Introduction
Differences are part of human nature and can exist at the interpersonal or intrapersonal level. People create organizations that reflect their contrasts, which can lead to disputes or conflicts at the intergroup or intragroup level. Even though the terms’ dispute’ and ‘conflict’ are commonly used interchangeably, they carry distinct connotations.
Disputes arise from minor contentions that parties can quickly resolve. Conflicts arise from long-standing, deeply ingrained differences that cannot be resolved quickly and require a structured approach. Conflict mainly arises from unresolved disputes.
Bruk et al. (2013) state that conflicts are complex and sometimes impossible to address within an organization, even when they are acceptable under proper leadership. The challenges encountered in dispute and conflict resolution necessitate that organizations implement a conflict management system (CMS). Good leadership is essential for effective dispute resolution, and the leader plays a central role in resolving organizational conflicts.
Carrefour is a leading supermarket company in Saudi Arabia with a unique retail space proposition. The company, founded in 2004, has extensive branches across key cities in the kingdom and the Middle East (Hassan, 2021). Carrefour reaches its diverse customer base through different e-commerce platforms to meet their growing needs and demands. Hassan (2021) states that the company has further expanded its supplier network and employed a vast workforce. It provides an excellent example of an organization expected to encounter numerous disputes and conflicts in its daily operations.
The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze dispute-handling processes in organizations and to describe the challenges Carrefour would face in setting up a CMS. The paper further critically evaluates the company’s methods for mitigating potential conflicts with clients, customers, and vendors, as well as the recommended strategies for resolving conflicts that cannot be mitigated. Finally, the paper provides a critical evaluation of the literature on leadership’s role in resolving conflict in organizations, alongside the identified resolution and conflict management strategies.
Dispute Handling Process
The organizational dispute-handling process is the procedure used to settle disagreements. Mukherjee and Upadhyay (2019) argue that there are numerous options organizations can use to handle disputes. However, disputants may need help choosing the appropriate process for their situation (Hodges, 2016).
Most organizations have developed well-defined dispute-handling processes to resolve disputes quickly and effectively. Liddle (2017) states that the process further helps to avoid workplace disruptions and boosts employee morale. Dispute-handling in organizations encompasses several stages, but the process varies depending on the preferred approach.
The first step in the process entails identifying the dispute and establishing the implicated parties. Liddle (2017) argues that this step is highly critical, as organizations can identify the root causes of a dispute. Critical information can be obtained from managers’ or supervisors’ reports, employee complaints, and other communication channels. The identification of the dispute then allows for an informal resolution.
According to Tjosvold et al. (2022), the second stage offers parties an opportunity to discuss the issue, fostering healthier interaction and internal bonding. If the disputants cannot discuss the issue, Hodges (2016) states that a manager or supervisor can mediate the process to quickly find a solution and save on expenses. An unsuccessful informal resolution may require the organization to engage in a formal process.
The formal process involves filing an official protest or grievance, and the dispute can be handled through a designated person or department within the organization. Liddle (2017) indicates that a formal complaint paves the way for a proper investigation by collecting information and evidence to identify the facts of the dispute. The material can be compiled by reviewing documents, interviewing the involved parties and witnesses, or using any other suitable means applicable to the complaint. However, Hodges (2016) indicates that formal resolution can be time-consuming and will require significant resources to compensate the attorneys. The outcome of the investigation informs the process of a formal resolution of the dispute.
Organizations can use different approaches to dispute resolution, including instituting disciplinary action, using ADR, or litigation. The process of dispute resolution may be complicated by the chosen method, as different approaches are influenced by various factors, especially speed, cost, and access (Mukherjee & Upadhyay, 2019). For instance, litigation involves engaging the civil legal system to resolve a dispute that can be complex and time-consuming. Hence, organizations prefer ADRs, including negotiation, arbitration, or mediation (Liddle, 2017).
After the dispute is resolved, organizations can establish a follow-up process to confirm that it was resolved effectively and that the parties involved are satisfied with the outcome. The follow-up can be in the form of continuous check-ins or monitoring.
Conflict Management System
Conflict management entails mitigating the adverse effects of conflict to achieve positive outcomes, such as improved performance and productivity within the organization. A CMS comprises a set of procedures, policies, and approaches developed by an organization to prevent the escalation of disputes or to handle them at different levels and stages. Carrefour can prefer to initiate a CMSD process that involves adopting a broader, more strategic approach to managing conflicts and disputes (Mukherjee & Upadhyay, 2019). The CMSD should be grounded on several principles, but the key elements depend on the users. It could cover internal disputes involving managers and employees, or the design can capture disputes and conflicts with outside stakeholders, such as customers, contractors, and suppliers.
The idea of designing a CMS emerged in the United States. The concept emerged in 1980, when Ury, Brett, and Goldberg developed Dispute Systems Design (DSD) to help troubled enterprises resolve conflicts (Ury et al., 1993). The model was first applied at the Caney Creek Coal Mine, which had experienced intractable and frequent employee strikes in the 1970s (Ury et al., 1993). Jurisdictions have adopted the model outside the United States since conflicts are universal.
However, adopting the model in the context of Saudi Arabian culture can be hampered by differences in cultural and democratic practices. The United States is a highly democratic society where people inevitably have differences and require a structured approach to conflict resolution. Therefore, the CMSD poses a significant challenge for Carrefour, which operates in a country not regarded as a democracy. The country operates as an absolute monarchy, with a king at its head and a high level of intolerance. The democratic ideals proposed in the CMSD may not apply, as they aim to reduce the likelihood of litigation, which is more common in the United States than in Saudi Arabia.
Methods to Mitigate or Resolve Conflicts
In the organization, disputes and conflicts often arise when people have different opinions and during interactions with key stakeholders. Sometimes, people get frustrated as others experience discomfort, pain, anger, and sadness. The reaction is understandable, given that Carrefour engages clients, customers, and vendors from different geographical and intellectual backgrounds. For this reason, the company encourages the parties to do their best to contain emerging differences before they escalate into disputes or conflicts.
The company prefers the disputants to avoid conflicts by withdrawing from circumstances that could escalate their differences. The approach is preferred when people become sentimental and are encouraged to calm down for productive deliberations (Mukherjee & Upadhyay, 2019). It also applies when differing opinions do not significantly impact the organization, when the differences can be handled within a team, or when there is no significant gain to be realized from the issue.
Furthermore, Carrefour encourages different parties to cooperate and accommodate each other’s opinions. Clients, customers, and vendors are encouraged to sacrifice their positions to maintain peaceful relations. The approach is mainly used when either party realizes they are in the wrong.
Liddle (2017) indicates that parties are also encouraged to show a good gesture, especially if the other party is likely to gain more, which could help create social credit for future benefit. If one party continues to push their position, the company may suffer reputational damage. That is why Carrefour emphasizes the need to mitigate the conflict by allowing the party making the mistake to end the dispute and learn from the experience.
However, not all parties may be interested in avoiding a conflict or being accommodating to the other person. They may seek that, whatever the dispute or conflict, a solution should be sought. In such circumstances, the recommended strategies would be to compromise, collaborate, or compete.
The compromised solution is suitable when no party is expected to emerge as a winner or a loser; instead, each party is expected to partially satisfy its demands. The ultimate solution is attained when the parties seek a middle ground by splitting the differences (Hodges, 2016). A compromised approach is encouraged when seeking quick action in a difficult situation, or when the organization is expected to benefit if both parties compromise. It applies to people of equal authority and to situations in which the parties have comparably important views that can be resolved with little time and effort.
When no party wants to compromise, Carrefour can opt to resolve the differences through collaboration. The strategy creates a win-win solution as the disputants can get what they want. It minimizes negativity, which helps the parties to establish a lasting relationship. Collaboration is recommended to foster team cohesiveness and enhance creativity as people generate ideas for resolving the conflict.
Tjosvold et al. (2022) state that in more aggressive cases, Carrefour can consider enforcing competition to let the best party win. Competition requires strong leadership, as not every party is ready to compromise. Competing also applies when parties are prepared to take unpopular actions, when the company’s reputation is threatened, or when parties seek to advance their interests as a form of protection.
Role of Leadership in Resolving Conflict in Organizations
Leaders are expected to provide direction to the organization. One way to attain this is to define the approach to conflict resolution to maintain the organization’s credibility. According to Tjosvold et al. (2022), conflicts can be healthy in an organization as they create opportunities for change or growth. However, a leader’s role in resolving conflict can significantly affect how conflicts are settled within the organization.
Liddle (2017) indicates that leaders must develop the right skills to develop the proper working conditions in the organization. According to Hodges (2016), an effective leader should be well-equipped to respond to developing situations with the right solutions. In resolving organizational conflict, the leader should inspire and foster teamwork by establishing a transparent value system that guides the entire organization.
Some leadership styles are more effective at resolving conflict. According to Liddle (2017), leaders spend almost a quarter of their time in conflict resolution, and the conflict management process is significantly related to their leadership style. Bruk-Lee et al. (2013) indicate that the leader must build teams that work well together and help craft the right tone for the organization. In particular, transformational leadership involves using conflict resolution approaches that enable teams to discuss their frustrations and disagreements openly. The approach helps the group establish stronger identities and find helpful solutions.
In general, leadership roles in conflict management can be matched to the Thomas-Kilmann Instrument (TKI), which defines up to five conflict resolution models. Thomas and Kilmann (1974) indicate that the TKI helps leaders assess the appropriate mode to apply, depending on the situation and its effect on individual or team dynamics. It is grounded on two behavioral dimensions: assertiveness and cooperativeness.
The first dimension is assertiveness, representing the extent to which leaders endeavor to satisfy their concerns (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974). Cooperativeness refers to the degree to which a leader seeks to meet others’ concerns. The dimensions characterize the five different modes of handling conflict and are denoted by varying levels of assertiveness and cooperativeness.
Based on the TKI, leaders can use avoidance and accommodation strategies to mitigate conflict. In avoiding style, the leader diplomatically evades a problem or withdraws from a challenging situation. It is characterized by being unassertive and uncooperative with the problem. In an accommodating style, the leader sacrifices their position by setting aside their concerns and showing selflessness for the greater good (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974).
Additionally, the leader uses compromising, collaborative, and competitive strategies to resolve conflicts within an organization. The compromising strategy requires some assertiveness and cooperativeness that facilitate healthy negotiations supported by making concessions and finding the middle ground. The collaboration strategy requires the leader to be assertive and cooperative and can be applied in teams to resolve conflicts and fully address everyone’s concerns (Thomas & Kilmann, 1974). Lastly, the leader can adopt the competing strategy that entails being assertive and uncooperative. The strategy requires the leader to stick to their position, use influence, debate effectively, and emphasize their position to find the best solution to a conflict.
Conclusion
Conflicts are bound to occur in everyday human interactions and exchanges as people come from different backgrounds. People engaged within Carrefour will have differences that, if not well handled, can result in disputes or even develop into conflicts. The organization can handle disputes early through simple litigation or by using the most suitable ADR approach. Given their permanence in organizations, creating a CMS that facilitates conflict resolution is necessary, despite its design being described as too American.
The organization can mitigate conflicts by encouraging avoidance or accommodation. If mitigation is not possible, parties can use collaboration, competition, or compromise methods to resolve the conflict. Leadership in the company is necessary for resolving conflicts by applying advanced approaches outlined in the TKI model.
References
Bruk-Lee, V., Nixon, A. E., & Spector, P. E. (2013). An expanded typology of conflict at work: Task, relationship and non-task organizational conflict as social stressors. Work & Stress, 27(4), 339–350.
Hassan, R. (2021). Carrefour to double Saudi store network by 2025. Arab News.
Hodges, J. (2016). Managing and leading people through organizational change: The theory and practice of sustaining change through people. Kogan Page.
Liddle, D. (2017). Managing conflict: A practical guide to resolution in the workplace. Kogan Page Limited.
Mukherjee, K., & Upadhyay, D. (2019). Effect of mental construals on cooperative and competitive conflict management styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 30(2), 202–226.
Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument. Xicom.
Tjosvold, D., Zhang, X., Li, W.-D., Wong, A. S., & Yu, K. (2022). Open-minded discussion in organizations: A meta-analytic evaluation of cooperation and competition theory. Journal of Business and Psychology, 37(5), 897–921.
Ury, W., Brett, J. M., & Goldberg, S. B. (1993). Getting disputes resolved: Designing systems to cut the costs of conflict. Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School.