Group conflict, or hostilities between different groups, is a pervasive feature common to all levels of [1] social organization (e.g.

, sports teams, ethnic groups, nations, religions, gangs). Although group conflict is one of the most complex phenomena studied by social scientists, the history of the human race evidences a series of group-level conflicts that have gained notoriety over the years. For example, from 1820 to 1945, it has been estimated that at least 59 million persons were killed during conflicts between [2] groups of one type or another. Literature suggests that the number of fatalities nearly doubled between [3] the years 1914 to 1964 as a result of further group conflict. Group conflict can be separated into two sub-categories of conflict: inter-group conflict (in which distinct groups of individuals are at odds with one another), and intra-group conflict (in which select individuals a part of the same group clash with one another). Although both forms of conflict have the ability to spiral upward in severity, it has been noted that conflict present at the group level (i.e., inter-group rivalries) is generally considered to be more powerful than conflict present at an individual level a phenomenon [4] known as the discontinuity effect.

Intergroup conflict Sources of intergroup conflict Social psychology, specifically the discontinuity effect of inter-group conflict, suggests that 'groups are generally even more competitive and aggressive than individuals'.[5] Two main sources of intergroup conflict have been identified: 'competition for valued material resources, according to realistic conflict theory, or for social rewards like respect and esteem...as described by relative deprivation theory '[6] Group conflict can easily enter an escalating spiral of hostility marked by polarisation of views into black and white, with comparable actions viewed in diametrically opposite ways: 'we offer concessions, but they attempt to lure us with ploys. We are steadfast and courageous, but they are unyielding, irrational, stubborn, and blinded by ideology'.[7] It is widely believed that intergroup and intragroup hostility are (at least to some degree) inversely related: that 'there is, unhappily, an inverse relationship between external wars and internal strife'.[8] Thus 'in politics, for example, everyone can get an extraordinarily comforting feeling of mutual support from their group by focussing on an enemy'.[9] Freud described a similarly quasi-benign version, whereby 'it is precisely communities with adjoining territories, and related to each other in other ways as well, who are engaged in constant feuds and ridiculing each other - like the Spaniards and Portuguese, for instance...[as] a convenient and relatively harmless satisfaction of the inclination to aggression, by means of which cohesion between the members of the community is made easier'.[10] The harder version of the theory would suggest that 'pent-up sub-group aggression, if it cannot combine with the pent-up aggression of other sub-groups to attack a common, foreign enemy, will vent itself in the form of riots, persecutions and rebellions'.[11] Belief domains that contribute to intergroup conflict

Superiority: At an individual level, this belief revolves around a person's enduring notion that he or she is better than other people in important ways. At the group level, this translates into the belief that one's own group has a superior cultural heritage (e.g., history, values, language, tradition). The development of Hitler's ideology of Aryans as a 'master' race is one example of this belief.[12] Injustice: At the individual level, this belief revolves around perceived mistreatment by others, and/or the world at large. At the group level, this translates to a worldview that the ingroup has significant and legitimate grievances against an outgroup. This belief is seen as contributing greatly to the impetus for war over the past two centuries, as the majority of wars in that time period have centered on issues of justice rather than security or power (Welch, 1993). Vulnerability: At the individual level, vulnerability refers to a person's belief that he or she is living perpetually in harm's way. At the group level, this belief is manifested in the form of fears about the future. Chirot (2001) notes that the genocides of Armenia, Germany, Cambodia, and Rwanda shared a common belief that "if they did not destroy their real or imagined enemies first, they would themselves be annihilated" (p. 10). Distrust: At the individual level, this belief focuses on the presumed intent of others to cause harm and/or exhibit hostility. The notion of trust is often seen by psychologists as the first challenge of psychsocial development.[13] At the group level, this worldview focuses specifically on the perspective that outgroups and dishonest and untrustworthy. In more extreme manifestations, this belief is similar to collective paranoia, which is defined as collectively held beliefs, either false or exaggerated that cluster around ideas of being harmed, harassed, threatened, or otherwise disaparaged by malevolent outgroups[14] Helplessness: At the individual level, helplessness focuses on the belief that even carefully planned and executed actions will fail to produce the desired outcome. When taken at the group level, it translates into a collective mindset of powerlessness and dependency. Helplessness, when it exists as a shared belief within a group, serves as a constraint on organized political movement, as those who participate in a social movement must see themselves as capable of righting the wrongs they perceive.[15] Intragroup conflict (infighting)

Sources of intragroup conflict Task Conflict: Task conflict arises when intra-group members disagree on issues that are relevant to meeting shared goals. Effective groups and organizations make use of these conflicts to make plans, foster creativity, solve problems and resolve misunderstandings. However, people who disagree with the group do so at their own peril, even when their position is reasonable. Dissenters often receive a high level of animosity from other group members, are less well-liked, assigned low-status tasks, and are sometimes ostracized.

Process Conflict: Process conflict refers to disagreement over the methods or procedures the group should use in order to complete its tasks. It occurs when strategies, policies, and procedures clash. For example, some group members may suggest discussing conflicting ideas, while other group members prefer to put conflicting ideas to a vote. In essence, during procedural conflicts, group members disagree on how to disagree. Situations of procedural conflict can be preemptively minimized by adopting formal rules (e.g., bylaws, constitutions, statements of policies) that specify goals, decisional processes, and responsibilities.[16] Personal Conflict: Personal conflicts, also known as affective conflicts, personality conflicts, emotional conflicts, or relationship conflicts, are conflicts that occur when group members dislike one another. Personal dislikes do not always result in conflict, but people often mention their negative feelings toward another group member when complaining about their groups. Also, there is evidence that a large proportion of group conflicts are indeed personal conflicts. One study of high level corporate executives revealed that 40% of disputes were due to "individual enmity between the principals without specific reference to other issues" (Morrill, 1995, p. 69). Criticism, when one person evaluates another, or his/her work negatively, is one common cause of personal conflict.[17] Political Opinion is divided about the merits of infighting in political movements. Whereas 'the majority of scholars view infighting as sapping political potency', others argue that 'infighting's value lay in its potential to generate strategic possibilities and promote...accountability', and that (at least with respect to identity politics) 'infighting is a key site for culture...concretizes cultural conversations'.[18] Among extremists 'threatened by the existence of anyone else, unless that other person's views seem identical to his own', however, infighting and group fissions become the destructive norm: 'they're all splitting up so fast...they seem to attack each other more than they attack their "real enemies" on the other side of the political spectrum'.[19] Small group Within small goups, the same dichotomy exists. Granted that both constructive and destructive conflict occurs in most small groups, it is very important to accentuate the constructive conflict and minimize the destructive conflict. Conflict is bound to happen, but if used constructively need not be a bad thing. Using constructive conflict within small groups by bringing up problems and alternative solutions (while still valuing others) allows the group to work forward.[20] While 'conflict may involve interpersonal as well as task issues', keeping a window open for dissent can prove very advantageous, as where a company 'reaped big benefits because it did not simply try to suppress conflict, but allowed minority influence to prevail'.[21] On the other hand, there is evidence that an organizational culture of disrespect unproductively 'generates a morass of status games and infighting..."it's made people turn against each other"' - so that

for example 'sexual harassment becomes a chronic accompaniment to broader patterns of infighting'.[22

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/examples-4-types-conflict-1207.html

CFR MEDIATION ARTICLES Workplace Conflict Case Study: The Navy & Capt. Owen Honors January 12th, 2011 - Erin Johnston On January 1, 2011 the Virginian-Pilot greeted the new year with a story of videos produced, written, and featuring Naval Captain Owen Honors, at the time commander of the USS Enterprise. Four days later, Capt. Honors, 49, had been relieved of his command and essentially put on desk duty pending further investigation. The cited reason: profound lack of good judgment and professionalism.

The Virginian-Pilot article reports that anonymous men and women, who served on the ship at the time the videos, were created and aired, complained immediately to no avail. In fact, Capt. Honors states in the introduction of his last video: Over the years Ive gotten several complaints about inappropriate material during these videos, never to me personally but, gutlessly, through other channels. He then suggests: This evening, all of you bleeding hearts why dont just go ahead and hug yourself for the next 20 minutes or so, because theres a really good chance youre gonna be offended.

Although it appears that Capt. Honors supervisors learned of the videos at the time, Capt. Honors was not reprimanded other than told to cease production of them and was ultimately promoted to commander of the USS Enterprise in May of 2010. It is important to note that it is not public knowledge as to who knew about the videos prior to the Virginian-Pilot article.

As a result of the videos surfacing, the Navy stripped Capt. Honors of command of the USS Enterprise. However, the firing of Capt. Owen Honors has not quieted the public debate over the videos or the Naval response.

_____________________________

To do nothing is to condone. By not acting at the time, the Navy essentially condoned the videos and Capt. Honors making of them. Perhaps the current Navy leaderships response is one impacted by public relations; perhaps the existence of the videos had been the secret of a select few who protected Capt. Honors from being penalized in the past. Whatever the impetus for the action taken, at this point the Navy has made a public decision not to condone the videos or the behavior.

The public debate, however, exemplifies what so often happens in a conflict: each side demands that the other side admit defeat and agree that the other side is right. Regardless of an individuals perspective one of support for Capt. Honors, one of agreement with the Navys decision, seeing nothing objectionable in the videos, or finding the videos offensive the discourse is one of proving the other side wrong. Once this happens the conflict grows and the discussion becomes polarized each side refusing to consider how the other opinion is not wrong, just different.

_____________________________

A cursory review of the Support Capt. Owen Honors Facebook page gives a glimpse into tendency to evidence rightness. Supporters of Capt. Honors list their credentials served in the Navy, know him personally, a gay sailor that servedand was never once offended, etc. It is as if the discussion is one of being offended or offensive is objective: Since not everyone is offended, no one can be or Since I was offended, everyone must see the videos as offensive. However finding something offensive is to experience something as causing displeasure or resentment it is anything but objective. There is no right or wrong in defining something personally offensive. The only objective measure is: does something violate established formal policy.

In addition, finding the videos to be offensive and inappropriate does not translate in defining Capt. Honors as a bad person or erase the successes and good things he has accomplished in his career. Similarly, his career successes and positive character traits do not excuse inappropriate actions he may commit.

What is at issue at present is not whether Capt. Honors is a good and decent person or naval officer (Im sure he is), it is a workplace conflict issue and specifically and issue of Navy leadership just as it would be in any workplace.

See Also: Reducing the Cost of Conflict In the Workplace Whitepaper

The military is not known for being an entity with a culture of proactive conflict resolution. Perhaps such a concept seems antithetical to the mission. However, had the Navy addressed the inappropriate nature of the videos at the time, specially addressing the role of Capt. Honors, it is far more likely that he would be looking at a continued successful career in the Navy even commanding the ship. Doing nothing at

the time to resolve the workplace conflict resulted in this being a public debate requiring public decisive response versus a simple internal Navy workplace issue.

A culture of proactive conflict resolution within the workplace of the Navy, would have allowed Navy leadership to effectively respond to any concerns raised. The Navy would have been able to respond to the initial news story with an acknowledgment that the videos were inappropriate, detail leadership response to the violation of policy, and clarify how, despite this lapse in judgment, Capt. Honors was still seen as the correct choice for command of the USS Enterprise.

Unfortunately, Capt. Honors either did not realize how inappropriate these videos were and how they could damage his career, or did not care. His superiors and Navy leadership chose not to actively respond to complaints about the videos at the time, and either did not know about the content of the videos, did not see them as inappropriate, or just stuck their collective heads in the sand and hoped that it would all go away.

Whatever the rationale for not addressing the videos at the time, the decision not to do so exacerbated the conflict, and removed the Navys ability to protect the career of Capt. Honors as well as to use the inappropriate videos as a teaching point that strengthens the Navy rather than divides. Finally, the lack of proactive conflict response by Navy leadership has resulted in the country being deprived of a talented military leader.