This document discusses conflict management in education. It defines conflict and discusses different views of conflict, including constructive conflict, relationship conflict, and separating the two. It also covers sources of conflict, types of conflict including intergroup, interorganizational, and interpersonal, outcomes of conflict that can be functional or dysfunctional, and strategies for conflict resolution including different conflict management styles.

1. 1 | P a g e
PART II: CONFLICT MANAGEMENT IN EDUCATION
2.1. Meaning and Nature of Conflict
Conflict can be defined as a process that begins when one party perceive that another party has
negatively affected or is about to negatively affect something that the first party cares about. This
definition is broad. It describes that point in any ongoing activity when an interaction crosses
over to become an inter-party conflict. It encompasses a wide range of conflicts that people
experience in organizations-incompatibility of goals, differences over interpretations of facts,
disagreements based on behavioral expectations, and the like. Additional commonalities in the
definitions are opposition or incompatibility and some form of interaction. Conflict must be
perceived by the parties to it; whether or not a conflict exists is a perception issue. If no one is
aware of a conflict, then it is generally agreed no conflict exists. It can also be defined as all
oppositions or antagonistic interactions by a person or a group. Conflict is a disagreement
between people that may be the result of different: ideas, perspective, priorities, preferences,
beliefs, values, goals or structures.
2.2. The Emerging Views of conflict
2.2.1. Constructive conflict
Constructive conflict occurs when people focus their discussion on the issue while showing
respect for people with other points of view. This conflict is called ―constructive‖ because
different positions are encouraged so that ideas and recommendations can be clarified,
redesigned, and tested for logical soundness. Keeping the debate focused on the issue helps
participants reexamine their assumptions and beliefs without triggering the drive to defend and
its associated negative emotions and ego–defense mechanism behaviors. Teams and
organizations with very low levels of constructive conflict are less effective, but there is also
likely an upper limit to the level of intensity of constructive conflict.
2.2.2. Relationship Conflict
Relationship conflict focuses on people, rather than the issues, as the source of conflict. The
parties refer to interpersonal incompatibilityties such as ―personality clashes‖ rather than
legitimate differences of opinion regarding tasks or decisions. Each party tries to undermine the
other‘s argument by questioning her or his competency. Attacking a person‘s credibility or
displaying an aggressive response toward the person triggers defense mechanisms and a

2. 2 | P a g e
competitive orientation. The subject of the verbal attacks becomes less motivated to
communicate and share information, making it more difficult for the parties to discover common
ground and ultimately resolve the conflict. Instead, they increasingly rely on more distorted
perceptions and stereotypes, and this, as we noted earlier, tends to further escalate the conflict.
Relationship conflict is sometimes called socioemotional or affective conflict because people
experience and react to strong emotional responses during such conflict episodes.
2.3. Separating Constructive Conflict from Relationship Conflict
Fortunately, conflict management experts have identified three strategies that potentially
minimize the level of relationship conflict during constructive-conflict episodes
2.3.1. Emotional intelligence:
Relationship conflict is less likely to occur, or is less likely to escalate, when team members have
high levels of emotional intelligence. Emotionally intelligent employees are better able to
regulate their emotions during debate, thus reducing the risk of escalating perceptions of
interpersonal hostility. People with high emotional intelligence are also more likely to view a co-
worker‘s emotional reaction as valuable information about that person‘s needs and expectations,
rather than as a personal attack.
2.3.2. Cohesive team:
Relationship conflict is suppressed when the conflict occurs within a highly cohesive team. The
longer people work together, get to know each other, and develop mutual trust, the more latitude
they give each other to show emotions without being personally offended. Strong cohesion also
allows each person to know about and anticipate the behaviors and emotions of teammates.
Another benefit is that cohesion produces a stronger social identity with the group, so team
members are motivated to avoid escalating relationship conflict during otherwise emotionally
turbulent discussions.
2.3.3. Supportive team norms
Various team norms can hold relationship conflict at bay during constructive debate. When team
norms encourage openness, for instance, team members learn to appreciate honest dialogue
without personally reacting to any emotional display during the disagreements. Other norms
might discourage team members from displaying negative emotions toward co-workers. Team
norms also encourage tactics that diffuse relationship conflict when it first appears. For instance,
research has found that teams with low relationship conflict use humor to maintain positive

3. 3 | P a g e
group emotions, thereby offsetting negative feelings team members might develop toward some
co-workers during debate.
2.4. Other Views of Conflicts
1. The Traditional View of Conflict
The traditional view is the early approach to conflict which assumed that all conflict was bad and
to be avoided. The conflict was treated negatively and discussed with such terms as violence,
destruction, and irrationality to reinforce its negative implication. The conflict was a
dysfunctional outcome; resulting from poor communication, lack of transparency and trust
between people, and the failure of managers to be responsive to the necessities and aspirations of
their employees.
2. The Human Relations View of Conflict
The human relations view of conflict treats conflict as a natural and inevitable phenomenon and,
so can‘t be eliminated completely from any organization. Here, the conflict was seen in a
positive light as it was suggested that conflict may lead to an improvement in a group‘s
performance. But it is similar to the interactionist view of the conflict.
3. The integrationist View of Conflict
The integrationist view indicates that conflict is not only an encouraging force in a group but
also an absolute necessity for a group to perform effectively. While the human relations view
accepted conflict, the integrationist view encourages conflicts on the grounds that a harmonious,
peaceful, tranquil, and cooperative group is prone to becoming static apathetic and non-
responsive to needs for change in innovation. So the major contribution of the integrationist view
is encouraging group leaders to sustain an ongoing minimum level of conflict enough to keep the
group viable, self-critical and inspired.
2.5. Sources of Conflict
A. Competition for limited resources: Resources of an organization are finite. As a result there
are times when groups or individuals in an organization fight for resources. The greater the
scarcity of resources, the greater the potential for conflict.
B. Work flow relationship: When group‘s performance is dependent on another group or if
interdependence allows one group gain at another‘s expense, opposing sources are
stimulated.

4. 4 | P a g e
C. Communication problems: May arise because all groups may not have the same
information or may not have adequate information or information overload.
D. Differences in values: attitudes and perceptions.
E. Overlapping or unclear boundaries.
F. Unclear authority structure: people may not know how far their authority extends.
G. Unreasonable or unclear procedures or rules.
H. Collective decision making: The greater the number of people participating in a decision,
the greater the potential for conflict.
I. Conflict of interest: ―Doesn‘t she belong to the College too?‖
J. Unresolved prior conflicts:‖ have a problem with the Feds about the final report.‖
K. Over dependency of one party: ―We will have to wait until the Budget is announced.‖
2.6. Types of Conflict
A. Inter-group Conflict
Intergroup conflict is conflict between two or more teams or groups. Managers play a key role in
resolution of this conflict. When conflict occurs between groups or teams, it is known as inter-
group conflict. Competition between groups must be managed carefully so that it does not
escalate into dysfunctional conflict. It occurs between or among two or more groups. Example:
Conflict among different departments.
B. Inter-organizational Conflict: Conflict that occurs between two or more organizations is
called inter-organizational conflict. Competition among organizations, conflicts between a
company and a union, etc. constitute an inter-organizational conflict.

5. 5 | P a g e
C. Interpersonal Conflict:
Conflict between two or more people is interpersonal conflict. Many individual differences lead
to conflict between people. Interpersonal conflict is conflict between individuals due to
differences in their goals or values. It arises when two or more people have incompatible goals,
ideas, feelings, or ways of behaving. There are two common forms of interpersonal conflict:
Relationship conflict occurs when members of a group are personally incompatible. Typically,
tension, animosity, and annoyance are expressed. Task conflict occurs when the members of a
group cannot agree about the tasks they are expected to perform. Differences in ideas,
perspectives, and opinions about how to proceed are likely to arise.
D. Intrapersonal Conflict: When conflict occurs within an individual. There are several types
of interpersonal conflicts.
2.7. CONFLICT OUT COMES
Conflict outcomes may be either functional, in that the conflict results in an improvement in the
group‘s performance, or dysfunctional, in that it hinders group performance.
2.7.1. FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES
It is hard to visualize a situation where open or violent aggression could be functional. But there
are a number of instances where it is possible to envision how low or moderate levels of conflict
could improve the effectiveness of a group. Generally, conflict is constructive when it stimulates
creativity and innovation, it improves the quality of decisions and it encourages interest among
group members, provides the medium through which problems can aired and tensions released,
and fosters environment of self-evaluation and change. The evidence suggests that conflict can
improve the quality of decision making by allowing all points, particularly the ones that are
unusual or held by a majority, to be weighted in important decisions. Conflict is an antidote for
groupthink. Conflict challenges the status quo and therefore, furthers the creation of new ideas,
promotes reassessment of group goals and activities, and increases the probability that the group
will respond to change.
Not only do better and more innovative decisions result from situations where there is conflict,
but evidence indicates that conflict can be positively related to productivity. It was demonstrated
that, among established groups, performance tended to improve more when there was conflict
among members than when there was fairly close agreement. The investigators observed that
when groups analyzed decisions that had been made by the individual members of that group,
the average improvement among the high conflict groups was 73 percent greater than was that of
df

6. 6 | P a g e
those groups characterized by low conflict conditions. Generally speaking, groups composed of
members with different interests tend to produce higher quality solutions to a variety of problems
than do homogeneous groups. Basic positive outcomes of conflict are: The energy level of
individuals or groups increases with conflict. Group cohesion increases – external threats tend to
cause a group to pull together as a unit.
2.7.2. Dysfunctional outcomes:
The destructive consequences of conflict on a group or organization‘s performance are generally
well known. Uncontrolled opposition breeds discontent which acts to dissolve commonalities,
and eventually leads to the destruction of the group.
Among the more undesirable consequences are:-
- Decline in communication between conflicting parties
- Reduction in group cohesiveness
- Subordination of group goals to the primacy of infighting between members.
- Delay in decision making which need to be done urgently
- Hostility and aggression development which disrupts harmony and peace among groups
from the organization‘s point of view.
- Over conformity to group demands – members of a group faced with outside threats may
over conform to the group demands.
- At the extreme, conflict can bring group functioning to halt and potentially threaten the
group‘s survival.
Conflicts increase employee turnover, decrease employee satisfaction and increases
inefficiencies of work units. To conclude, the two extremes of conflict (too little and too much)
are dysfunctional whereas the optimum level of conflict is functional. Therefore, managers
should strive to maintain optimum level of conflict in their organizations. Evidence indicates that
the type of group activity is significant factor determining functionality. The more non routine
the tasks of group are, the greater the probability that internal conflict will be constructive.
Groups that are required to tackle problems demanding new and novel approaches- as research,
advertising and other professional activities- will benefit more from conflict than will groups
performing highly routine activities. Generally, conflict can cause organizational distress which
brings low morale, complaints and bickering, minimum creativity, lack of team spirit,
absenteeism and turnover.

7. 7 | P a g e
The Effect of Conflict on Organization Performance
2.8. CONFLICT RESOLUTION STRATEGIES/ CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
2.8.1. Analysis of the conflict situation
A viable strategy for conflict management begins with an analysis of the conflict situations and
then moving to the development of strategy options. Management can analyze a conflict
situation by identifying:
 The conflicting parties: the conflict may be between individuals, between individuals and
groups, or between departments.
 The source of conflict: competition, personal difference, inadequate communication and
the like.
 The level of conflict: the situation may be at a stage where the manager must deal with it
immediately or the conflict may be at a moderate level of intensity.
2.9. CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES
There are different styles of behavior by which interpersonal conflict can be managed. Keeping
in mind the end goal to manage conflict effectively, one style might be more suitable than the
other depending upon the situations. The five styles of managing conflict within organizations
are conceptualized by Follett. These styles are compromise, integration, domination,
suppression, and avoidance. The styles of managing interpersonal conflict can be viewed on two
basic dimensions: concern for self and concern for others. It is the most popular styles of
handling conflict used in research. The styles of conflict management can be defied as

8. 8 | P a g e
integrating, obliging, dominating, compromising and avoiding. These five conflict management
styles of Rahim‘s are described below:
1. Integrating Style
Employees who take part in an integrating conflict management style demonstrate a high
sympathy toward themselves as well as other people. The collaborating conflict management
style is more of a mutual than an individual orientation because two or more individuals come
together to find a satisfying solution for both parties. According to Rahim, utilizing an
integrating approach is useful if one person cannot solve the issue alone, enough time is provided
to tackle the issue, and when ―skills, information, and other resources possessed by different
parties to define or redefine a problem‖ are needed to come up with an alternative solution.
Moreover, the integrating conflict management style is usually appropriate for long range
planning and dealing with strategic issues pertaining to an organization‘s policies and
objectives.Over use of collaboration and consensual decision-making may reflect risk aversion
tendencies or an inclination to defuse responsibility. When people score low on collaborating,
they may fail to capitalize on situations, which would benefit immensely from joint problem
solving. Also by ignoring the concerns of employees, decisions and policies may be evolved,
which make the organizational members both unhappy and uncommitted to the system. The
strategies attempts a win— win solutions to their goals
2. Obliging Style (Accommodating)
Obliging conflict management styles demonstrate a low concern for self and high concern for
others style with attempting to play down the differences and emphasizing commonalities to
satisfy the concern of the other party. In accommodating mode a person scarifies his own interest
for accommodating other person‘s interest. It is form of selfless generosity, obeying other
person‘s point of view. This mode is usually adopted when other person‘s view is stronger, you
want to achieve goodwill and indicate that you are reasonable. This strategy of conflict
resolution is important when you want other person to give at a later date when it favours
you.Employees utilize an obliging conflict management style. When they worry about the
individual relationship with the disputing party, understand that they are mistaken, have little
power, feel that the issue is considerably more critical to the other party, need to develop social
credits for future conflicts that may be imperative to the other party, or are outnumbered by
others. This style is suitable in situations when a ―party is not familiar with the issues involved‖
or to avert further difference or heightening of the conflict for the time being. The obliging
conflict-handling style can signal weakness and strengthen the other party. The obliging conflict

9. 9 | P a g e
management style hinders creative problem solving, and disputants missed opportunities for joint
gains. In addition, they were likely to experience higher levels of anxiety at work by settling the
issue on their own cost ―with its negative consequences for self-esteem and self-efficacy. ―The
researchers further observed that employees utilizing an obliging style considered themselves to
be less successful.
3. Dominating Style (Competing)
Dominating conflict-handling style is characterized by a high concern for self and low concern
for others and has been identified with forcing behavior to win one's position. It is also known as
competitive conflict-handling style. It is generally marked by a win-lose approach pressuring the
other party to give in, making a decision quickly, being convinced to be right on an issue, and
not caring about the relationship with the conflicting party. The dominating style may be viable
if a repeated encounter with the other party is not expected or if the relationship is short lived.
Dominating conflict handling styles led to higher levels of destructive conflict, the competitive
conflict management style was to some degree effective when the organizational goals were task
related. A dominating conflict style was more effective, but less appropriate for the relationship
than for the task.
4. Avoiding Style
Avoiding conflict-handling style is characterized by a low concern for self and others and has
been associated with withdrawal, buck-passing, or sidestepping situations. Avoiding is a
conflict-handling style that is often characterized by the withdrawing and sidestepping behaviors
of people. This avoidance of a situations and lack of effort working toward resolving conflict is
typical in the avoiding style. Avoiding conflict-handling style as being associated with buck-
passing, sidestepping or ‗see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. The avoiding conflict-handling
style is mostly utilized when people generally have a low regard for themselves and also a low
regard for others. The avoiding conflict-handling style is often seen by others as a party‗s retreat
and evasion of resolving the conflict. This lack of participation in conflict management can lead
to lose-lose scenario. Usually, avoiding conflict-handling style does not satisfy either one‗s own
concerns nor the concerns of the others involved in the conflict. The individuals that use this
style are often characterized by an unconcerned attitude toward the issues or parties involved.
5. Compromising Style
Compromising conflict-handling style is intermediate in concern for self and others style
involves give-and-take whereby both parties give up something to make a mutually acceptable

10. 10 | P a g e
decision‖. A compromising conflict management style is described as settling a conflict through
mutual concessions, and both sides give a little to pick up a bit.In compromising, there is no
clear winner or loser. None of the party is fully satisfied as they ration the object of conflict and
accept the solution which is not complete to either of the parties. Compromising policies can
easily be adopted when competing or collaboration strategy fails. The following figure shows
Rahim and Bonoma‗s model for the five conflict management styles.
2.10. RESOLVING CONFLICT THROUGH NEGOTIATION
Negotiation can be defined as a process in which two or more parties exchange goods or services
and attempt to agree on the exchange rate of for them. Negotiation permits the interactions of
almost everyone in groups and organizations. Negotiation occurs whenever two or more
conflicting parties attempt to resolve their divergent goals by redefining the terms of their
interdependence. In other words, people negotiate when they think that discussion can produce a
more satisfactory arrangement (at least for them) in their exchange of goods or services.
It occurs when two or more parties- either individuals or groups- discuss specific proposals in
order to find out a mutually acceptable agreement. There are two general approaches to
negotiation: distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining.
A. Distributive Bargaining:
The most identifying feature of it is that it operates under zero sum conditions. That is, any gain
A makes is at B‘s expense, and vice versa. When engages in distributive bargaining, one‘s tactics
focus on trying to get one‘s opponent to agree to one‘s specific target or to get as close as
possible. Examples of such tactics are persuading your opponent of the impossibility of getting
to his or her target point and advisability of accepting a settlement near yours; arguing that your
target is fair, but your opponent‘s is not; and attempting to get your opponent to feel emotionally

11. 11 | P a g e
generous toward you and thus accept an outcome close to your target point. Distributive
bargaining, on the other hand, leaves one party a loser. It tends to build animosities and deepen
divisions when people have to work together on an ongoing basis.
B. Integrative Bargaining:
Integrative problem solving operates under the assumption that there exist one or more
settlements that can create a win-win solution. In terms of intra-organizational behavior, all
things being equal, integrative bargaining is preferable to distributive bargaining. Because the
former builds long term relationships and facilitates working together in the future. It bonds
negotiators and allows each to leave the bargaining table feeling he she has achieved a victory.
2.10.1. Situational Influences on Negotiations
The effectiveness of negotiating depends on both the situation of the negotiators. Four of the
most important situational factors are location, physical setting, time, and audience.
1. Location
It is easier to negotiate on your own territory because you are familiar with the negotiating
environment and are able to maintain comfortable routines. Also, there is no need to cope with
travel-related stress or depend on others for resources during the negotiation. Of course, you
can‘t walk out of negotiations as easily when on your own territory, but this is usually a minor
issue. Considering these strategic benefits of home territory, many negotiators agree to neutral
territory. Phone calls, videoconferences, and other forms of information technology potentially
avoid territorial issues, but skilled negotiators usually prefer the media richness of face-to-face
meetings.
2. Physical Setting
The physical distance between the parties and formality of the setting can influence their
orientation toward each other and the disputed issues. So can the seating arrangements. People
who sit face-to-face are more likely to develop a win-lose orientation toward the conflict
situation. In contrast, some negotiation groups deliberately intersperse participants around the
table to convey a win-win orientation. Others arrange the seating so that both parties face a
whiteboard, reflecting the notion that both parties face the same problem or issue.
3. Time Passage and Deadlines:
The more time people invest in negotiations, the stronger is their commitment to reaching an
agreement. This increases the motivation to resolve the conflict, but it also fuels the escalation of

12. 12 | P a g e
commitment problems. For example, the more time put into negotiations, the stronger the
tendency to make unwarranted concessions so that the negotiations do not fail.
Time deadlines may be useful when they motivate the parties to complete negotiations.
However, time pressures are usually a liability in negotiations. One problem is that time pressure
inhibits a problem-solving conflict-handling style because the parties have less time to exchange
information or present flexible offers.
Negotiators under time pressure also process information less effectively, so they have less
creative ability to discover a win-win solution to the conflict. There is also anecdotal evidence
that negotiators make excessive concessions and soften their demands more rapidly as the
deadline approaches.
4. Audience Characteristics
Most negotiators have audiences, anyone with a vested interest in the negotiation outcomes, such
as executives, other team members, or the general public. Negotiators tend to act differently
when their audience observes the negotiation or has detailed information about the process,
compared to situations in which the audience sees only the end results. When the audience has
direct surveillance over the proceedings, negotiators tend to be more competitive, less willing to
make concessions, and more likely to engage in political tactics against the other party.
2.10.2. Negotiator Skills
Negotiator skills play an important role in resolving conflict. Four of the most important skills
are: setting goals, gathering information, communicating effectively, and making concessions.
1. Preparation and Goal Setting
People have more favorable negotiation results when they prepare for the negotiation and set
goals. In particular, negotiators should carefully think through their initial-offer, target, and
resistance points. They need to consider alternative strategies in case the negotiation fails.
Negotiators also need to check their underlying assumptions, as well as goals and values.
2. Gathering Information
―Seek to understand before you seek to be understood.‖ This popular philosophy from
management guru Stephen Covey applies to effective negotiations. It means that we should
spend more time listening closely to the other party and asking for details. One way to improve
the information-gathering process is to have a team of people participate in negotiations. With

13. 13 | P a g e
more information about the opponent‘s interests and needs, negotiators are better able to
discover low-cost concessions or proposals that will satisfy the other side.
3. Communicating Effectively
Effective negotiators communicate in a way that maintains effective relationships between the
parties. They minimize socio emotional conflict by focusing on issues rather than people
4. Making Concessions
Concessions are important because they (1) enable the parties to move toward the area of
potential agreement, (2) symbolize each party‘s motivation to bargain in good faith, and (3) tell
the other party of the relative importance of the negotiating items
2.10.3. Decision Making Biases That Hinder Effective Negotiation
All of us have had negotiating experiences where the results have been less than we had hoped
for. As we tend to be blind to opportunities that prevent us from getting as much as possible out
of a negotiation. The following identifies seven decision making biases that can blind us.
1. The mythical fixed pie: Bargainers assume their gain must at the expense of the other
part. There are often win- win solutions.
2. Anchoring and adjustments: People often have a tendency to anchor their judgments on
irrelevant information, such as an initial offer. Many factors influence the initial positions
people take when entering a negotiation.
3. Framing negotiations: People tend to be overly affected by the way information is
presented.
4. Availability of information: Negotiators often rely too much on readily available
information while ignoring more relevant data. Things or events that people have
encountered more often are usually easy to remember- they are more available in their
memory.
5. The winners curse: The regret one feels after closing a negotiation- because your
opponent accepted your offer, you become concerned that you offered too much. This
post negotiation reaction is not unusual. In most negotiations, one side, usually the seller,
has much better information than the other.
6. Overconfidence: Many of the previous biases can combine to inflate a person‘s
confidence in his or her judgment and choices. When people hold certain beliefs and
expectations, they tend to ignore information that contradicts them.

14. 14 | P a g e
2.11. Third party negotiation (Third-Party Conflict Resolution)
Occasionally individuals or group representatives reach a settlement and are unable to solve
their differences through direct negotiation. In such cases they may turn to a third party to help
them find a solution.
Third-party conflict resolution is any attempt by a relatively neutral person to help conflicting
parties resolve their differences. There are generally three types of third-party dispute resolution
activities: arbitration, inquisition, and mediation. These activities can be classified by their levels
of control over the process and control over the decision
1. Arbitration
It is used where a neutral third party acts as a judge and issues a binding decision affecting
parties at negotiation. However, the authority of the arbitrator may also vary according to the
rules set by the negotiators. Arbitration can be voluntary (requested) or compulsory (forced on
the parties by law or contract.) Arbitrators have high control over the final decision but low
control over the process. Executives engage in this strategy by following previously agreed-on
rules of due process, listening to arguments from the disputing employees, and making a binding
decision. Arbitration is applied as the final stage of grievances by unionized employees in many
countries, but it is also becoming more common in nonunion conflicts.
2. Inquisition
Inquisitors control all discussion about the conflict. Like arbitrators, they have high decision
control because they choose the form of conflict resolution. However, they also have high
process control because they choose which information to examine and how to examine it, and
they generally decide how the conflict resolution process will be handled.
3. Mediation:
Used when a neutral third party acts/facilitates negotiated solutions by using reasoning and
persuasion, suggesting alternatives, etc .Mediators have high control over the intervention
process. In fact, their main purpose is to manage the process and context of interaction between
the disputing parties. However, the parties make the final decision about how to resolve their
differences. Thus, mediators have little or no control over the conflict resolution decision.
Which third-party intervention is most appropriate in organizations? The answer partly depends
on the situation, such as the type of dispute, the relationship between the manager and
employees, and cultural values such as power distance.