The relationship between organizational justice and conflict style

The Authors

B. Charles Tatum, Associate (Level 3) based at Booz Allen Hamilton, San Diego, California, USA

Richard J. Eberlin, Management Development Professional based at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate relationships between organizational justice and conflict management.

Design/methodology/approach – Two vignettes are described that illustrate: a manager who is highly sensitive to organizational justice issues; and a manager who disregards organizational justice issues. We describe likely conflict management styles adopted by these two managers, and the effects these styles might have on organizations and the employees.

Findings – A manager who is sensitive to organizational justice issues is more likely aware of potential conflicts that might arise during an encounter with an employee. The most likely and beneficial approach to addressing conflict for this manager is collaboration. In contrast, the insensitive manager tends to be more concerned with procedure than with the fairness or openness of processes. During a potentially high conflict situation, the manager who is not concerned with organizational justice tends to resort to conflict resolution styles that impose a competitive or dominating resolution tactic.

Research limitations/implications – Because this article is theoretical and conceptual in nature, the findings must be confirmed with additional empirical evidence.

Practical implications – Recent changes in globalization suggest that we need to learn to survive in less hierarchical environments and rely more heavily on teams. Careful attention to organizational justice will ensure that we deliver a workforce that is able to meet the new demands with fewer distracting conflicts.

Originality/value – Resolving conflict and working together in just and fair systems is important in today's global playing field. This article systematically integrates, for the first time, the literature on organizational justice and conflict management.

Article Type:

Conceptual paper

Keyword(s):

Justice; Conflict resolution; Conflict management; Team working; Leadership.

Journal:

Business Strategy Series

Volume:

Number:

Year:

2008

pp:

297-305

Copyright ©

Emerald Group Publishing Limited

ISSN:

1751-5637

In his latest book, The World is Flat, Thomas Friedman (2005, p. 8) argues that the global competitive playing field is being leveled – the world is being flattened. He identifies ten forces (e.g., workflow software, open sourcing, supply chaining) that are allowing “…more people than ever before to collaborate and compete in real time with more other people on more different kinds of work from more different corners of the planet and on a more equal footing than at any previous time in the history of the world – using computers, email, networks, teleconferencing, and dynamic new software”. Arguably, many of these same forces are leading to the flattening of organizations as well. More people than ever before are collaborating and participating in decision making processes within all types of organizations. The days of the rigid, hierarchal chain of command are rapidly fading and being replaced with semi-autonomous work groups, self-managed teams, and matrix organizations. With all of this interpersonal interaction and sharing of ideas and viewpoints, conflict is virtually unavoidable. One very powerful source of conflict derives from the way justice issues are handled within an organization by those that serve as managers, leaders, and decision makers.

Introduction to organizational justice and conflict

Leaders in organizations are expected to create organizational systems that members perceive as fair, caring, and open. In a just and ethical organization, decisions that leaders make should reflect fair treatment of people and concern for their welfare. Addressing issues of fairness and just treatment of people is a vital part of the business strategy and decision making process. Failure to address these concerns can often lead to conflict and organizational dysfunction.

Conflict will never be eliminated, and it is often constructive, but it can also be very destructive if issues of fairness and justice are not dealt with effectively. Regardless of the outcome of conflict, there are emotional costs (Levine, 1998). Win or lose, these emotional effects remain and can linger long after conflict has been “officially” resolved (analogous to plaque that builds up in arteries and later results in a heart attack). The parties involved can be trapped in their anger over a promotion lost, continue to gloat over beating a competitor, or constantly berate themselves over a missed opportunity. These emotional after-effects can be diminished if proper attention is paid to what has been called “organizational justice” (Colquitt et al., 2005; Cropanzano, 1993).

Organizational justice has taken many forms over the years, but Greenberg (1993) has developed a taxonomy that has proven empirically sound and highly useful. Part of Greenberg's taxonomy categorizes organizational justice into “structural justice” and “social justice”. Structural justice means that employees are involved in the decision-making process and the employer provides a fair distribution of outcomes. Social justice, by contrast, means that employees perceive the organization as openly sharing information with them, and they believe that the employer cares about their well-being. Some readers may be familiar with the distinction between procedural and distributive justice. The structural/social justice distinction not only incorporates distributive and procedural justice (see Folger, 1977; Folger and Konovsky, 1989), but also adds an important element of interpersonal interaction – how people are treated on an interpersonal level when an organization institutes its policies and procedures (Bies and Moag, 1986). Attention to structural justice has traditionally been viewed as vital to maintaining harmony and avoiding conflict within an organization. Recent studies (e.g., Eberlin, 2005; Tatum et al., 2003) suggest that perceived social justice, with its emphasis on the interpersonal dimension, is especially important in the minds of those asked to contribute to the organization.

Justice and the manager-employee interaction

Whenever a manager and an employee interact, there is the potential for conflict. This conflict can be exacerbated when issues of structural and social justice emerge, either intentionally or unintentionally. Structural justice issues take the form of concerns about how decisions are made and whether the distribution of outcomes (e.g., raises, promotions, awards, bonuses) is fair and impartial. Social justice issues revolve around whether people are treated with respect and dignity, and whether information is shared in an open and honest manner. Fairness, justice, dignity, and honesty are key elements in these exchanges, and managers and organizations are well advised to avoid anything that might be perceived as favoritism, bias, or the lack of impartiality.

One consequence of not being aware of the importance of organizational justice is that managers, leaders, and decision makers in organizations may be subject to legal scrutiny. For example, some researchers (e.g., Barrett and Kernan, 1987; Werner and Bolino, 1997) have linked categories of organizational justice to perceived fairness of performance appraisals. Through analyses of legal decisions it was determined that appraisal practices that promoted perceptions of fairness were also those that tended to withstand legal scrutiny. In fact, these researchers have concluded that issues related to fairness and due process carry more weight in important judicial decisions regarding organizational decisions and practices than more scientific issues of validation.

Conflict styles

Conflict is inevitable, but the way we handle or manage these conflicts will determine the quality of our relationships and long term emotional costs. There are many ways in which conflict can be managed. Thomas (1976) suggests five general approaches (or styles):

competing;
avoiding;
sharing;
accommodating; and
collaborating.

As shown in Figure 1, these five styles are distributed on a two-by-two grid formed from low and high values of two mutually exclusive dimensions (cooperative/uncooperative and assertiveness/unassertiveness). In any conflict situation, according to Thomas, individuals vary in their commitment to satisfying other's concerns, and the manner in which they assertively stand up for their own concerns.

The first of these styles (competitive) reflects a strategy that achieves one's own goals at the expense of another's. This “domination” tactic is often referred to as a “win/lose” approach to resolving conflict. The second style (avoidant) reflects an approach to resolving conflict that demonstrates indifference to both parties' needs and concerns, and neglects the interests of either person. The third style (sharing) reflects an approach to resolving conflict by “compromising” between a dominating and appeasing approach. In this approach both parties involved in conflict give up something and get something, without completely satisfying either party's needs. The fourth approach (accommodative) is achieved when individuals seek to resolve conflict by simply giving in to the others person's needs and abandoning their own. In this approach, an individual has “appeased” the other person by making no effort to achieve his or her own needs. The fifth and last style (collaborative), attempts to resolve conflict by completely satisfying the needs of both parties. In this approach an “integration” of both parties' needs and concerns are incorporated, and seeks to develop a “win/win” solution.

Is one conflict management style better than another? The answer is no. Conflict styles are situational and relational. One's cultural, organizational, and personal values can influence the way one style is determined to be most appropriate depending on the situation and relationship involved. For example, the competitive approach might be considered desirable in circumstances of athletic events. However, in organizational situations we strive for approaches that maximize our ability to reach outcomes that are win/win. Rather than generalizing a best approach for every situation, Thomas (1977) suggests that it is best to consider the relative advantages and disadvantages of each approach, and the circumstances for which each approach may prove most appropriate.

An analysis of two vignettes

The following two vignettes are presented to illustrate the influence of organizational justice and conflict in an organizational setting. One vignette represents the operation of high levels of justice (both structural and social) within a potentially high conflict situation (see Appendix 1). The other vignette portrays low levels of justice within a potentially high conflict situation (see Appendix 2). Table I shows how sensitivity to organizational justice issues affects different uses of conflict styles when managers are in a high conflict exchange with an employee.

As indicated in Table I and illustrated in the vignette in Appendix 1, a manager that is sensitive to organizational justice issues is more likely aware of potential conflicts that might arise during an encounter with an employee. For these managers, awareness of justice and conflict go hand in hand. They are not seeking to dominate or compete with an employee (i.e. adopting a “Competitive” style: Style 1 in Table I), but rather they are there to deliver fair outcomes in this situation. They seek to encourage the employee, and display care and concern, while at the same time maintain a fair distribution of outcomes. The manager, for which justice sensitivity is abundant, does not avoid conflict (i.e. “Avoidant” style: Style 2 in Table I) or accommodate (i.e. “Accommodative” style: Style 4 in Table I) the employee unnecessarily during the discussion because then the employee would not have access to necessary information or be able to contribute to the process. The manager would only resort to the use of accommodating or appeasing the employee if the integrity of justice was served. Any situation that created an unfair distribution of outcomes, or withholding of information to others, would be unacceptable. The most likely and beneficial approach to addressing conflict for the manager who is highly sensitive to organizational justice issues is collaboration (i.e. “Collaborative” style: Style 5 in Table I). This method of resolving conflict affords the integration of both parties (manager and employee) to arrive at an outcome that promotes information sharing, employee involvement, and a genuine demonstration of care and concern from the manager. These managers leverage the use of structural and social justice elements to their advantage; building trusting and lasting relationships that persist well beyond immediate events.

In contrast to the manager who is sensitive to organizational justice (intentionally attends to structural and social elements of justice), the insensitive manager tends to be more concerned with procedure than with the fairness or openness of processes (see Table I). During a potentially high conflict situation such as the one illustrated in the vignette in Appendix 2, the manager could easily resort to conflict resolution styles that would impose a competitive or dominating resolution tactic (Style 1 in Table I). Here, if the manager's objectives cannot be achieved, then the perceived fairness or just outcome is put aside. The manager who is insensitive to organizational justice issues is likely a manager who is seeking to get through the exchange with little effort and time. Consideration of organizational justice issues (structural and social) requires time and thought. A manager who is unable to entertain and attend to justice elements seriously is likely to opt for avoiding conflict altogether in an attempt to save time and effort (Style 2 in Table I). It is also likely that this manager will seek to appease or accommodate the employee (Style 4 in Table I) as the best method of completing the current discussion, thus escaping potential conflicts and getting the employee to accept the outcome. Oddly, the manager for which justice is of little concern might actually employ the conflict resolution approach of collaboration (Style 5 in Table I). In this case the manager is not acting to elevate the levels of justice embedded in the exchange; rather, this manager may chose this method to better expedite and complete the discussion with the least amount of resistance possible. The goal is not a heightened sense of justice, but a single-minded focus on finishing the task. The manager who chooses to operate with little or no concern for organizational justice is clearly not the ideal one would wish to emulate. Unfortunately, many managers do emulate this approach and their conflict management style reflects this choice.

Discussion and conclusions

Organizational change occurs when managers and leaders can achieve one or more of the following objectives:

raise performance;
improve processes and relationships;
enhance fairness and equity; and
increase subjective wellbeing.

As researchers, practitioners, managers, and leaders, we should be concentrating efforts to ensure that what we do exemplifies these objectives. If we strive to attend to these objectives seriously, we need to account for the role that organizational justice plays in almost every one of these objectives. Organizational justice has been linked to critical organizational processes such as employee commitment, citizenship, job satisfaction, and performance (Colquitt et al., 2001; Colquitt et al., 2002; Greenberg, 1993; Tatum et al., 2002). The main point of this paper is that there is also an intimate relationship between organizational justice and conflict style.

Win/win solutions are commonly referred to as optimal resolution approaches. Managers who consciously attend to organizational justice (structural and social) are more likely to achieve these win/win outcomes. Attending to organizational justice probably means that the conflict style of choice is collaboration. Integrating the needs of the organization with the needs of the employees is more likely to result in the perception of ethical treatment and fair play, and more likely to produce a fair and equitable distribution of outcomes. As shown in Table I, other conflict management styles can be used by managers and leaders who are concerned with justice, but the collaboration strategy is best suited in this situation. Of course, if a manager or leader does not care about sharing information, is not concerned with trust and respect, and cares little about fairness, then styles such as competitive or avoidant are more efficient ways of dealing with conflict.

Organizations need to facilitate resolution approaches that afford the best possible outcomes for members who experience conflict situations. As the world becomes more flat, Friedman (2005) suggests that we need to learn to survive in less hierarchical environments and rely more heavily on semi-autonomous work groups, self-managed teams, and matrix organizations. In times when we are being asked to do more with less, the tight coordination of efforts and a shared vision can allow the miracles of teamwork to occur. Levine (1998, p. 165) states, “The synergy of teamwork can be an extraordinary thing, and delivers results with incremental power (accomplishing more with less). It is the clear agreement with others that builds teams, teams that experience an exponential expansion of power”. The resolution process can afford great power by joining one's vision with that of others. For example, a Clydesdale horse can pull the weight of 7,000 lbs when working individually. By contrast, two Clydesdale horses can pull between 18,000 lbs and 25,000 lbs together. Resolving conflict and working together in just and fair systems is more important than ever in these times when the global playing field is being flattened. Careful attention to organizational justice will ensure that we deliver a workforce that is able to meet the new demands.

Figure 1Five conflict management styles based on desire to satisfy own concern and desire to satisfy other's concern

Table IHigh and low justice and the relationship to conflict style

References

Barrett, G.V., Kernan, M.C. (1987), "Performance appraisal and terminations: a review of court decisions since Brito v. Zia with implications for personnel practices", Personnel Psychology, Vol. 40 No.3, pp.489-503.