Purpose – This conceptual paper aims to pull upon recent complexness and organisational psychological science literature to analyze con?ict episodes. researching the restrictions of the prevailing research paradigm that treats con?ict episodes as happening in sequence. as distinct stray incidents. Design/methodology/approach – The paper addresses a long-standing issue in con?ict direction research. which is that the prevailing typology of con?ict is confounding. The complexness position challenges the cardinal paradigm. which has dominated research in the con?ict ?eld. in which con?ict episodes occur in sequence and in isolation. with directors utilizing one prevailing signifier of con?ict declaration behaviour.

Findingss – The ?ndings are double: ?rst. the behavioural schemes adopted in the direction of these con?icts will be extremely complex and will be determined by a figure of in?uencing factors ; and 2nd. this moves theory beyond the two dimensional affaire d’honneur concern position. in that the adaptable director covering with these multiple. coincident con?icts will besides necessitate to
see the possible deductions of their chosen scheme along with the altering micro environment in which they operate.

Originality/value – This paper adds value to the ?eld of con?ict theory by traveling beyond two dimensions and researching a consecutive eventuality position for con?ict direction within the organisation. It argues that multiple con?ict episodes can happen at the same time. necessitating directors to utilize differing behaviours for successful con?ict direction. Keywords Con?ict direction. Con?ict declaration. Organizational con?ict. Individual behavior. Interpersonal dealingss

Paper type Conceptual paper

International Journal of Con?ict
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 old ages since Louis Pondy ( 1967 ) wrote his seminal article on con?ict within the organisation and its direction and about 20 old ages since his re?ections on his earlier work were published ( Pondy. 1989 ) [ 1 ] . In 1967 Pondy established what was for two decennaries the by and large accepted paradigm of con?ict: that con?ict episodes occur as impermanent breaks to the otherwise concerted relationships which make up the organisation ( Pondy. 1967 ) . In his subsequent re?ections on his earlier work and that of others. Pondy proposed that con?ict is an built-in characteristic of organisational life. instead than an occasional dislocation of cooperation ( Pondy. 1989 ) . This radically challenged the old paradigm. Indeed. Pondy ( 1989 ) even suggested that research into the phenomenon of cooperation within the organisation could be bene?cial in supplying farther penetration into con?ict within the organisation. connoting that it was cooperation. non

con?ict. which was the anomalous province necessitating probe. Yet. for about two decennaries. Pondy’s conceptualisation of con?ict as a natural province for the organisation has remained mostly undiscovered despite the outgrowth of a complexness position which explores multiple elements of the con?ict state of affairs or concerted province. One possible ground why Pondy’s challenge has non been answered is that some confusion has arisen over the footings and typologies used for the classi?cation of con?ict episodes. Consequently. arguments about con?ict construction or composing have tended to rule the research docket. The possible for confusion originating from these assorted con?ict classi?cations will be discussed in this paper. Where con?ict direction behaviours have been studied. research workers have tended to concentrate on a planar attack or “dual concern theory” theoretical account ( Thomas. 1976 ) which suggests that persons follow con?ict direction behaviours based on their perceived ego involvements and those of others ; i. e. concern for ego ( competitory behaviours ) versus concern for other ( suiting behaviours ) . Although this attack to the research of con?ict and its direction ?ts good with Pondy’s ( 1967 ) original paradigm. it is challenged by the complexness position that has emerged in psychological science research. The complexness position of intraorganizational con?ict maintains that interpersonal relationships are more complex than hitherto thought. and that the unfolding con?ict is in?uenced by a broad assortment of conditions. Furthermore the complexness position encourages the consideration of coincident complexness ( more than one event happening at the same time ) and of how the manner of con?ict direction affects the results ( Munduate et Al. . 1999 ) . This fresh position has enabled research workers to analyze the point at which behavioural manner is changed and the consequence on the con?ict episode ( Olekalns et al. . 1996 ) and to look at how different behaviours are combined ( Janssen et al. . 1999 ) .

With the recent developments in the complexness position of con?ict direction research ( Van de Vliert et Al. . 1997 ; Munduate et Al. . 1999 ) . the clip has come to further research the possible effects of the complexness position: whether it is in fact the instance that con?ict is an built-in status within the organisation ( Pondy. 1989 ) ; whether con?ict episodes do
non happen in isolation but occur often and at the same time ( Euwema et al. . 2003 ) ; and whether complex sequences of adaptative behaviours are required to continually pull off the invariably altering intraorganizational. con?ict environment. Before we can make this. and to supply a common land for discourse. we ?rst need to analyze some of the theories around con?ict typology that have arisen in the psychological science and direction literature and which may be the cause of some confusion.

Con?ict footings and typologies
“Con?ict” is a wide concept that has been studied extensively across several subjects covering a broad scope of societal interactions. Previous con?ict research has identi?ed four chief degrees of con?ict in the context of human behaviour and relationships as summarized by Lewecki et Al. ( 2003 ) :

( 1 ) Intergroup con?icts between groups of persons which can run in size and complexness due to the many relationships involved. including international con?ict between states.
( 2 ) Intragroup or intraorganizational con?icts originating within smaller groups which comprise the organisation.

A re-evaluation
of con?ict theory

187

IJCMA
21. 2

188

( 3 ) Interpersonal con?ict ; that is. con?ict at an single degree. con?ict between persons. or con?ict between an person and a group. ( 4 ) Intrapersonal con?ict on a personal degree. where the con?ict occurs in one’s ain head.

Although these four degrees of con?ict all appear across both the psychological science and direction literature. it is the 3rd degree ( interpersonal con?icts within the organisation or the reactions an person or group has to the perceptual experience that two parties have aspirations that can non be achieved at the same time ) that has become the cardinal ?eld of research within the organisation ( Putnem and Poole. 1987 ) . In 1992. Thomas proposed a simpli?ed de?nition of interpersonal con?ict as the procedure which begins when an person or group feels negatively affected by another person or group. The con?ict consists of a perceptual experience of barriers to accomplishing one’s ends ( Thomas. 1992 ) . More late. interpersonal con?ict has been de?ned as an individual’s perceptual experiences of mutual exclusivenesss. differences in positions or interpersonal mutual exclusiveness ( Jehn. 1997 ) . Con?ict at this degree has largely been seen as adversarial and as holding a negative consequence upon relationships ( Ford et Al. . 1975 ) . These de?nitions presuppose that an resistance or mutual exclusiveness is perceived by both parties. that some interaction is taking topographic point. and that both parties are able to in?uence or acquire involved – that is. that there is some grade of mutuality ( Medina et al. . 2004 ) . Interpersonal con?ict could originate within organisations where. for illustration. customer-facing sections such as Gross saless make promises to clients that other sections so have to present. In this sphere of intraorganizational. interpersonal con?ict. both Pondy’s ( 1966. 1967 ) work and recent developments following the complexness position are of peculiar involvement This wide country of intraorganizational. interpersonal con?ict has been farther subdivided into two types: relationship con?ict and undertaking con?ict. Relationship con?ict arises between the histrions through their subjective emotional places. whereas task con?ict relates chiefly to the more nonsubjective undertakings or issues involved ( Reid et al. . 2004 ) . A series of surveies con?rmed this dichotomy between relationship and undertaking. Wall and Nolan ( 1986 ) identi?ed “people oriented” versus “task oriented” con?ict. In the early to mid-1990s Priem and Price ( 1991 ) . Pinkley and Northcraft ( 1994 ) . Jehn ( 1995 ) and Sessa ( 1996 ) all identi?ed “relationship” and “task” as distinct facets of con?ict. The image became instead more complicated in the late ninetiess. In 1995 Amason et Al. rede?ned con?ict types as “affective” and “cognitive” and in 1999 Van de Vliert farther rede?ned these types as “task” and “person” con?ict. In working toward a more comprehensive theoretical account of
intraorganizational. interpersonal con?ict. Jameson ( 1999 ) suggested three dimensions for con?ict:

( 1 ) content ;
( 2 ) relational ; and
( 3 ) situational.
The content dimension encompasses the antecedently discussed con?ict types ( affectional. cognitive. relationship etc ) while the relational dimension considers the subjective. perceived variables within the relationships of the histrions involved: .

trust ;
.
position ;

.
.
.
.

A re-evaluation
of con?ict theory

earnestness ;
grade of mutuality ;
record of success ; and
the figure of histrions involved.

The situational dimension examines the variables which may be most relevant in choosing an appropriate con?ict direction scheme. These include clip force per unit area. the possible impact of the con?ict episode. the grade of escalation and the scope of options available in the direction of the con?ict episode ( Jameson. 1999 ) . Meanwhile. Sheppard ( 1992 ) criticized the multiplicity of footings that were being used to depict types of interpersonal con?ict. and the gratuitous confusion that this caused. The
consequence of the many attacks described supra is that there is no general theoretical account for the typology of interpersonal con?ict within the organisation. In the absence of such a theoretical account. other research workers have taken different attacks. utilizing the ancestors of the con?ict episode to depict con?ict types. Examples of this proliferation include function con?ict ( Walker et Al. . 1975 ) . gender con?ict ( Cheng. 1995 ) and end con?ict ( Tellefsen and Eyuboglu. 2002 ) . This proliferation of footings or typologies has unsurprisingly led to confusion. most perceptibly with the term “interpersonal con?ict” being used to depict strictly relationship or emotional con?ict ( Bradford et Al. . 2004 ) or con?ict being de?ned in footings of emotion merely. adding to the broad scope of footings already used ( Bodtker and Jameson. 2001 ) . Therefore. at a clip when international. interorganizational. intraorganizational. interpersonal and intrapersonal con?icts are being extensively studied with con?ict de?ned and operationalized in a assortment of ways. no widely accepted and consistent theoretical account has emerged to determine con?ict research ( Reid et al. . 2004 ) . Table I summarizes the many different con?ict typologies that have been proposed. Table I illustrates that relationship and undertaking con?ict are about universally accepted as distinguishable types of interpersonal con?ict by psychological science and direction research workers. Date

Author ( s )

Con?ict typology

1986
1991
1994
1995
1995
1996
1996
1997
1999
1999
2000
2000
2002
2003
2003
2004
2004
2005

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.

Peoples oriented. undertaking oriented
Relationship. undertaking
Relationship. undertaking
Relationship. undertaking
Cognitive. affective
Undertaking. individual oriented
Affective. cognitive
Affective. cognitive
Content. relational. situational
Undertaking. individual oriented
Relationship. undertaking
Task. relationship. procedure
Goal con?icts
Interpersonal. undertaking
Relationship. undertaking
Relationship. undertaking
Relationship. undertaking
Relationship. undertaking

189

Table I.
A sum-up of the
typologies of con?ict

IJCMA
21. 2

190

In add-on. many research workers have identi?ed a 3rd type of con?ict which relates to the environment in which directors operate. described as situational con?ict ( Jameson. 1999 ) or process con?ict ( Jehn and Chatman. 2000 ) . We believe that a consistent con?ict typology is called for. to help future research into the complex nature of intraorganizational con?ict. In this paper. we propose that future research workers should acknowledge three types of interpersonal con?ict. However. since the footings “relationship” and “task” are vulnerable to misunderstanding we advocate utilizing the footings affectional and cognitive ( following Amason. 1996 and Amason and Sapienza. 1997 ) . in concurrence with procedure ( Jehn and Chatman. 2000 ) . to depict the three types of interpersonal con?ict. These footings. which re?ect the more speci?c nomenclature used in the psychological science literature. are de?ned in Table II. As Table II shows. the typology we propose is as follows. Affectional Con?ict is
a term depicting con?icts concerned with what people think and feel about their relationships including such dimensions as trust. position and grade of mutuality ( Amason and Sapienza. 1997 ) . Cognitive Con?ict describes con?icts concerned with what people know and understand about their undertaking. functions and maps. Process Con?ict relates to con?icts originating from the situational context. the organisation construction. scheme or civilization ( Amason and Sapienza. 1997 ; Jehn and Chatman. 2000 ) . Using this typology for con?ict between persons or groups of persons within the organisation avoids confusion over the usage of the footings “interpersonal” . “person” or “relationship” frequently used when mentioning to affectional con?ict. while undertaking con?ict is clearly distinguished from procedure con?ict. turn toing all the issues antecedently outlined. These footings will hence be used throughout the balance of this paper. Having argued that systematic confusion has hindered con?ict research through the abuse of bing taxonomies ( Bradford et Al. . 2004 ) or where linguistic communication has resulted in the usage of different footings to depict the same con?ict type ( see Table I ) . we now move on to see the deductions or effects of intraorganizational con?ict and whether it is ever negative or can hold positive effects ( De Dreu. 1997 ) . Consequences of con?ict: functional or dysfunctional?

Some research workers researching attitudes towards con?ict have considered the effects of con?ict for single and team public presentation ( Jehn. 1995 ) and have found that interpersonal con?ict can hold either functional ( positive ) or dysfunctional ( negative ) results for squad and single public presentation ( e. g. Amason. 1996 ) . Furthermore. the effects of con?ict can be perceived and felt in different ways by different histrions sing the con?ict episode ( Jehn and Chatman. 2000 ) . Therefore. con?ict is situationally and perceptually comparative.

Con?ict type
Affectional

Table II.
A proposed taxonomy of
con?ict

De?nition
Con?icts concerned with what people think and feel about their relationships with other persons or groups

Cognitive

Con?icts concerned with what people know and understand about their undertaking

Procedure

Con?icts originating from the situational context. the organisation construction. scheme or civilization

The traditional position of con?ict takes the position that con?ict exists in resistance to co-operation and that con?ict is entirely dysfunctional. seting the focal point on declaration instead than direction ( e. g. Pondy. 1966 ) . This position can be traced frontward to more recent work. Where con?ict is de?ned as the procedure which begins when one individual or group feels negatively affected by another ( Thomas. 1992 ) . there is an deduction of obstructor to either party accomplishing their ends. which is readily interpreted negatively. This can ensue in con?ict turning away or suppression of con?ict direction behaviour. taking to comprehend negative effects on squad or single public presentation ( De Dreu. 1997 ) . Negatively-perceived con?ict episodes can increase tenseness and hostility between persons and lead to a deficiency of focal point on the needed undertaking ( Saavedra et al. . 1993 ; Wall and Nolan. 1986 ) while turning away and suppression can besides hold long term negative effects such as sti?ing creativeness. advancing groupthink and doing an escalation in any bing con?ict ( De Dreu. 1997 ) . Not surprisingly. where mutuality is negative ( where one party wins at the disbursal of the other although they have some dependence in their relationship ) any con?ict will be viewed negatively ( Janssen et al. . 1999 ) . The perceptual experience of con?ict will besides be negative where the con?ict is personal. ensuing in personality clangs. increased emphasis and defeat. This type of relationship con?ict can hinder the decision-making procedure as persons
focal point on the personal facets instead than the undertaking related issues ( Jehn. 1995 ) . In contrast to the slightly negative perceptual experience of intraorganizational con?ict outlined above. more recent con?ict direction theory has begun to propose that certain types of con?ict can hold a positive consequence upon relationships and that the best path to this result is through credence of. and effectual direction of. inevitable con?ict. instead than through con?ict turning away or suppression ( De Dreu. 1997 ) . When persons are in con?ict they have to turn to major issues. be more originative. and see different facets of a job. These challenges can extenuate groupthink and stimulate creativeness ( De Dreu. 1997 ) . Naturally. where there is high positive mutuality ( an agreeable result for both parties ) . the con?ict episode will be viewed much more positively ( Janssen et al. . 1999 ) . Furthermore. Jehn ( 1995 ) has suggested that task- and issue-based cognitive con?ict can hold a positive consequence on squad public presentation. Groups who experience cognitive con?ict have a greater apprehension of the assignments at manus and are able to do better determinations in covering with issues as they arise ( Simons and Peterson. 2000 ) . For illustration. research has shown that. when persons are exposed to a “devil’s advocate” . they are able to do better judgements than those non so open ( Schwenk. 1990 ) . Schulz-Hardt et Al. ( 2002 ) suggested that groups make better determinations where they started in dissension instead than understanding. In these illustrations. con?ict has a functional ( utile and positive ) result. We have argued that the impression of functional con?ict has shifted the ?eld of con?ict research off from con?ict declaration and towards consideration of the direction behaviours which can be adopted in covering with con?ict in order to derive the best possible result ( De Dreu. 1997 ; Euwema et Al. . 2003 ) . Following. we examine research into con?ict direction behaviours and research some of the managerial tools that have been developed to assist directors to cover with intraorganizational. interpersonal con?ict. Con?ict direction behaviours

Con?ict direction can be de?ned as the actions in which a individual typically engages. in response to perceived interpersonal con?ict. in order to accomplish a coveted end

A re-evaluation
of con?ict theory

191

IJCMA
21. 2

192

( Thomas. 1976 ) . Demonstrably. con?ict direction pays off: old research has indicated that it is the manner in which con?ict episodes are addressed which determines the result ( Amason. 1996 ) . However. there is dissension between research workers as to the grade to which directors can and make follow different con?ict direction behaviours. Previous research has considered three different attacks: the “one best way” position ( Sternberg and Soriano. 1984 ) ; the eventuality or situational position ( Thomas. 1992 ; Munduate et Al. . 1999 ; Nicotera. 1993 ) ; and the complexness or conglomerated position ( Van de Vliert et Al. . 1999 ; Euwema et Al. . 2003 ) . Arguably the simplest position on con?ict direction behaviour is the “one best way” position ( Sternberg and Soriano. 1984 ) . which agues that one con?ict direction manner or behaviour ( coaction ) is more effectual than any other. However. it argues that persons have a peculiar preferable behavioural sensitivity to the manner in which they handle con?ict. Therefore. from the “one best way” position. the con?ict-avoiding director may hold a behavioural sensitivity to avoidance schemes. whereas the accommodating director may prefer suiting solutions. In this paradigm. the most constructive solution is considered to be coaction. since coaction is ever positively mutualist – it has a joint best result. by and large described as “win/win” ( Van de Vliert et Al. . 1997 ) . The “one best way” attack suggests that a more aggressive. competitory. negatively mutualist attack ( in fact. any con?ict direction attack other than collaborative ) can ensue in suboptimal results ( Janssen et al. . 1999 ) . However. the “one best way” position raises more inquiries than it answers. It does non explicate how directors are able to join forces if they
have a different behavioural sensitivity. nor does it supply grounds that coaction ever produces the best result ( Thomas. 1992 ) . A more general job with the “one best way” attack is that it may non be really utile: if directors genuinely have small or no control over their attack to con?ict direction. the practical applications are limited. The “one best way” position does non see the transition of clip. that behaviours could be changed or modi?ed during any interaction. nor the consequence any old brushs may hold on the current experience ( Van de Vliert et Al. . 1997 ) . Traveling beyond the “one best way” position. in which merely collaborative behaviours are considered to supply the most desirable result. the eventuality position maintains that the optimum con?ict direction behaviour depends on the speci?c con?ict state of affairs. and that what is appropriate in one state of affairs may non be appropriate in another ( Thomas. 1992 ) . In this paradigm. the best attack is dependent upon the peculiar set of fortunes. The deductions. which are really different to the “one best way” position. are that persons can and should choose the con?ict direction behaviour that is most likely to bring forth the coveted result. Therefore. con?ict direction behaviours are regarded as a affair of penchant ( instead than innate. as in the “one best way” position ) . and the result is dependent on the choice of the most appropriate manner of con?ict direction behaviour. Until late. con?ict research has been to a great extent in?uenced by the “one best way” and eventuality positions. concentrating on the effectivity of a individual manner of con?ict direction behaviour ( chiefly coaction ) during a individual con?ict episode ( Sternberg and Soriano. 1984 ) . Thus the “one best way” and eventuality positions do non needfully offer a real-world position in which directors both can and make alter their behaviours: adapting to the state of affairs ; possibly seeking different attacks to interrupt

a dead end or to better their bargaining place ; taking into history altering fortunes in the microenvironment ; and the subsequent in?uence upon the actions of persons involved in any con?ict episode ( Olekalns et al. . 1996 ) . A fresh attack is provided by the complexness position. which characterizes con?icts as being dynamic and multi-dimensional. In such fortunes. the best behavioural manner in covering with any one con?ict
episode may change during. or between. con?ict episodes ( Medina et al. . 2004 ; Nicotera. 1993 ) . For con?ict in a complex universe. neither the “one best way” nor the eventuality position would needfully bring forth optimum consequences. If con?ict does non happen discretely and separately ( Pondy. 1992a ) . bing attacks may non depict the universe as directors really see it. Arguably. these attacks have arti?cially limited con?ict research to a ?at. planar theoretical account. To turn to the defects of traditional research and to integrate the complexness position into con?ict direction theory. we need to travel beyond two dimensions ( Van de Vliert et Al. . 1997 ) .

Beyond two dimensions of con?ict direction theory
Recent work by Van de Vliert et Al. ( 1997 ) and Medina et Al. ( 2004 ) has expanded current theory through consideration of the complexness position. The complexness position argues that any reaction to a con?ict episode consists of multiple behavioural constituents instead than one individual con?ict direction behaviour. In the complexness position. utilizing a mixture of suiting. avoiding. viing. compromising and collaborating behaviours throughout the con?ict episode is considered to be the regulation instead than the exclusion ( Van de Vliert et Al. . 1997 ) .

To day of the month. surveies taking a complexness attack to con?ict direction have adopted one of three different complexness positions. The ?rst examines coincident complexness and how different combinations of behaviours affect the result of the con?ict ( Munduate et Al. . 1999 ) . The 2nd complexness attack focuses on the point of behavioural alteration and the result. analyzing either the behavioural stages through which the participants of a con?ict episode base on balls. or use temporal complexness to look at the point at which behavioural manner alterations and the consequence on the con?ict episode ( Olekalns et al. . 1996 ) . The 3rd attack is the consecutive complexness or conglomerated position. which is concerned with the different manners of con?ict direction behaviour. how they are combined. and at what point they change during the interaction.

The application of the complexness position to con?ict direction research
has revealed that directors use more than the ?ve behaviours suggested by the “one best way” position to pull off con?ict. In their survey of conglomerated con?ict direction behaviour. Euwema et Al. ( 2003 ) argued that the traditional attack under-represents the individual’s self-asserting manners of behaviour and have as a consequence added “confronting” and “process controlling” . doing seven possible behaviours: ( 1 ) competing ;

( 2 ) collaborating ;
( 3 ) avoiding ;
( 4 ) compromising ;
( 5 ) accommodating ;

A re-evaluation
of con?ict theory

193

IJCMA
21. 2

194

( 6 ) confronting ; and
( 7 ) procedure commanding.
Weingart et Al. ( 1990 ) identi?ed two types of consecutive form: Reciprocality. reacting to the other party with the same behaviour ; and Complementarity. reacting with an opposing behaviour. Using a complexness position. the effectivity of complementarity or reciprocality behaviours will be contingent upon the state of affairs. the micro-environment. the figure of con?ict episodes. and the types of con?ict nowadays. The consecutive form may in itself be complex. being dependent both upon the current state of affairs and on changing behaviours throughout the interaction. A farther. frequently unrecognised deduction of complexness in con?ict is that each con?ict episode could be alone. being composed of different proportions of each of the affectional. cognitive and process con?ict types ( Jehn and Chatman. 2000 ) .
The deduction for con?ict direction scheme and the pick of the most appropriate behaviour is huge. Therefore. a new position is needed. in which con?ict and the response to con?ict is viewed as dynamic and altering over clip. with each con?ict episode holding a alone composing necessitating a speci?c but ?exible attack in order to obtain the best possible result. We propose that this might ensue in a director altering behaviour during a con?ict episode. or so a director following different behaviours for a figure of con?ict episodes happening at the same time. In the following subdivision. we take all these complex factors into history and suggest a individual. dynamic and comprehensive theoretical account of con?ict direction behaviour.

Multiple. coincident con?ict episodes
We have shown that the ?eld of con?ict has become entangled in multiple footings and that research into con?ict direction is fighting to accommodate planar theoretical accounts with the more complex state of affairs encountered in the existent universe. A theoretical account is needed which considers the complexness of con?ict episodes and offprints con?ict ancestors from con?ict types. acknowledging that con?ict can associate to emotions and state of affairss which have common ancestors. We propose that the manner forward is to spread out the conglomerated position into a consecutive eventuality position. in which the sequence of con?ict direction behaviours adopted is dependent upon a figure of in?uencing factors in the micro-environment. the figure of con?ict episodes being dealt with. their composing. and alterations in the behaviours of the histrions involved.

A consecutive eventuality position
The consecutive eventuality position for intraorganizational. interpersonal con?ict proposes the acceptance of an alternate paradigm which is that con?ict is ever-present and ever-changing in footings of its nature or composing ; and that it is the manner in which these uninterrupted con?icts is managed which determines the result of any con?ict episode and the nature of any subsequent con?icts. Figure 1 provides a visual image of Pondy’s ( 1992b ) postmodern paradigm of con?ict and provides a foundation for the probe of complex. multiple. coincident. intraorganizational con?icts. This conceptual visual image of con?ict within the organisation
provides a 3-dimensional representation of con?ict from the paradigm that con?ict is an built-in characteristic of organisational life. It shows how. at any one given point in clip.

A re-evaluation
of con?ict theory

195

Figure 1.
A conceptual visual image
of multiple. coincident
con?ict

there can be a figure of con?ict episodes experienced ( y axis ) . each with different strengths ( z axis ) and continuance ( x axis ) . In add-on. we have argued that each con?ict episode will hold a alone composing. being made up of different proportions of cognitive. affectional and process elements.

The deductions for con?ict direction theory are twofold: ?rst. the behavioural schemes adopted in the direction of these con?icts will be extremely complex and will be determined by a figure of in?uencing factors ; and 2nd. this moves theory beyond the two dimensional affaire d’honneur concern position. in that the adaptable director covering with these multiple. coincident con?icts will besides necessitate to see the possible deductions of their chosen scheme along with the altering micro environment in which they operate. Using this 3-dimensional conceptual visual image of con?ict within the organisation we propose a consecutive eventuality theoretical account for pull offing interpersonal con?ict within the organisation ( Figure 2 ) . The basic elements of the model in Figure 2 consider all the dimensions of con?ict and its direction as antecedently discussed:

.
the con?ict episode features. the type and composing of any con?ict episode encountered ( Amason. 1996 ; Jehn. 1995 ; Jehn. 1997 ; Pinkley and
Northcraft. 1994 ) ;
.
the features of the relationship ( s ) ( Jehn. 1995 ) ;
.
the features of the persons involved ;
.
the con?ict direction behaviours ; and
.
the result of old con?ict episodes ( Van de Vliert et Al. . 1997 ) .

IJCMA
21. 2

196

Figure 2.
A consecutive eventuality
theoretical account for pull offing
intra-organizational.
interpersonal con?ict

The basic posit of the theoretical account is that con?ict is a changeless and built-in status of the organisation ( that is. that con?ict episodes do non happen as stray. anomalous incidents ) . Additionally. the effectivity of the con?ict direction behaviours in footings of its functionality or dysfunctionality is contingent upon. and moderated by. the nature of the con?ict. the features of the persons and relationships involved. and experience of old con?ict. Therefore. this theoretical account provides a model for covering with multiple. coincident con?ict episodes traveling beyond the tradition planar attack.

Future research
To day of the month at that place has been small empirical research into the grade to which persons are able to accommodate their behaviour during an interaction. or on the value of the complexness position in covering with complex
intraorganizational con?ict. The future research docket needs to research con?ict through Pondy’s ( 1992b ) option paradigm and expand on these theoretical ?ndings by look intoing intraorganizational. interpersonal con?ict in a figure of ways. We hence set out a research docket framed in footings of four research propositions.

First. taking the consecutive eventuality position and following Pondy’s ( 1989 ) alternative paradigm for con?ict within the organisation. research is needed to set up the happening of con?ict. Pondy ( 1992b ) argues that. instead than a sequence of distinct stray incidents. con?ict is an built-in status of societal interaction within the organisation and that con?ict episodes occur at the same time non consecutive. This would connote that:

P1a. Con?ict is a changeless status of interorganizational. interpersonal relationships.

A re-evaluation
of con?ict theory

P1b. Multiple con?ict episodes occur at the same time.
P1c. Con?ict episodes are complex. holding differing composings of affectional. cognitive and procedure elements which change over clip.
The complexness position recognizes that different con?ict state of affairss call for different direction behaviours ( Van de Vliert et Al. . 1997 ) . This implies that directors can name upon a much wider scope of attacks to con?ict direction than antecedently thought. Furthermore there is a farther deduction. which is that directors are able to accommodate their behaviour during con?ict episodes. Therefore: P2a. Directors use different behaviours to pull off multiple con?icts at any one clip.

P2b. Directors change their behaviour over clip during the same con?ict episode. A significant subdivision of recent con?ict direction research has focused on the results of con?ict and has suggested that non all con?ict is negative ( De Dreu. 1997 ; Simons and Peterson. 2000 ; Schultz-Hardt et Al. .
2002 ; Schwenk. 1990 ) . Given this. we need a greater apprehension of the consequence that the behaviour adopted has on the con?ict experienced. whether it mitigated or agitated the state of affairs. and the effects for any subsequent con?ict ( Amason. 1996 ) . Frankincense:

P3a. The behaviours that directors use affect the result of the con?ict. P3b. The behaviours that directors use affect subsequent con?icts. Finally. re-visiting Pondy’s ( 1989 ) alternate paradigm and integrating the extra positions that come from consideration of con?ict results and the application of the complexness position. we argue that more research is needed into the relationship between the behaviours that directors follow and whether these behaviours represent the witting version of an optimum attack to con?ict direction. Frankincense:

P4.

Con?ict direction involves accommodating a set of behaviours through which a grade of co-operation is maintained. as opposed to the usage of behaviour ( s ) which resolve ( s ) discrete stray incidents of con?ict.

Our intent in puting out a new theoretical account and research docket for con?ict direction research. together with a set of elaborate research propositions. is to travel the ?eld beyond the consideration of con?ict episodes as distinct. stray incidents and to promote the probe of different behaviours in different fortunes and their effectivity. Future research needs to see the complexness of con?ict and follow a research paradigm which considers the behavioural schemes within long term complex interpersonal relationships.

Decision
This paper has offered four parts to the ?eld of con?ict and con?ict direction. The ?rst is the clari?cation of con?ict typologies set out in Table II. The

197

IJCMA
21. 2

198

2nd part is the impression that concern directors handle multiple and coincident con?ict episodes that require different attacks to deciding them. so that the bing theoretical accounts proposed for con?ict direction are improbable to chime with their existent experience. The 3rd part is to map this in the signifier of a new theoretical theoretical account for con?ict direction ( Figure 2 ) . The 4th part is to utilize this theoretical theoretical account to put out a set of research propositions to determine research that will cast visible radiation on the existent con?icts that directors have to confront. Merely 40 old ages on. and intraorganizational con?ict theory itself appears to be in con?ict. In order to decide the evident differences in research attack and position research workers need to set up some common land upon which new theory can be through empirical observation tested. leting con?ict direction theory to travel beyond two dimensions and to research complexness whilst adding lucidity. Note

1. First presented at the Academy of Management Meeting. August 14. 1986.

Mentions
Amason. A. and Sapienza. H. ( 1997 ) . “The effects of top direction squad size and interaction norms on cognitive and affectional con?ict” . Journal of Management. Vol. 23 No. 4. pp. 495-516.
Amason. A. C. ( 1996 ) . “Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional con?ict on strategic determination devising: deciding a paradox for top direction teams” . Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 39 No. 1. pp. 123-48.

Bodtker. A. M. and Jameson. J. K. ( 2001 ) . “Emotion in con?ict formation and its transmutation: application to organisational con?ict management” . International Journal of Con?ict Management. Vol. 12 No. 3. pp. 259-75.

Bradford. K. D. . Stringfellow. A. and Weitz. B. A. ( 2004 ) . “Managing con?ict to better the effectivity of retail networks” . Journal of Retailing. Vol. 80 No. 3. pp. 181-95. Cheng. C. ( 1995 ) . “Multi-level gender con?ict analysis and organisational change” . Journal of Organizational Change Management. Vol. 8 No. 6. pp. 26-39.

De Dreu. C. K. W. ( 1997 ) . “Productive con?ict: the importance of con?ict direction and con?ict issue” . in De Dreu. C. K. M. and Van de Vliert. E. ( Eds ) . Using Con?ict 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 effectivity of organisational con?ict behavior” . International Journal of Con?ict Management. Vol. 14 No. 2. pp. 119-39.

Ford. N. M. . Walker. O. C. Jr and Churchill. G. A. ( 1975 ) . “Expectation speci?c steps of the intersender con?ict and function ambiguity experienced by salesmen” . Journal of Business Research. Vol. 3 No. 2. pp. 95-112.

Jameson. J. K. ( 1999 ) . “Toward a comprehensive theoretical account for the appraisal and direction of intraorganizational con?ict: developing the framework” . International Journal of Con?ict Management. Vol. 10 No. 3. pp. 268-94.

Janssen. O. . Van de Vliert. E. and Veenstra. C. ( 1999 ) . “How undertaking and individual con?ict form the function of positive mutuality in direction teams” . Journal of Management. Vol. 25 No. 2. pp. 117-42.

Jehn. K. A. ( 1995 ) . “A multi-method scrutiny of the bene?ts and hurts of intragroup con?ict” . Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 40 No. 2. pp. 256-82. Jehn. K. A. ( 1997 ) . “A qualitative analysis of con?ict types and dimensions in organisational groups” . Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 42 No. 3. pp. 530-57. Jehn. K. A. and Chatman. J. A. ( 2000 ) . “The in?uence of relative and perceptual con?ict composing on squad performance” . International Journal of Con?ict Management. Vol. 11 No. 1. pp. 56-73.

Lewicki. R. . Saunders. D. . Barry. B. and Minton. J. ( 2003 ) . Necessities of Negotiation. 3rd erectile dysfunction. . McGraw Hill. Singapore.
Medina. J. M. . Dorado. M. A. . de Cisneros. I. F. J. . Arevalo. A. and Munduate. L. ( 2004 ) . “Behavioral sequences in the effectivity of con?ict management” . Psychology in Spain. Vol. 8 No. 1. pp. 38-47.

Munduate. L. . Ganaza. J. . Peiro. J. M. and Euwema. M. ( 1999 ) . “Patterns of manners in con?ict direction and effectiveness” . International Journal of Con?ict Management. Vol. 10 No. 1. pp. 5-24.
Nicotera. A. M. ( 1993 ) . “Beyond two dimensions: a grounded theory theoretical account of con?ict-handling behavior” . Management Communication Quarterly. Vol. 6 No. 3. pp. 282-306. Olekalns. M. . Smith. P. L. and Walsh. T. ( 1996 ) . “The procedure of negotiating: scheme and timing as forecasters of outcomes” . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Vol. 68 No. 1. pp. 68-77.

Pinkley. R. L. and Northcraft. G. B. ( 1994 ) . “Con?ict frames of mention: deductions for difference procedures and outcomes” . Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 37 No. 1. pp. 193-205. Pondy. L. R. ( 1966 ) . “A systems theory of organisational con?ict” . Academy of Management Journal. Vol. 9 No. 3. pp. 246-56.

Pondy. L. R. ( 1967 ) . “Organizational con?ict: constructs and models” . Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 12 No. 2. pp. 296-320.
Pondy. L. R. ( 1989 ) . “Re?ections on organisational con?ict” . Journal of Organizational Change Management. Vol. 2 No. 2. pp. 94-8.
Pondy. L. R. ( 1992a ) . “Historical positions and modern-day updates” . Journal of Organizational Behavior. Vol. 13 No. 3. pp. 253-5.
Pondy. L. R. ( 1992b ) . “Re?ections on organisational con?ict” . Journal of Organizational Behavior. Vol. 13 No. 3. pp. 257-61.
Priem. R. L. and Price. K. H. ( 1991 ) . “Process and outcome outlooks for the dialectical enquiry. devil’s protagonism. and consensus techniques of strategic determination making” . Group & A ; Organization Studies. Vol. 16 No. 2. pp. 206-25.

Putnem. L. and Poole. M. S. ( 1987 ) . “Con?ict 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’ perceptual experiences of con?ict in business-to-business gross revenues interactions” . The Journal of Business & A ; Industrial Marketing. Vol. 19 No. 4. pp. 236-49.

Saavedra. R. . Earley. P. C. and Van Dyne. L. ( 1993 ) . “Complex mutuality in task-performing groups” . Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 78 No. 1. pp. 61-73. Sessa. V. ( 1996 ) . “Using perspective taking to pull off con?ict and affect in teams” . The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. Vol. 32 No. 1. pp. 101-15.

A re-evaluation
of con?ict theory

199

IJCMA
21. 2

200

Schwenk. C. R. ( 1990 ) . “Effects of devil’s protagonism and dialectical enquiry on determination devising: a meta-analysis” . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Vol. 47 No. 1. pp. 161-77.
Sheppard. B. H. ( 1992 ) . “Con?ict research as Schizophrenia: the many faces of organisational con?ict” . Journal of Organizational Behavior. Vol. 13 No. 3. pp. 325-34. Schulz-Hardt. S. . Jochims. M. and Frey. D. ( 2002 ) . “Productive con?ict in group determination devising: genuine and contrived dissent as schemes to antagonize colored information seeking” . Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. Vol. 88 No. 2. pp. 563-86. Simons. T. L. and Peterson. R. S. ( 2000 ) . “Task con?ict and relationship con?ict in top direction squads: the polar function of internal trust” . Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 85 No. 1. pp. 102-11.

Sternberg. R. J. and Soriano. L. J. ( 1984 ) . “Styles of con?ict resolution” . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 47 No. 1. pp. 115-21.
Tellefsen. T. and Eyuboglu. N. ( 2002 ) . “The impact of a salesperson’s in-house con?icts and in?uence efforts on purchaser commitment” . Journal of Personal Selling & A ; Gross saless Management. Vol. 22 No. 3. pp. 157-72.

Thomas. K. W. ( 1992 ) . “Con?ict and con?ict direction: re?ections and update” . Journal of Organizational Behavior. Vol. 13 No. 3. pp. 265-74.
Thomas. K. W. ( 1976 ) . “Con?ict and con?ict 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 effectivity of blending job resolution and forcing” . Using Con?ict in Organizations. Sage Publications. Thousand Oaks. CA. pp. 38-52.

Van de Vliert. E. . Nauta. A. . Giebels. E. and Janssen. O. ( 1999 ) . “Constructive con?ict 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 determiners of the industrial salesman’s function con?ict and ambiguity” . Journal of Marketing. Vol. 39 No. 1. pp. 32-9.

Wall. V. D. Jr and Nolan. L. L. ( 1986 ) . “Perceptions of unfairness. satisfaction. and con?ict 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 behaviour and dialogue outcomes” . International Journal of Con?ict Management. Vol. 1 No. 1. pp. 7-31.

Further reading
Amason. A. C. . Hochwarter. W. A. . Thompson. K. R. and Harrison. A. W. ( 1995 ) . “Con?ict: an of import dimension in successful direction 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 con?ict. squad public presentation. and team member satisfaction: a
meta-analysis” . Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 88 No. 4. pp. 741-9.

Deutsch. M. ( 1973 ) . The Resolution of Con?ict. Yale University Press. New Haven. CT. Friedman. R. . Tidd. S. . Currall. S. and Tsai. J. ( 2000 ) . “What goes about comes around: the impact of personal con?ict manner on work con?ict and stress” . International Journal of Con?ict Management. Vol. 11 No. 1. pp. 32-55.

Guerra. M. J. . Martinez. I. . Munduate. L. and Medina. F. J. ( 2005 ) . “A eventuality position on the survey of the effects of con?ict types: the function of organisational 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 step in: factors impacting the usage of procedure and result control in 3rd party difference 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 function ambiguity and trust in con?ict perceptual experience: take outing the undertaking con?ict to relationship con?ict linkage” . International Journal of Con?ict Management. Vol. 15 No. 4. pp. 364-84. About the writers

?
James Speakman is Assistant Professor of International Negotiation at IESEG Business School. a member of Catholic University of Lille. where his attendings are focused on gross revenues and dialogue. After working for 16 old ages in cardinal history direction gross revenues he completed his PhD research at Cran?eld School of Management. where. utilizing the Critical Incident Technique with an Interpretative Model for coding to look into intraorganizational. interpersonal con?ict and the behavioural sequences adopted in the direction of these complex interpersonal. intraorganizational con?ict episodes. Other research involvements include personal merchandising. yesteryear. nowadays and hereafter. where he conducted the US research for a transnational survey on the hereafter of personal merchandising and dialogue in context where his research involvements include multi-cultural dialogue. James Speakman is the corresponding writer and can be contacted at: [ electronic mail protected ]

Lynette Ryals specializes in cardinal history direction and selling portfolio direction. peculiarly in the country of client pro?tability. She is a Registered Representative of the London Stock Exchange and a Fellow of the Society of Investment Professionals. She is the Director of Cran?eld’s Key Account Management Best Practice Research Club. Director of the Demand Chain Management community and a member of Cran?eld School of Management’s Governing Executive.

To buy reissues of this article please e-mail: [ electronic mail protected ]Or see our web site for farther inside informations: World Wide Web. emeraldinsight. com/reprints

A re-evaluation
of con?ict theory

201