Conflict in parties and organisations

The life of the political activists, leaders and workers of any political party is also influenced by the intriguing phenomenon of conflict. Either at the local level or at the national stratum the leaders and the workers are compelled to forge unity in diversity and show total allegiance and loyalty to the policies, principles of the organisation vis-a-vis the dictates and directives of the central high command. But things do not so calm and cool for long as envisaged. Clash of interest, beyond amicable settlement, is bound to occur sooner or later. There may be many more intriguing reasons behind such rift, often personalized. But the central feature has been invariably material gains. The political party in power is the ultimate dispenser of such gains, controlled and manipulated by the central leaders in the presidium. There too, a state of parochialism persists particularly between leader belonging to the same constituency. They carry their local feud to the centre feigning themselves as protectors of the 'interest' of their respective group followings.

In the actual scenario however, the two-way traffic of such mutual current of animosity at the cost of party solidarity and local standing continues unabated till it goes to a point of no return. The original local rift taken to the national level eventually demoralises the entire party leadership and aggravates to the extent of bloodshed among the workers. Unfortunately, the top most leader of the party cannot also get rid of his/her own psychological attachment, due to long association, to the veteran among the leaders responsible for such suicidal activities.

We have at least two such instances, one each of the two major political parties, in recent times which caused terrible embarrassment to the topmost leaders of both the parties. Both of the tops are though very unhappy with the defaulting leaders in the lower echelons, they had been, for a long time, hesitant to take appropriate action because of the awful sensitivity of the issue. Naturally, their inaction contributed to elongate the crisis much to the detriment of party position locally and nationally besides damaging the morals of other leaders and workers who are not parties to such intra-party clash of leaders. The crisis generating from such local feud even turns out to be bloody battle between the rival groups. The only bone of contention is to establish own supremacy in the locality with the help of musclemen and hoodlums. The ultimate goal is to prove to the high command ones hold and popularity in the constituency. The unfortunate cold-war between two central leaders belonging to Sunamganj, Sylhet has at last taken an ugly shape publicly. The Awami League Chief Sheikh Hasina was so enraged that on 1st December, 2003, she asked both the feuding leaders to leave the party if they could not compose their differences all by themselves.

This was the boldest stand ever on the part of a party president. And from management point of view no decision could be better or more appropriate than this. Because, the chief was not there to do the school-mastering and punish one and exonerate the other. Nor she would be able to see the image of the party slandered by the party stalwarts themselves when the younger party leaders and workers would look for their guidance and directives.

The much publicised personality clash between two BNP leaders about to take a vicious turn was also readily intercepted by the party chief Begum Khaleda Zia on 2nd December 2003, just one day after Sheikh Hasina's courageous intervention. A strange coincidence indeed of the thinking process of the two leaders! The Speaker and the Deputy Speaker were later reportedly seen closeted together in the former's chamber is the Jatiya Sangsad over a cup of tea. Their differences were apparently sunk. But, for how long these two episodes shall lie beyond sight only time will say. One thing must have been clear to all the four in these two separate cases that the two topmost leaders understand very well that no one is indispensable to their respective party. It shall be for the litigants themselves to mend their fences and take care of their own normal interests without overdoing.

In the industrial organisations however the conflict, if any, occurs between the workers and the management and/or between the workers having different political affiliation. Here the role of the trade union is pre-dominant. Such conflicts are usually over some sort of demand of the workers and unless contained in time things may aggravate to the point of physical clash, strike, closing down of the establishment etc. Against such an inevitable crisis emerging out of any conflict it shall be only too natural that the managers of the establishment shall be always on his toes to avert such crisis situation. Still then, in the area of modern management a latest notion among the more aggressive manager has gained currency that not all the conflicts are always bad. In their opinion the feature of conflict may be either good or bad. It all depends on how the manager confronted with a conflict tackles it.

Many managers to-day want to create business environments founded on the premise that any interpersonal or intergroup conflict is bad for the company. These executives see only the hostile or destructive forces in opposition. But all conflicts are not destructive. In many cases conflict can turn out to be a healthy ingredient in business life. It comprises the challenging and questioning necessary to avoid stagnant thinking, weak decisions and general apathy. In the absence of any such constructive conflict a company is void of excitement, diversity and viability.

Management experts consider conflict as the catalyst of change which in turn, adds to the health and strength of a business firm. Opposition to others' ideas, dissatisfaction with the status quo, concern about doing things better and the desire to improve inadequacies are all seeds of change. Conflict management is more than just reducing conflict. It has to be viewed as the planning and controlling of conflict intensity.

Obviously not all conflicts are constructive for the attainment of a firm's goals. The executive who seeks to become an effective conflict manager also needs to become familiar with resolution techniques so that the destructive elements can be controlled. Conflict that has been nurtured to benefit a company usually needs more sophisticated and permanent solutions. There are several ways of constructively resolving internal conflict.

When conflict results from the scarcity of a resource, the easiest manner in which to resolve the confrontation is through expansion of the resource. This solution allows all parties to win. Another means of constructively resolving conflict is through super-ordinate goals. These are common goals which two or more conflicting parties each desire and which cannot be reached without the cooperation of all those involved.

Just as altering the structure can stimulate conflict, altering the formal relationships of individuals and departments can also reduce tensions. Key actions that can be taken include transferring and exchanging group members, creating coordinating positions, or developing an appeals system.

By developing skills in both the stimulation and resolution of conflict a manager can improve his firm's economic performance. And surely that is what management is all about. An eminent expert in management Kenneth Sole has very rightly described conflict as "a little bit like talking about the weather; it is going to be with us no matter what we do, so our task is to try to reduce its adverse impact on us."

Kazi Alauddin Ahmed is an industrial consultant.