Conflict in an industrial relations setting is fundamentally inter-group in character and content. So far we have only addressed the issue of conflict between employer and employee. However there are several other potential loci of conflict within an organization:
hierarchical conflict – for example, senior management versus junior management;
functional conflict – for example, between personnel in different divisions like sales versus production;
Professional versus functional conflict – for example, accountants versus production;
Professional versus professional conflict – for example, nurses versus doctors;
Union versus union – for example, occupation-based unions versus multiple-employer unions;
Conflict between organizational subgroups (functional and/or culturally based) – for example, women versus men, ethnic minority groups, generational.
To understand the nature and origins of inter-group conflict, we harness the relevant social psychology literature. This literature assumes that conflict between groups is manifest in ethnocentric attitudes and behaviours. In 1906, Sumner (Levine & Campbell, 1972: 8) defined ethnocentrism as a:
view of things in which one’s own group is the centre of everything, and all others are scaled and rated with reference to it ... each group nourishes its pride and vanity, boasts itself superior, exalts its own divinities, and looks with contempt at outsiders. Each group thinks its own folkways are the right ones, and if it observes that other groups have other folkways, these excite its scorn.
Ethnocentrism is a robust phenomenon evident in the reactions and responses of adults and children alike. Tajfel (1972) argued that discriminatory attitudes and behaviours are rooted in the dynamics of group membership.
One of the causes of inter-group conflict is said to be incompatibility of interest and goals. This, coupled with a perception of conflict plus evidence of opposition between parties, is generally understood to be definitive of a conflict situation (Wilson & Rosenfeld, 1990: 141–142). It is also commonly presupposed that all conflict is bad. However, Wilson and Rosenfeld (1990) argue that up to a point, conflict is actually good for the organization:
· it keeps the organization on its toes;
· it avoids the organization getting too routinized and apathetic to change;
· it results in better quality decision making due to consideration of alternative points of view;
· it affords a culture of innovation and change;
Goal incompatibility
The notion of goal incompatibility is the foundation of realistic conflict theory.
Sherif (1966) argued that inter-group attitudes and behaviours will reflect the objective interests of one group vis-à-vis the others. If group goals are incompatible such that what one group seeks is at the expense of the other, a competitive orientation is likely to result, thereby predisposing the groups towards prejudicial attitudes and mutual hostility. This is the assumption on which the need for systematic management of industrial relations is predicated. That is, the interests and goals of employer and employees are understood to be fundamentally incompatible: the employer wants to maximize the performance potential of the employee for as little return as possible, whereas the employee seeks to maximize return on what is invested in terms of time and energy on the job. An example of competitive interdependence is given by instances whereby workers demand wage increases at the expense of reducing the employer’s profit margin. This is the basis of ideological unionism, which seeks structural resolution of this conflict – that is, the overthrow of capitalism (see the ‘radical perspective’ on industrial relations described earlier). However, in practice the ideological thrust of unionism has been eclipsed by the need in the here-and-now to install and manage systematic means of ‘collective bargaining’.
Realistic conflict theory assumes that for conflict to be resolved, group goals and interests must be compatible, such that both parties are effectively working towards the same objective (and who may even need each other for successful goal attainment). In this case it is more functional for groups to adopt a mutually friendly and cooperative relationship with each other. An example of cooperative interdependence (in principle) is provided by different groups of health-care workers with respect to the mutually held goal of quality patient care. It is working towards ‘common goals’, that is the assumption underpinning unitary and neo-unitarist perspectives on industrial relations (as described above). It is this assumption that is also inherent to so-called ‘insider’ organizations (also described above) which view and treat employees as competitive assets. Such organizations aim to unite (win–win) in the face of competition at the (win–lose) inter-organizational level (for example, to secure a greater share of the market). Thus, competitive energy is harnessed at a more super-ordinate inter-organizational level of analysis. The same principle applies to organizations that work in collaboration with each other at the strategic level, forming an alliance for mutual gain vis-à-vis other organizations within the market. In all these instances, a common goal is used to ‘pull’ each party together in its pursuit.
Belum ada tanggapan untuk "The Psychology of Inter-group Conflict"
Posting Komentar