„‚ CONDITIONS THAT HINDER EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION

Conflict-Opposition
Conflict, the first point on the opposition-cooperation continuum, is an ever present
process among people. It may be solved on one level, as when there is agreement on
ends, and break out anew concerning means. It may be partial or total (Davis, 1949),
implying that there is no level of agreement at all and that, consequently, the only
method of relating is to injure, damage, or destroy the other (or, in a balance-of-power
situation, engage in a stalemate until such time as the power equalization is temporarily
upset and one of the opponents reenters the field in an effort to try again to destroy the
opponent). Conflict thus can exist at the interpersonal, intergroup, interorganizational,
intraorganizational, and other levels of social relations.
One of the most remarkable aspects of conflict is that contradiction and conflict not
only precede unity but are operative at every moment of its existence (Simmel, 1955).
The difference between the extreme ends of the opposition-cooperation continuum is,
therefore, in one sense razor thin.
Questioning this notion of conflict, Coser (1956) asked, “If conflict unites, what
tears apart?” He answered his question by proposing some conditions leading to
destructive conflict and other conditions leading to unifying conflict. He suggested that
conflict is disruptive in groups with intimate relations, diffuse functions, high
emotionality, unchanging status structures, assigned status, and some legitimized
inequities in rewards. In such groups, conflict is especially disruptive if it concerns the
norms in the culture and the reasons for the group’s existence. On the other hand,
conflict is unifying in groups with distant and loose relations, specific functions, low
emotionality, flexible status structures, achieved status, and no legitimized inequities.
Furthermore, Coser says that a conflict is more likely to be unifying if it concerns
peripheral norms or the means of achieving the agreed-on goals of the group.
In relating this line of thinking to OD, Glidewell (1975) has delineated how conflict
fulfills various psychosocial functions in T-group interventions. Specifically, most T-
groups after a few meetings can be characterized as showing high emotionality, close
relations, and diffuse functions. At this time, there is danger of disruption from conflict.
Yet T-groups also show achieved status in a flexible structure and do not consider
inequities in individual outcomes to be legitimate. This second set of characteristics
could lead to unification through conflict. Also, the danger of serious disruption from
conflict is mitigated by the fact that the intimacy has a peculiar character, which, while
strongly felt, does not produce the long-term binding commitments for support that are
common to more permanent groups, such as the family. Accordingly, using Coser’s
theory, we might predict that overt conflict would, in spite of the high emotionality and
diffuse functions, contribute to and be a part of the development of unity in the pattern
of resource exchanges and the feeling of solidarity in the members of a T-group.
Seeing unity as an outcome of conflict in a T-group can be understood if we
consider, for example, the instrumental outputs of a conflict over power. Each aspirant
to power in the T-group finds himself or herself challenged to defend and strengthen the
validity of his or her point of view. Accordingly, the person cultivates and tries to
376 ❘❚
The Pfeiffer Library Volume 6, 2nd Edition. Copyright ©1998 Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer