Healthy organizations from conflict management v1 pdf

Healthy Organizations from Conflict Management
How Conflict Management helps manage change, performance, and well-being.

Abstract

A healthy organization achieves their goals through an environment that places equal importance on
organizational performance and employee well-being. There is, however, conflict to be managed
regarding these two requirements and depending upon the way this conflict is managed rests the
health of an organization at organizational, team, and individual levels.

Contents

1. What is a Healthy Organization?
2. Organizational Health and Conflict
3. A Model for Improving Organizational Health through Conflict Management
4. Conflict Management Methodologies
5. Intrapersonal Conflict.
6. Interpersonal Conflict
7. Collaborative Conflict Management
8. Dispute Management
Notes
References

1. What is a Healthy Organization?

Ask anyone if the organization they are involved in is healthy or unhealthy and the chances are that
they can not only tell you, but also rate its level of health as well as describe the reasons for making
that assessment. So the idea of an organization ranging from unhealthy to healthy is recognized,
even though reasons vary. Yet despite this understanding and a wish to work in healthy
organizations there is the perception that a large number of organizations, even apparently successful
ones, are profoundly unhealthy [1].

A healthy organization is described as one that achieves organizational goals through an environment
that places equal importance on organizational performance and employee well-being [2].

Achieving organizational goals through placing equal importance on organizational performance and
employee well-being involves managing conflict [3]. The term well-being takes into consideration the
“whole person” and can include life experiences such as satisfaction with experiences providing
growth and development; work related experiences such as job or role satisfaction; as well as specific
aspects such as employment conditions and relationship with others [4].

Copyright David Alman 2009 Page 1

2. Organizational Health and Conflict
Conflict occurs when one or more employees or groups perceive their values or needs are
incompatible with others or the organization [5].

Conflict is about perceptions of interactions. Conflict covers not only perceptions of relationships with
others (interpersonal conflict) but also psychological interactions (intrapersonal conflict) that can be
triggered by factors in the work environment. For example, conflict can occur over how organizational
goals should be achieved; what individuals and the organization expect of each other; how people
relate and use power; and how characteristics of an organizational environment affect employees
such as organizational reporting structure, systems, culture, and physical factors.

Traditionally conflict has been associated with negative and threatening behaviour, and violence.
This is reinforced through, for example, our experience with media news items and films. However,
the current view of conflict is that it is natural in organizational interactions. That the form conflict
takes can not only be negative and threatening but can also be positive, extending across a range of
healthy and unhealthy conflict [6].

Figure 1 shows that some forms of conflict are constructive and support organizational performance
and employee well-being (healthy conflicts) and other conflicts adversely affect organizational
performance and employee well-being (unhealthy conflicts). In this model conflict intensity is used to
characterize differing aspects of healthy and unhealthy conflicts.

3. A Model for Improving Organizational Health through Conflict Management


Organizational Health is dependent upon optimizing and integrating the supporting elements of a)
organizational performance and b) employee well-being, as a means of optimizing the achievement of
organizational goals. This is illustrated in the top two tiers of Figure 2.

In managing conflicts in organizations it is important to identify the underlying cause(s) rather than
accepting events or issues at face value [7]. Conflicts can arise from within or between the
Organizational Performance Framework and Employee Well-Being Requirements.

Conflict Management is described as a multidisciplinary problem solving approach that can be applied
through a range of conflict management methodologies.

In Figure 2, conflict management methodologies are placed under four headings: Intrapersonal
Conflict Management; Interpersonal Conflict Management; Collaborative Conflict Management; and


Dispute Management. This range of conflict management methodologies provides a wholistic
framework that could be applied across a wide variety of organizations to proactively support and
develop a healthy organization.

A clear option, therefore, is suggested: Between organizations and employees operating to achieve a
healthy organization where conflict management methodologies support and develop healthy
organizations, and unhealthy organizations where uncooperative practices such as adversarial,
avoidance, and suppressive conflicts remain unmanaged and cause unhealthy outcomes and
increased costs to the health of both the organization and employees.

4. Conflict Management Methodologies
To support a healthy organization a range of different conflict methods can be applied depending
upon the circumstances. A brief outline of a conflict management framework that illustrates this is
shown in Figure 3. This framework should be viewed as allowing for some fluidity. For example in
the management of a dispute where one or more persons are intending to maximize their self
interests it is possible to reframe the conflict into a mutual gains approach [8].

4.1 The Importance of Mutual Gain


Just as Organizational Health is dependent upon managing conflict within and between organizational
performance and employee well-being requirements, the way conflict itself is managed also
determines whether the result is a healthy or unhealthy organization.

In any given interaction the question that can be asked is does the outcome of a conflict seek mutual
gain or self gain?

Again, those working in an organization can recognise when the organization, a group, or an
individual is working in a cooperative way that achieves mutual gains, or not. A mutual gain approach
reflects and supports healthy organizational outcomes through cooperative conflict management
processes that seek to resolve underlying needs and values. In contrast self gain can be associated
with an unhealthy organization unless carefully managed and if they cannot be reframed as mutual
gains, tend to have to be managed as settlement processes [9]. Examples of self gain are where the
organization, group, or individual act at the expense, or disadvantage, of another individual, group, or
the organization.

This is not to suggest that acting out of self interest should be discouraged, because self interest can
be the basis for developing a mutual gain just as it can be the basis of seeking self gain.

As a general rule organizational health benefits where a mutual gain approach to conflict is applied,
treating self gain conflict from a disputes perspective when mutual gain outcomes are not feasible.

A dispute is described as where one or more people or groups seek to maximize fulfillment of their
own interests or needs, or goals (often at the expense of others) [10].

5. Intrapersonal Conflict.

5.1 Intrapersonal Conflict Described
Intrapersonal conflict is described as the inner conflict from the thoughts and feelings that an
employee experiences from their interaction with the work environment [11].

Other types of conflict, such as interpersonal conflict, do also involve intrapersonal conflict, however
the purpose here is to highlight the influence of work environment factors on employee well-being and
organizational health through intrapersonal conflict.

5.2 Intrapersonal Conflict and the Management of Stress.
Occupational stress can be described as the physiological and emotional responses that occur when
workers perceive an imbalance between their work demands and their capability and/or resources to
meet these demands. Importantly, stress responses occur when the imbalance is such that the
worker perceives they are not coping in situations where it is important to them that they cope [12].


This description of stress responses relate to interactions between an individual and their
environment, and, in effect, describes the consequences of intrapersonal conflict.

Four major types of stress responses are placed within an Organizational Health and Conflict Model
in Figure 4. These are [13]:
Eustress: Stress responses that are comfortable and promote health and growth.

Distress: Stress responses that are uncomfortable through excessive adaptive demands.

Hypertress: Stress responses from being pushed beyond what one can handle (e.g.
exhaustion from work overload).

Hypostress: Stress responses from boredom or being unchallenged (opposite to
Hyperstress).

Examples of intrapersonal conflicts that cause stress responses include:
 Relationship conflicts with others or within a group;
 Excessive noise or overcrowding in the physical environment;
 Work factors such as excessive work load, or isolation;


 Conflict through ambiguity of roles and lack of accountability;
 Conflict with the norms of a work group or the cultural values of the organization;
 Management of workplace change.

A number of environmentally based Occupational Stress Risk Factors are recognised by the Health &
Safety Executive (UK) who describe 6 stress risk factors in their Management Standards, and by the
Department of Employment and Industrial Relations (DEIR), Queensland, using 8 Occupational
Stress Risk Factors [14]. These are shown in Table 1. In this respect conflict management
methodologies could assist to identify and manage conflict related causes of occupational stress.

Managing intrapersonal conflict proactively can reduce stress related costs to organizations.

The financial and employee well-being implications that flow from stress related costs are significant.
A report found that stress cost the Australian economy $14.81 billion a year where $5.12 billion
comes from stress costs resulting from employees missing work and $9.96 billion from stress-related
costs of “presenteeism”. This excludes the further costs involved in rework and employment of


additional employees resulting from the effects of presenteeism, and the costs of retraining or hiring
new employees when employees leave jobs because of work related stress [15].

5.3 Intrapersonal Conflict Methods
5.3.1 Stress Risk Management Audit
Conflict Audits are discussed in section 7.3.1. However because these audits are defined by the
criteria they use to assess conflict and develop recommendations, a conflict audit is referred to here
because a Stress Risk Management Audit can use, for example, DEIR or H&SE (UK) occupational
stress risk factors as audit criteria to identify conflicts causing stress responses within an employee.
Refer to Table 1 in section 5.2

5.3.2 Leadership Style
A Situation Based Leadership model is considered relevant to organizational health because it
involves a leader achieving a style that provides balance between organizational goals and employee
well-being. It also supports healthy conflict by recognizing and addressing underlying group and
individual (intrapersonal conflict) needs in variable situations.

For example, faced with a crisis, and uncertainty about what needs to be done, the leader is
“directive” in providing clarity of direction and goal thus lowering the level of intrapersonal anxiety and
stress the group and individuals experience, yet can focus on being facilitative in assisting individuals
achieve their personal interests, such as personal development, when pressure for goal achievement
is low. Conversely unnatural leadership shifts can cause unhealthy conflict by a leader being, for
example, directive when there is no need, and ignoring individual personal issues when there is
opportunity to do so.


Figure 5 shows that leadership style can naturally shift from “Directive”, “Collaborative”, and
“Facilitative” as a result of levels of external stressors placed on a group to achieve goals, and the
level of ambiguity or clarity of those goals [16].

5.3.3 Conflict Coaching
Conflict coaching involves working one on one with those with an intrapersonal conflict.

Generally, the processes used are based on mediation models, which are explained further under
Interpersonal conflict mediation in section 6.2.2. Coaching and mediation use the same range of
methods such as Facilitative; Transformative, and Narrative. Each method has a different emphasis
in addressing a conflict, but basically use similar problem defining and problem solving stages.

These basic problem solving stages also have similarities to counselling stages as both belong to the
“helping professions” [17].

For example, Stage 1 The present scenario; Stage 2 The preferred scenario; and Stage 3 Actions for
getting there. While both attend to framing and reframing of perceptions of a conflict, conflict
coaching does not focus on the psychological nature of the person’s problem, nor with the application
of psychotherapy. Nor does it require a therapeutic relationship with the facilitator.


Conflict coaching differs from counselling in that the focus remains on resolving conflicts relating to a
persons values and needs. That is to say, values that are significant beliefs for an individual, and,
beyond physical needs, needs that relate to psychological and emotional well-being and self esteem,
and to group identity and acceptance [18].

Additionally a further method, Conflict Styles, can be explored using feedback instruments as a way of
assisting an individual to develop the way they would manage future conflicts [19].

6. Interpersonal Conflict

6.1 Interpersonal Conflict defined
Interpersonal conflict is described as the conflict that occurs between two or more individuals [20].
Two interpersonal conflict management methods are covered: Collaborative Problem Solving, and
Mediation.

6.2 Interpersonal Conflict Management Methods
6.2.1 Collaborative Problem Solving
Collaborative Problem Solving refers to processes where two or more individuals work toward a
resolution of a conflict without third party intervention [21].

This process is applicable, for example, for supervisors working with employees, and between
employees working through work related conflicts. The Collaborative Problem Solving Method
proceeds through a series of steps such as [22]:

1. Understand the situation
2. Identify underlying conflict causes (e.g. needs & values)
3. Explore options
4. Build agreement to achieve mutual gains

6.2.2 Mediation
Conflicts between two employees can deteriorate to a level of distrust and hostility that makes
collaboration unworkable. To address such interpersonal conflict, mediation may be used.

Mediation is a process in which the parties to a conflict, with the assistance of a mediator, identify the
issues, develop options, consider alternatives and endeavour to reach an agreement [23].

To be able to address a conflict it is important to identify the underlying causes. Poor diagnosis
causes the danger of reacting to presenting events, reacting emotionally, or not understanding nor
addressing the underlying causes of conflict, thus both escalating and compounding conflict.


A number of writers have developed models that can be used to diagnose conflict [24]. Table 2
examples a 5 factor model applied to diagnose conflict in a preliminary investigation.

The focus of mediation can differ in addressing conflict. For the purposes of this section, two different
mediation models are exampled [25]:

 Facilitative Mediation: Sometimes referred to as Interest-based or problem solving
mediation. Facilitative mediation explores the underlying needs and interests of the parties as
a means of resolving conflict.
 Therapeutic Mediation: Includes restorative, transformative, and narrative mediation.
Therapeutic mediation explores the relationship between the parties. The logic being that by
improving the relationship between the parties current and future conflict issues can be
resolved based on the establishment of a strong enough relationship to solve differences
without third party assistance.


7. Collaborative Conflict Management

7.1 The Collaborative Conflict Management Process
Collaborative conflict management is concerned with conflict at group and organizational level, and as
its title suggests depends upon the willingness of employees to work collaboratively to resolve
differences, and can include a third party facilitator [ 26].

The collaborative conflict management approach is based on a problem solving process that
proceeds through a sequence of stages [27]:

Stage 1. Analyze the situation
Stage 2. Develop a Plan
Stage 3. Work through the process
Stage 4. Complete and Follow Up

While this looks simple, it is applied in the context of collaboratively involving people throughout,
addressing concerns, and gaining commitments to outcomes as a joint problem solving process.

There are ample examples in the workplace where a change is required that needs the support and
commitment of employees where, under the justification of time pressures; a preferred directive
leadership style; or a technically focused change methodology an inclusive collaborative process is
not adequately used resulting in an outcome foundering on the rocks of employee resistance,
resentment, and non commitment.

The collaborative conflict management process can be extensively applied to support a healthy
organization, and this contrasts with alternative processes that can polarise, coerce, belittle, hide and
avoid, or be based on personal advantage practices that lead to an unhealthy organization.

These are so prevalent that some words or phrases are part of the common work language such as
“shoot the messenger”; “shot down”; ”blasted for no good reason”; “crucified”; “ambushed”; “stabbed
in the back”; ”left out to dry/freeze”; “dropped from a height”; “torpedoed/undermined”; “caught in
crossfire”, “shuffling the deckchairs”; “behind closed doors”; “mushroom management ”; “my way or
the highway”; “the quick fix”; “there’s no problem here”; “ivory tower”, “culture of blame” and “silo
mentality”.


Collaborative Conflict Management can be used extensively in processes ranging from team and
group meetings to managing organizational change, as shown in Figure 6, though the conflict
management methods used in these different processes vary considerably.

7.2 Collaborative Problem Solving in Groups
Collaborative Problem Solving can be used by supervisors, managers, and team leaders in a wide
range of group settings such as Committee, Team, Project, and Planning Meetings.

Skills of a trained group facilitator are appropriate both in terms of running a collaborative problem
solving process to effectively maximize the benefits of the process used, as well as in the micro skills
such as “reframing” to rephrase potentially offensive statements so the group continues to focus on
collaborative problem solving.

Where conflict within a group is not being resolved, conflict management can be assisted by a trained
group facilitator who acts as an independent third party. When an independent third party is involved
the term used is Group Facilitation, though the underlying collaborative conflict management process
remains basically the same.


Conflict within Collaborative Problem Solving groups and Group Facilitation can be addressed by the
use of models to analyze the causes of conflict. These models can come from a wide range of
sources and not just from the discipline of conflict management, such as Systems Archetypes and
Team Management Systems (TMS) models [28].

7.3 Collaborative Change Management
Organizational reviews; restructures; project and change management programs can be enhanced by
using the stages of the Collaborative Change Management process as a means of supporting
organizational health through change processes [29].

Collaborative Change Management can include using conflict audits to identify key issues of
stakeholders that need to be addressed and to develop recommendations for an implementation plan;
facilitative workshops to inform, explore, or resolve conflict issues around plans or implementation;
and mediation or conflict coaching to support the resolution of individual conflicts that could hinder
successful implementation.

A number of conflict management methodologies can be integrated into the Collaborative Change
Management process: Conflict Audits and Thematic Reframing are covered below.

7.3.1 Conflict Audits
Conflict audits can be flexibly applied to collaboratively investigate, diagnose, and recommend
improvements to organizational health and be used to support organizational change programs.

Audit criteria need to have a sound basis for justification and change depending upon the type of
conflict audit used [30]. For example:
 Organizational Health Audit: Use criteria relevant to organizational performance and
employee well-being requirements. Refer to Figure 3.
 Systemic Fairness Audit: Use criteria relevant to systemic fairness and legislative
compliance criteria.
 Stress Risk Management Audit: Use occupational stress risk factors as criteria. Refer to
Table 1.

7.3.2 Thematic Reframing
Thematic Reframing [31] is the alignment of an organization’s culture, organizational practices, and
causal events to achieve a healthy organization.

Conflict can result from the effect of a decision or action of the organization or another person (i.e. an
event). Similarly work practices can cause conflict such as the application of perceived unfair


policies, work overload/hours, or role conflicts (i.e. organizational practices). Additionally, differences
in cultural attitudes or group norms (i.e. culture) can cause conflict.

In Figure 7 these three organizational perspectives: events, practices, and culture are shown as a
framework in relation to managing conflict to achieve a healthy organization. In an organizational
change program all three levels may need attention to ensure changes are successfully committed to,
and sustained.

Thematic reframing is a methodology that can be applied where a conflict requires the search for
systemic underlying causes that can make an organization unhealthy.

Conflicts causing an unhealthy organization can be continually repeated as “vicious circles”. Where a
shift to a “virtuous circle” of conflict could improve organizational health [32]. A vicious circle is where,


in effect, events generate a circle of repeated negative conflict with detrimental consequences on
organizational health.

An example of a vicious circle is shown in Figure 8, where a Telco under new management seeks to
improve profits and share price, through applying values, practices and actions that attempt to
optimize organizational goals [33]. The consequential loss in profit causes management to repeat the
vicious circle over a number of years to the detriment of all.

8. Dispute Management

8.1 Dispute Management Processes
Healthy organizations also need to have processes in place that recognise that not all conflict can be
cooperatively addressed. That at times differences need to be acknowledged and settled through a
dispute management process.


Disputes relate to conflicts where those involved seek to maximize their own interests, needs, or
goals, often at the expense of others [34].

This can result in polarized positions. Organizations tend to have formal dispute management
processes to manage such conflicts, for example a complaint or grievance procedure.

Traditionally, complaint and grievance procedures have limited themselves to entitlement and rights
under employment conditions of an organization. This includes an employee's legal rights in relation
to fair treatment, such as those under workplace harassment and anti discrimination legislation.

A complaints process focused on rights and entitlements allows a complaint or grievance to proceed,
through stages within an organization to outside of the organization and to a third party to provide
conciliation, mediation, or arbitration to settle the matter. These third parties, depending upon the
issue, are legislated government agencies such as an Industrial Relations Commission, Tribunal, or
Magistrates court.

Figure 9 reflects an Australian context showing how a conflict and formal complaints or grievance
processes can flow to external agencies.


The emphasis of grievance and complaint processes focusing on entitlements and rights (e.g.
grievance procedures negotiated into Awards or Enterprise Bargained Agreements) has meant that a
number of matters affecting organizational health and conflict management can be left understated.
First, underlying causes of interpersonal conflicts can be left unaddressed to reoccur outside of a
formal dispute management process that addresses conflict on the basis of an employee’s “rights” or
“entitlement”. Rights and entitlement examples can relate to harassment, illegal discrimination and
the application/non application of employment conditions.

Second, dispute management can emphasise settlement or conclusion rather than addressing the
needs of dysfunctional relationships and underlying causes of unhealthy organizations [35].

Third, the emphasis on a “rights” and “entitlements” based dispute management processes can
underplay the importance of also attending to organizational fairness principles within the formal
process itself [36].

Fourth, the attention upon individual dispute management can underplay the significance of also
attending to systemic implications of a dispute [37].

8.2 Employee Separation Processes
A number of reasons can cause an organization to initiate an Employee Separation Process such as
competency or conduct issues arising from performance management outcomes; contract frustration
though permanent changes in health; significant changes in competency requirements; or downsizing.

While the performance management and termination procedures involved do differ to accommodate
legislative requirements on dismissal, rehabilitation, and redundancy the way these processes are
handled can leave an adverse affect on the health of an organization.

Anyone who has experienced the termination of close colleagues understands how their treatment
affects them, and ourselves, personally on an emotional level, and the organization's climate.

Organizational Climate is the collective emotional mood of employees toward their roles, the
organization, and management [38].

In effect these are Self Gain approaches by the organization, and even if believed to be fully justifiable
can result in unhealthy conflict and dispute that needs to be managed. Given that options based on a
mutual gain outcome have been fully explored and applied where possible, the unhealthy
consequences of taking a self gain approach can be mitigated through the way Employee Separation
Processes are applied.


For example:
 Applying Principled Leadership values may help deescalate actual or potential conflict and
dispute [39];
 The application, as appropriate, of processes incorporating Natural Justice Principles [40] and
Organizational Fairness Principles (referred to in Section 8.1 and Note), and ;
 Support for employees through Conflict Coaching and counselling. This can be linked to
associated programmes. For example, in cases of ill health and redundancy, to life planning
beyond the organization.

8.3 Negotiations
The area of disputes can also include formal negotiations, such as wage and employment
negotiations. Such negotiations could relate to employment contracts, enterprise awards, and
enterprise bargained agreements. The capacity of such negotiations, by the way they are managed,
to damage the health of an organization should not be underestimated, and the intensity of conflict
can be driven higher by prior unaddressed conflict within a less than healthy organization.

Figure 10 illustrates three types of negotiation based on self and mutual gain. These three types are:
 Self Gain where one party gains at the cost of the other. Referred to as Adversarial
negotiation where the outcome is based on a win or lose process.
 Compromise where each party gains something at an accepted cost of concessions to the
other. Referred to as Distributive (when there is a multiple issue dispute) and Integrative
(when there is a single issue dispute) negotiation.
 Mutual Gain where both parties gain through benefits and concessions provided by the other
party. Sometimes referred to as Principled Negotiation where the outcomes are based on the
parties interests [41].


Notes
[1] This reference is drawn from a quote by Peter Senge in Dive (2004, p.1) who is referring to
Corporations.

[2] Dive (2004, p.3) describes a healthy organization as one that meets its mission and
simultaneously enables individuals to learn, grow, and develop. Britton in Organizational Learning
and Organizational Health views organizational health as the achievement of employee and
organizational goals. He also refers to the need to create an environment to support a healthy
organization.

[3] While the term Organizational Health is not used by Warr & Wall (1975, p.165, 166) the concept
can be inferred in that they consider a successful organization as one that reconciles technical and
administrative requirements with the wants and desires of its employees. In this respect they use the
term “joint optimisation” to reflect the point that both organizational and employee requirements are
necessary for an effective organization. They also state that there is inherent conflict between the
requirements of an organization and the requirements of its members.

[4] The description of well-being is based on Health and Well Being, Definition(s) sourced through a
Glossary from the Sloan Work and Family Network. Cooper & Williams (1994) also refer to healthy
organizations in relation to employee wellness, which they relate to the promotion and maintenance of


physical, mental, and social well-being. These definitions focus on individual well-being, however this
is extended here to cover the well-being of individuals as members of a group.

[5] This description of conflict is based on Tillett & French (2007, p.307). It has, however, been
amended to include “one or more…” as opposed to “two or more…”. This is so that intrapersonal
conflict can be explored. Intrapersonal conflict relates to the thoughts and feelings an individual
experiences within themselves to a situation that causes inner conflict. Both Condliffe (2002, p.4) and
Tillett & French (2007, p.10 & 312) refer to intrapersonal conflict.

[6] De Dreu & Vliert (1997) explain that managers often seek a homogeneous workforce and
suppress minority dissent, which can reduce creativity and innovation, leading to “groupthink”. The
model in Figure 1 is based on one in De Dreu & Vliert, however the “Performance” dimension has
been altered to “Organizational Health”, with “Healthy” substituting for “Optimum”, and “Unhealthy” for
“hindered” performance. The term “contend” is changed to “coerced”, which includes dominant
assertive and threatening behaviour.

[7] Tillett & French (2007, p.7) identify three factors in a conflict: The explanation which is the event or
issue used as a rationalization for the conflict occurring; the symptoms which are the behaviours,
feelings or thoughts that indicate there is a conflict; and the causes that if identified can lead to the
resolution of the conflict.

[8] Susskind and Field (1996) describe and promote the mutual gains approach to public disputes
using six mutual gains principles, and discuss the importance of Principled Leadership in the
approach. The concept of mutual gains in conflict situations is extrapolated from their book.

[9] Schoeny & Warfield (2000) identify a distinction in conflict methodologies with regard to those that
address underlying sources of conflict, and those that emphasise settlement or conclusion.

[10] The description of what is meant by a dispute is based on Tillett & French (2007, p.307). Their
description is amended to refer to “one or more…” rather than “two or more…” so that intrapersonal
conflict may explored.

[11] The definition is based on a description from Condliffe (2002, p. 4) where “certain situations” that
cause conflict is substituted for the ”work environment”.

[12] The definition for What is stress? is from the Queensland State Department of Employment &
Industrial Relations (DEIR) website.

[13] In Introduction to Stress Theory, the Cox and Mackay Model is described as four major stress
response types: eustress; distress; boredom; and exhaustion. The latter two described here as


hypostress and hyperstress respectively. Their model’s dimension of “demands” is changed to
“conflict levels”, and ‘performance” to Organizational Health.

[14] The two publications Risk factors for occupational stress from DEIR and Tackling for occupational
stress from H & SE (UK) have similar factors and provide criteria for Conflict Audits on stress risk
management.

[15] A report in the Herald Sun Cost of workplace stress hits $14.8b provides costs of stress related
absenteeism and presenteeism to Australia. Presenteeism is the loss of productivity that occurs
when employees come to work and do not function fully because of illness or injury.

[16] Korten (1978) developed a model of situational determinants of leadership style (referred to as a
Leadership Structure) where “natural” leadership styles shifted to address a group’s stress levels
resulting from situations faced by them; the clarity of the goals; and the importance placed on group
goals. This could be interpreted as leadership that provided mutual benefit, and organizational health,
through addressing the intrapersonal conflict (that cause stress responses) to achieve organizational
goals. The terms Democratic and Authoritarian have been changed, as has Korten’s four dimensional
model. The purpose of reshaping the model is to present it in contemporary conflict management
terms but not to change the rationale within this research.

[17] Boulle (1996, p. 69-71) discusses Egan’s “helping professions” concept, and the similarities and
differences between counselling and mediation.

[18] Tillett & French (2006 p.17, 18) provide an explanation around their definition of conflict in which
values and needs are more fully explained.

[19] Further explanations on Conflict Coaching can be found in Conflict coaching. With respect to
Conflict Styles Coaching feedback instruments there are, for example, the Thomas – Kilman and the
Kraybill conflict styles instruments.

[20] Definition based on Tillett & French (2007, p. 312)

[21] The description of the term collaborative problem-solving is drawn from Tillett & French (2006 p.
128). It should be noted that in Tillett & French the term covers a process in which the parties work
toward resolution without third party intervention (and where a problem solving process is applied).

[22] Condliffe (2002, p. 101-104) describes a collaborative conflict management process (referred to
here as a collaborative problem-solving) that has 5 phases, and can be applicable to two or more
individuals. McConnon (2004) similarly has a conflict resolution process at an interpersonal level.


The collaborative problem-solving stages described in this article are informed by both but also
include a mutual gain perspective.

[23] This definition is based on the mediation definition in the National Alternative Dispute Resolution
Council (NADRAC) Dispute resolution terms. The definition is an extract of a fuller definition found in
NADRAC, and the word “dispute” has been exchanged for the word “conflict”.

[24] A wide range of writers have exampled conflict models. For example; Condliffe (2002); Cloke &
Goldsmith (2005, p. 122), Bush & Folger (2005, p.55), and Furlong (2005).

[25] The mediation models and terminology are based on Boulle (1996, p.28-30), with Narrative
Mediation included.

[26] Claremont & Davies (2005, p. 13) refer to the concept of collaborative conflict management in
terms of a problem solving process applicable to whole groups and organizations (that is facilitated by
a third party).

[27] Clarement & Davis (2005) provide a problem solving process, with phases/ steps, applicable to
collaborative conflict management at group and organizational level.

[28] Examples of the application of system archetypes can be sourced from Senge, Roberts, Ross,
Smith, & Kleiner (1994) and various individual, team and organizational models from Team
Management Systems (TMS).

[29] Claremont & Davies (2005) explore extensively, with examples, the application of Collaborative
Conflict Management in relation to conflicts affecting whole groups and organizations.

[30] There are a number of references available on Conflict Audits such as Cloke & Goldsmith (2005,
p. 40-42 & 148-153); Brown (March 2004); Clarement & Davies (2005, p.193-202), and the Conflict
Auditors Association of North America.

[31] Thematic Reframing is based on melding concepts from a range of sources: A frame does not
necessarily represent a ‘functional” frame such as an organizational structure, but rather it is more
akin to a Human Activity System (HAS) which has a goal (Checkland, 1981). The Levels of a Frame
reflect the “Levels of Perspective” framework (Kim, 1999) and the “Four Windows” described by Flood
(1999, p. 94-122). The concepts of alignment and thematic (re)frames are drawn from Triple loop
learning, and Topic: A five minute refresher course in framing.

[32]. At a societal level Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner (1998, p.223-226) describe the creation of a
vicious circle of dysfunctional conflict from events, and the possible generation of a virtuous circle of


mutual benefit. In Dynamic Systems Thinking terms, vicious and virtuous circles are viewed as
“reinforcing loops” (Senge, Roberts, Ross, Smith & Kleiner, 1994, p.116).

[33] The downsizing of a Teleco was the subject of a Masters paper by Winkler (2003), from which the
associated diagram is a simplified and consolidated version of that found in her paper.

[34] This is based on a definition of a dispute in Tillett & French (2007, p.309). It should be noted that
in this article the term dispute is restricted to a matter that falls within a Dispute Management Process
or a formal negotiation.

[35] A dispute as a settlement process is reflected in perspectives on ADR mediation discussed in
Spencer & Altobelli (2005, p.21 & 175)

[37] The three predominant Organizational Fairness Principles, sometimes referred to Organizational
Justice Principles, are Distributive Fairness, Procedural Fairness, and Interactional Fairness. For
example, irrespective of a decision on a complaint the perception, and acceptance, can be affected by
the way the organization handled the matter and whether the employee felt they were treated with
respect (Interactional Fairness); whether the process allowed all concerns to be exhausted and
addressed impartially and without delay (Procedural Fairness); and whether there is (Distributive
Fairness) in the decision. For example, does a decision incorporate in a complementary way
elements of equality, equity, and the essential needs of the complainant in what Schelling refers to as
a “prominent solution”? (Bunker, Rubin & Associates, 1995, p. 406).

[36] Systemic discrimination are practices, laws, or attitudes, which are viewed as neutral and
sometimes acceptable, but which entrench inequality and disadvantage to certain groups of people
(based on Responding to systemic discrimination).

[38] Ashkanasy & Dasborough (2004) describe the difference between organizational culture and
organizational climate; the effects of organizational climate; and how to build a healthy climate and
culture.

[39] Susskind and Field (1996) explain what is meant by Principled Leadership, which is "doing the
right thing" and showing decency, respect, and compassion through a set of principles.

[40] Natural Justice Principles relate to a decision maker being perceived as a) Free from bias b)
Providing an opportunity for a person to respond, and c) Observing procedural fairness when making
the decision (refer to Organizational Fairness Principles). B-Principles of natural justice and ultra
viries provides a clear and fairly detailed explanation around the concept of Natural Justice
Principles.


[41] Spencer & Altobelli (2005, p.63-103) provide a chapter on negotiation that includes discussion on
the four models of negotiation (Adversarial, Distributive, Integrative, and Principled).

References

Ashkanasy, N. & Dasborough, M. (2004). Building healthy organizations: Managing the emotional
aspects of workplace culture. In C. Barker & R. Coy (Ed). The power of culture: Driving today's
organisation. Australian Institute of Management, Management Today Series. Sydney, NSW: Mc
Graw Hill.

B- Principles of natural justice and ultra viries Retrieved 24 February 2009, from
http://www.nrw.qld.gov.au/about/policy/documents/2053/page_4_1.html

Boulle, L. (1996). Mediation: Principles, process, practice. Chatswood, NSW: LexisNexis
Butterworths.

Britton, B. Organizational learning and organizational health. Retrieved January 2009, from
http://www.framework.org.uk/files/organizational learning and organizational health.pdf.

Brown, H. (March 2004). What’s really going on? – A diagnostic tool for accurate assessment of
workplace conflict. Retrieved 19 May 2008, from http://www.mediate.com/articles/brownH1.cfm

Bush, R.A, & Folger, J.P. (2004). The promise of mediation: The transformative approach to conflict.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bunker, Rubin, & Associates. (1995). Conflict, cooperation & justice: Essays inspired by the work of
Morton Deutsch. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Checkland, P (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester, UK. John Wiley & Sons.

Claremont, R., & Davies, L. (2005). Collaborative conflict management. Sydney, NSW: Lansdowne
Publishing.

Cloke, K., & Goldsmith, J. (2005). Resolving conflicts at work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.


Condliffe, P. (2002). Conflict management: A practical guide. Chatswood Delivery Centre, NSW:
LexisNexis Butterworths.

Conflict Auditors Association of North America. Retrieved 24 February 2009, from
http://216.147.31.38/ADRNet/wma/ACA/caana.htm

Conflict coaching. Retrieved 24 February 2009, from http://www.campus-
adr.org/CMHER/ReportArticles/Edition2_2/Brinkert2_2.html

Cooper, C.L, & Williams, S. (1994). Creating healthy work organizations. Chichester, West Sussex:
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Cost of workplace stress hits $14.8b. Grant McArthur. Sun Herald dated 14 August 2008. Retrieved
24 February 2009, from http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,24179057-5012426,00.html

De Dreu, C.K.W., & De Vliert, E.V. (1997). Using conflict in organizations. London: Sage
Publications.

Dispute Resolution Terms. Retrieved 24 February 2009, from
http://www.nadrac.gov.au/www/nadrac/nadrac.nsf/Page/Publications_PublicationsbyDate_DisputeRe
solutionTerms

nd
Dive, B. (2004). The healthy organization. (2 ed) London: Kogan Page.

Flood, R.L (1999). Rethinking the fifth discipline: Learning within the unknowable. London:
Routledge.

Furlong, G.T. (2005). The conflict resolution toolbox. Mississauga, Ontario: John Wiley & Sons.

Health and well being, Definition(s) Sloan Work and Family Research Network. Boston College.
Reference & Research Glossary. Retrieved 11 February 2009, from
http://www.fnetwork.bc.edu/glossary_entry.php?term=health and well being, definition(s)


Introduction to stress theory. Retrieved 24 February 2009, from
http://www.wikieducator.org/Introduction_to_Stress_Theory

Kim, D.H. (1999). Introduction to systems thinking. Waltham, MA: Pegasus Communications, Inc.

Korten, D.C (1968). Situational determinants of leadership structure. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander
rd
(Ed.). Group dynamics: Research and theory. (3 ed) London: Tavistock Publications.

McConnon S&M (2004). Resolving conflict: How to manage disagreements and develop trust and
nd
understanding. (2 ed.) Oxford, UK: How to books ltd.

Responding to systemic discrimination. Retrieved April 2008, from
www.equalopportunitycommission.vic.gov.au

Risk Factors for Occupational Stress. Retrieved 24 February 2009, from
http://www.deir.qld.gov.au/pdf/whs/occstress-riskfactors.pdf

Senge, P.M., Roberts, C., Ross, R.B., Smith, B.J., Kleiner, A. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook:
Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing Ltd.

Shoeny & Warfield. (July, 2000). Reconnecting systems maintenance with social justice: A critical
role for conflict resolution. Negotiation Journal.

Spencer, D., & Altobelli, T. (2005). Dispute resolution in Australia. Pyrmont, NSW. Lawbook Co.

Susskind, L., & Field, P. (1996). Dealing with an angry public: The mutual gains approach. New
York: The Free Press.

Tackling stress: The management standards approach. Retrieved 24 February 2009, from
http://www.hso.gov.uk/pubns/indg406pdf

Team management systems. Retrieved 24 February 2009, from http://www.tms.com.au/


rd
Tillett, G., & French, B. (2007). Resolving conflict. (3 ed) South Melbourne, Victoria: Oxford
University Press.

Topic: A five minute refresher course in framing. Retrieved 2 November 2008, from
http://www.frameworksinsitute.org/ezine8.html

Triple loop learning. Kansas Prevention WIKI. Retrieved 24 February 2009, from
http://beta.ctcdata.org/wiki/index.php/triple_loop_learning

nd
Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (1998). Riding the waves of culture. (2 ed) New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Warr, P. & Wall, T. (1975) Work & well-being. Harmondsworth, Middlesex. Penguin Books Ltd.

What is stress? Retrieved 24 February 2009, from
http://www.deir.qld.gov.au/workplace/subjects/stress/about/index.htm

Winkler, B.L. (2003). Organizational survivors: Perceptions of conflict and justice during downsizing.
Retrieved 29 May, 2008, from http://www.handle/1969.1/386/etd-tamu-2003c-scom-winkler-1.pdf.


Healthy organizations from conflict management v1 pdf

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

En vedette

En vedette (9)

Similaire à Healthy organizations from conflict management v1 pdf

Similaire à Healthy organizations from conflict management v1 pdf (20)

Plus de David Alman

Plus de David Alman (18)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Healthy organizations from conflict management v1 pdf