Notes:
4th slide:
Traditional view - According to studies, conflict was a dysfunctional outcome resulting from poor communication, a lack of openness and trust between people, and the failure of managers to be responsive to the needs and aspirations of their employees.
Human relations view - Conflict should be accepted as it is inevitable.
Interactionist view – it encourages conflict on the grounds that a harmonious, peaceful, tranquil, and cooperative group is likely to become static, apathetic, and nonresponsive to needs for change and innovation. The major contribution of the interactionist approach, therefore, is encouraging group leaders to maintain an ongoing minimal level of conflict—enough to keep the group alive, self-critical, and creative. Interactionist view does not propose that all conflicts are good. It could be Functional or Dysfunctional.
5th slide:
Functional – these are conflicts that support the goals of the group and improve its performance
Dysfunctional – these are conflicts that hinder group performance
6th slide

Relationship conflict (1) Studies demonstrate that relationship conflicts are almost always dysfunctional. (2) Friction and interpersonal hostilities inherent in relationship conflicts increase personality clashes and decrease mutual understanding.
Low levels of process and low-to-moderate levels of task conflict are functional.

10th slide
COMMUNICATION
A review of the research suggests that differing word connotations, jargon, insufficient exchange of information, and noise in the communication channel are all barriers to communication and potential antecedent conditions to conflict. Evidence demonstrates that semantic difficulties arise as a result of differences in training, selective perception, and inadequate information about others. Research has further demonstrated that the potential for conflict increases when either too little or too much communication takes place. Apparently, an increase in communication is functional up to a point, whereupon it is possible to over communicate, with a resultant increase in the potential for conflict. Too much information, as well as too little, can lay the foundation for conflict. Furthermore, the channel chosen for communicating can have an influence on stimulating opposition. The filtering process that occurs as information is passed between members and the divergence of communications from formal or previously established channels offer potential opportunities for conflict to arise.
STRUCTURE
Term structure is used, to include variables such as size, degree of specialization in the tasks assigned to group members, jurisdictional clarity, member–goal compatibility, leadership styles, reward systems, and the degree of dependence among groups. Research indicates that size and specialization act as forces to stimulate conflict. The larger the group and the more specialized its activities, the greater the likelihood of conflict. Tenure and conflict appear inversely related, meaning the potential for conflict tends to be greatest when group members are younger and when turnover is high.
Too much reliance on participation may also stimulate conflict. Research tends to confirm that participation and conflict are highly correlated, apparently because participation encourages the promotion of differences. Reward systems, too, are found to create conflict when one member’s gain is at another’s expense. And if a group is dependent on another group or if interdependence allows one group to gain at another’s expense, opposing forces are stimulated.
PERSONAL VARIABLE
As practical experience has taught us, some people are conflict oriented and others are conflict aversive. Evidence indicates that certain personality types—for example, individuals who are highly authoritarian and dogmatic—lead to potential conflict. Emotions can also cause conflict. For example, an employee who shows up to work irate from her hectic morning commute may carry that anger to her 9:00 A.M. meeting. The problem? Her anger can annoy her colleagues, which may lead to a tension-filled meeting. In addition to personality traits, differing values can explain conflict. Value differences are the best explanation of diverse issues such as prejudice and disagreements over one’s contribution to the group, as well as the rewards one deserves. Say that an employee thinks he is worth $55,000 a year but his boss believes him to be worth $50,000. These are all value differences, which are important sources for creating the potential for conflict. It is also important to note that culture can be a source of differing values. For example, research indicates that individuals in Japan and in the United States view conflict differently. Compared to Japanese negotiators, Americans are more likely to see offers from their counterparts as unfair and to reject such offers.