Productive Conflict At Work – Constructive Conflicts, Part 1

I recently came across the following question on LinkedIn: Can Conflict at Work be Productive? At the time of writing there are 118 answers to that question. In other words, it’s an engaging topic. My interest in the subject is also fueled by the fact that constructive conflict management in teams was the subject of my master’s thesis. The following post is the first part in a series on constructive conflict at work, providing a short overview on conflict theory related to work and organizations.

Definitions of Conflict

Before looking at the productive side of conflict, let’s see how conflict has been defined in reserach. Thomas has the following difinition:  A conflict is “the process that begins when one party perceives that the other has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect, something that he or she cares about” (Thomas, 1983, p.653). Though maybe a bit on the academic side, this definition is a starting point, at it dives straight into the notion that conflict is a negative state. This is also more or less the way conflict is viewed today.

Alternative Definitions Of Conflict

Research on conflict has been going on for many years, but around the mid nineties a focus on conflicts as constructive started to become a point of interest. A couple of the main players in this work are Karen Jehn and Allan C. Amason. Based on their, and other’s research, the following divisions of conflict can be made:

Constructive Conflict

• Also known as cognitive conflict (C-type conflict), positive conflict and task conflict.
• The conflict is centered on the idea or case at hand that you are working to solve.
• It stays constructive because whatever the conflicting parties feel toward each other, the focus stays on the task, not the people.
• Because the conflict is focused on tasks, people in conflict on one project have no problem working together on other projects.

Destructive Conflict

• Also known as affective conflict (A-type conflict), negative conflict, and relationship conflict.
• Conflict as it is thought of in most people’s minds is destructive conflict.
• Conflicting participants focus their “ammunition” against people and personality, not task.
• They see opponents rather than team players and colleagues.

Another form of conflict defined by Jehn & Mannix (2001) is process conflict which relates to “an awareness of controversies about aspects of how task accomplishment will proceed” (p. 239). In light of the difference between constructive and destructive conflict, process conflict is concerned with the understanding of where the conflict is going, and how certain areas in the work tasks may present a stronger “charge” of tension than others.

Benefits of Constructive Conflicts In Organizations

When constructive conflict is promoted it is because it is seen as having several important benefits such as:

• Improving the decisions made because multiple arguments are heard and taken into consideration.
• Fostering a more creative and innovative environment. Where two people disagree, a decision is often a result of both of their arguments, leading the process in a new and better direction.
• Having an environment where opposition is allowed, even encouraged, can facilitate a better communication and interaction, as well as a healthy working environment.

In illustrating the different outcomes of conflict behavior, Thomas’ model provides an easy to grasp overview of the different conflict behaviors and outcomes, ranging from win-win, win-lose, compromise, shying away from conflict, and collaboration. Collaboration is where we find constructive conflicts. The goal for all parties is to reach a solution that is as close as possible to a win for everyone, and it is achieved when people are both focused on working together for a solution (cooperative), while at the same time staying assertive to their thoughts on the task at hand (assertive). Below is an adaptation of Thomas’ model on conflict behavior

Why Constructive Conflicts Are Difficult To Master

The conflict process often starts out as a constructive process, but because organizations often lack routines for conflict management, they easily fall into the destructive path. Rather than focusing on the task and reaching as a good a result as possible, it becomes a blame game between the conflicting parties. It may even come to a point where the actual reason the conflict occurred in the first place is forgotten. What becomes the ultimate goal is for participants is to “win the conflict”.

 Sitting now with a destructive conflict on their hands, the chances are that much greater for bridges being burnt between colleagues, and that rumors start about one or more people because of “how difficult they are”. When management has to step in because the participants are not able to solve the situation themselves, they are forced to take sides. Though not the intention from management, one party is likely to feel stepped on either way.

In the following parts of this series on constructive conflict, I’ll take a deeper look into the points of view offered by people in the LinkedIn network and the results from my thesis on constructive conflict management in teams.

Feel free to add your own points of view and ideas for follow-up reading.

Related posts

• Productive Conflict At Work, Part 2 – LinkedIn Responses
• Productive Conflict At Work, Part 3 – Thesis Results & Reflection
• 7 Strategies For Facilitating Conflict Mastery