Institutionalizing Sustainable Conflict Management in Organizations: Leaders, Networks, and Sensemaking

• Date: 01 December 2014
• Published date: 01 December 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21106

C R Q, vol. 32, no. 2, Winter 2014 155

© 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and the Association for Confl ict Resolution

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/crq.21106

Institutionalizing Sustainable Con ict

Managementin Organizations: Leaders,

Networks,and Sensemaking

Leigh Anne Liu

Lin Inlow

Jing Betty Feng

We investigated the process and outcomes of a systematic approach

to institutionalize confl ict management in a large public nonprofi t

organization. Using longitudinal and multilevel fi eld data, we were

able to identify the eff ects of the institutionalization process from mul-

tiple perspectives. We hypothesized and found the combination of three

critical social factors—leadership, construction and maintenance of

social networks, and the sensemaking processes—in the diff usion of both

codifi ed and tacit knowledge about confl ict management. Also, social

construction supplements structural factors in the institutionalization

process of confl ict management practices.

The costs of ill-managed confl icts in organizations are often very high.

Systematic and institutionalized confl ict management has become a

natural pursuit of top-level managers in organizations.  e questions that

challenge social scientists and practitioners alike are: “How can we insti-

tutionalize eff ective ways of dealing with confl ict throughout the entire

organization?” and “What will make eff ective confl ict management in

an organization sustainable?” Studies on the institutionalization of other

organizational practices have developed answers to these questions in

organizational structures and practices (Edelman 1990, 1992; Sutton,

Dobbin, Meyer, and Scott 1994), cultural framing (Hirsch 1986), and

change in meaning systems (Kelly and Dobbin 1998), as well as in an inter-

play of practices, actors, and meanings (Fligstein 1990; Zilber 2002).

156 LIU, INLOW, FENG

C R Q • DOI: 10.1002/crq

This article extends the study of the institutionalization process to

the area of conflict management and presents a case demonstrating that

the institutionalization process is socially constructed by the combined

influence of multilevel actors, social networks, and metaphors. We use

a longitudinal and multilevel case study to support our arguments. Our

case encompasses two approaches to the design and implementation of

comprehensive conflict management programs in a large, complex public

nonprofit organization over twelve years: a mandated policy from senior

leadership (a top-down approach) and organizational freedom in design

and implementation of policy (a bottom-up approach). Based on data

from four waves of surveys and interviews of organization members, as

well as archival data from publicly available records and news media, we

consider the combined influence of leaders and conflict managers as lead-

ers, the conflict managers’ social networks, and the metaphors they use.

First, we review the literature on institutionalization of conflict manage-

ment and propose the social construction process. We then present the

case study. We conclude by discussing how organizations and individuals

can increase or decrease the degree of institutionalization of conflict man-

agement and thereby influence the efficiency and sustainability of dealing

with conflicts.

Institutionalization of Con ict Management

Confl ict is the state of discord caused by actual or perceptual opposition of

needs, values, beliefs, and interests (Pruitt and Rubin 1986). It is an omni-

present trait of human societies since it is almost impossible to fi nd two

parties with entirely overlapping interests (Schelling 1960), and confl ict

coexists with the order and coordination in organizational life (Katz and

Kahn 1978). Compared to other practices in organizational life, confl ict

management in organizations consists of four distinct characteristics: (1) a

low level of validity resulting from confl ict and multiplicity of individual

roles; (2) complexity due to deep involvement and long-term relationships

among organizational members; (3) high stakes due to consequential and

long-lasting eff ects of confl ict management on individuals, groups, and

organizations; and (4) knowledge that is more tacit than explicit and there-

fore more diffi cult for knowledge transfer.  ere are many ways of manag-

ing confl icts, ranging from adversarial approaches such as gossip, feuding,

bullying, terrorism, and warfare, to constructive approaches such as media-

tion, arbitration, and negotiation.