Acquisition in Multinational Coperation Essay Example for Free

Acquisition in Multinational Coperation Essay Purpose – This conceptual paper aims to draw upon recent complexity and organizational psychology literature to examine conï ¬â€šict episodes, exploring the limitations of the predominant research paradigm that treats conï ¬â€šict episodes as occurring in sequence, as discrete isolated incidents. Design/methodology/approach – The paper addresses a long-standing issue in conï ¬â€šict management research, which is that the predominant typology of conï ¬â€šict is confusing. The complexity perspective challenges the fundamental paradigm, which has dominated research in the conï ¬â€šict ï ¬ eld, in which conï ¬â€šict episodes occur in sequence and in isolation, with managers using one predominant form of conï ¬â€šict resolution behavior. Findings – The ï ¬ ndings are two-fold: ï ¬ rst, the behavioral strategies adopted in the management of these conï ¬â€šicts will be highly complex and will be determined by a number of inï ¬â€šuencing factors; and second, this moves theory beyond the two dimensional duel concern perspective, in that the adaptable manager dealing with these multiple, simultaneous conï ¬â€šicts will also need to consider the possible implications of their chosen strategy along with the changing micro environment in which they operate. Originality/value – This paper adds value to the ï ¬ eld of conï ¬â€šict theory by moving beyond two dimensions and exploring a sequential contingency perspective for conï ¬â€šict management within the organization. It argues that multiple conï ¬â€šict episodes can occur simultaneously, requiring managers to use differing behaviors for successful conï ¬â€šict management. Keywords Conï ¬â€šict management, Conï ¬â€šict resolution, Organizational conï ¬â€šict, Individual behaviour, Interpersonal relations Paper type Conceptual paper International Journal of Conï ¬â€šict Management Vol. 21 No. 2, 2010 pp. 186-201 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1044-4068 DOI 10.1108/10444061011037404 Introduction It is now over 40 years since Louis Pondy (1967) wrote his seminal article on conï ¬â€šict within the organization and its management and almost 20 years since his reï ¬â€šections on his earlier work were published (Pondy, 1989)[1]. In 1967 Pondy established what was for two decades the generally accepted paradigm of conï ¬â€šict: that conï ¬â€šict episodes occur as temporary disruptions to the otherwise cooperative relationships which make up the organization (Pondy, 1967). In his subsequent reï ¬â€šections on his earlier work and that of others, Pondy proposed that conï ¬â€šict is an inherent feature of organizational life, rather than an occasional breakdown of cooperation (Pondy, 1989). This radically challenged the previous paradigm. Indeed, Pondy (1989) even suggested that research into the phenomenon of cooperation within the organization could be beneï ¬ cial in providing further insight into conï ¬â€šict within the organization, implying that it was cooperation, not conï ¬â€šict, which was the anomalous state requiring investigation. Yet, for almost two decades, Pondy’s conceptualization of conï ¬â€šict as a natural state for the organization has remained largely unexplored despite the emergence of a complexity perspective which explores multiple elements of the conï ¬â€šict situation or cooperative state. One possible reason why Pondy’s challenge has not been answered is that some confusion has arisen over the terms and typologies used for the classiï ¬ cation of conï ¬â€šict episodes. Consequently, debates about conï ¬â€šict structure or composition have tended to dominate the research agenda. The potential for confusion arising from these various conï ¬â€šict classiï ¬ cations will be discussed in this paper. Where conï ¬â€šict management behaviors have been studied, researchers have tended to focus on a two-dimensional approach or â€Å"dual concern theory† model (Thomas, 1976) which suggests that individuals adopt conï ¬â€šict management behaviors based on their perceived self interests and those of others; i.e. concern for self (competitive behaviors) versus concern for other (accommodating behaviors). Although this approach to the research of conï ¬â€šict and its management ï ¬ ts well with Pondy’s (1967) original paradigm, it is challenged by the complexity perspective that has emerged in psychology research. The complexity perspective of intraorganizational conï ¬â€šict maintains that interpersonal relationships are more complex than hitherto thought, and that the unfolding conï ¬â€šict is inï ¬â€šuenced by a wide variety of conditions. Moreover the complexity perspective encourages the consideration of simultaneous complexity (more than one event occurring simultaneously) and of how the mode of conï ¬â€šict management affects the outcomes (Munduate et al., 1999). This fresh perspective has enabled researchers to examine the point at which behavioral style is changed and the effect on the conï ¬â€šict episode (Olekalns et al., 1996) and to look at how different behaviors are combined (Janssen et al., 1999). With the recent developments in the complexity perspective of conï ¬â€šict management research (Van de Vliert et al., 1997; Munduate et al., 1999), the time has come to further explore the possible consequences of the complexity perspective: whether it is in fact the case that conï ¬â€šict is an inherent condition within the organization (Pondy, 1989); whether conï ¬â€šict episodes do not occur in isolation but occur frequently and simultaneously (Euwema et al., 2003); and whether complex sequences of adaptive behaviors are required to continually manage the constantly changing intraorganizational, conï ¬â€šict environment. Before we can do this, and to provide a common ground for discourse, we ï ¬ rst need to examine some of the theories around conï ¬â€šict typology that have arisen in the psychology and management literature and which may be the cause of some confusion. Conï ¬â€šict terms and typologies â€Å"Conï ¬â€šict† is a broad construct that has been studied extensively across several disciplines covering a wide range of social interactions. Previous conï ¬â€šict research has identiï ¬ ed four main levels of conï ¬â€šict in the context of human behavior and relationships as summarized by Lewecki et al. (2003): (1) Intergroup conï ¬â€šicts between groups of individuals which can range in size and complexity due to the many relationships involved, including international conï ¬â€šict between nations. (2) Intragroup or intraorganizational conï ¬â€šicts arising within smaller groups which comprise the organization. A re-evaluation of conï ¬â€šict theory 187 IJCMA 21,2 188 (3) Interpersonal conï ¬â€šict; that is, conï ¬â€šict at an individual level, conï ¬â€šict between individuals, or conï ¬â€šict between an individual and a group. (4) Intrapersonal conï ¬â€šict on a personal level, where the conï ¬â€šict occurs in one’s own mind. Although these four levels of conï ¬â€šict all appear across both the psychology and management literature, it is the third level (interpersonal conï ¬â€šicts within the organization or the reactions an individual or group has to the perception that two parties have aspirations that cannot be achieved simultaneously) that has become the central ï ¬ eld of research within the organization (Putnem and Poole, 1987). In 1992, Thomas proposed a simpliï ¬ ed deï ¬ nition of interpersonal conï ¬â€šict as the process which begins when an individual or group feels negatively affected by another individual or group. The conï ¬â€šict consists of a perception of barriers to achieving one’s goals (Thomas, 1992). More recently, interpersonal conï ¬â€šict has been deï ¬ ned as an individual’s perceptions of incompatibilities, differences in views or interpersonal incompatibility (Jehn, 1997). Conï ¬â€šict at this level has mostly been seen as adversarial and as having a negative effect upon relationships (Ford et al., 1975). These deï ¬ nitions presuppose that an opposition or incompatibility is perceived by both parties, that some interaction is taking place, and that both parties are able to inï ¬â€šuence or get involved – that is. that there is some degree of interdependence (Medina et al., 2004). Interpersonal conï ¬â€šict could arise within organizations where, for example, customer-facing departments such as Sales make promises to customers that other departments then have to deliver. In this domain of intraorganizational, interpersonal conï ¬â€šict, both Pondy’s (1966, 1967) work and recent developments adopting the complexity perspective are of particular interest This broad area of intraorganizational, interpersonal conï ¬â€šict has been further subdivided into two types: relationship conï ¬â€šict and task conï ¬â€šict. Relationship conï ¬â€šict arises between the actors through their subjective emotional positions, whereas task conï ¬â€šict relates primarily to the more objective tasks or issues involved (Reid et al., 2004). A series of studies conï ¬ rmed this duality between relationship and task. Wall and Nolan (1986) identiï ¬ ed â€Å"people oriented† versus â€Å"task oriented† conï ¬â€šict. In the early to mid-1990s Priem and Price (1991), Pinkley and Northcraft (1994), Jehn (1995) and Sessa (1996) all identiï ¬ ed â€Å"relationship† and â€Å"task† as discrete aspects of conï ¬â€šict. The picture became rather more complicated in the late 1990s. In 1995 Amason et al. redeï ¬ ned conï ¬â€šict types as â€Å"affective† and â€Å"cognitive† and in 1999 Van de Vliert further redeï ¬ ned these types as â€Å"task† and â€Å"person† conï ¬â€šict. In working toward a more comprehensive model of intraorganizational, interpersonal conï ¬â€šict, Jameson (1999) suggested three dimensions for conï ¬â€šict: (1) content; (2) relational; and (3) situational. The content dimension encompasses the previously discussed conï ¬â€šict types (affective, cognitive, relationship etc) while the relational dimension considers the subjective, perceived variables within the relationships of the actors involved: . trust; . status; . . . . A re-evaluation of conï ¬â€šict theory seriousness; degree of interdependence; record of success; and the number of actors involved. The situational dimension examines the variables which may be most relevant in selecting an appropriate conï ¬â€šict management strategy. These include time pressure, the potential impact of the conï ¬â€šict episode, the degree of escalation and the range of options available in the management of the conï ¬â€šict episode (Jameson, 1999). Meanwhile, Sheppard (1992) criticized the multiplicity of terms that were being used to describe types of interpersonal conï ¬â€šict, and the needless confusion that this caused. The result of the many approaches described above is that there is no general model for the typology of interpersonal conï ¬â€šict within the organization. In the absence of such a model, other researchers have taken different approaches, using the antecedents of the conï ¬â€šict episode to describe conï ¬â€šict types. Examples of this proliferation include role conï ¬â€šict (Walker et al., 1975), gender conï ¬â€šict (Cheng, 1995) and goal conï ¬â€šict (Tellefsen and Eyuboglu, 2002). This proliferation of terms or typologies has unsurprisingly led to confusion, most noticeably with the term â€Å"interpersonal conï ¬â€šict† being used to describe purely relationship or emotional conï ¬â€šict (Bradford et al., 2004) or conï ¬â€šict being deï ¬ ned in terms of emotion only, adding to the wide range of terms already used (Bodtker and Jameson, 2001). Thus, at a time when international, interorganizational, intraorganizational, interpersonal and intrapersonal conï ¬â€šicts are being extensively studied with conï ¬â€šict deï ¬ ned and operationalized in a variety of ways, no widely accepted and consistent model has emerged to shape conï ¬â€šict research (Reid et al., 2004). Table I summarizes the many different conï ¬â€šict typologies that have been proposed. Table I illustrates that relationship and task conï ¬â€šict are almost universally accepted as distinct types of interpersonal conï ¬â€šict by psychology and management researchers. Date Author(s) Conï ¬â€šict typology 1986 1991 1994 1995 1995 1996 1996 1997 1999 1999 2000 2000 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 2005 Wall and Nolan Priem and Price Pinkley and Northcraft Jehn Amason et al. Sessa Amason Amason and Sapienza Jameson Janssen et al. Friedman et al. Jehn and Chatman Tellefsen and Eyuboglu Bradford et al. De Dreu and Weingart Reid et al. Tidd et al. Guerra et al. People oriented, task oriented Relationship, task Relationship, task Relationship, task Cognitive, affective Task, person oriented Affective, cognitive Affective, cognitive Content, relational, situational Task, person oriented Relationship, task Task, relationship, process Goal conï ¬â€šicts Interpersonal, task Relationship, task Relationship, task Relationship, task Relationship, task 189 Table I. A summary of the typologies of conï ¬â€šict IJCMA 21,2 190 In addition, many researchers have identiï ¬ ed a third type of conï ¬â€šict which relates to the environment in which managers operate, described as situational conï ¬â€šict ( Jameson, 1999) or process conï ¬â€šict ( Jehn and Chatman, 2000). We believe that a consistent conï ¬â€šict typology is called for, to aid future research into the complex nature of intraorganizational conï ¬â€šict. In this paper, we propose that future researchers should recognize three types of interpersonal conï ¬â€šict. However, since the terms â€Å"relationship† and â€Å"task† are vulnerable to misinterpretation we advocate using the terms affective and cognitive (following Amason, 1996 and Amason and Sapienza, 1997), in conjunction with process (Jehn and Chatman, 2000), to describe the three types of interpersonal conï ¬â€šict. These terms, which reï ¬â€šect the more speciï ¬ c terminology used in the psychology literature, are deï ¬ ned in Table II. As Table II shows, the t ypology we propose is as follows. Affective Conï ¬â€šict is a term describing conï ¬â€šicts concerned with what people think and feel about their relationships including such dimensions as trust, status and degree of interdependence (Amason and Sapienza, 1997). Cognitive Conï ¬â€šict describes conï ¬â€šicts concerned with what people know and understand about their task, roles and functions. Process Conï ¬â€šict relates to conï ¬â€šicts arising from the situational context, the organization structure, strategy or culture (Amason and Sapienza, 1997; Jehn and Chatman, 2000). Using this typology for conï ¬â€šict between individuals or groups of individuals within the organization avoids confusion over the use of the terms â€Å"interpersonal†, â€Å"person† or â€Å"relationship† often used when referring to affective conï ¬â€šict, while task conï ¬â€šict is clearly distinguished from process conï ¬â€šict, addressing all the issues previously outlined. These terms will therefore be used throughout the remainder of t his paper. Having argued that taxonomic confusion has hindered conï ¬â€šict research through the misuse of existing taxonomies (Bradford et al., 2004) or where language has resulted in the use of different terms to describe the same conï ¬â€šict type (see Table I), we now move on to consider the implications or consequences of intraorganizational conï ¬â€šict and whether it is always negative or can have positive consequences (De Dreu, 1997). Consequences of conï ¬â€šict: functional or dysfunctional? Some researchers exploring attitudes towards conï ¬â€šict have considered the consequences of conï ¬â€šict for individual and team performance (Jehn, 1995) and have found that interpersonal conï ¬â€šict can have either functional (positive) or dysfunctional (negative) outcomes for team and individual performance (e.g. Amason, 1996). Moreover, the consequences of conï ¬â€šict can be perceived and felt in different ways by different actors experiencing the conï ¬â€šict episode (Jehn and Chatman, 2000). Thus, conï ¬â€šict is situationally and perceptually relative. Conï ¬â€šict type Affective Table II. A proposed taxonomy of conï ¬â€šict Deï ¬ nition Conï ¬â€šicts concerned with what people think and feel about their relationships with other individuals or groups Cognitive Conï ¬â€šicts concerned with what people know and understand about their task Process Conï ¬â€šicts arising from the situational context, the organization structure, strategy or culture The traditional view of conï ¬â€šict takes the view that conï ¬â€šict exists in opposition to co-operation and that conï ¬â€šict is wholly dysfunctional, putting the focus on resolution rather than management (e.g. Pondy, 1966). This perspective can be traced forward to more recent work. Where conï ¬â€šict is deï ¬ ned as the process which begins when one person or group feels negatively affected by another (Thomas, 1992), there is an implication of obstruction to either party achieving their goals, which is readily interpreted negatively. This can result in conï ¬â€šict avoidance or suppression of conï ¬â€šict management behavior, leading to perceived negative consequences on team or individual performance (De Dreu, 1997). Negatively-perceived conï ¬â€šict episodes can increase tension and antagonism between individuals and lead to a lack of focus on the required task (Saavedra et al., 1993; Wall and Nolan, 1986) while avoidance and suppression can also have long term nega tive consequences such as stiï ¬â€šing creativity, promoting groupthink and causing an escalation in any existing conï ¬â€šict (De Dreu, 1997). Not surprisingly, where interdependence is negative (where one party wins at the expense of the other although they have some dependency in their relationship) any conï ¬â€šict will be viewed negatively (Janssen et al., 1999). The perception of conï ¬â€šict will also be negative where the conï ¬â€šict is personal, resulting in personality clashes, increased stress and frustration. This type of relationship conï ¬â€šict can impede the decision-making process as individuals focus on the personal aspects rather than the task related issues (Jehn, 1995). In contrast to the somewhat negative perception of intraorganizational conï ¬â€šict outlined above, more recent conï ¬â€šict management theory has begun to suggest that certain types of conï ¬â€šict can have a positive effect upon relationships and that the best route to this outcome is through acceptance of, and effective management of, inevitable conï ¬â€šict, rather than through conï ¬â€šict avoidance or suppression (De Dreu, 1997). When individuals are in conï ¬â€šict they have to address major issues, be more creative, and see different aspects of a problem. These challenges can mitigate groupthink and stimulate creativity (De Dreu, 1997). Naturally, where there is high positive interdependence (an agreeable outcome for both parties), the conï ¬â€šict episode will be viewed much more positively (Janssen et al., 1999). Moreover, Jehn (1995) has suggested that task- and issue-based cognitive con ï ¬â€šict can have a positive effect on team performance. Groups who experience cognitive conï ¬â€šict have a greater understanding of the assignments at hand and are able to make better decisions in dealing with issues as they arise (Simons and Peterson, 2000). For example, research has shown that, when individuals are exposed to a â€Å"devil’s advocate†, they are able to make better judgments than those not so exposed (Schwenk, 1990). Schulz-Hardt et al. (2002) suggested that groups make better decisions where they started in disagreement rather than agreement. In these examples, conï ¬â€šict has a functional (useful and positive) outcome. We have argued that the notion of functional conï ¬â€šict has shifted the ï ¬ eld of conï ¬â€šict research away from conï ¬â€šict resolution and towards consideration of the management behaviors which can be adopted in dealing with conï ¬â€šict in order to gain the best possible outcome (De Dreu, 1997; Euwema et al., 2003 ). Next, we examine research into conï ¬â€šict management behaviors and explore some of the managerial tools that have been developed to help managers to deal with intraorganizational, interpersonal conï ¬â€šict. Conï ¬â€šict management behaviors Conï ¬â€šict management can be deï ¬ ned as the actions in which a person typically engages, in response to perceived interpersonal conï ¬â€šict, in order to achieve a desired goal A re-evaluation of conï ¬â€šict theory 191 IJCMA 21,2 192 (Thomas, 1976). Demonstrably, conï ¬â€šict management pays off: previous research has indicated that it is the way in which conï ¬â€šict episodes are addressed which determines the outcome (Amason, 1996). However, there is disagreement between researchers as to the degree to which managers can and do adopt different conï ¬â€šict management behaviors. Previous research has considered three different approaches: the â€Å"one best way† perspective (Sternberg and Soriano, 1984); the contingency or situational perspective (Thomas, 1992; Munduate et al., 1999; Nicotera, 1993); and the complexity or conglomerated perspective (Van de Vliert et al., 1999; Euwema et al., 2003). Arguably the simplest perspective on conï ¬â€šict management behavior is the â€Å"one best way† perspective (Sternberg and Soriano, 1984), which agues that one conï ¬â€šict management style or behavior (collaboration) is more effective than any other. However, it argues that individuals have a parti cular preferred behavioral predisposition to the way in which they handle conï ¬â€šict. Thus, from the â€Å"one best way† perspective, the conï ¬â€šict-avoiding manager may have a behavioral predisposition to avoidance strategies, whereas the accommodating manager may prefer accommodating solutions. In this paradigm, the most constructive solution is considered to be collaboration, since collaboration is always positively interdependent – it has a joint best outcome, generally described as â€Å"win/win† (Van de Vliert et al., 1997). The â€Å"one best way† approach suggests that a more aggressive, competitive, negatively interdependent approach (in fact, any conï ¬â€šict management approach other than collaborative) can result in suboptimal outcomes (Janssen et al., 1999). However, the â€Å"one best way† perspective raises more questions than it answers. It does not explain how managers are able to collaborate if they have a different behavioral predisposition, nor does it provide evidence that collaboration always produces the best outcome (Thomas, 1992). A more general problem with the â€Å"one best way† approach is that it may not be very useful: if managers truly have little or no control over their approach to conï ¬â€šict management, the practical applications are limited. The â€Å"one best way† perspective does not consider the passage of time, that behaviors could be changed or modiï ¬ ed during any interaction, nor the effect any previous encounters may have on the current experience (Van de Vliert et al., 1997). Moving beyond the â€Å"one best way† perspective, in which only collaborative behaviors are considered to provide the most desirable outcome, the contingency perspective maintains that the optimal conï ¬â€šict management behavior depends on the speciï ¬ c conï ¬â€šict situation, and that what is appropriate in one situation may not be appropriate in another (Thomas, 1992). In this paradigm, the best approach is dependent upon the particular set of circumstances. The implications, which are very different to the â€Å"one best way† perspective, are that individuals can and should select the conï ¬â€šict management behavior that is most likely to produce the desired outcome. Thus, conï ¬â€šict management behaviors are regarded as a matter of preference (rather than innate, as in the â€Å"one best way† view), and the outcome is dependent on the selection of the most appropriate mode of conï ¬â€šict management behavior. Until recently, conï ¬â€šict research has been heavily inï ¬â€šuenced by the â€Å"one best way† and contingency perspectives, focusing on the effectiveness of a single mode of conï ¬â€šict management behavior (primarily collaboration) during a single conï ¬â€šict episode (Sternberg and Soriano, 1984). Thus the â€Å"one best way† and contingency perspectives do not necessarily o ffer a real-world view in which managers both can and do change their behaviors: adapting to the situation; perhaps trying different approaches to break a deadlock or to improve their bargaining position; taking into account changing circumstances in the microenvironment; and the subsequent inï ¬â€šuence upon the actions of individuals involved in any conï ¬â€šict episode (Olekalns et al., 1996). A fresh approach is provided by the complexity perspective, which characterizes conï ¬â€šicts as being dynamic and multi-dimensional. In such circumstances, the best behavioral style in dealing with any one conï ¬â€šict episode may vary during, or between, conï ¬â€šict episodes (Medina et al., 2004; Nicotera, 1993). For conï ¬â€šict in a complex world, neither the â€Å"one best way† nor the contingency perspective would necessarily produce optimal results. If conï ¬â€šict does not occur discretely and individually (Pondy, 1992a), existing approaches may not describe the world as managers actually experience it. Arguably, these approaches have artiï ¬ cially limited conï ¬â€šict research to a ï ¬â€šat, two-dimensional model. To address the shortcomings of traditional research and to incorporate the complexity perspective into conï ¬â€šict management theory, we need to move beyond two dimensions (Van de Vliert et al., 1997). Beyond two dimensions of conï ¬â€šict management theory Recent work by Van de Vliert et al. (1997) and Medina et al. (2004) has expanded current theory through consideration of the complexity perspective. The complexity perspective argues that any reaction to a conï ¬â€šict episode consists of multiple behavioral components rather than one single conï ¬â€šict management behavior. In the complexity perspective, using a mixture of accommodating, avoiding, competing, compromising and collaborating behaviors throughout the conï ¬â€šict episode is considered to be the rule rather than the exception (Van de Vliert et al., 1997). To date, studies taking a complexity approach to conï ¬â€šict management have adopted one of three different complexity perspectives. The ï ¬ rst examines simultaneous complexity and how different combinations of behaviors affect the outcome of the conï ¬â€šict (Munduate et al., 1999). The second complexity approach focuses on the point of behavioral change and the outcome, examining either the behavioral phases through which the participants of a conï ¬â€šict episode pass, or apply temporal complexity to look at the point at which behavioral style changes and the effect on the conï ¬â€šict episode (Olekalns et al., 1996). The third approach is the sequential complexity or conglomerated perspective, which is concerned with the different modes of conï ¬â€šict management behavior, how they are combined, and at what point they change during the interaction. The application of the complexity perspective to conï ¬â€šict management research has revealed that managers use more than the ï ¬ ve behaviors suggested by the â€Å"one best way† perspective to manage conï ¬â€šict. In their study of conglomerated conï ¬â€šict management behavior, Euwema et al. (2003) argued that the traditional approach under-represents the individual’s assertive modes of behavior and have as a result added â€Å"confronting† and â€Å"process controlling†, making seven possible behaviors: (1) competing; (2) collaborating; (3) avoiding; (4) compromising; (5) accommodating; A re-evaluation of conï ¬â€šict theory 193 IJCMA 21,2 194 (6) confronting; and (7) process controlling. Weingart et al. (1990) identiï ¬ ed two types of sequential pattern: Reciprocity, responding to the other party with the same behavior; and Complementarity, responding with an opposing behavior. Applying a complexity perspective, the effectiveness of complementarity or reciprocity behaviors will be contingent upon the situation, the micro-environment, the number of conï ¬â€šict episodes, and the types of conï ¬â€šict present. The sequential pattern may in itself be complex, being dependent both upon the current situation and on varying behaviors throughout the interaction. A further, often unrecognized implication of complexity in conï ¬â€šict is that each conï ¬â€šict episode could be unique, being composed of different proportions of each of the affective, cognitive and process conï ¬â€šict types (Jehn and Chatman, 2000). The implication for conï ¬â€šict management strategy and the choice of the most appropriate behavior is immense. Therefore, a new perspective is needed, in which conï ¬â€šict and the response to conï ¬â€šict is viewed as dynamic and changing over time, with each conï ¬â€šict episode having a unique composition requiring a speciï ¬ c but ï ¬â€šexible approach in order to obtain the best possible outcome. We propose that this might result in a manager changing behavior during a conï ¬â€šict episode, or indeed a manager adopting different behaviors for a number of conï ¬â€šict episodes occurring simultaneously. In the next section, we take all these complex factors into account and propose a single, dynamic and comprehensive model of conï ¬â€šict management behavior. Multiple, simultaneous conï ¬â€šict episodes We have shown that the ï ¬ eld of conï ¬â€šict has become entangled in multiple terms and that research into conï ¬â€šict management is struggling to reconcile two-dimensional models with the more complex situation encountered in the real world. A model is needed which considers the complexity of conï ¬â€šict episodes and separates conï ¬â€šict antecedents from conï ¬â€šict types, recognizing that conï ¬â€šict can relate to emotions and situations which have common antecedents. We propose that the way forward is to expand the conglomerated perspective into a sequential contingency perspective, in which the sequence of conï ¬â€šict management behaviors adopted is dependent upon a number of inï ¬â€šuencing factors in the micro-environment, the number of conï ¬â€šict episodes being dealt with, their composition, and changes in the behaviors of the actors involved. A sequential contingency perspective The sequential contingency perspective for intraorganizational, interpersonal conï ¬â€šict proposes the adoption of an alternative paradigm which is that conï ¬â€šict is ever-present and ever-changing in terms of its nature or composition; and that it is the way in which these continuous conï ¬â€šicts is managed which determines the outcome of any conï ¬â€šict episode and the nature of any subsequent conï ¬â€šicts. Figure 1 provides a visualization of Pondy’s (1992b) postmodern paradigm of conï ¬â€šict and provides a foundation for the investigation of complex, multiple, simultaneous, intraorganizational conï ¬â€šicts. This conceptual visualization of conï ¬â€šict within the organization provides a three-dimensional representation of conï ¬â€šict from the paradigm that conï ¬â€šict is an inherent feature of organizational life. It shows how, at any one given point in time, A re-evaluation of conï ¬â€šict theory 195 Figure 1. A conceptual visualization of multiple, simultaneous conï ¬â€šict there can be a number of conï ¬â€šict episodes experienced (y axis), each with different intensities (z axis) and duration (x axis). In addition, we have argued that each conï ¬â€šict episode will have a unique composition, being made up of different proportions of cognitive, affective and process elements. The implications for conï ¬â€šict management theory are twofold: ï ¬ rst, the behavioral strategies adopted in the management of these conï ¬â€šicts will be highly complex and will be determined by a number of inï ¬â€šuencing factors; and second, this moves theory beyond the two dimensional duel concern perspective, in that the adaptable manager dealing with these multiple, simultaneous conï ¬â€šicts will also need to consider the possible implications of their chosen strategy along with the changing micro environment in which they operate. Using this three-dimensional conceptual visualization of conï ¬â€šict within the organization we propose a sequential contingency model for managing interpersonal conï ¬â€šict within the organization (Figure 2). The basic elements of the framework in Figure 2 consider all the dimensions of conï ¬â€šict and its management as previously discussed: . the conï ¬â€šict episode characteristics, the type and composition of any conï ¬â€šict episode encountered (Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1995; Jehn, 1997; Pinkley and Northcraft, 1994); . the characteristics of the relationship(s) (Jehn, 1995); . the characteristics of the individuals involved; . the conï ¬â€šict management behaviors; and . the outcome of previous conï ¬â€šict episodes (Van de Vliert et al., 1997). IJCMA 21,2 196 Figure 2. A sequential contingency model for managing intra-organizational, interpersonal conï ¬â€šict The basic postulate of the model is that conï ¬â€šict is a constant and inherent condition of the organization (that is, that conï ¬â€šict episodes do not occur as isolated, anomalous incidents). Additionally, the effectiveness of the conï ¬â€šict management behaviors in terms of its functionality or dysfunctionality is contingent upon, and moderated by, the nature of the conï ¬â€šict, the characteristics of the individuals and relationships involved, and experience of previous conï ¬â€šict. Thus, this model provides a framework for dealing with multiple, simultaneous conï ¬â€šict episodes moving beyond the tradition two-dimensional approach. Future research To date there has been little empirical research into the degree to which individuals are able to adapt their behavior during an interaction, or on the value of the complexity perspective in dealing with complex intraorganizational conï ¬â€šict. The future research agenda needs to explore conï ¬â€šict through Pondy’s (1992b) alternative paradigm and expand on these theoretical ï ¬ ndings by investigating intraorganizational, interpersonal conï ¬â€šict in a number of ways. We therefore set out a research agenda framed in terms of four research propositions. First, taking the sequential contingency perspective and adopting Pondy’s (1989) alternative paradigm for conï ¬â€šict within the organization, research is needed to establish the occurrence of conï ¬â€šict. Pondy (1992b) argues that, rather than a sequence of discrete isolated incidents, conï ¬â€šict is an inherent condition of social interaction within the organization and that conï ¬â€šict episodes occur simultaneously not sequentially. This would imply that: P1a. Conï ¬â€šict is a constant condition of interorganizational, interpersonal relationships. A re-evaluation of conï ¬â€šict theory P1b. Multiple conï ¬â€šict episodes occur simultaneously. P1c. Conï ¬â€šict episodes are complex, having differing compositions of affective, cognitive and process elements which change over time. The complexity perspective recognizes that different conï ¬â€šict situations call for different management behaviors (Van de Vliert et al., 1997). This implies that managers can call upon a much wider range of approaches to conï ¬â€šict management than previously thought. Moreover there is a further implication, which is that managers are able to adapt their behavior during conï ¬â€šict episodes. Thus: P2a. Managers use different behaviors to manage multiple conï ¬â€šicts at any one time. P2b. Managers change their behavior over time during the same conï ¬â€šict episode. A substantial branch of recent conï ¬â€šict management research has focused on the outcomes of conï ¬â€šict and has suggested that not all conï ¬â€šict is negative (De Dreu, 1997; Simons and Peterson, 2000; Schultz-Hardt et al., 2002; Schwenk, 1990). Given this, we need a greater understanding of the effect that the behavior adopted has on the conï ¬â€šict experienced, whether it mitigated or agitated the situation, and the consequences for any subsequent conï ¬â€šict (Amason, 1996). Thus: P3a. The behaviors that managers use affect the outcome of the conï ¬â€šict. P3b. The behaviors that managers use affect subsequent conï ¬â€šicts. Finally, re-visiting Pondy’s (1989) alternative paradigm and incorporating the additional perspectives that come from consideration of conï ¬â€šict outcomes and the application of the complexity perspective, we argue that more research is needed into the relationship between the behaviors that managers adopt and whether these behaviors represent the conscious adaptation of an optimal approach to conï ¬â€šict management. Thus: P4. Conï ¬â€šict management involves adapting a set of behaviors through which a degree of co-operation is maintained, as opposed to the use of behavior(s) which resolve(s) discrete isolated incidents of conï ¬â€šict. Our purpose in setting out a new model and research agenda for conï ¬â€šict management research, together with a set of detailed research propositions, is to move the ï ¬ eld beyond the consideration of conï ¬â€šict episodes as discrete, isolated incidents and to encourage the investigation of different behaviors in different circumstances and their effectiveness. Future research needs to consider the complexity of conï ¬â€šict and adopt a research paradigm which considers the behavioral strategies within long term complex interpersonal relationships. Conclusion This paper has offered four contributions to the ï ¬ eld of conï ¬â€šict and conï ¬â€šict management. The ï ¬ rst is the clariï ¬ cation of conï ¬â€šict typologies set out in Table II. The 197 IJCMA 21,2 198 second contribution is the notion that business managers handle multiple and simultaneous conï ¬â€šict episodes that require different approaches to resolving them, so that the existing models proposed for conï ¬â€šict management are unlikely to chime with their actual experience. The third contribution is to map this in the form of a new theoretical model for conï ¬â€šict management (Figure 2). The fourth contribution is to use this theoretical model to set out a set of research propositions to shape research that will shed light on the real conï ¬â€šicts that managers have to face. Just 40 years on, and intraorganizational conï ¬â€šict theory itself appears to be in conï ¬â€šict. In order to resolve the apparent differences in research approach and perspective researchers need to establish some common ground upon which new theory can be empirically tested, allowing conï ¬â€šict management theory to move beyond two dimensions and to explore complexity whilst adding clarity. N ote 1. First presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, August 14, 1986. References Amason, A. and Sapienza, H. (1997), â€Å"The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conï ¬â€šict†, Journal of Management, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 495-516. Amason, A.C. (1996), â€Å"Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conï ¬â€šict on strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams†, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 123-48. Bodtker, A.M. and Jameson, J.K. (2001), â€Å"Emotion in conï ¬â€šict formation and its transformation: application to organizational conï ¬â€šict management†, International Journal of Conï ¬â€šict Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 259-75. Bradford, K.D., Stringfellow, A. and Weitz, B.A. (2004), â€Å"Managing conï ¬â€šict to improve the effectiveness of retail networks†, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 80 No. 3, pp. 181-95. Cheng, C. (1995), â€Å"Multi-level gender conï ¬â€šict analysis and organizational change†, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 26-39. De Dreu, C.K.W. (1997), â€Å"Productive conï ¬â€šict: the importance of conï ¬â€šict management and conï ¬â€šict issue†, in De Dreu, C.K.M. and Van de Vliert, E. (Eds), Using Conï ¬â€šict in Organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 9-22. Euwema, M.C., Van de Vliert, E. and Bakker, A.B. (2003), â€Å"Substantive and relational effectiveness of organizational conï ¬â€šict behavior†, International Journal of Conï ¬â€šict Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 119-39. Ford, N.M., Walker, O.C. Jr and Churchill, G.A. (1975), â€Å"Expectation speciï ¬ c measures of the intersender conï ¬â€šict and role ambiguity experienced by salesmen†, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 95-112. Jameson, J.K. (1999), â€Å"Toward a comprehensive model for the assessment and management of intraorganizational conï ¬â€šict: developing the framework†, International Journal of Conï ¬â€šict Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 268-94. Janssen, O., Van de Vliert, E. and Veenstra, C. (1999), â€Å"How task and person conï ¬â€šict shape the role of positive interdependence in management teams†, Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 117-42. Jehn, K.A. (1995), â€Å"A multi-method examination of the beneï ¬ ts and detriments of intragroup conï ¬â€šict†, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 256-82. Jehn, K.A. (1997), â€Å"A qualitative analysis of conï ¬â€šict types and dimensions in organizational groups†, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 530-57. Jehn, K.A. and Chatman, J.A. (2000), â€Å"The inï ¬â€šuence of proportional and perceptual conï ¬â€šict composition on team performance†, International Journal of Conï ¬â€šict Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 56-73. Lewicki, R., Saunders, D., Barry, B. and Minton, J. (2003), Essentials of Negotiation, 3rd ed., McGraw Hill, Singapore. Medina, J.M., Dorado, M.A., de Cisneros, I.F.J., Arevalo, A. and Munduate, L. (2004), â€Å"Behavioral sequences in the effectiveness of conï ¬â€šict management†, Psychology in Spain, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 38-47. Munduate, L., Ganaza, J., Peiro, J.M. and Euwema, M. (1999), â€Å"Patterns of styles in conï ¬â€šict management and effectiveness†, International Journal of Conï ¬â€šict Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 5-24. Nicotera, A.M. (1993), â€Å"Beyond two dimensions: a grounded theory model of conï ¬â€šict-handling behavior†, Management Communication Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 282-306. Olekalns, M., Smith, P.L. and Walsh, T. (1996), â€Å"The process of negotiating: strategy and timing as predictors of outcomes†, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 68-77. Pinkley, R.L. and Northcraft, G.B. (1994), â€Å"Conï ¬â€šict frames of reference: implications for dispute processes and outcomes†, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 193-205. Pondy, L.R. (1966), â€Å"A systems theory of organizational conï ¬â€šict†, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 246-56. Pondy, L.R. (1967), â€Å"Organizational conï ¬â€šict: concepts and models†, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 296-320. Pondy, L.R. (1989), â€Å"Reï ¬â€šections on organizational conï ¬â€šict†, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 94-8. Pondy, L.R. (1992a), â€Å"Historical perspectives and contemporary updates†, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 253-5. Pondy, L.R. (1992b), â€Å"Reï ¬â€šections on organizational conï ¬â€šict†, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 257-61. Priem, R.L. and Price, K.H. (1991), â€Å"Process and outcome expectations for the dialectical inquiry, devil’s advocacy, and consensus techniques of strategic decision making†, Group Organization Studies, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 206-25. Putnem, L. and Poole, M.S. (1987), â€Å"Conï ¬â€šict and negotiation†, in Jablin, F.M., Putnam, L.L., Roberts, K.H. and Porter, L.W. (Eds), Handbook of Organizational Communication, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 549-99. Reid, D.A., Pullins, E.B., Plank, R.E. and Buehrer, R.E. (2004), â€Å"Measuring buyers’ perceptions of conï ¬â€šict in business-to-business sales interactions†, The Journal of Business Industrial Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 236-49. Saavedra, R., Earley, P.C. and Van Dyne, L. (1993), â€Å"Complex interdependence in task-performing groups†, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 61-73. Sessa, V. (1996), â€Å"Using perspective taking to manage conï ¬â€šict and affect in teams†, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 101-15. A re-evaluation of conï ¬â€šict theory 199 IJCMA 21,2 200 Schwenk, C.R. (1990), â€Å"Effects of devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry on decision making: a meta-analysis†, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 161-77. Sheppard, B.H. (1992), â€Å"Conï ¬â€šict research as Schizophrenia: the many faces of organizational conï ¬â€šict†, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 325-34. Schulz-Hardt, S., Jochims, M. and Frey, D. (2002), â€Å"Productive conï ¬â€šict in group decision making: genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased information seeking†, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 563-86. Simons, T.L. and Peterson, R.S. (2000), â€Å"Task conï ¬â€šict and relationship conï ¬â€šict in top management teams: the pivotal role of intragroup trust†, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 102-11. Sternberg, R.J. and Soriano, L.J. (1984), â€Å"Styles of conï ¬â€šict resolution†, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 115-21. Tellefsen, T. and Eyuboglu, N. (2002), â€Å"The impact of a salesperson’s in-house conï ¬â€šicts and inï ¬â€šuence attempts on buyer commitment†, Journal of Personal Selling Sales Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 157-72. Thomas, K.W. (1992), â€Å"Conï ¬â€šict and conï ¬â€šict management: reï ¬â€šections and update†, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 265-74. Thomas, K.W. (1976), â€Å"Conï ¬â€šict and conï ¬â€šict management†, in Dunnette, M.D. (Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp. 889-935. Van de Vliert, E., Nauta, A., Euwema, M.C. and Janssen, O. (1997), â€Å"The effectiveness of mixing problem solving and forcing†, Using Conï ¬â€šict in Organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 38-52. Van de Vliert, E., Nauta, A., Giebels, E. and Janssen, O. (1999), â€Å"Constructive conï ¬â€šict at work†, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 475-91. Walker, O.C., Churchill, G.A. Jr and Ford, N.M. (1975), â€Å"Organizational determinants of the industrial salesman’s role conï ¬â€šict and ambiguity†, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 32-9. Wall, V.D. Jr and Nolan, L.L. (1986), â€Å"Perceptions of inequity, satisfaction, and conï ¬â€šict in task-oriented groups†, Human Relations, Vol. 39 No. 11, pp. 1033-52. Weingart, L.R., Thompson, L.L., Bazerman, H.H. and Caroll, J.S. (1990), â€Å"Tactical behavior and negotiation outcomes†, International Journal of Conï ¬â€šict Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 7-31. Further reading Amason, A.C., Hochwarter, W.A., Thompson, K.R. and Harrison, A.W. (1995), â€Å"Conï ¬â€šict: an important dimension in successful management teams†, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 20-35. Blake, R.R. and Mouton, J.S. (1964), The Managerial Grid, Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, TX. De Dreu, C. and Weingart, L.R. (2003), â€Å"Task versus relationship conï ¬â€šict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis†, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 741-9. Deutsch, M. (1973), The Resolution of Conï ¬â€šict, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Friedman, R., Tidd, S., Currall, S. and Tsai, J. (2000), â€Å"What goes around comes around: the impact of personal conï ¬â€šict style on work conï ¬â€šict and stress†, International Journal of Conï ¬â€šict Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 32-55. Guerra, M.J., Martinez, I., Munduate, L. and Medina, F.J. (2005), â€Å"A contingency perspective on the study of the consequences of conï ¬â€šict types: the role of organizational culture†, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 157-76. Lewicki, R.J. and Sheppard, B.H. (1985), â€Å"Choosing how to intervene: factors affecting the use of process and outcome control in third party dispute resolution†, Journal of Occupational Behavior, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 49-64. Tidd, S.T., McIntyre, H. and Friedman, R.A. (2004), â€Å"The importance of role ambiguity and trust in conï ¬â€šict perception: unpacking the task conï ¬â€šict to relationship conï ¬â€šict linkage†, International Journal of Conï ¬â€šict Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 364-84. About the authors  ´ James Speakman is Assistant Professor of International Negotiation at IESEG Business School, a member of Catholic University of Lille, where his attentions are focused on sales and negotiation. After working for 16 years in key account management sales he completed his PhD research at Cranï ¬ eld School of Management, where, using the Critical Incident Technique with an Interpretive Framework for coding to investigate intraorganizational, interpersonal conï ¬â€šict and the behavioral sequences adopted in the management of these complex interpersonal, intraorganizational conï ¬â€šict episodes. Other research interests include personal selling, past, present and future, where he conducted the US research for a multinational study on the future of personal selling and negotiation in context where his research interests include multi-cultural negotiation. James Speakman is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [emailprotected] Lynette Ryals specializes in key account management and marketing portfolio management, particularly in the area of customer proï ¬ tability. She is a Registered Representative of the London Stock Exchange and a Fellow of the Society of Investment Professionals. She is the Director of Cranï ¬ eld’s Key Account Management Best Practice Research Club, Director of the Demand Chain Management community and a member of Cranï ¬ eld School of Management’s Governing Executive. To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [emailprotected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints A re-evaluation of conï ¬â€šict theory 201