Conflict at Work

A Framework for Understanding Conflict

Conflict has been defined in many ways across many studies, making it difficult to agree on one clear conceptualization of the construct. Nevertheless, researchers agree on certain definitional properties—for example, that at least two parties must be involved in order for conflict to arise. Recent work has advanced our understanding of the definitional components of conflict. Specifically, Henri Barki and Jon Hartwick tested a framework for conflict that consists of behavioral, cognitive, and affective components. In this framework, the behavioral component of conflict is reflected in the interference of one party with the objectives of another. The cognitive component refers to disagreement between the parties and reflects a discrepancy between the parties' interests, needs, or objectives. Finally, the affective component refers to the negative emotional states associated with the experience of conflict at work. This conceptualization of conflict supports a multiple-theme perspective in which all three components must be present in order for the situation to constitute a conflict.

Conflict can be further categorized according to two widely accepted sources: task and relationship conflict. Task conflict refers to conflict over policies, distribution of resources, or ways of completing a task. Relationship conflict refers to conflict emerging from personality clashes or emotionally charged interactions with others. Researchers such as Karen A. Jehn, Robin L. Pinkley, and Alan C. Amason support this distinction between sources of conflict. Hence, conflict can be conceptualized as comprising three definitional components (interference, disagreement, and negative emotion) and as being one of two types (task or relationship).

Methodological Issues in Conflict Measurement

Because of discrepancies in construct definition, measures of conflict are often created for the purpose of a specific study. Often, these measures lack sound psychometric properties. In fact, even widely used conflict measures that have reliability and validity support suffer from an incomplete conceptualization of the construct. For example, Jehn's intragroup conflict measure differentiates between task and relationship conflict but measures mostly the disagreement component of conflict. M. Afzalur Rahim's measure (ROCI-I), though it assesses the amount of intragroup, intrapersonal, or intergroup conflict, does not differentiate between sources of conflict. To advance our understanding of the impact of conflict on organizational functioning, a comprehensive measure of conflict is needed.

Personality and the Experience of Conflict

There is some evidence that individuals who are high in specific dispositional traits are likely to experience—or at least perceive—more conflict at work. For example, individuals who are high in trait anger, which is a tendency to perceive situations as inciting feelings of anger, report experiencing more conflict at work. Similarly, longitudinal research shows that high type A individuals report more conflict. Trait anxiety and negative affectivity have also received some attention in relation to the experience of conflict. Again, results indicate that individuals high in these two traits report experiencing more conflict. Locus of control, or the general belief that one's actions or external forces control outcomes, is also associated with the experience of conflict. These studies, however, are less conclusive: There is some support for the notion that externals report more conflict, but findings also suggest that internals are more reactive to conflict.

...