R. (1992a), Historical perspectives and contemporary updates, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 253-5. Pondy, L.R. (1992b), Reections on organizational conict, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 257-61. Priem, R.L. and Price, K.H. (1991), Process and outcome expectations for the dialectical inquiry, devils advocacy, and consensus techniques of strategic decision making, Group & Organization Studies, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 206-25. Putnem, L. and Poole, M.S. (1987), Conict and negotiation, in Jablin, F.M., Putnam, L.L., Roberts, K.H. and Porter, L.W. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Communication, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 549-99. Reid, D.A., Pullins, E.B., Plank, R.E. and Buehrer, R.E. (2004), Measuring buyers perceptions of conict in business-to-business sales interactions, The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 236-49. Saavedra, R., Earley, P.C. and Van Dyne, L. (1993), Complex interdependence in task-performing groups, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 61-73. Sessa, V. (1996), Using perspective taking to manage conict and affect in teams, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 101-15.

A re-evaluation of conict theory

199

IJCMA 21,2

200

Schwenk, C.R. (1990), Effects of devils advocacy and dialectical inquiry on decision making: a meta-analysis, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 161-77. Sheppard, B.H. (1992), Conict research as Schizophrenia: the many faces of organizational conict, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 325-34. Schulz-Hardt, S., Jochims, M. and Frey, D. (2002), Productive conict in group decision making: genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased information seeking, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 563-86. Simons, T.L. and Peterson, R.S. (2000), Task conict and relationship conict in top management teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 102-11. Sternberg, R.J. and Soriano, L.J. (1984), Styles of conict resolution, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 115-21. Tellefsen, T. and Eyuboglu, N. (2002), The impact of a salespersons in-house conicts and inuence attempts on buyer commitment, Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 157-72. Thomas, K.W. (1992), Conict and conict management: reections and update, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 265-74. Thomas, K.W. (1976), Conict and conict management, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 889-935. Van de Vliert, E., Nauta, A., Euwema, M.C. and Janssen, O. (1997), The effectiveness of mixing problem solving and forcing, Using Conict in Organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 38-52. Van de Vliert, E., Nauta, A., Giebels, E. and Janssen, O. (1999), Constructive conict at work, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 475-91. Walker, O.C., Churchill, G.A. Jr and Ford, N.M. (1975), Organizational determinants of the industrial salesmans role conict and ambiguity, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 32-9. Wall, V.D. Jr and Nolan, L.L. (1986), Perceptions of inequity, satisfaction, and conict in task-oriented groups, Human Relations, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 1033-52. Weingart, L.R., Thompson, L.L., Bazerman, H.H. and Caroll, J.S. (1990), Tactical behavior and negotiation outcomes, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 7-31.

Further reading Amason, A.C., Hochwarter, W.A., Thompson, K.R. and Harrison, A.W. (1995), Conict: an important dimension in successful management teams, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 20-35. Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1964), The Managerial Grid, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, TX. De Dreu, C. and Weingart, L.R. (2003), Task versus relationship conict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 741-9. Deutsch, M. (1973), The Resolution of Conict, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Friedman, R., Tidd, S., Currall, S. and Tsai, J. (2000), What goes around comes around: the impact of personal conict style on work conict and stress, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 32-55.

Guerra, M.J., Martinez, I., Munduate, L. and Medina, F.J. (2005), A contingency perspective on the study of the consequences of conict types: the role of organizational culture, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 157-76. Lewicki, R.J. and Sheppard, B.H. (1985), Choosing how to intervene: factors affecting the use of process and outcome control in third party dispute resolution, Journal of Occupational Behavior, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 49-64. Tidd, S.T., McIntyre, H. and Friedman, R.A. (2004), The importance of role ambiguity and trust in conict perception: unpacking the task conict to relationship conict linkage, International Journal of Conict Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 364-84. About the authors James Speakman is Assistant Professor of International Negotiation at IESEG Business School, a member of Catholic University of Lille, where his attentions are focused on sales and negotiation. After working for 16 years in key account management sales he completed his PhD research at Craneld School of Management, where, using the Critical Incident Technique with an Interpretive Framework for coding to investigate intraorganizational, interpersonal conict and the behavioral sequences adopted in the management of these complex interpersonal, intraorganizational conict episodes. Other research interests include personal selling, past, present and future, where he conducted the US research for a multinational study on the future of personal selling and negotiation in context where his research interests include multi-cultural negotiation. James Speakman is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: I.Speakman@IESEG.FR Lynette Ryals specializes in key account management and marketing portfolio management, particularly in the area of customer protability. She is a Registered Representative of the London Stock Exchange and a Fellow of the Society of Investment Professionals. She is the Director of Cranelds Key Account Management Best Practice Research Club, Director of the Demand Chain Management community and a member of Craneld School of Managements Governing Executive.

A re-evaluation of conict theory

201

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints