t.
Unless everyone in an organization or institution accepts the basic assumptions of that organization or institution, and accepts them in the same way, conflict can ignite from the smallest word or action and spark destructive responses and behaviors. Unresolved or poorly navigated conflict can damage and even destroy relationships.
Conflict, however, does not have to be destructive. Handled effectively, conflict can actually contribute to stronger, deeper relationships and can help to address ongoing problems and concerns. Effective communication skills serve a key role in successfully resolving conflict, both in the home and in the workplace.
Institutional Structures for Conflict Resolution
There are two types of conflict in any organization, and thus two general methods of resolving conflict, depending on the kind of conflict involved.
The first type of conflict is that based on flaws in the institution itself. As a “social tool,” an institution must be designed properly and used correctly, or it won’t work the way intended. Conflict can — unintentionally — be built in to the organization.
Institutional flaws, however, are often the ones most people ignore: something wrong in the structuring of power relationships at any level or all levels within the institution. True, as Lord Acton noted, power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. That is why everyone within an institution must have the equal opportunity and means to acquire power so that power is broken up and shared.
Then, while solving institutional conflicts should be the job of those inside the institution or organization, the advice of an outside observer may be essential. This is because people inside the institution can simply be too “close” to the problem and fail to see it. Plus, where power is concentrated within an institution, leaders cannot address conflicts among different levels within the institution or recommend corrective actions.
If the institution promotes solidarity, and everyone goes along with it, institutional conflicts can often be resolved very easily. If everyone within the institution shares power to resolve conflicts, and everyone wants the conflict to be resolved, everyone will work with others to help restructure the institution.
What happens, however, when the institution is restructured to promote the empowerment of all workers, but some feel others in the organization are manipulating them or otherwise taking unfair advantage? Or suppose there are people who just aren’t getting along with others or with the institution as a whole?
This is the second type of conflict, personal conflict, and it is sometimes the most difficult to resolve. It most often results from a feeling of powerlessness, which isolates people from their co-workers and others in society.
Traditionally, leaders and managers have often tried to resolve personal conflicts informally, on a one to one basis. This can sometimes work . . . but don’t count on it. When someone with power relates to someone without power, someone is going to feel as if he was imposed on . . . and it won’t be the one with power.
It is much better that there be some “institutional mechanism” in place to deal with personal conflicts. This must be a part of the system itself, to deal with this kind of conflict effectively — or at all.
The specific structuring of a means of dealing with personal conflict within an organization must be carefully considered. It is, after all, far too easy for people with the wrong kind of power to manipulate a grievance committee or arbitration board and use it to get rid of people they don’t want, cover up their own incompetence, or even seize even more power and concentrate it in their own hands to the ultimate detriment of the organization.
Any such mechanism must be objective, fair, and — especially — it must be perceived as such. An arbitration board or committee can be objective and fair, but if people do not think so, it is useless.
In a “typical” company in which there are owners, managers, and workers, and never shall any of