by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Süleyman AĞRAŞ
Düzce University, Turkey
Published in Global Leadership Initiatives in Conflict Resolution and Peacebuilding
Dr Andrew Campbell, Director International Peace and Leadership Institute Director, Global Leadership Education Institute
INTRODUCTION
In today’s business world, the competitive aspect represents a major challenge for organizations. The demand for continuous high performance along with the needed sustainability to keep up with the demanding market are the result of external pressures and internal. External stakeholders such as customers, suppliers, etc. which are sources of external pressures are the ones that majorly dictate the strategic plans and actions taken by companies. Regarding the internal pressures employees (with their talents and performance) from internal stakeholders of the organizations can also be determinants of the earnings and losses of the organizations. Managers/leaders are struggling with constant change and mobility in that field.
Over a number of years, senior managers have become increasingly concerned about the changing nature of their organizational environments and how they can detect and act on such changes in the organizational environment. However, in this dynamic age, outcomes of change are not always predictable and the environment is dynamic, making the detection of change much more difficult (Warren, Howat, & Hume, 2011). One of the aspects of the dynamic nature of intra-organizational life is organizational conflicts and their management. Often, it is not easy to manage the conflicts that lead the leaders to leave their institutions. Therefore, it is imperative for leaders to think and act in multidimensional ways. It can be said that the strategic thinking ability and capacities of the leaders in this process will increase their performance in conflict management.
The nature of strategic thinking is complex and multidimensional. As Mintzberg, Lampel, Quinn, & Ghoshal (2002) pointed out that effective strategic thinking, acting, and learning seem to depend a great deal on intuition, creativity, and pattern recognition, none of which can be programmed although they may be recognized, facilitated, and encouraged it is difficult to explain it exactly(Monnavarian, Farmani, &Yajam, 2011). Why is strategic thinking such an important part of every manager’s job? It is impossible to formulate a strategy, let alone a ‘‘best’’ or preferred strategy, without engaging in strategic thinking (Abraham, 2005).
The topic of strategic thinking is addressed in a different organizational context (management of organizational conflicts) through this study. It has been found in the literature that although the different abilities and skills of leaders that facilitate conflict management have been emphasized it has not been addressed in the context of strategic thinking ability and capacity. When the nature of strategic thinking and its content are addressed, it could be stated that the leaders (as stated in the content of this study) are at the forefront of issues that leaders need for conflict management. The strategic moves of leaders in conflict management will be the determinant of the positive effects of the leaders who manage conflicts on the audience, as demonstrated by their strategic thinking capacity.
Discuss the role of strategic thinking ability and capacities of managers / leaders as asked by Abraham (2005) in their conflict management and conflict resolution, which is multifaceted. First of all, what is organizational conflict, the causes of conflict, and the positive and negative effects on organizations are covered? However, the basic strategies that the leaders refer to in conflict management are explained. Strategic thinking abilities of leaders who play a crucial role in the anticipation of conflicts and negative effects in the work, as well as in the calculation of the steps and consequences of conflicts are thoroughly explained. The focus is on the definition of strategic thinking, its theoretical background, and dimensions and why it is important for each leader, and emphasizes the importance of strategic thinking in conflict management. Finally in the study, in the direction of the opinions of the managers in a public institution, the structure of the conflicts within the institution, the reasons of their emergence and the methods that the managers adopted in the conflict were discussed. According to the general outcome of the theoretical discussions and practical determinations made in this paper; organizational conflicts, negatively affecting the strategic thinking capacity of leaders and institutions, as well as mastery of leaders in thinking strategically play an active role in the management of conflicts.
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
Conflict is a concept that is used to describe the uneasiness, tension, indecisiveness, implicit or explicit confrontations and factors that cause them, and the attitudes and behaviors of affected individuals in general (Barutçugil, 1989:219). The emergence of conflicts at various environmental levels and forms has led to the definition of the concept of conflict in different forms (Slabbert, 2004:83). For instance, Thomas (1990: 258), deals with the concept of conflict as a process, emphasizing that conflict is “a process emerged in which one of the parties felt blocked or prevented by the other”(Özel, 2015:4).
However, there are three basic approaches to the various types of conflicts; they may be of a traditional, behavioral or interactive nature. Whereas according to the traditional approach, conflict is an undesirable phenomenon and should be avoided if possible and removed immediately (Robbins, 1974:146), in the behavioral approach all conflicts are not destructive and some group conflicts can have positive social functions (Ertekin, 1982:474). In an interactive approach, whatever organizational and organizational structure they have, conflicts arising therefrom are inevitable and even necessary, promoting the existence of a certain level of conflict, innovation in organizations, creativity, and effectiveness (Peker, 1995:143).
It is possible to classify conflicts arising in organizations from various aspects. Classifications of organizational conflict are made by taking into account the characteristics of the conflict, its appearance, its place within the organization, and its parties. Classification of the conflicts by the parties is as in the following (Dinçer & Fidan,1996: 361; Ertürk,1995: 204; Mescon et al. 1988:557–558; Şimşek,1999:279; Vecchio,1995:483–484):
● The individual conflicts with him/her
● Inter-individual conflicts
● Conflicts between individuals and groups
● Group conflicts
● Inter-organizational conflicts
On the other hand, there are some classifications based on organizational levels (Vertical and Horizontal Conflicts, Command-Staff Conflicts), emergence stages (Potential conflict, perceived conflict, conflict of interest, and open conflict), and nature of characteristics (Functional conflicts and nonfunctional conflict) have been widely discussed in the literature. But what are the causes of conflicts in organizations? In other words, what can people not share? There are many reasons for organizational conflicts to answer these questions. In organizations, factors such as division of labor, functional dependence, decision-making styles, limited resources, new specializations, communication systems, and organization size are shown as reasons for conflicts. Many authors focused on different reasons to explain the organizational conflicts. Some of these reasons are below:
● Work division
● Functional dependence
● Decision-making styles
● Limited resources
● New expertise
● Communication system
● Organization size
● Difference of staff
● Individual behavior
● Organizational power struggle
● Award and incentive systems
It can be argued that for whatever reasons, the conflicts are brought by the important effects on the organizations and that they must be managed. It has some positive and negative effects on individuals and organizations. Conflicts managed in a proper manner provide important contributions to organizations. Conflicts could be an important tool to define and solve problems. Different opinions, information, and assumptions are necessary for successful decisions. In addition to the positive effects for the individual and the organization, conflicts can lead to many negative consequences as well, such as inefficient use of resources, increasing levels of stress on the parties and use of energy in the wrong direction when not managed effectively (Karip, 1999:21–23). In Table 1, the effects of organizational conflicts have been demonstrated.
Senior managers are concerned about the changing nature of the organizational environment how they perceive the changes in this environment and how they can react to these changes (Davis, 2002). However, in this dynamic age, the consequences of change are not always predictable, and it is increasingly difficult to identify changes in a dynamic work environment (Grewal & Tansuhaj, 2001). Along with the rate of change, the complexity of the information-based organization and management function and structure are also causing conflicts to increase (Ucan 2014). Conflicts are inevitable in every environment and situation, people are in, and it is a phenomenon found in the nature of life. Many factors, especially globalization, knowledge and technology have complicated business life and increased the conflicts between individuals and organizations (Erkuş, 2008). In this case, it is expected that individuals in business life and managers should have certain abilities at the point of developing strategies to solve conflicts.
Conflict management is defined as a process involving the identification of a cracker, the identification of the intensity, the assessment of this intensity, and the detection of appropriate management methods and the monitoring of their results (Alp, 1997:102). Blake & Mouton (1964) have developed an organizational model based on two dimensions that are not human-oriented and work-oriented, which deal with conflict-solving strategies. Blake and Mouton’s models are described as 5 styles; forcing, withdrawing, smoothing, compromising and solving problems. Blake and Mouton’s model has been adopted by many researchers with a slightly different terminology. One of the most widely used models today is Rahim’s (1983) model, which develops a scale known as Rahim Organization Conflict Inventory-II (ROCI-II). Rahim (1983) has classified conflict management styles by creating a combination of two dimensions. Thinking about your own interests and thinking about the interests of others. These five ways of coping with creating a combination of these two dimensions are; coercion, avoidance, compliance, compromise, and problem-solving (Goodwin, 2000:4).
Conflict management is the process in which parties to the conflict or a third party take a series of actions in order to solve the conflicts in a particular way (Kaya & Yılmaz, 2015). Cognitive, emotional, and behavioral dimensions of conflict notion lead it to complexity, thus making it difficult to understand and manage (Erkuş, 2008). However, the types of conflicts that managers have to manage and solve are quite a lot. When conflicts such as role conflict, goal conflict, or conflict of interest arise leadership roles of managers are needed. This necessity is increasing as the number of parties to the conflict increases, as it is in conflicts between people, people, and groups. In the management of conflicts arising from competition and competition among organizations, leaders need to have particular strategic thinking skills. In the conflict management literature, the strategies that the managers resort to in conflict management are discussed from different angles. Strategies that come to the forefront in this area are as in the following (Free, 2017):
• Turtle (Avoidance) Strategy: Business leaders are adopting this approach to avoid existing conflict, to ignore disagreements or to remain neutral.
• Teddy Bear (Adaptation) Strategy: This strategy is also called mitigation, softening in some sources. This strategy focuses on the common points between the two sides, ignoring differences in order to appease and please the other party (Rahim and Magner,1995: 123).
• Shark (Power Use, Recruitment) Strategy: This strategy is also known as competition. The individuals who adopt this style are endeavoring to solve the conflict by living what they want. Eliminating the interests and needs of the other party is not considered important and is not taken into consideration. (Uysal, 2004: 36).
• Fox (Reconciliation) Strategy: This strategy pushes the parties to an agreement in the middle point. The arrival point is not on any side of the ideal. Collective bargaining negotiations on workers’ employer relations, and buying and selling negotiations on business are examples of this strategy.
• Owl (Confrontation, cooperation) Strategy: This strategy is especially a way for the parties to face each other in the event that they do not have sufficient data and information and there is no intensive and effective communication between them (Eren, 1999: 465).
Which leadership strategy would be chosen to solve the conflicts varies depending on the leader’s leadership style, the scope of the conflict, the sides and the advantages and disadvantages of the conflict. Managers are sometimes can be a part of the conflicts, or even a source of conflict. For managers being in or out of conflicts influence the strategy that manager will choose to solve the conflicts. With all this, the managers have to manage and resolve conflicts professionally, whatever the level and type. For this, the strategic thinking ability and capacity of the managers will determine the course and effects of the organizational conflicts. Strategic thinking, change, competition, conflict, and superiority to opponents, need to look at events from a wide perspective.
STRATEGIC THINKING AND LEADERSHIP
One of the issues frequently raised by CEOs of large organizations is how to lift the level of strategic thinking among their senior managers. Because of the large part of the literature on a corporate strategy focused on short-term, narrowly-focused operational issues of organizations strategic thinking is seen as a luxury and indulged in infrequently at offsite retreats (Jenkins, 2008). However, for at least the past 30 years, the literature has admonished organizational leaders and managers for their lack of strategic thinking and urged its development to improve organizational performance (Goldman & Scott, 2016). Strategic thinking has been recognized as an individual activity influenced by the context within which it takes place. The literature includes several major conceptualizations of strategic thinking (Goldman, 2012:26):
● As an essential component of strategy development
● As mental processing and
● As perspectives and activities.
Although there is no agreement in the literature on what strategic thinking is (Monnavarian, et al. 2011) the roots of it (the systematic analysis of the current situation of the organization and the formulation of its longer-term direction) began to take hold in the corporation in the early twentieth century (Allio, 2006;4). But still, there is a lack of strategic thinking by senior managers has been identified as a major shortcoming in organizations. Thus understanding strategic thinking requires a dual-level approach that investigates the characteristics of an individual strategic thinker as well as the dynamics and processes that take place within the organizational context in which the individual operates (Bonn, 2001).
Bonn (2001) who started his research in 1993 in the field of strategic thinking states that strategic thinking needs to be considered at two different but interrelated levels as individual and organizational. Strategic thinking at the individual level comprises a holistic understanding of the organization and its environment, creativity, and a vision for the future whereas at the organizational level contains fostering strategic dialogue among the top team and taking advantage of the ingenuity and creativity of every individual employee. Organizations that successfully integrate strategic thinking at these two levels will create a critical core competency that forms the basis of an enduring source of competitive advantage.
However, according to Dufour and Steane (2014), strategic thinking consists of the various mindsets and ways companies go about answering three fundamental questions: where are we now, where do we want to be and how will we get there? In their view, strategic thinking and creative thinking should be combined with sustainable leadership. Although business leaders see creativity as a metaphor for inspiration and unpredictability, without analyzing some of the analogies between creative and strategic thinking they have been inclined to see strategic and creative thinking as the polar opposite, with strategists and creative facing off.
Lundberg, (2005) with his conceptualized analysis looks at strategic thinking from a sensemaking perspective. He argues that strategic thinking is shaped by understanding the sequence of sensemaking stages where each stage is initiated by one or more, usually several, relatable cues given meaning in terms of the mindset. He has termed it this sensemaking as strategic leadership as the set of members responsible for making the organization’s major decisions including choices about strategic purpose and direction (Lundberg, 2005).
It is useful to explain in detail the conceptual sub-concept of strategic thinking in order to indicate the importance of strategic thinking for conflict resolution strategies. Strategic thinking is the practice of being superior to the competition and keeping it in mind that it tries to apply it to you (Dixit & Nalebuff, 1991). If it is desired to be successful in a change or a competition, it is necessary to plan two steps against one-step of the opponent. Therefore, if the opponents want to get out of this competition either successfully or without damage, they must develop at least four steps in response to those two steps (Mütercimler, 2009: 18–19). Strategic thinking involves analyzing problems and opportunities from a broad perspective and recognizing the effects that your movements may have on others. A strategically-minded manager visualizes what might be and moves with a holistic approach to everyday affairs and challenges (Collis, 2010). Strategic thinking is seen as a way of solving strategic problems by combining a rational and convergent approach with an innovative and diverse thinking process (Bonn, 2005) by which senior executives ‘‘can rise above the daily managerial processes and crises(Monnavarian, et al. 2011). Strategic thinking is also defined as “a glue” that keeps many systems and initiatives together in one company’ (Tavakoli & Lawton, 2005:155–160).
Strategic thinking differs from strategic planning which emphasizes synthesis, using intuition and creativity to create ‘‘an integrated perspective of the enterprise (Monnavarian, et al. 2011). According to findings of the research conducted by Goldman et al. (2015) managers/leaders of organizations from different industries define strategic thinking as the set of actions in the following:
● The ability to envision
● To really see things that aren’t in front of you
● Having a larger worldview and understanding various interconnections
● Considering the realities of today and looking down the future and figuring out multiple paths to get there.
● What you need to change to move us toward an end goal
● Thinking about issues and then communicating how to achieve that strategy
● How you can accomplish the work and engage individuals
The definitions given as a list of strategic thinking have conceptual, directional tactical dimensions in the mind of managers/leaders. According to Naktiyok and Çiçek (2014), strategic thinking that contains the weaknesses and strengths of an organization and environmental opportunities and threats; is a special thinking process involving change, ambiguity, environmental fluctuations, and the ability to predict and act on the future position and actions of the organization. Bonn (2001) sees the lack of strategic thinking ability as a major problem in senior managers and argues that strategic thinking is a source of competitive power in increasingly turbulent business environments. According to the author, three essential elements of strategic thinking are defined on the individual level: they are the vision for a holistic understanding of the organization and its environment, innovation, and the future of the organization.
Pisapia, Reyes-Guerra, and Coukos-Semmel (2005) developed a three-dimensional model for strategic thinking ability. The model focuses on three critical abilities: managers' re-framing, system thinking, and reflection of experience. Re-framing is related to thinking about reasons for failure, using different methods to compare information, asking questions starting with why, having new perspectives, following the tendency on change, affecting other departments, handling problems with their own special structures, being affected by environmental change conscious and setting common goals among the groups. System thinking is the process of recognizing freedom of expression to others, using different strategies for problem-solving, exchanging opinions with different thinking individuals, problem-solving abilities of others, policy-making for institutional resources, the perception of environmental changes, and the awareness that other departments influence jobs should increase the work capacity of the institution. Finally reflection of experiences: seeking out the opinions of colleagues, getting ideas from experts, accepting the possibility of making mistakes, and looking for common goals and alternatives in conflict resolution.
The most common job that managers do each day is to make decisions that are beneficial or damaging to the business they are running. Managers, who face complex decisions in most cases, sometimes act with mixed and sometimes limited information for these decisions. To make the most intelligent choices in such situations requires strategic thinking. For strategic thinking, the manager needs to define the business environment he is in and clarify the goals he wants to achieve. It is indispensable for the manager to develop his strategic thinking skills. Some of these talents; to identify the relationships, patterns, and trends in the business environment, to think innovatively, to rank activities in order of importance, and to make trade-offs that accompany them inevitably when choosing a behavior (Collis, 2010).
According to Peter Drucker is well-known author and businessman, strategic thinking is a process that contains three key actions choosing the right position in a business environment by asking the right and simple questions, investing in knowledge work that will enable managers to understand the importance of leading, sharing and synthesizing knowledge in organization that will lead to vital new products and services. The last key to strategic thinking is to encourage managers to challenge and dissent if handled constructively. Drucker encouraged managers to probe the assumptions behind the business operations of their firm in order to keep ahead of the competition. According to this paradigm, there are three techniques that could be used to generate directions in strategic thinking. Those are as in the following (Drucker Institute, 2010:16–17; Zand, 2010).
● Ask penetrating questions to generate creative options
● Reframe and simplify to enable review and adjustment
● Consider alternative assumptions and probe implications
Strategic thinking has been handled under the competency model which has been described as a behaviorally specific and detailed description of the skills and traits needed to be effective in a job by focusing on leaders, managers, and other employee behaviors. Because of characteristics, actions, and behaviors of a strategic leader are essential for understanding why and how organizations behave and perform it’s important to define the ability to think strategically (Goldman & Scott, 2016). In the paradigm of competency model the competencies (characteristics) described by the authors for leaders based on strategic thinking., For example
● Conceptual thinking ability
● Visionary thinking
● Creativity and analytical thinking ability
● Learning ability
● Synthesizing ability
● Objectivity
● Critical thinking,
● Crystallized intelligence
● Creative thinking
● Risk-taking
● Autonomy
● Managers re-framing
● System thinking
● Reflection of experience
● Looking at the environment
● Gathering information, building
● Theory, visioning,
● Generating multiple alternatives
● Engaging in a group process
● Communicating
● Visioning
● Environmental awareness
● Assessment and evaluation of the business environment
● Strategy creation
● Plan development and implementation
● Alignment
From the competencies (characteristics and behaviors) shown in Table 2, it could be said that strategic thinking includes conceptual, creative, analytical, and interactive activities not only in an internal environment of organizations but also in an external environment and they could occur at the individual, group, organizational, and environmental levels. Each of the characteristics and behaviors stated in Table 1 could be used as a model for strategic thinking competency. The model proposed by Goldman and Scott (2016) would incorporate characteristics specific to strategic thinking alongside ones that potentially relate to other activities too. Others purport that strategic thinking competencies could be developed for particular areas.
As mentioned above strategic thinking could be handled at two levels for organizations. To understand the effects or benefits of strategic thinking it is needed to examine these levels in detail. Bonn (2005) from his multilevel perspective defines the elements of strategic thinking as system thinking, creativity, and vision. This perspective has been supported by many authors in different models and research.
Figure 1 simplifies the basic elements of strategic thinking. However, it needs to acknowledge the influence of individual characteristics and actions on the organizational context and the influence of the organizational context on individual thinking and behavior. Clearly, the characteristics of an individual strategic thinker are only of value if supporting structures and processes at both the group and the organizational levels co-exist. Similarly, structural forms and processes at the group and organizational levels reinforce the emergence of the appropriate individual characteristics associated with strategic thinking. Thus strategic thinking should be evaluated at three levels as in the following (Bonn 2005):
● The characteristics of an individual strategic thinker
● The dynamics that take place within a group of individuals (tasks and relations)
● The organizational context (organizational culture, organizational structure, reward, and compensation system)
From the elements and levels offered for strategic thinking, it is understood that the process of strategic thinking requires a systematical approach, future orientation, and creative work in an organization. The views of Bonn (2005) have been supported by Hadida (2013) as strategic thinking and creativity both entail the reframing of an organization’s challenges and the generation of new ideas through the combination, adaptation or improvement of existing ideas, processes or products.
Apart from the views above in the literature on strategic thinking, there are many views that define the attributes of strategic thinking (Acur & Englyst, 2006; Collis, 2010; Graetz, 2002; Liedtka, 1998; Napier & Albert, 1990). For example, Acur and Englyst (2006) and Monnavarian, et al. (2011) posit the following major attributes of strategic thinking are:
● Awareness of industry and rivals
● Understanding strengths and opportunities
● Awareness of strategic problems of the organization
● Considering strategic priorities of top managers and
● Decision-making by making use of flexible and effective processes.
According to Jenkins (2008), strategic thinking should be an integral part of a senior manager’s role in today’s modern organizations because of two important reasons. The first one is although senior managers may come from different disciplines, but now they share responsibility for the organization as a whole and not just a single area. If they want to move to a higher level of work they need an entirely different mode of thinking, a multi-dimensional systems approach, rather than a more linear product or process approach. The second major impediment to strategic thinking arises from the increased scale and diversity of the modern organization. The relative complexity and multiple lines of business of most large organizations make it very hard for senior managers to conceptualize the whole organization and the precise nature of their role within it.
While it’s important to think strategically about organizations in multilevel it’s more important to improve strategic thinking competency by using some leadership practices. İn his research Goldman (2012) defined and then investigated the incidence of organizational leadership practices that encourage a culture of strategic thinking by discussing with 400 US healthcare executives. The authors have identified 18 leadership practices by using a survey instrument that encourages strategic thinking. The practices developed for thinking strategically is about organizational culture and they have been identified based on Schein’s (2004) six primary mechanisms that leaders might access to develop and embed culture for strategic thinking. The proposed practices for strategic thinking have been developed by taking these paradigms into consideration:
● What they focus on and measure
● The basis for resource allocation decisions
● The basis for hiring, promotion, and firing decisions
● What they model and coach
● The basis for reward and status decisions
● Their reactions to crises and events
According to Fleba (2005), strategic thinking needs improvements in cultural values such as subordination, risk aversion, and high-time preference, together with a long history of socialist government, resulting in a lack of responsibility, accountability, and planning. On the other hand in answering the question of “which organizational practices will contribute to the capacity of strategic thinking. Goldman et al. (2015) found that there are five key practices available in this field. In the author’s qualitative research, these organizational practices that will impact strategic thinking directly or indirectly are formal courses/cohort programs, self-directed courses, mentoring, job rotation, special projects /stretch assignments, and participation in strategic planning.
Strategic thinking is not a need only for big organizations French (2009) emphasized that there is a strong need for small businesses to think strategically rather than operational affairs. The author proposed an inductive frame by developing a model to help small business principals understand the need to think strategically about their business. The composition of a model of business that assists small business principals in understanding the need to think strategically. He claims that if a theoretical model of strategic thinking was developed and implemented in a small business, it would contribute to business performance. In his theoretical model, the advantages of learning school and the basic principle of a resource-based view have been discussed for the need to think strategically in small business.
Strategic thinking is seen as part of the decision-making process. There are many views on the strategy and management literature strategic thinking highlights the quality of business decisions and plans. There are many aspects of strategic thinking that influence the decisions of leaders. For example, Warren and his collogues (2011) have reviewed both psychological and management literature to provide an understanding of the strategic thinking and decision-making process and factors that may affect the process. According to the authors, the aim of strategic thinking and decision-making is the same as ensuring the survival of the organization in a competitive marketplace. For this to occur there is a need for effective strategic thinking and decision making that steers the organization in the most appropriate direction. Managerial cognition, individual values, and beliefs, as well as corporate values, have been examined as psychological key factors to promote the quality of strategic thinking and decision-making.
STRATEGIC THINKING AS A WAY OF SOLVING CONFLICTS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Strategic thinking is essential to the long-term success of organizations. The scope of strategic thinking encompasses the totality of an organization’s long-term operations, including concurrent scanning of the organization’s internal and external business environment. Strategic thinking is seen as the process of translating knowledge into action (Self, Self, Matuszek, & Schraeder, 2015). The strategic thinking competency of the organization leaders can play a crucial role in managing organizational conflicts and transforming them into advantages. This is only possible through the leaders’ right assessments of conflicts and accurate readings of internal and external environmental links and potential effects.
Conflict management strategies mentioned in this section will vary according to the nature of the conflicts and according to the leaders’ own strategies. Which conflict resolution strategy the leader will adopt depending on his strategic thinking ability? Which conflict strategy to use is closely related to the competency of the leader to correctly identify the parties and relations that are party to the conflict, to produce unique solutions to the conflict, to plan the conflict strategy step by step, and to anticipate what to give away? In addition, the basic processes of strategic thinking, such as redefining (framing) the conflicts, acting in the system of thinking, and reflecting on the experiences of others, will provide a different opening on the conflict resolution strategy.
The problems that organizers face and the conflicts they are experiencing stem from the lack of innovative strategic thinking as much as from poor strategic planning. Leaders can look at conflicts from different perspectives and produce original solutions by thinking strategically. Questions such as when to use force, when to avoid conflicts, and when to make concessions are closely related to the strategic thinking capacity of leaders.
As emphasized in Bonn’s (2005) model, three components of strategic thinking can play an effective role in understanding and resolving conflicts. It can be argued that it is important for leaders to base these three components on the factors that cause particularly destructive conflicts. As Senge (1990) argued, we must look beyond personalities and events. We must look into the underlying structures, which shape individual actions and create the conditions where types of events become likely” (p. 43). This involves thinking in terms of processes rather than events to enable the reconciliation of apparent contradictions and the development of innovative solutions. Strategic thinkers must search for new approaches and envision better ways of doing things, in other words, be creative. In her view, creative thinking refers to “how people approach problems and solutions — their capacity to put existing ideas together in new combinations” (Bonn, 2005, p. 17). Accordingly, the most frequently studied creative thinking skills are the ability to generate many alternative solutions to a problem and to develop or identify unusual associations or patterns. Leaders in these companies placed great emphasis on building an organization that has a deep understanding of its reason for existence and of its core values, those fundamental and enduring principles that guide and inspire people throughout the organization and bind them together around a common identity (Bonn, 2005).
On the one hand, strategic thinking has a resolution effect on organizational conflicts, and on the other hand, conflicts have some implications on strategic thinking capacity. The positive effects of conflicts may include the institution’s strategic thinking and the impact of strengthening its innovative position. However, it can be stated that destructive conflicts which are relationship-based in particular will reduce the strategic thinking capacity of leaders in the long term.
According to the approach of Dixit and Nalebuff (1991) in strategic thinking for their capacity to think strategically, leaders need to first evaluate the conflicts and the parties involved. Besides, if the method to be used in the conflict resolution is determined once, the profit-loss situation of all parties should be schematized. The schematic study on concrete results will facilitate leadership in managing the conflict. The authors include the strategic moves that leaders can use in the conflict management process as in the following:
• Threats and promises
• Alerts and assurances
• Unconditional moves
• Dominant and passive strategies
• Cooperation and coordination
• Voting approach
• Incentives
If conflicts arise from settled corporate culture and if strategic thinking ability is weakened, leaders will need to change the organizational culture. As Jenkins (2005) stated when confronted with the problem of how to develop the capacity of senior managers to think more strategically, it would be tempting to turn to traditional methods to try to impact the organizational culture. These may include team-building, professional development (either through internal training or an external program such as an MBA), or even that classic blunt instrument for change: a restructure. This may require that leaders sometimes use the coercive force method in conflict management.
On the other hand, when strategic thinking is assessed from the point of view of Dixit and Nalebuff (1991), it can be reached that the leaders should read the views and tactics of the people who are the parties of the conflicts. It is necessary for leaders to pull their strategies out of the foreseeable way in conflict resolution and to anticipate the opponent’s tactics as much as possible. In this context, it is suggested that leaders use their strategic thinking skills in the following ways, as well as the solutions mentioned above:
1. Leaders should sometimes make conflict resolution strategies unpredictable since those who are involved in the conflict have a strong positive perception of the leader.
2. Improving the capacity of the leader to provide original solutions to conflicts will increase the influence on the audience.
3. Leaders should avoid concessions that may damage their reputation when compromising conflicts; they should pay attention to where they will be pulled up in concessions.
4. The strategic moves that the leader will use in conflict resolution can sometimes be based on fear and sometimes on the promise.
5. Leaders should not make promises that they can’t fulfill on behalf of the parties.
6. If the leader develops a solution strategy on the basis of using force (fear), the use of force must be kept at a reasonable level.
7. It may be advisable for leaders to benefit from contracts to strengthen conflict resolution.
8. The leader’s role to inform about the outcome of the conflict, to show the future, and to avoid any negative consequences is very important.
9. It is important for the leader to keep the conflict at a certain level if the conflicts are inevitable.
10. If the leader’s commitment to conflict resolution is not credible, the leader’s effectiveness will be greatly reduced.
11. It is inevitable that if conflicts arise from a task-oriented and organizational structure, the leader must go to re-organization.
12. It is the first task of the leader to encourage innovation, to organize the work with a meaningful approach to work, and to collect the people around the common goals
13. Leaders should be able to read the thoughts in the minds of conflicting parties in the organization.
14. Leaders should present a number of alerts and assurances at meaningful times and places as strategic moves to the parties of the conflict.
15. Alerts and assurances will play an active role in conflict management, which is the power of sanction and deterrence.
This section addresses the basic organizational conflicts in a public institution in Düzce and the methods by which managers manage these conflicts. It was seen that the conflicts that occurred with the executives of the institutions appeared in different forms. From the point of view of those who are involved in the conflict, it is clear that living struggles are experienced among the employees and between the employees and the managers; it is understood that it is considered a destructive and constructive conflict in terms of the type of conflict. On the other hand, when we look at the reasons for the conflicts, it is understood that they are individual differences, deficiencies in job descriptions, misunderstandings, ambiguities about the distribution of tasks, and problems in individual relations.
Managers have used methods for managing conflicts such as updating the job descriptions confronting problems, redefining people’s positions, providing job-oriented and future-oriented goals to employees, implementing job rotations, and innovating in the company’s business and activities. These approaches correspond to the basic elements of strategic thinking, such as system thinking, innovation, and vision as set out in Bonn (2005)’s model. It is also understood that managers have maintained their organizational function by making annual strategic plans in which employees have taken their views and periodically reviewed their results. It has been seen that constructive conflicts are manifested by the differences of view in institutional meetings and conflicts in this direction are encouraged in a sense. However, at a limited level, they said that the management of destructive conflicts that are experienced in using the methods that managers have difficulty with and do not desire.
The following recommendations can be made for future research on strategic thinking and conflict resolution. Searching the types of conflicts that leaders face and the use of their ideas about the use of strategic thinking skills will broaden ideas about the issue. The strategic moves proposed for leaders can be searched for as to how they affect conflict management. The role of fear and promises in reducing the negative effects of conflict could be demonstrated through empirical studies. Detailed research could be conducted on how the leaders can make convincing moves to use within the scope of strategic thinking. Which conflict solution method that leaders use is desired by employees could be the topic of research. It is useful to identify areas where leaders are most challenged in conflict management. The invisible (implicit) reasons for conflicts in organizations should be emphasized.
留言