The Role of Conflict - University of · PDF fileESRC Seminar Series- Collaborative Futures ......

Dr. May Seitanidi, Brunel Business School

Delivered by

Dr. Mark Boden, LSE

22 June 2010

ESRC Seminar Series- Collaborative Futures

The Role of Conflict in Designing Social Partnerships

as Platforms of Organisational & Social Change

What is a Social Partnership?

“A commitment by a corporation or a group of corporations to work with an organisation from a different economic sector(public or nonprofit). It involves a commitment of resources - time and effort - by individuals from all partner organisations. These individuals work co-operatively to solve problems that affect them all. The problem can be defined at least in part as a social issue; its solution will benefit all partners. Social partnership addresses issues that extend beyond organisational boundaries and traditional goals and lie within the traditional realm of public policy - that is, in the social arena. It requires active rather than passive involvement from all parties. Participants must make a resource commitment that is more than merely monetary”.

Waddock, 1988:18

Dr May Seitanidi, BRESE, Brunel Business School 12.2.07

Examples of social problems tackled

by CSSPs• Facilitate the development of environmental policy in a

mining company ENVIRONMENT ISSUES

• Develop & market clean technologies ENVIRONEMENTAL ISSUES

• To assist young people in learning new skills, inspiring

confidence, get into work and set up businesses SOCIAL ISSUES

• Develop awareness about the prevention & testing of

HIV/AIDS HEALTH ISSUES

• Improve working conditions for employees SOCIAL ISSUES

IMPLICIT IS THE NEED FOR CHANGE

(to move from state A to state B)

Types of Social Partnerships

CROSS SECTOR SOCIAL

PARTNERSHIPS

Public-Private

Partnerships

Public-NPO

Partnerships

Private-NPO

Partnerships

Tripartite

Partnerships


NPO-BUS Partnerships

• Represent the alignment of strategic business interests with societal

expectations (Austin 2000; Covey and Brown, 2001)

• Offer considerable insight into the dynamics of CSR implementation,

• However, due to the dynamic nature of social problems there are

inherent difficulties arriving at solutions that are accountable and

sustainable (McCann, 1983a)

• Hence, despite their great attraction for the various sectors involved,

the ways that BUS–NPO partnerships can and should be implemented

are not well understood

Source: Seitanidi and Crane, 2009.

Implementing CSR through partnerships: Understanding the Selection, Design & Institutionalisation of Nonprofit-Business

Partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2): 413-429

Assumptions in Cross Sector Partnerships

1. An a-priori conflict exists between partners from

different economic sectors due to differences:(Shaffer and Hilman, 2000; Westley and Vedenburg, 1991; Rondinelli and London, 2000)

“Contradictions and conflicts between incompatible objectives, ideas and

values” Holzer, 2001:9

“different performance measures, competitive dynamics, organisational

structures, decision making styles, personal competencies, professional

languages, incentive and motivational structures, and emotional content”

Austin, 2000:14

“goals other than profitability” Kanter, 1999: 126


Assumptions in Cross Sectoral Partnerships

2. Raise claims about the historical adversarial origins of these relationships(Rondinelli and London, 2003)

3. Suggest that the partners are unfamiliar with each other(Rondinelli and London, 2003)

4. NPOs can facilitate change in BUS


Implicit assumption about conflict

• Conflict is dysfunctional in partnerships

and hence it has to be either avoided,

managed or resolved

Organisational Conflict

“(a) struggle between two or more groups in an

organisation, or between two or more

organisations. In general, conflict is centered on

some state or condition that favours one group

over others and occurs when the activities of

one group are perceived as interfering with the

outcomes or efforts of other groups”

(Hatch and Cunliffe, 2006: 279).


Ways of Perceiving

Organisational Conflict

• Dysfunctional (March and Simon, 1958; Pondy, 1967; Blake and Mouton, 1984)

• Neutral (Thomas et al, 1978)

• Functional (Hatch, 1997; Amason, 1996)


Existence vs Lack of Conflict

Advantages of having Conflict:

Stimulation; adaptation; innovation; better decision making due to divergent opinions; sociologically healthy as it encourages opposition to the status quo and initiates conditions of social change

(Hatch, 1997: 306)

Disadvantages of lack of Conflict:

Complacency; lack of motivation; apathy; lack of a challenging environment with vitality that makes work interesting

(Robbins, 2005: 424)

Poor group thinking, poor decision making, apathy and stagnation(Hatch, 1997: 306)


Types of Organisational Conflict

• Covert Conflict

Covert political conflict provides the „vital means‟ for subordinate groups to “express their grievances against superiors, displaying tacit, if not explicit, coordination and various forms of group solidarity” (Morrill et al, 2003:392)

Examples: different cultures within organisations, different interest groups; demonstrated in material or symbolic forms


Types of Organisational Conflict

• Overt Conflict

Overt conflict or open confrontation “encourages people to express their doubts, opinions and uncertainties …leading to acceptance of disagreement” (Jehn, 1995:263) and harnessing the positive effects of conflict

Examples: dialectically styled interaction; problem solving & decision making enhanced by conflict; institutionalised conflict


Why Conflict is Good for

Social Partnerships?

• Long term relationships: combat complacency

• Different Sectors: divergent opinions voiced

• Asymmetrical relationships: restore dynamics

• Improvement of decisions making: addresses social issues; better performance & more efficient use of vital resources, improve outcomes of partnerships

• Decline in trust: accountability of decisions

Research Question

Can Cross Sector Social Partnerships

function as platforms of social innovation

leading to

organisational & social change?

UK Data

• Case Study A:

Earthwatch-Rio Tinto: 16 interviews

• Case Study B:

Prince‟s Trust-RBS: 24 interviews

• BUS & NGOs: 35 interviews

(a total of 26 orgs: 16 BUSs, & 10 NPOs)

Grand Total of: 75 interviews


http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/Main Site v2/14-30 and need help.asp

http://www.rbs.com/

The methods

Case B

BUS 2

NPO 2

Case A

BUS 1

NPO1

Comparison across case studies

Comparisons

across

confirmatory interviews

Evidence Building Model


Findings

Grouped under the 3 chronological stages in

partnerships :

1/Formation

2/ Implementation

3/ Outcomes

Findings I

1/ FORMATION

• Organisational characteristics: commonalities,

compatibilities, similarities across the partners were

identified

• History of relationship: synagonistic relationships

• Partners motives : compatible across the partners


Findings II

2/ IMPLEMENTATION

• Task interdependence: non-reciprocal task interdependence

• Status incongruity: one-way direction of authority


Findings III

2/ OUTCOMES

• Outcome imbalances: prioritisation of organisational

over societal outcomes by both partners


CONCLUSION

The research concludes that:

When collaborative NPOs partner with BUSs

There is an Overt Functional Conflict Deficit

which can be observed in all three chronological

stages of partnerships


Seitanidi, 2010. The Politics of Partnerships, Springer

Overt Functional Conflict

Overt functional conflict (OFC) in NPO-BUS

partnerships can be defined as the opportunities that

appear during the interaction between the partner

organisations for the expression of divergent

opinions that would encourage the adaptation

leading to change of perceptions, policies and

actions.

The OFC deficit refers to insufficient

occurrences of such opportunities.


Seitanidi, 2010. The Politics of Partnerships, Springer

Uni-directional Instances of Social

Innovation & Change“… we recognised we had to

change the way we worked and

therefore we needed a

partner that enables us to

give us the freedom to try

these things and change the

way we worked to reach those

people…” (PT)

“So I think that we

would as an organization

have ticked their boxes

and they would have

ticked our boxes simply

in terms of their

social inclusion objectives and the work

that we do … Because we

want their employees

involved …” (PT)

“…the primary objective was

we believed that our cash

injection would help the PT

achieve a shift in the way it

did things… the bank was

looking for the right partner

to do something with

young people to help them

into education,

employment and enterprise

which was our primary

theme…” ( RBS)

Enhance the organisation‟s

competencies by utilising

and adopting the bank’s

approach, thinking and

ideas in order to allow

change to take place (PT)

Loan policies at

RBS

Missed opportunity

for change

IT know-how; altered

perceptions; new HR

opportunities; contacts;

better working relations

Missed opportunities for Change

• To influence the loan policies of a bank & the

banking sector

• To influence the biodiversity policy of a mining

company & the mining sector

• To introduce two-way reporting (from the BUS to

NPO) within the partnership relationship

what could have changed

EXAMPLES

of different types of conflict• EW-RT:

• Evidence of covert conflict at the P-Selection stage

leading to lack of internal & external accountability

• PT-RBS:

• instances of overt conflict leading to process

changes; missed opportunities to facilitate

organisational change that could lead to social

change within the banking sector

• WWF-Lafarge:

• Evidence of overt functional conflict

IMPLICATIONS I

• The OFC deficit indicates a level of convergence across the two sectors which might stifle adaptability to change. Designing partnerships for change requires accepting conflict as functional which will allow for responsiveness of such partnerships for the benefit of communities: organisations that play an important role in public policy (education, health, environment) have a responsibility to actively safeguard the public interest by expressing divergent opinions that will facilitate organisational change that can lead to social change.

IMPLICATIONS II

• Change partnerships need to balance the power dynamics between the partner organisations: by developing new skills for both NPOs & BUSs in order to accept conflict and deliver change

• To increase the possibility of sustainable benefits for the broader community as a results of partnerships: new measures of success are required such as prioritising societal over organisational outcomes

Design ParametersPartnership for Organisational & Social Change

• Design principle 1: Develop an understanding of

differences in the framing of the social issue, values,

resources, skills, motives and accountabilities. Reflection

not assimilation

• Design principle 2: Design partnership implementation

based on interdependent tasks; allow for authority to be

based on expertise not power; adapt to your partner‟s

responsibilities

• Design principle 3: Design the delivery of outcomes

prioritising societal rather than organisational outcomes

QUESTION

Who is a good partner?

Collaborative or Confrontational?

The Role of Conflict - University of · PDF fileESRC Seminar Series- Collaborative Futures ......

Documents

Transcript of The Role of Conflict - University of · PDF fileESRC Seminar Series- Collaborative Futures ......