How conflict has changed over time in Organizational Behavior

Conflict is a natural part of any group or organization, but how we understand and handle it has changed significantly over time. In the past, conflict was often seen as something entirely negative that should be avoided at all costs. As our perspectives have changed, we have come to recognize that conflict can actually be a beneficial force in organizations. Understanding these changes helps us see how our approach to conflict has evolved and why embracing it can lead to better results.

How conflict has changed over time?

1. Traditional Approach (1930-1940)

A. They belief that all conflict is harmful and should be avoided

During the 1930s and 1940s, conflict was seen as something negative that should be avoided at all costs. People believed that conflict led to violence, destruction, and other harmful consequences that could cause serious problems within organizations. Because of this, the emphasis was on preventing conflict, as it was believed to have no positive aspects.

Example: Imagine a factory in the 1930s where the manager believes that any disagreement between workers is a serious problem. If two workers argue over how to complete a task, the manager can immediately intervene and force them to stop arguing. The manager thinks that avoiding conflict altogether will prevent disruptions and keep the factory running smoothly. However, this approach may overlook underlying issues that need to be addressed.

B. Conflict resulted for

i. Poor communication

In the past, poor communication was one of the main causes of conflict. Effective communication is essential in our daily lives, as it allows us to share our thoughts and ideas. When communication breaks down, misunderstandings arise, leading to conflict. Additionally, if the communicator does not use clear and simple language, it can cause confusion and further escalate conflict.

Example: In the 1930s, if a company sends out a memo with vague instructions about a new project, employees may misunderstand their roles and responsibilities. For example, if one department thinks they are responsible for a task that another department believes is their job, this miscommunication can lead to conflict. Employees may argue over who should do what, causing tension and delays in the project.

ii. Lack of openness

In traditional times, individuals often did not express their ideas or opinions openly. They were not open to discussing or debating conflicts. This lack of openness led to conflict because people were not sharing their perspectives. When people withhold their opinions, it can create tension and misunderstandings, which ultimately lead to conflict.

Example: Consider a company where employees are hesitant to share their opinions about a new policy because they fear getting in trouble. An employee may have a great idea for improving a policy, but if they don’t voice it due to fear of conflict, the company misses out on potential improvement. This lack of openness prevents the company from addressing potential issues and resolving conflicts constructively.

iii. Not responding to employees’ needs

Conflict also arose when employers failed to meet the needs of their employees. For example, if employees were not satisfied with their jobs, did not receive a fair salary, worked in poor conditions, were not rewarded for their efforts, or were given repetitive tasks every day, they would become frustrated. This frustration often led to arguments and conflict in the workplace.

Example: In the 1930s, if a company does not provide good working conditions, fair pay, or enough time off, employees may become frustrated. For example, if employees become overburdened with repetitive tasks and feel they are not appreciated, they may begin to argue with their supervisors or among themselves, leading to workplace conflict.

2. Human Relations View of Conflict

A. Belief that conflict is natural and inevitable

As time went on, people began to view conflict differently. From the late 1940s to the mid-1970s, the belief emerged that conflict is a natural and inevitable part of life. Since every person has different ideas and viewpoints, conflict is bound to happen. This view did not label conflict as negative or positive; instead, it recognized conflict as a natural occurrence.

Example: In the 1950s, a team working on a project discovers that members have different ideas about how to approach a problem. Instead of trying to avoid these disagreements, they accept that these conflicts are natural and part of working together. They understand that it is normal to have different opinions and use conflict as an opportunity to explore different solutions and find the best solution.

B. Prevalent from the late 1940s to the mid-1970s

During this period, there was a shift in the way people viewed conflict. They began to accept that conflict is inevitable, meaning that it will happen no matter what. This was a significant shift from the earlier belief that conflict should always be avoided.

Example: By the 1960s, a company comes to understand that conflict between departments is a regular part of its operations. For example, the marketing department and the sales team may have different ideas about how to promote a product. The company begins to view these conflicts as a normal part of its business processes and not to be avoided at any cost.

 3. Interactionist View of Conflict

A. They belief conflict is not only positive it is absolute necessity for the organization to work effectively.

In recent times, the view on conflict has moved even further. The interactionist view states that conflict is not only positive but essential for organizations to function effectively. This view emphasizes that conflict can be beneficial because it encourages individuals to share their ideas and opinions, which can lead to better group performance. Without conflict, there can be little growth or improvement in the functioning of a group or organization.

Example: In the 1980s, a technology company embraces the idea that some level of conflict is good for innovation. During team meetings, employees are encouraged to challenge each other’s ideas and debate different viewpoints. This healthy conflict leads to creative solutions and improvements in their technology, helping the company stay competitive.

B. Perception about conflict has changed over time

The perception of conflict has changed significantly over time. While it was once considered something harmful that should be avoided, today, experts believe that a moderate level of conflict can be good for an organization’s growth. By embracing conflict, organizations can foster creativity, innovation, and progress.

Example: In the early 2000s, a startup understands that having different viewpoints and occasional disagreements among team members can actually help the company grow. For example, when team members debate the best way to design a new product, these discussions lead to innovative ideas and better final products. The company values ​​this type of constructive conflict because it promotes progress and creativity.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) about How conflict has changed over time?

Conclusion of How conflict has changed over time?

Over the past few decades, our view of conflict has changed from seeing it as a harmful problem to recognizing its potential benefits. Initially, conflict was avoided because it was thought to cause disruption and damage. As time went on, people began to understand that conflict is a natural and inevitable part of life. Today, we view conflict as a positive force that can foster creativity and improvement. By acknowledging and managing conflict constructively, organizations can foster growth, innovation, and progress. This evolving view shows that conflict, when handled well, can be a powerful tool for success.