University of Greenwich ID Number: 001357142

Module Code: INDU1107

Module Assessment Title: Report

Lecturer Name: Hoang Phuong Anh

Submission Date: 05/12/2024

 I. Introduction

This essay aims to explore how Social Identity Theory (SIT) informs our understanding of
conflict and group polarisation, with a specific focus on IBM's internal pressures and
challenges (Study Corgi, 2023). SIT provides a framework to understand how group
identification affects individuals' actions and perceptions, which becomes crucial in analyzing
conflict dynamics. The essay will examine theories of conflict, critique expert perspectives,
and apply these concepts to the real-life case of IBM. The focus is on understanding the
causes of conflict at IBM and recommending appropriate solutions based on Thomas and
Kilman's conflict resolution model.

II. Conceptual Framework: Conflict Theories and SIT

Conflict theory and SIT are crucial to understanding the dynamics at IBM. Social Identity
Theory, developed by Tajfel and Turner (1979), suggests that individuals derive a sense of
identity from their group membership, which can lead to in-group favouritism and out-group
discrimination. This forms the foundation for understanding group polarisation, where
groups become more extreme in their positions (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In an organisational
setting like IBM, group identity and the role of leadership become crucial in managing or
exacerbating conflicts.

In the context of conflict, traditional theories, such as the Unitarist view (1930-1940),
posited that conflict should be avoided, considering it inherently destructive (Mullins, 2005).
Contemporary views, like pluralism (1940-1970), argued that conflict is natural and can be
beneficial to group performance (Robbins, 2005). The Interactionist perspective, meanwhile,
asserts that a certain level of conflict is healthy as it promotes creativity. More radical views
suggest that conflict is a tool for structural change, while Thomas (1992) focused on the role
of perception in shaping conflict behaviour.

III. Expert Perspectives on Conflict and Their Differences

The traditional Unitarist perspective (1930-1940) perceives conflict as harmful and

something that must be avoided, associating it with violence and destruction. This view sees
conflict as an outcome of poor communication and trust among individuals. Unitarists argue
that eliminating conflict is a responsibility of senior management, implying a top-down
approach (Mullins, 2005). However, this approach can be criticised for oversimplifying
human relationships and undermining individual agency, especially in complex and dynamic
organisations like IBM.
The pluralist perspective (1940-1970) suggests that conflict is a natural and inevitable aspect
of group dynamics. According to this view, the presence of different interests within a group
or organisation can lead to conflict, which, if managed properly, can enhance group
performance (Robbins, 2005). This outlook contrasts sharply with the Unitarist approach by
recognising the inevitability of different viewpoints and the potential benefits of resolving
conflict through open dialogue. In IBM's context, this view acknowledges that conflicts due
to internal pressures may stimulate innovation.

The Interactionist perspective goes even further, suggesting that conflict is not only
inevitable but also desirable to a certain extent. By challenging norms, moderate conflict
fosters creativity and better problem-solving. This theory is applicable to IBM, where
conflicts arising from departmental differences might drive new ideas. However, there is a
tipping point beyond which conflict becomes destructive, highlighting a limitation in defining
a balance (Robbins, 2005).

Radical theorists see conflict as an inherent part of social systems, often triggered by
inequality. In organisations like IBM, such conflicts could arise from disparities in power
structures or resource distribution, demanding systemic change (Edwards, 1986). This radical
approach challenges the underlying structures that may perpetuate inequality. The
drawback is that this view tends to advocate disruptive measures, which may not always be
feasible or desirable.

Another significant perspective is Thomas's (1992) cognition-based theory, which

emphasizes that people's perception of conflict drives their behaviour. This implies that
addressing conflicts requires understanding individual cognitive frames, a point that is
relevant to IBM's internal communication breakdown. Thomas and Kilman's model (1974)
offers practical strategies such as competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and
accommodating, suggesting diverse methods of conflict resolution, depending on the
situation.

IV. Application to the IBM Case Study

Leader in technology and consulting worldwide, International Business Machines

Corporation (IBM) has faced major internal challenges over the years. Fast technical
innovations, shifting market needs, organisational turmoil, and changing employee
expectations all contribute to these problems. Knowing the fundamental reasons of conflict
at IBM requires a review of different conflict theories. This paper explores the nature of
conflict at IBM, notes pertinent conflict theory, evaluates the appropriate conflict resolution
strategy using the Thomas and Kilmann model, and looks at how Contact Social Identity
Theory might affect these dynamics.

Causes of Conflict at IBM

Conflicts at IBM come from a variety of factors, with organisational change, power conflicts,
and opposing stakeholder interests being the primary causes. As IBM navigates the
complexity of technology innovation and market competitiveness, workers often have to
adjust to new roles, procedures, and expectations. This adaptability can result in resistance,
misunderstanding, and competition for resources, leading to conflict. Furthermore, IBM's
global presence promotes cultural diversity, which, although desirable, can lead to
misunderstandings and conflicts in work styles and values. The urge for restructuring to
improve efficiency and profitability increases tensions, as employees deal with job insecurity
and new organisational structure.

Conflict Theories and Their Applicability

Among the five conflict theories—Traditional View, Contemporary View, Interactionist View,
Radical View, and Cognition Shaping Conflict Behavior—the case of IBM aligns most closely
with the Interactionist View. According to the Interactionist approach, conflict may promote
innovation and constructive development, but only to a degree. This approach admits that,
although conflict is common in organisational contexts, its effect is determined by how
people handle and interpret it (Pondy, 1967).

IBM’s internal conflicts, driven by necessary organizational changes and the pursuit of
innovation, reflect the Interactionist View. The company's efforts to stay competitive need
conflict-inducing changes, which may spark creative ideas and progress. However, if not
effectively managed, these arguments may worsen, resulting in reduced morale and
production. This dual nature of conflict—its potential to both drive progress and cause
disruption—captures the essence of IBM’s internal challenges.

Perception-Driven Conflict Behavior

The Cognition Shaping Conflict Behavior theory, particularly Thomas's (1992) assertion that
perceptions drive actions, further elucidates IBM’s internal conflicts. Employee responses to
conflict are greatly influenced by their perceptions of organisational changes, leadership
choices, and their personal responsibilities within the firm. Employees may respond
defensively or resentfully if they regard changes as risks to their job security or professional
progress. When people see changes as chances to learn and be creative, they are more likely
to welcome them with open arms and work together.
In IBM's case, employees' differing perspectives of the company's strategic direction might
lead to a variety of conflict behaviours. This emphasises the importance of effective
communication and inclusive decision-making processes in aligning views and reducing
negative conflict consequences.

Conflict Resolution: The Thomas and Kilmann Model

Working together is the ideal approach IBM can use based on the Thomas and Kilmann
(1974) model to address internal issues and steer clear of conflict. Finding ideas that appeal
to everyone calls for a great deal of confidence and group effort while you are working on
projects. With IBM's internal pressures so complicated, a coordinated approach is needed to
tackle the core causes.

Working together helps IBM to use the special viewpoints and experience of its employees
to produce original ideas. This approach not only solves immediate problems but also
encourages mutual respect and ongoing development. IBM may use open communication
and teamwork to turn conflicts into chances for organisational development and more
employee involvement.

Contact Social Identity Theory in IBM's Context

According to the interaction Social Identity Theory, proper intergroup interaction can reduce
prejudice and promote intergroup relations (Allport, 1954). This hypothesis is relevant in the
context of IBM, which has a varied and worldwide workforce. Effective intergroup
communication can help to resolve cultural differences and establish a more inclusive and
harmonious work environment.

IBM may use this principle by providing cross-cultural training, encouraging collaborative
initiatives among various teams, and creating an inclusive organisational culture. Such
activities can improve employee understanding and respect, lowering the chance of conflict
and improving overall organisational cohesiveness (Tajfel & Turner, 1986).

Critique and Limitations of the Interactionist View

While the Interactionist View offers a useful framework for analysing IBM's internal disputes,
it is not without limits. One critique is that it may overemphasise the beneficial features of
conflict, thereby underestimating the negative consequences if confrontations last longer or
grow beyond tolerable levels (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). In IBM's situation, prolonged
disagreements without efficient resolution methods may result in employee fatigue, lower
work satisfaction, and attrition, negating the advantages predicted by the Interactionist
approach.

Moreover, the Interactionist View may not fully account for power dynamics and structural
inequalities within the organization, aspects that the Radical View highlights. Power
imbalances can skew conflict outcomes, favoring certain groups over others and
perpetuating systemic issues (Clegg, 1989). Therefore, while the Interactionist View is
applicable, it should be complemented with considerations of organizational power
structures to provide a more comprehensive analysis.

Integrating Theory with Real-World Applications

Applying the Interactionist View to IBM’s internal conflicts reveals both theoretical and
practical insights. For instance, IBM’s transition to cloud computing and artificial intelligence
necessitated significant organizational changes, creating conflict among employees
accustomed to legacy systems. By adopting a collaborative conflict resolution strategy, IBM
could engage employees in the transition process, encouraging them to contribute ideas and
solutions. This not only mitigates resistance but also leverages employees’ creativity to drive
successful implementation of new technologies.

However, the practical application of these theories also highlights the need for continuous
evaluation and adaptation. IBM must remain vigilant in monitoring the effectiveness of its
conflict resolution strategies and be prepared to address emerging conflicts proactively. This
dynamic approach ensures that conflict remains a catalyst for positive change rather than a
source of persistent disruption.

V. Conclusion

In conclusion, understanding the dynamics of conflict and group polarisation at IBM through
Social Identity Theory provides a nuanced perspective on internal pressures within the
organisation. Conflict, while often seen as negative, can serve as a catalyst for change and
innovation if managed properly. IBM's challenges reflect both the pluralist and radical views
of conflict, necessitating a dual approach of collaboration and systemic change. Thomas and
Kilman's (1974) model suggests practical conflict resolution methods, which, combined with
insights from SIT, can help reduce group polarisation and foster unity. While no single theory
perfectly explains the complex dynamics within IBM, integrating these perspectives provides
a richer understanding and a clearer pathway for conflict resolution.
VI. Reflection

This self-assessment will use Belbin's Group Role Assessment framework to evaluate the
collaboration process. Assessing team dynamics, including responsibilities, shifts, and
connections, is central to Belbin's paradigm (Belbin, 2018). On the other hand, we discuss
varied teams and team management in our article. The significance of variety in teams and
the ways in which age, gender, education level, and cultural variations impact team
performance are the main topics of the article "Perspectives on Diversity in Teamwork: Do
Differences Matter?" (Nanik Suryani et al., 2019). There were five of us doing the
presentation, and we all joined in to find the document fast. The group's discussion and
assignment, however, was ruined by a breakdown in communication and connection
amongst members. The problem of inconsistency in work style was the main cause of an
argument between two group members. There were less chances to finish the group work
because of the pressure and arguments this produced among the other members. Our group
needed a whole day to come to a final agreement and get together in order to begin
working as a result of this. So, in my role as group leader, I aimed to improve the assignment
by restoring communication amongst the members. More specifically, the two primary
members that started the conflict shared responsibilities fairly and maintained consistent
opinions with one another, which had a positive impact on the other members. Scheel et al.
(2019) state that group leaders are responsible for properly organising the work and
effectively assigning assignments to each member. On the flip side, when everyone pulls in
and gets their work done on time, the group has a better understanding of each member's
personality and unites stronger. This respects all members' efforts, and it demonstrates the
group's strength when everyone sticks together and respects each other's perspectives,
which is critical for solving conflicts. Group projects are more successful when team
members listen to and value one another's perspectives (McEwan et al., 2017). Also, as the
group leader, I think it's necessary for everyone to mentally prepare for the presentation by
reading more articles associated to the topic they've selected. This will help them answer
the lecturer's questions more effectively. Both the presentation's evaluation and the
presenter's ability to prepare for future projects will benefit from this.

VII. References

1. Edwards, R. (1986). Conflict and Control in Corporate America. London: Basil

Blackwell.

2. Mullins, L. J. (2005). Management and Organisational Behaviour. 7th ed. Harlow:

Financial Times Prentice Hall.
3. Robbins, S. P. (2005). Organisational Behaviour. 11th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

4. Study Corgi. (2023). IBM Company's Internal Pressures and Challenges. Available at:
https://studycorgi.com/ibm-companys-internal-pressures-and-challenges/ [Accessed
22 November 2024].

5. Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1979). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In:

Austin, W.G. & Worchel, S. (eds). The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations.
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

6. Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and Negotiation Processes in Organisations. In:

Dunnette, M. D. & Hough, L. M. (eds). Handbook of Industrial and Organisational
Psychology, Vol. 3. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

7. Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument.

Mountain View, CA: Xicom Incorporated.

8. Allport, G. W. (1954). The Nature of Prejudice. Addison-Wesley.

9. Clegg, S. R. (1989). Frameworks of Power . Oxford University Press.

10. De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team
performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88 (4), 741-749.

11. Pondy, L. R. (1967). Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 12 (2), 296-320.

12. Nanik Suryani, Ade Rustiana, Muhsin, M. and Wisudani Rahmaningtyas (2019).
Diversity perspectives in teamwork. International Journal of Research in Business and
Social Science (2147-4478), [online] 9(1), pp.24–30.
doi:https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v9i1.607.
13. Belbin (2018). Belbin. [online] Belbin.com. Available at:
https://www.belbin.com/about/belbin-team-roles [Accessed 5 Dec. 2024].

14. ‌Scheel, T.E., Otto, K., Vahle-Hinz, T., Holstad, T. and Rigotti, T. (2019). A Fair Share of
Work: Is Fairness of Task Distribution a Mediator Between Transformational
Leadership and Follower Emotional Exhaustion? Frontiers in Psychology, [online] 10.
doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02690.

15. McEwan, D., Ruissen, G.R., Eys, M.A., Zumbo, B.D. and Beauchamp, M.R. (2017). The
Effectiveness of Teamwork Training on Teamwork Behaviors and Team Performance:
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Interventions. PLOS ONE,
[online] 12(1), p.e0169604. doi:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169604.