This research paper examines the nature of structural conflict within organizations and discusses methods of managing such conflict. Structural or institutional conflict between different groups in complex organizations is not uncommon. The thesis of this paper is that such conflicts are not necessarily a sign of organizational ill-health but they can have dysfunctional effects if they are suppressed rather than managed effectively, as the conflict over the Corvair at General Motors illustrates. The keys to effective management of such conflicts in the short-run are an understanding of the organizational dynamics of each inter-group conflict and the use of modern conflict resolution techniques to deal with them. In the longer run, such conflicts can only be kept within tolerable limits if the top management of organizations articulate a clear vision of overall objectives and take measures to instill in the work force at all levels a strong sense of identification with, and loyalty to, the organization as a whole, a process which is difficult to maintain under modern conditions of rapid technological change and economic insecurity.
Structural conflict, conflict between groups or units in organizations, can be horizontal, between line and staff, different line organizations such as sales and production or it may be vertical, labor versus management or central headquarters versus field organizations. The origins of such conflicts include competition for scarce resources, conflicting group goals, such as, in the case of sales, long-term revenues and customer satisfaction and, in the case of production, standardized high volume, low cost manufacturing runs. According to Blake, Shepard & Mouton (1964), "large organizations are comprised of many small groups. Because of [their] size, complexity and nature, group comparisons, particularly of an invidious character, are bound to occur . . . differences, rather than similarities and commonn...