The Effects of Leadership, Power and Politics on an Organization’s Conflict Structure

Conflict, or unresolved disagreement, can negatively affect an organization in myriad ways. In order to be effective, each organization must learn to deal with conflict in its own way. The issue of conflict may be moderated by the organization’s style of leadership, its power structure and its political structure. The three major types of conflict, including task conflict, relationship conflict, and  process conflict, are each affected in different ways depending on the uses of these three moderating factors.

            Task conflict involves differences between team members about the content of the task, including differences in viewpoints and opinions about the task (Robbins & Judge, 2006). Task conflict can lead to unwillingness to work together and in some cases personal conflict or antagonism. In this case, the role of the leader is most important, because the leader will be able to resolve task conflict through the use of some forms of power (Kouzes & Posner, 2007). For example, one study found that the use of expert power and legitimate power by the team leader was most effective in resolving task conflict regarding a manufacturing task. However, it should be noted that the use of forms of power such as coercive power are rarely, if ever, likely to resolve a task conflict, but will only force the conflict below the surface in order to allow it to interfere some other time. Task conflict is not always a negative factor; if it is used properly, and without engendering relationship conflict between two individuals with competing viewpoints, it can be a healthy addition to a team’s group dynamic, increasing the capabilities of the team by increasing its creative thinking skills and techniques (Robbins & Judge, 2006). This use of task conflict should be encouraged, rather than discouraged, by leadership, as it improves the overall organizational effectiveness.

            Relationship conflict, or personal conflict, is conflict between two individuals based on elements or issues not related to the task at hand. These conflicts may be based in any number of factors, including previous poor relationships, diversity and unexamined attitudes toward it, or different viewpoints about the individual’s relative position within the organization (Robbins & Judge, 2006). Relationship conflict is one of the hardest types of conflict to resolve, because it is not the case that the leader’s assertion of reality concerning the task or goal will be able to override the conflict that exists between the two individuals (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2005). In extreme cases, relationship conflict may even lead to fractionalization of the organization as the two individuals fail to resolve their differences (Grossman, 2006). In this case, the use of politics and reputation may come into play; if the leader can resolve the issues between the two politically, or by using leadership techniques such as affective leadership, which strives to make connections between the two, the issue may be resolved (Davies & Mian, 2006).

            The third type of conflict is process conflict, which is conflict regarding the way in which a task should be completed, including the actual process and allocation of resources for the task (Robbins & Judge, 2006). The use of power in resolving process conflict is high; for example, an individual with expert power may override an individual with legitimate power in this case (Weinstock, 2007). Process conflict is often one of the more productive forms of conflict, particularly when a system is being developed, because it offers a number of views of the meaning and structure of a task that can be examined in order to provide insight into the task (Robey, Farrow, & Franz, 1989). However, even in this case the resolution of process conflict must be done skillfully or it can impact the ability of an organization to function; for example, if one QC technician uses a different process for quality control than another, there will be a significant impact to the overall ability to create consistent quality control within the organization. In this case, the leader must determine the appropriate methods and assist the others in following these methods by using the appropriate power base and leadership technique (Abreu, May, Spangler, & Vargas, 2008)

            In all of these issues, politics plays a role, because politics is the basis on which an organization’s power structure is based. For example, if the political bias of the organization tends to value legitimate power over expert power, the effectiveness of the organization may be reduced because, unless the expert happens to also have legitimate power to make a decision, his or her input may or may not be considered (Abernethy & Vognoni, 2004). One way to resolve this is to implement a matrix organizational structure, in which power flows along two separate axes; legitimate power rests with one group of managerial personnel, while a second power flow, that of expert power, is assigned legitimacy by implementing a technical management structure (Robbins & Judge, 2006). This organizational structure will serve to balance the emphases on legitimate and expert power, and allow for both the procedure of the organization and the technical or other knowledge contained informally within the organization to be used to their fullest potential to resolve conflicts and to keep the organization functional. Ultimately, conflict has both positive and negative potential effects upon an organization, and whether these effects are positive or negative rests largely in the way they are addressed and resolved by the use of leadership and power.

Tweet This Post

Self-Assessment Results and Their Relationship to Organizational Behavior

Self-assessments are useful tools for engaging in critical analysis of one’s own personalities, motives, ethics, values and other factors that may affect one’s management style or effect on the organization. The personality and personal characteristics of the individual may be assessed through a series of personality tests; these results can then be analyzed in order to examine the outcomes of impact on the organization. Emotions, moods, team learning and group dynamics are all affected by these basic personality factors. This report discusses the outcomes of a personality test completed previously and relates these outcomes to the effects on the organization of each of these characteristics. Personality test results are included in Appendix A.

            Emotions are an important part of organizational function, because they are the basis of our ability to relate to each other. The use of emotional intelligence, or the ability to understand and relate to the emotions of others, is the basis of Goleman’s theory of leadership (Goleman, Boyatzis, & McKee, 2005). This theory of leadership stated that the individual emotions of followers must be understood in order to lead appropriately, and offered significant ways in which these emotions could be understood and how they could be responded to. However, the impact of emotions on the organization goes deeper than the simple impact on leadership style described by Goleman. For example, Callehan (2006) studied an organization’s organizational culture from the aspect of gendered emotion. The author found that women had a different perception of the organizational culture, and were more likely to indicate that it required its participants to remain affectively neutral (Callehan, 2006). This difference is significant in terms of organizational perception by its members, because it indicates that men and women may have a basic difference of the perception of the organization.  The rating on the basic personality test that relates to emotions is that of emotional stability. On this I scored high, indicating a high emotional stability, high enthusiasm and maturity, and openness to experience and creativity. I can use these traits within an organizational context in order to ensure that I am a positive influence on the organization. For example, creativity, enthusiasm and emotional stability will ensure that I can resolve conflicts between others with some degree of success, although I will need to learn the correct techniques to do so.

            Moods also have a significant impact on the organizational context. Hobbs (1965) was one of the first to address the issue of mood in the organizational context. He discussed the recognition of employee moods, particularly in terms of stress and the illnesses caused by it. He identified social and organizational factors that may lead to an increase in stress and negative moods. Goleman (2005) also discussed the use of the mood in the organization; specifically, that the mood of the leader in a group may impact the mood of all the followers in the group as well.  The scores in the personality test that are most relevant to mood are agreeableness and extroversion. I scored as an extrovert and an individual that values harmony over dissent. This indicates that, overall, I will have a positive effect upon the mood of the organization as a whole.

            A third factor in the individual personality that may affect the organization as whole is team learning dynamics. Team learning is particularly important in high-knowledge workplaces, such as research facilities and academic facilities, but it still must take place in other organizations as well in order to allow individuals to learn to work together. There are different types of team learning; for example, one study found that reflective team learning, in which team members discuss the learning experience and critically reflect on it individually, was highly successful within the academic team (Knights, Meyer, & Sampson, 2007). This learning strategy also takes place in the manufacturing world, as described by Kock (2007). Kock identified several requirements for the team learning environment, including the presence of challenging tasks, development of team leadership skills for the individuals within the organization, supportive learning conditions and the creativity and willingness to learn on the part of the individual team members (which may be either naturally occurring or be emphasized and developed as part of the team learning strategy) (Kock, 2007). The personality test elements that apply most closely to the issue of team learning include agreeableness, conscientiousness and emotional stability. Agreeableness determines how likely someone is to follow directions, conscientiousness indicates the degree to which they will follow directions and how much care will go into their work, and emotional stability maintains an element of creativity and ability to solve problems. My scores are relatively low on agreeability, but high on conscientiousness and emotional stability. This indicates that I will be a valuable addition to team learning; however, I may want to learn to be more willing to follow directions in situations in which it is warranted. This will allow me to contribute most fully to the team learning process.

            A fourth factor that is affected by personal learning styles and strategies is that of group dynamics. Group dynamics can be considered to be simply the way in which members of a group relate to each other and the impact this relationship has on the team’s performance and capabilities. Group dynamics may have multiple affects on the organization in question. For example, it has been observed that the group dynamics of a public organization both reflect and contribute to the corruption of the organization (Gokcekus & Godet, 2006). The authors of this study found that collusive or competitive group dynamics (in which individuals either cooperated or competed) made a difference in the outcomes of increasing monitoring and punishment for bribery; groups with collusive models reduced the corrupt activity, while groups with competitive models decreased the level of activity but increased the amount of bribes taken (Gokcekus & Godet, 2006). The effects of changing group dynamics can be seen in Anderson, Anderson and Mayo’s (2008) discussion of the implications of a management team cohesion exercise, in which the group dynamic was changed to include cooperative activities and effective cooperative work (Anderson, Anderson, & Mayo, 2008). This demonstrates the possibilities of the change in group dynamics brought by the introduction of new positive elements to a group situation. All of the personality elements described below are contributors to the group dynamic and have the possibility to change it. For example, emotional stability and maturity can bring stability to an existing group that lacks this stability, while extroversion can help to create connections between individuals and increase the level of emotional insight in the group as a whole. Agreeableness, including good-naturedness and cooperativeness, can bring an element of positive interaction to the team. Conscientiousness will introduce consistency, achievement and focus to the team’s work dynamic, while openness to experience will increase the ability of the team to react to changing situations. All of these elements are essential in determining the outcomes of the group dynamic, and may have the ability to change, or at least influence, whether a group works on a competitive or collusive model.

            The basic personality of an individual has a great effect on the outcome of his or her organization; but it can also determine the “fit” of the individual to the organization (Robbins & Judge, 2006). The individual will only have so much power to change the organization as a whole, particularly if the individual is not a member of upper management, where organizational culture is largely determined. If the differences are too great, or the organization resists the change even on the team level, the individual may not be happy within the organization. For example, I would not be happy within a highly competitive organization because I prefer a cooperative environment; likewise, I would not be satisfied in an organization that did not value creativity and innovation, because these are some of my personal strengths and I like to be able to use them. Ultimately, the fit of the organization and individual is most important, because most individuals will not have significant capability to change the organization enough to make a substantial difference.

Bibliography

Anderson, M., Anderson, D., & Mayo, W. (2008). Team coaching helps a leadership team drive cultural changes at Caterpillar. Global Business and Organizational Excellence , 27 (4), 40-48.

Callehan, J. L. (2006). Gendered emotion management and perceptions of affective culture in a military nonprofit organization. Advancing Women in Leadership , 2 (11).

Gokcekus, O., & Godet, A. (2006). Group dynamics of corruption in public organizations. Journal of Policy Reform , 9 (4), 275-87.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2005). Primal Leadership: Learning to lead with emotional intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Hobbs, E. G. (1965). Mood and emotional problems: Effect on the individual and the business organization. Business Quarterly , 30 (3), 57-63.

Knights, S., Meyer, L., & Sampson, J. (2007). Enhanced learning in the academic workplace through reflective team teaching. Journal of Organizational Transformation and Social Change , 4 (3), 237-247.

Kock, H. (2007). the team as a learning strategy: Three cases of team-based production in the Swedish manufacturing industry. Journal of Workplace Learning , 19 (8), 480-490.

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2006). Organizational Behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Appendix A Test Results

WHAT’S MY BASIC PERSONALITY?

The five-factor model of personality – often referred to as the Big Five – has an impressive body of research supporting that five basic personality dimensions underlie human behavior. These five dimensions are defined as follows:

 Extraversion. Someone who is sociable, talkative, and assertive. High scores indicate an extravert; low scores indicate an introvert.

Agreeableness. Someone who is good-natured, cooperative, and trusting. This is a measure of your propensity to defer to others. High scores indicate you value harmony; low scores indicate you prefer having your say or way on issues.

Conscientiousness. Someone who is responsible, dependable, persistent, and achievement oriented. High scores indicate that you pursue fewer goals in a purposeful way; low scores indicate that you’re more easily distracted, pursue many goals, and are more hedonistic.

Emotional stability. Someone who is calm, enthusiastic, and secure. High scores indicate positive emotional stability; low scores indicate negative emotional stability. Openness to experience. Someone who is imaginative, artistically sensitive, and intellectual. High scores indicate a wide range of interests and a fascination with novelty and innovation; low scores indicate you’re more conventional and find comfort in the familiar.

Your personality score was calculated as follows (with reverse scoring on those items marked with an asterisk). Scores in each category will range from 3 to 15:

Items 1, 6, and 11*                Extraversion You scored

Items 2*, 7, and 12                Agreeableness           You scored

Items 3, 8, and 13                  Conscientiousness    You scored

Items 4, 9, and 14*                Emotional Stability    You scored

Items 5*, 10*, and 15                        Openness to Experience       You scored

The most impressive evidence relates to the conscientiousness dimension. Studies show that conscientiousness predicts job performance for all occupational groups. The preponderance of evidence indicates that individuals who are dependable, reliable, thorough, organized, able to plan, and persistent tend to have higher job performance in most, if not all, occupations.

Tweet This Post