Managing conflict, not eliminating it

A different way of looking at conflict

In most organisations, conflict is treated as something that needs to be resolved, reduced, or preferably prevented. The vocabulary used by managers and HR professionals — conflict resolution, conflict management, and de-escalation — reveals an underlying assumption: conflict is a problem, and the goal is to eliminate that problem.

M. Afzalur Rahim, affiliated with the Center for Advanced Studies in Management, presents a fundamentally different perspective in his influential 2002 article: conflict within organisations is not inherently dysfunctional. Some forms of conflict are actually necessary for effective decision-making, innovation, and organisational learning. The challenge is not to eliminate conflict, but to accurately diagnose the type of conflict and apply the right approach at the right time.

This may sound like a subtle distinction, but it has significant implications for how managers, HR professionals, and advisors view and intervene in conflict situations. This article summarises the core ideas of Rahim’s theory and translates them into everyday organisational conflict management practice.

Conflict management does not necessarily mean avoiding, reducing, or ending conflicts.

It is about designing effective strategies that minimise dysfunctional aspects while strengthening constructive functions.

1. What is conflict? A broader definition

Rahim begins with a deliberately broad definition. He describes conflict as an interactive process that becomes visible when there is incompatibility, disagreement, or dissonance within or between social entities, whether these are individuals, groups, or organisations. Conflict arises when:

• someone is asked to do something that does not align with their needs or interests

• two parties have behavioural preferences that cannot both be fully accommodated

• a scarce resource is desired by more parties than there is availability

• the values, goals, or abilities of parties are perceived as mutually exclusive

• two parties are mutually dependent on each other in carrying out their tasks

This broad definition is intentional. Rahim wants to emphasise that conflict is not only about opposing actions; it can also arise from incompatible goals, values, and interests, even before these have resulted in visible conflict behaviour. He also emphasises that there is always a threshold: only when tension reaches a certain intensity do parties experience it as conflict.

2. Conflict management is not the same as conflict resolution

The central distinction in Rahim’s article is the difference between conflict resolution and conflict management. Conflict resolution implies reducing, removing, or ending the conflict. Mediation, arbitration, and negotiation, in the traditional sense, fall under this category: the conflict is resolved, and the matter is considered closed.

Conflict management goes further. It recognises that some forms of conflict are functional for organisations, and that simply eliminating tension can also deprive an organisation of something valuable. Rahim bases this on a broad body of research showing that a moderate amount of task conflict — disagreements about goals, policies, and ways of working — is associated with better decisions, higher performance, and greater innovation.

The relationship between conflict and effectiveness resembles an inverted U-curve: too little conflict leads to stagnation, groupthink, and a lack of critical thinking; too much conflict leads to paralysis, stress, and damaged relationships. The challenge for an organisation is to find the optimum level, and that optimum differs depending on the situation and the type of conflict.

Too little conflict leads to stagnation. Too much conflict leads to damage. The skill lies in finding and maintaining the right balance.

3. The crucial distinction: substantive versus affective conflict

Rahim’s theory is built on a fundamental distinction that he draws from earlier research but develops more extensively than his predecessors. There are two types of conflict, with very different effects on organisational and team functioning:

Substantive conflict (task conflict)

Substantive conflict arises when members of an organisation disagree about tasks, goals, policies, or approaches to solving work-related problems. This type of conflict is potentially functional: it encourages discussion, promotes consideration of alternatives, and — provided the intensity does not become excessive — can lead to better decisions and improved performance.

Research shows that groups reporting a moderate amount of task conflict often make higher-quality decisions than groups without any conflict at all. The mechanism is understandable: having to defend one’s assumptions encourages sharper thinking; hearing alternative perspectives expands understanding of reality. Task conflict functions as a form of cognitive calibration.

An important qualification: this only applies to non-routine tasks. For simple, standardised tasks, task conflict provides no benefit and may actually slow execution.

Affective conflict (relationship conflict)

Affective conflict concerns interpersonal relationships: incompatible emotions, personal attacks, emotional tension, and mutual irritation. This type of conflict is dysfunctional in almost all situations. It disrupts information processing, leads to hostile interpretations of others’ behaviour, reduces job satisfaction, and increases employee turnover.

Affective conflict makes people negative, suspicious, and defensive. It consumes energy that would otherwise be directed towards the task. It also escalates more easily than task conflict because it becomes personal, increasing emotional involvement.

The paradoxical relationship between the two types

This is one of the most difficult challenges in conflict management. Rahim highlights something that most organisations experience implicitly but rarely name explicitly: the two types of conflict are positively correlated. Studies report correlations ranging from 0.34 to 0.88. This means that when organisations encourage substantive conflict to improve decision quality, they face a real risk that affective conflict will also increase.

This is the paradox of conflict management. Organisations that are too cautious and avoid all tension miss opportunities for innovation. Organisations that actively encourage disagreement without proper safeguards risk turning constructive differences into personal conflicts. Effective conflict management requires the ability to encourage task conflict while containing relationship conflict.

4. Criteria for effective conflict management

Rahim identifies three criteria that an effective conflict management strategy should meet. Together, they form a framework that goes beyond simply resolving immediate problems:

1. Organisational learning and effectiveness

Conflict management should be designed to promote organisational learning. Rahim distinguishes between two levels of learning, based on the work of Argyris and Schön.

Single-loop learning involves diagnosing and correcting problems without questioning underlying assumptions or policy principles — the organisation learns to work better within the existing framework.

Double-loop learning goes one step further: it also examines the assumptions behind policies and allows the underlying framework itself to be adjusted.

For sustainable effectiveness, organisations need double-loop learning. Conflict management that focuses only on symptom reduction (quickly resolving an incident without addressing structural causes) leads at most to single-loop learning. Rahim argues for interventions that go deeper: addressing the underlying patterns, assumptions, and structures that generate conflict.

2. Stakeholder needs

A conflict strategy must identify the needs and expectations of all relevant stakeholders and find a balance between them. Rahim emphasises that organisational conflicts usually involve more parties than just the two directly opposing sides. The challenge is to include all relevant stakeholders in a problem-solving process that leads to shared learning and broadly supported outcomes.

3. Ethics

Conflict management has an ethical dimension that is often overlooked in practice. Rahim argues for institutionalising roles that protect the interests of vulnerable parties — employees with less power, customers, and suppliers. Ethical conflict management requires decision-makers to genuinely remain open to opposing views and organisational structures to protect those who dare to express them.

5. Five conflict-handling styles

One of the most influential parts of Rahim’s theory is his taxonomy of five conflict styles. These are based on two dimensions: the degree of concern for one’s own interests (concern for self) and the degree of concern for the interests of others (concern for others).

Each style has its own advantages and disadvantages, and its effectiveness depends strongly on the situation.

Research cited by Rahim shows that cooperative styles — integrating, obliging, and compromising — are associated with positive outcomes for both individuals and organisations. Non-cooperative styles, dominating and avoiding, are associated with negative outcomes. However, no style is inherently good or bad: effectiveness always depends on the situation.

Rahim criticises managers’ tendency to rely too heavily on compromise as a universal solution. Compromise may appear reasonable and efficient, but for complex problems it is often a weak choice: it does not lead to the best solution, but to an average outcome that leaves no one truly satisfied. For complex issues, the integrating style — focused on mutual understanding and joint problem-solving — is generally superior.

6. Diagnosis: asking the right questions before intervening

One of the most practically valuable elements of Rahim’s article is his emphasis on diagnosis as a prerequisite for effective intervention. Many conflict interventions fail not because the approach itself is wrong, but because the wrong diagnosis has been made. Rahim describes several diagnostic levels:

Levels of conflict

Conflict takes place at three levels within organisations, each requiring different diagnostic questions and intervention approaches:

Interpersonal level: conflict between individuals; colleagues, manager and employee, director and shareholder. This is the most visible level and also the level at which most interventions take place.

Intragroup level: conflict within a team or department. This level requires insight into group dynamics, power relationships within the team, and the extent to which task conflict and relationship conflict have become intertwined.

Intergroup level: conflict between departments, teams, divisions, or organisations. This level has a structural component that is often overlooked: conflict is not only generated by individuals, but also by the way the organisation itself is designed.

What the diagnosis should determine

A good diagnosis answers three questions:

• Is intervention actually needed?

• What type of conflict is present?

• Which conflict styles are being used by the parties involved, and are these appropriate for the situation?

Rahim emphasises that questionnaires alone are never sufficient for a reliable diagnosis. In-depth interviews with those involved and direct observation are essential to understanding the true nature of the conflict.

A diagnostic rule of thumb from Rahim: cooperative styles (integrating and obliging) should dominate; a moderate amount of task conflict is desirable; affective conflict should be minimised. If the diagnosis shows the opposite, intervention is required.

7. Intervention: two paths to change

Based on the diagnosis, Rahim distinguishes two main forms of conflict intervention. Both are necessary, but they operate at different levels and require different expertise:

Process intervention

Process intervention focuses on how parties interact: their communication, problem-solving skills, understanding of each other’s interests and perceptions. The goal is to improve interaction patterns without changing the organisational structure.

Examples of process intervention include structured dialogue facilitation, mediation, team coaching, and training in conflict styles. These interventions are most effective in the earlier stages of conflict, when relationships have not yet been severely damaged and parties are still willing to engage in conversation.

Structural intervention

Structural intervention goes deeper: it focuses on the organisational conditions that generate or maintain conflicts. Examples include unclear responsibilities, conflicting objectives between departments, reward systems that discourage collaboration, or power structures that systematically disadvantage vulnerable parties.

Structural interventions are more difficult and costly, but also more sustainable. Organisations that intervene only at the process level without addressing underlying structural causes will often see the conflict return once the support ends. Rahim advocates combining both approaches: process intervention to reduce immediate tension and create space for dialogue, followed by structural intervention to remove the underlying causes.

Intervening only at the process level without addressing structural causes treats the symptom, not the problem.

8. Four types of errors in conflict management

A particularly useful part of Rahim’s article is his analysis of diagnostic errors that managers and advisors can make. He distinguishes four types, based on statistical concepts but translated into organisational practice:

Type I error: intervening when no intervention is needed. A conflict that is already resolving itself is unnecessarily formalised or escalated through third-party involvement.

Type II error: failing to intervene when intervention is needed. The classic assumption that “it will blow over” — which is often incorrect — while hidden costs continue to increase.

Type III error: providing the right answer to the wrong problem. The intervention is technically correct, but aimed at the wrong cause. Rahim considers this the most dangerous error, because the energy invested in the intervention comes at the expense of addressing the actual issue.

Type IV error: a good intervention strategy that is not implemented, or only partially implemented. Plans are created but never executed; mediation processes are started but abandoned once the immediate pressure decreases.

Of the four, Type III is the most underestimated error. Organisations invest significant resources in interventions for problems that are not the actual cause of their conflicts. Rahim emphasises that a sharp diagnosis, focused on identifying the real problem, prevents energy being wasted on solving the wrong issue.

9. Implications for conflict management practice

Rahim’s theory has direct consequences for how organisations, HR professionals, managers, and conflict advisors view and handle conflicts. The most important practical lessons are:

1. Not every conflict deserves the same response

The first and most fundamental lesson: distinguish between task conflict and relationship conflict. The first may sometimes deserve protection; the second always requires attention. Organisations that view all tension as a threat and attempt to calm every disagreement deprive themselves of the cognitive diversity needed for effective decision-making.

2. Timing and level of intervention are crucial

Process intervention is most effective in the early stages, when parties are still able to communicate. Structural intervention is needed for sustainable change, but requires the courage to question the organisation itself. Those who intervene too late require more intensive measures; those who intervene too early risk making a Type I error.

3. Conflict styles can be learned

Rahim’s five styles are not fixed personality traits. They are behavioural patterns that can be adjusted through training and awareness. Investing in conflict competencies — the ability to apply the right style depending on the situation — is one of the most effective forms of preventive conflict management.

4. Always diagnose before intervening

One of Rahim’s most practical recommendations: never begin an intervention without first determining what type of conflict is involved, at what level it exists, and which conflict styles the parties are using. Questionnaires can support this process, but interviews and observation are essential for a reliable diagnosis.

5. Look for the structural cause, not only the incident

Every conflict has a trigger, but not every trigger is the cause. Organisations that only respond to incidents without asking why they keep recurring are engaging in symptom management. Effective conflict management looks further: at organisational structures, reward systems, power relationships, and cultural norms that generate or maintain conflict.

Conclusion: from resolution to management

Rahim’s 2002 article remains, more than twenty years after publication, one of the most cited theoretical contributions to conflict research. The reason is clear: it provides a coherent framework that fundamentally advances beyond the traditional resolution approach.

The essence of this shift is simple but profound: not every conflict should be resolved. Some conflicts should be protected because they drive learning, innovation, and critical thinking. Other conflicts must be addressed, not because they are uncomfortable, but because they genuinely damage effectiveness and people’s wellbeing. And the most dangerous mistake a manager or advisor can make is solving the wrong problem, no matter how good the approach may be.

For HR directors, managers, employment lawyers, and anyone involved in conflict resolution outside the courtroom, Rahim’s theory provides a clear agenda: diagnose accurately, intervene at the right time and at the right level, develop people’s conflict competencies, and design organisations so that substantive conflict is possible while affective conflict is contained.

The question is not how to eliminate conflict. The question is how to protect the right conflicts and address the harmful ones.

→ Would you like to have a current conflict assessed or do you have a question? Contact us without obligation at 020 205 02 39 or info@resultadr.nl.

Resources

Rahim, M.A. (2002). Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(3), 206–235. DOI: 10.1108/eb022874. Beschikbaar via ResearchGate (auteurskopie).

Argyris, C. & Schön, D.A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Addison-Wesley.

Jehn, K.A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 40(2), 256–282.

Jehn, K.A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative ScienceQuarterly, 42(3), 530–557.

Amason, A.C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 123–148.