Leadership through conflict is inevitable in all organizations. McCormick and Davenport (2003) compare organizational conflict to ‘trouble in the field’ as a shepherd tends to his sheep. During mating season, rams fight each other to entice the ewes. As a result, only the strong rams are selected for mating, and their genes are carried on to future generations. The shepherds must regulate these conflicts as they are necessary for continuity. However, unwelcome disturbances may negatively affect the entire flock. In organizations, conflict reconciliation helps address deep-lying issues and empowers opposing parties. Yet, the mental wellbeing of employees, customer loyalty, and company reputation may suffer in the absence of conflict reconciliation.
The Meaning of Conflict
Leadership has to exist through conflict. Conflict within organizations is defined as a collision between two or more antagonistic groups or ideas ( McKibben, 2017) . From this definition, it is clear that conflict is inevitable in organizations that encourage day-to-day interactions between stakeholders.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Conflict can either be interpersonal or intellectual. McCormick and Davenport (2003) argue that interpersonal conflict occurs when there are emotive, physical, malicious, or unprofessional disagreements between parties within an organization. On the other hand, intellectual conflict is centered on thoughts and ideas, where the differing parties’ key agenda is to share ideas that breed progress and solve organizational problems.
In the course of their duties, it is suggested that leaders promote intellectual conflict and put a check on interpersonal conflict. The reason is that intellectual conflict is good for business, while interpersonal conflict prolongs the realization of organizational goals and objectives. The advantage of intellectual conflict for an organization is that it becomes the source of new ideas, sets the stage for problem-solving, encourages stakeholder creativity, and improves performance. However, McCormick and Davenport (2003) allude that interpersonal conflict is destructive. Interpersonal conflict is associated with poor organizational performance, lower productivity, and the weakening of team morale.
The Value of Conflict Reconciliation to Organizations
It is important to note that conflict offers opportunities to address deeper-lying issues. The shepherd leader is encouraged to see the good in their challengers’ points of view. This means that conflict in itself is a form of raising awareness of some existing hidden truths and that they need to be worked on sooner rather than later. As such, intellectual conflict resolution should be seen as more of a “boxing match that a free-for-all slugfest” (McCormick & Davenport, 2003, p. 72). In a boxing match, there are predetermined rules and regulations that all parties are expected to follow. When the shepherd leader acts as the referee, issues such as name-calling and other derogatory behaviors are kept at a minimum for the benefit of the reconciliation process. Therefore, intellectual conflict reconciliation as a process should be fostered.
In organizations, leaders should create the necessary environment required for conflict reconciliation. Space creation is done by setting the table, fostering two or more perspectives, recognizing positive and negative intentions, and allowing for the admission of guilt (McCormick & Davenport, 2003). It is important to note that conflict reconciliation is a difficult process that needs facilitation through conflict leadership.
Research also shows that the needs-based approach to conflict reconciliation offers admirable results to organizations and their leaders. In a needs-based approach, parties involved in interpersonal or similar conflicts that occur between groups are encouraged to simultaneously withdraw threats to each other through the use of symbolic actions ( Nadler & Shnabel, 2015) . Again, the shepherd leader may act as the referee. This can be seen as a process of moving interpersonal conflicts towards an intellectual reconciliation process.
Through the needs-based model, the conflict reconciliation process also acts as a form of empowerment. McCormick and Davenport (2003) urge shepherd leaders to allow conflicting parties to admit their wrongs through words of affirmation. Words of affirmation, by and large, recalibrate our subconscious minds leaving space for thoughts that lead to acts of kindness. Those who are on the wrong can then empower the victim groups in a process that eventually restores both identities.
The Dangers of Conflict Non-Reconciliation
As stated above, both interpersonal and intellectual conflict situations can be utilized and bring about overall good to an organization. Nevertheless, it should be noted that there are possible dangers of allowing conflicts to boil over. Non-reconciliation can be seen as a resistance to change that negatively affects stakeholder interests and company reputation.
Non-reconciliation endangers the mental wellbeing of employees, diminishes customer loyalty, and erodes the reputation of a company and its leadership. Unresolved conflict cannot lead to reconciliation. Therefore, sluggish resolution may indicate incompetence on the leaders’ part. Employees may be forced to stay away from work or seek alternative employment. Non-reconciliation may also lead to poor customer service, and customers may opt for rival companies’ products or services. Questions may also arise regarding the competence of those in leadership positions, thus, limiting the ability of the company to attract top talent.
In conclusion, conflict is foreseeable in organizations that encourage interactions. Conflict can be bad or good. Interpersonal conflict can hurt the emotions and morale of opposing parties, while intellectual conflict can bring forth ideas and thought processes that are beneficial to an organization. There is value in conflict reconciliation for organizations in that overlying issues can be identified and addressed. Nevertheless, leaders who shun conflict reconciliation endanger the mental wellbeing of employees, customer loyalty, and organizational reputation.
References
McCormick, B., & Davenport, D. (2003). Shepherd leadership: Wisdom for leaders from Psalm 23 . John Wiley & Sons.
McKibben, L. (2017). Conflict management: importance and implications. British Journal of Nursing , 26 (2), 100-103.
Nadler, A., & Shnabel, N. (2015). Intergroup reconciliation: Instrumental and socio-emotional processes and the needs-based model. European Review of Social Psychology , 26 (1), 93-125.
