Reference no: EM132296840

Conflict – What is the nature of the conflict? How was it created and what impact does it have on the outcome for the organisation?

ABSTRACT Working together effectively in organization is not an easy task. This is because it is human beings in the organization that work together and human beings naturally are complex and unique. In order to effectively work together, the human beings in organization are divided into two groups – the leaders and the led i.e. managers and workers. Even at that, the division is simply a means to an end and not an end itself. This is true because managers cannot effectively manage the workers to work effectively without administrative “force” and that “force” consists of authority and power. Authority is the formal right to make decisions and to influence workers behaviour to implement those decisions based on organizational relationship. Power on the other hand is the ability of a manager to influence the behaviour of workers based on informal relationship. Whether formal or informal, the essence of authority and power in organization is to mould, modify, direct, and influence the behaviour and actions of workers toward the achievement of organizational objectives. In the process of directing and influencing the workers, conflicts are bound to occur. Conflict as a natural phenomenon and part of organization life can occur within and between individual workers, within and between groups of workers, and even between the workers and management. In practice, the outcome of the influence of authority and power on the behaviour of the workers can be positive or negative depending on their multiplying effect on productivity and growth of the organization. If the multiplying effect increases productivity and growth of the organization, the influence will be said to be positive while it is negative if the multiplying effect result to a drop in productivity and growth of the organization. KEYWORDS: authority, power, conflict, impact, relationship, organization, performance. 1.0 INTRODUCTION Managers are hired to ensure that organizational goals are accomplished, and they do this by making choices among alternatives. This decision making process would be only an exercise if the managers could not put these decisions into effect. Power and authority are the means for accomplishing this purpose. In the management of organizations, managers use both the official and the unofficial powers and authority in their disposal as managerial weapons to guide, modify, direct, and influence the behaviours and actions of their subordinates toward the realization of the organizations objectives. In carrying out this critical managerial function, there is the obvious tendency that these activities will generate disagreement and conflict between the managers and their subordinates, among the groups that make up the subordinates, and within the individuals that constitute the groups that formed the subordinates. It is the ability of a manager to effectively and efficiently use his managerial powers and authority to manage these conflicts in such a manner so that they will positively contribute to the realization of the organization objectives instead of producing dysfunctional behaviour that will be detrimental to the operations and growth of the organization that differentiate between experience and inexperience manager. 1.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY In every human endeavour, it is objective that directs what should be done and how it should be done. Objective is simply the “where” of management. It is when one knows where one is going, that he or she will know how to get there and when he or she has gotten to the place or destination. Relying on the above background, the objectives that direct the flow of this article are stated below. (a). To examine the functional relationship of authority, power, and conflict in the management and operations of organizations. (b). To find out the nature of their relationship – whether positive or negative. (c). To evaluate the implications of each of the relationships as they relate to the overall functioning, growth, and development of organizations. European Journal of Business and Management www.iiste.org ISSN 2222-1905 (Paper) ISSN 2222-2839 (Online) Vol.6, No.22, 2014 175 2.0 AUTHORITY The word authority probably brings to our mind a picture of a parent scolding a child or a military officer giving a command to a troop or a manager guiding or altering the behaviour of subordinates. Well, all these are aspects of authority. Authority is a formal right to make decision based on formal organizational relationships. Authority is also seen as the right to command others to act or not to act in a manner deemed by the possessor of the authority to further organization objectives. Directing the behaviour of others is based on two sub-rights: (a). the right to decide, and (b). the right to issue appropriate implementing instructions. Without the right to decide, no manager could be a successful planner, and without the right to issue orders and instructions, the manager’s plans would be worthless. This is because there could be no assurance of the implementation of the plans. Authority is the corner-stone of every organization. It gives every organization the characteristic of hierarchy that establishes a defined chain of command. Authority establishes the relationship between the job to be done and the people that will do the job. Thus, authority is fundamental to every organization because the nature of managerial responsibility involves decision making and influence. 2.1 FORMS OF AUTHORITY There is no general consensus among management writers and researchers on what constitute the forms/ types of authority. Although different writers and researchers give different names to the forms of authority in obedience to the angle from which each of them looks at it, a careful analysis of the different forms shows that the actual meaning which they attach to the forms if summed together goes to the same direction. The difference is only in the connotation and nomenclature and not on the facts. In this article, we adopt the following forms of authority and the aim is to treat the components and uses of authority in order to demonstrate how they affect organizational behaviour and therefore its performance. 1. Managerial Authority. This is the form of authority given to managers of formal organizations because they are responsible for acquiring, deploying, and controlling resources needed to accomplish objectives. Managerial authority is composed of the right to enforce those choices based on official position. Without these components, no manager, can successfully carryout responsibilities. This is true because all managers, regardless of their positions in the organization structure, are charged with the responsibility of making decisions and ensuring that they are carried out. Thus, managerial authority is the key means for executing managerial responsibility. The exact nature and amount of managerial authority required at any given location in the organization structure should be a function of the responsibility there. Consequently, the manager’s responsibility should be a determining factor in deciding the amount of authority that the manager is granted. This balance between responsibility and authority is in keeping with the principle of parity of authority and responsibility – a long recognized guide to building and maintaining a sound organization structure. 2. Staff Authority. This is a kind of authority given to all staff of an organization to make suggestions and recommendations about the solution to problems, procedural changes or how their jobs could be made easier or more attractive. Even though we normally associate this type of authority with experts or professional personnel, it is actually possessed by every member of the organization. This is because everyone in an organization whether superior or subordinate has the right to recommend, to suggest, and to advice. One possible confusing aspect of the use of staff authority is the fact that subordinates often do not elect to use their staff authority for one reason or the other. In addition, some superiors discourage their subordinates from using it. This situation can be compared to the right to vote. In voting situation, there are those who voluntarily choose not to exercise their voting rights, and there might be occasions where they are virtually prohibited from doing so by others. Whether they are used or not, voting rights are possessed by all qualified citizens and so it is with staff authority. 3. Situational Authority. This is a form of authority that has both the elements of managerial authority and that of staff authority. Generally, this kind of authority is delegated to a staff expert who is restricted in the areas of organization structure and functions in which it can be exercised. This expert is given the right to make binding decisions about a given function in the organization structure. This type of organization relationship often begins as a staff authority relationship. For example, an accountant may be given the right to make recommendations, give advice, or make suggestions on the matter of proper accounting methods. As time passes and the expert’s superior gains confidence in the quality of advice, the expert might be given a grant of situational authority that is approved by the officer who supervises the chief accountant. This means that the accountant can now issue decisions that have the prior approval of the superior through the grant of situational authority. Therefore, it is not necessary to involve the superior in every decision. In practice, situational authority can be quite disruptive to the organization if it is misused but if properly used, it can be an effective managerial aid. Situational authority is a potent right and should only be delegated after careful consideration and it should have some safeguards about over what activities it can be exercised. 4. Operative Authority. This is a type of right given to members of an organization to take certain decisions about how, in what order, and with which tools they will carry out their assignments. Also included here is the right to work without undue supervision. Some people do not include the operative authority in their list of forms of authorities but here, we deemed it necessary to include it in order to give a complete explanation of the rights of organization members. For example, at times a worker may be asked to take a decision about work priorities, schedules, and tools and materials to be used for the work. The decision is outside the scope of the managerial, staff, and situational authority and because of that, the decision will be made by using operative authority. Operative authority is made up of two basic rights – the right to carry out responsibility and the right to determine, within reason, how and when it will be done. Whether one is a manager, a technician, or an unskilled labourer, one has these minimum rights. Without them, it would not be possible to plan and carry out one’s personal responsibility. 3.0 POWER Power is the potential or actual ability of a person to affect the behaviour of others. This ability can be based on a number of factors, such as knowledge, personality, and even on authority. When power receives formal recognition and backing by the organization, it will be called authority. In other words, power is a larger concept than authority and indeed, subsumes it as a formal power relationship. Power can also be seen as the influence that is not based on organizational positions. Because of this, power applies to any interpersonal influence that exists either within or outside the bounds of formal organizational relationship. The brief explanation below throws more light on the difference between power and authority. If a supervisor issues directives to subordinates on how to carry out a normal work routine, these directives will be considered by both the supervisor and the subordinates to be official. Here, the supervisor can be said to have used power in the form of position authority which attaches to his or her role as a manager and which has been delegated to him or her by a superior officer in order to get certain organizational goals accomplished. If a supervisor directs a subordinate to do a personal errand for him or her, this errand is clearly outside the official relationship between the supervisor and the subordinate and therefore, the instruction cannot be founded on authority. This instruction, then, is an attempt to use power as the basis of influence. The extent to which an individual can exercise power can be viewed as a function of the dependency relationship that exists between the parties. The higher the dependency ratio; other things being equal, the higher the power and vice versa. 3.1 FORMS OF POWER Influence that is based on power has many forms and in our discussion here, we shall try as much as possible to explain how power gains its support and potency in organization as the base for our classification. 1. Rational or Legal Power. This is a type of power that is recognized and accepted by subordinates as being in agreement with the laid down rules and regulations that are considered legitimate by both parties. Here, there is little or no question about whether its use is considered proper or not. Whatever its source might be, whether through ability or knowledge, once the members of the society or organization consider it legitimate to accept a given type of influence, that influence will be properly classified as rational power. 2. Reward Power. This is a form of power that comes from one’s ability to control and dispense benefits to others. The controller of the benefits has the ability to shape the behaviour of others by the simple act of dispensing or withholding these benefits. The strength of this type of power is primarily determined by two major forces and these are the size of the reward and the belief that it will be dispensed. This proposition is based on the assumption that other things being equal, a large reward gives greater power than a small reward. 3. Coercive Power. This is a kind of power that emanates from a person’s ability to punish others. This ability to punish others is often strong motivation and can, in many ways, be viewed as the obverse of reward power.

ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT Conflict is a problem. Human life is full of problems. There is no living human being that does not have one type of problem or the other no matter the person’s level of intelligent, wisdom, and the amount of authority and power that the person possesses. This is the same thing with organizations. Organizations are made up of human beings and therefore cannot avoid conflict. Organizational conflict occurs when two or more individuals or groups that have opposing goals, ideas, philosophies, or orientations disagree with each other in organization decision making. The conflict most of the time is as a result of disagreement on resource allocation. At times, conflict can occur as a result of bad organizational system which does not allow enough freedom to the workers or as a result of clash of values that is caused by job requirements. Conflict is central to organization life and no organization can do without it. Although conflict often leads to some frustrations and confrontations within or between organizations, it is part of the universal principles of organizational management.