Views of Conflict and Functional vs Dysfunctional

Views on conflict have changed substantially over the past century. Where conflict was once seen as purely negative, modern thinking treats some conflict as essential to organisational health. Three historical views and the distinction between functional and dysfunctional conflict frame what modern managers use today.

Three views over time

Three views have dominated organisational thinking at different periods.

Traditional view (1930s-1940s)

The traditional view claimed that all forms of conflict held harmful effects for an organisation. Conflict was brought about by a lack of communication between staff, and was to be avoided by focusing on the causes and correcting them.

The traditional view treated conflict as a failure. If staff are in conflict, communication has failed, leadership has failed, or both. The solution was prevention through better communication.

This view is still common among managers who say things like “we should not have conflict in this school”. The intuition is understandable, but the assumption that all conflict is bad is too strong.

Human relations view (1940s-1970s)

The human relations view argued that conflict was a natural occurrence in all groups and organisations. It accepted conflict, and held that conflict may at times benefit a group’s performance.

Building on Mayo and others, this view accepted conflict as natural. Where humans work together, disagreement emerges. The stance was tolerant: do not be alarmed by conflict; manage it.

This was a step forward. The traditional view’s prevention focus had often produced suppression, and suppressed conflict tends to fester. The human relations view’s acceptance allowed conflict to be addressed openly.

Interactionist view (today)

The interactionist view is widely accepted today. It actively encourages certain types of conflict within the organisation, because a completely cooperative, harmonious group of yes-men may lead the organisation into a static, non-responsive entity.

The current dominant view goes further than acceptance. Some conflict is desirable.

A team without disagreement is a team that does not have enough perspectives, does not challenge each other, and tends toward groupthink. Adding deliberate, productive conflict (in the form of debate, devil’s advocate roles, structured disagreement) produces better outcomes.

For a school head, the interactionist view means:

1. Do not panic when staff disagree openly. Disagreement is healthy.
2. Watch for suppressed disagreement. A team that always agrees may be hiding important differences.
3. Encourage productive conflict around ideas while preventing destructive conflict around personalities.
4. Create safe spaces for disagreement, especially with senior staff.

Functional vs dysfunctional conflict

The interactionist view does not say all conflict is good. It distinguishes functional conflict (which helps) from dysfunctional conflict (which hurts).

Functional conflict

Functional conflict supports the goals of a group; its presence in the organisation can improve performance. With proper management, beneficial results can be obtained. Functional conflict produces real benefits.

1. It satisfies psychological needs like dominance, aggression, esteem, and ego, giving people an opportunity for the constructive use and release of aggressive urges.
2. It produces creative, constructive, and innovative ideas.
3. It builds understanding of the problem, people, and interrelationships between them, and tends to improve coordination among individuals and departments as well as intra-group relationships.
4. It motivates and adds variety to an individual’s organisational life; individual abilities and talents come to the front in a conflict situation.
5. It generates diagnostic information that helps prevent similar conflicts later.

In a school: a vigorous debate about curriculum tends to produce a better curriculum than silent acceptance would. A challenge to the principal’s plan from a senior teacher may reveal a flaw that saves the plan from failure. An open argument between two teachers about teaching methods can produce learning for both.

Dysfunctional conflict

Dysfunctional conflict acts as a barrier to the performance of the group and frustrates the objectives of the organisation. It produces real damage.

1. Conflicts may lead to work sabotage, morale problems, and loss of productivity.
2. In a conflict situation, people may promote their self-interests at the cost of others in the organisation.
3. Intense conflicts over a prolonged period affect individuals emotionally and physically, and may give rise to psychosomatic disorders.
4. Conflicts affect individual and organisational performance; resolving them consumes managerial time and energy that could have been spent more productively.

In a school: a feud between two senior teachers that drags on for years and poisons the staffroom. A teacher who sabotages a colleague’s programme out of resentment. A parent campaign against the school that consumes administrative time and damages reputation.

The diagnostic categories

Three categories of conflict help distinguish functional from dysfunctional.

• Task conflict relates to the content and goals of the work: functional.
• Process conflict relates to how the work gets done: functional.
• Relationship conflict focuses on interpersonal relationships: dysfunctional.

Task conflict (functional)

Disagreement about the content of the work. What should we teach? How should we assess? Which approach should we use?

Task conflict, openly handled, produces better decisions. It surfaces information, tests assumptions, brings together different expertise.

Process conflict (functional)

Disagreement about how to do the work. Who should do what? In what order? Using what resources?

Process conflict, openly handled, produces better workflows. It identifies inefficiencies, surfaces capability differences, and improves coordination.

Relationship conflict (dysfunctional)

Disagreement about persons, not tasks. Personality clashes, dislike, distrust. The conflict is about who, not what.

Relationship conflict tends to be destructive. It is hard to resolve because there is no underlying issue to address; the issue is the people.

A school head’s job in conflict management is partly to keep conflict in the functional categories (task and process) and out of the dysfunctional category (relationship).

How conflicts shift categories

A task conflict can become a relationship conflict if not handled well. Two teachers disagree about curriculum (task). They argue repeatedly without resolution. The disagreement becomes personal. They stop respecting each other. Now they are in relationship conflict, and the original task issue is harder to address.

The reverse also happens. A relationship conflict can be reframed as a task or process conflict, which is more workable. Two teachers who do not like each other may be able to work together on a shared task without the personal issue interfering, if the task is well-structured.

A school head who watches for these shifts can intervene early. Task and process conflicts handled promptly stay functional. Left to fester, they migrate into relationship conflicts that are much harder to resolve.

What this means for a school head

Three practical implications.

Tolerate disagreement on ideas

A staff that never disagrees with the principal is a staff that has stopped engaging. Welcome disagreement on substance.

Address personal conflict early

A relationship conflict between two staff members will not resolve itself. The principal should intervene early, while it is still possible to refocus on tasks.

Watch for the migration

Most relationship conflicts started as task or process conflicts that were not resolved. Resolving conflicts promptly prevents the migration.

A school where conflict is allowed to be functional and where dysfunctional conflict is caught early is a healthier, more productive school than one that suppresses all conflict.

Flashcard

What is the difference between functional and dysfunctional conflict, and what are the three categories that distinguish them?

Tap to reveal

Answer

Functional conflict supports the group’s goals; dysfunctional conflict frustrates them.

Three categories:

1. Task conflict (functional). Disagreement about the content of the work; produces better decisions.

2. Process conflict (functional). Disagreement about how to do the work; produces better workflows.

3. Relationship conflict (dysfunctional). Disagreement about persons, personality clashes; produces damage.

A school head’s job is to keep conflict in the functional categories (task, process) and prevent migration into relationship conflict. Most relationship conflicts started as task or process conflicts that were not resolved promptly. Early intervention keeps conflict productive; neglect produces destructive relationship conflict.

The interactionist view, dominant today, says some conflict is necessary. A staff that never disagrees has stopped engaging. Welcome functional conflict; catch dysfunctional conflict early.