Analyse conflict and bullying at work
Distinguish four levels and organisational causes of conflict, select a Thomas–Kilmann response for the situation, and recognise how repeated mistreatment can escalate into workplace bullying.
Original StudyForA teaching mapped to Cambridge Psychology 9990 Organisational Psychology section 4.3, 2028–2030 Version 1. Examples are not Cambridge materials or mark schemes. Models and studies are bounded by their evidence
Before you begin
- This lesson covers section 4.3.3 of the 2028–2030 syllabus. The bullying material explains a research framework, not legal advice or a diagnosis. Protect people and use local safeguarding and reporting procedures when a real pattern of mistreatment is involved.
Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.
Quick readiness check
Two departments disagree about a shared budget. What level of conflict is this?
What you will learn
- Intra-individual, inter-individual, intra-group and inter-group conflict
- Organisational and interpersonal causes of workplace conflict
- Thomas–Kilmann’s five conflict-handling modes
- Workplace bullying types, possible phases and causes; Einarsen (1999)
Conflict can occur within or between people and groups
Intra-individual conflict occurs within one person, for example competing role demands or values. Inter-individual conflict is between people. Intra-group conflict occurs among members of one group, while inter-group conflict is between groups such as departments. An event can involve several levels at once, so identify who is in conflict and where the tension sits.
Organisational causes can include scarce resources, incompatible targets, interdependent tasks, unclear roles, unequal power or poorly communicated change. Interpersonal causes can include different interpretations, values, priorities or communication styles. These are possible contributors, not proof that one person is to blame; structure and relationships can interact.
Thomas–Kilmann describes five responses on two dimensions
The model places responses on assertiveness (pursuing one’s own concerns) and cooperativeness (addressing the other party’s concerns). Competing is more assertive and less cooperative; accommodating is less assertive and more cooperative; avoiding is low on both; collaborating is high on both; compromising is intermediate on both.
A response is a choice for a situation, not a permanent personality type. Collaborating may suit an important issue where time and trust allow joint problem-solving; competing may be justified for an urgent safety rule; avoiding can provide space when discussion is unsafe or unproductive; accommodating may preserve a relationship when the issue matters more to the other person; compromising can reach a workable temporary agreement. Each has costs, and a mode should not be used to excuse coercion or harm.
Workplace bullying is repeated mistreatment with a power imbalance
Einarsen (1999) describes bullying as systematic aggressive behaviour directed at a worker over a long period when the target finds it difficult to defend themselves or escape. Examples can include repeated humiliation, social exclusion, attacks on work, withholding information or unreasonable tasks. One disagreement or isolated rude act does not by itself meet this research definition, although it may still need attention.
Einarsen distinguishes dispute-related bullying, which can emerge as an interpersonal conflict escalates, from predatory bullying, where a person is targeted without an earlier dispute. The distinction warns against treating every case as a symmetrical disagreement: power and the pattern of behaviour matter.
A possible progression is a disagreement or targeting, repeated negative acts, growing power imbalance and isolation, and increasing difficulty for the target to respond or leave. This is a teaching description of a possible process, not a universal set of fixed phases or a diagnostic/legal test. Workplace climate, management response, role ambiguity and power structures may contribute; individual explanations alone are too narrow.
A responsible response documents patterns, protects the affected person, follows the organisation’s safeguarding and reporting process, and seeks appropriate specialist support. A conflict-style model is for analysing ordinary disagreements; it should not be used to ask a targeted worker to negotiate alone with a bully or to diagnose a legal case.
Sources for this lesson
- Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 syllabus, 2028–2030
- Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 Reference List, 2028–2030
- Thomas and Kilmann (1977), Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict-handling behavior
- Einarsen (1999), The nature and causes of bullying at work
Pause and explain
A manager and employee disagree once about a deadline. What is the most careful conclusion?
Worked example
Two departments dispute access to a shared room. A staff member in one department is then repeatedly excluded from meetings and given impossible deadlines by a manager. Identify the conflict levels, choose an initial response to the resource dispute and explain why the repeated treatment needs separate handling.
Show the worked solution
- The room dispute is between groups; the manager–staff pattern is interpersonal and involves a power difference.
- Choose a Thomas–Kilmann mode based on the importance, urgency, relationship and safety of the resource decision.
- Assess the repeated acts, duration and ability to defend or escape rather than assuming it is a balanced disagreement.
Answer The room dispute is inter-group conflict and could be addressed collaboratively by agreeing transparent booking criteria. The manager’s repeated exclusion and impossible deadlines are an interpersonal pattern with a power imbalance. They warrant documentation and the organisation’s protective reporting process; a collaborative negotiation alone may be unsafe and would conflate conflict with potential bullying.
Try a topic test
Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.
Test this topic →From guided practice to a new situation
Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.
A new policy gives two departments incompatible targets and both depend on the same limited staff. Identify two organisational causes and the conflict level.
Give me a hint
Look for a structural source of tension and identify which parties disagree.
Compare my reasoning
- Incompatible targets can create competition between departments.
- Shared, scarce staff create resource conflict and task interdependence.
- Because departments are in conflict, the level is inter-group.
The causes include incompatible goals and competition for scarce, interdependent resources. The conflict is inter-group because it occurs between departments. A manager could review the targets and allocation rules rather than blaming individual employees for the structural problem.
Look for these in your work
- Two structural causes named
- Correct conflict level
- Cause distinguished from individual blame
An urgent equipment fault requires an immediate temporary stop-work decision, while staff and managers will later redesign the process. Choose a Thomas–Kilmann mode for each stage and justify the change.
Give me a hint
Consider urgency and the need for shared knowledge separately.
Compare my reasoning
- For the immediate safety stop, competing/directive action can be justified because delay risks harm and a temporary rule is needed.
- For the later redesign, collaborating can bring together staff knowledge and management responsibility when time allows.
- The mode changes with the task; neither label is a permanent description of the manager or staff.
A directive, competing response may be appropriate to stop immediate danger. Collaborating is better suited to the later design discussion because several perspectives can improve a sustainable process. The initial safety action should be explained and reviewed, not used to silence later input.
Look for these in your work
- Mode linked to urgency
- Different later mode justified
- Response not treated as a personality label
A colleague reports repeated humiliation, exclusion and impossible work assignments from a supervisor. Apply Einarsen’s framework carefully and outline a safe next step.
Give me a hint
Check pattern, duration, power and ability to defend or leave; do not diagnose from one event.
Compare my reasoning
- Repeated negative acts over time and a supervisor’s power may fit features of the research definition, especially if the worker finds it difficult to defend themselves or escape.
- Do not assume whether it is dispute-related or predatory without evidence about its development and prior conflict.
- Document the pattern, protect the person from further exposure and follow the organisation’s reporting or safeguarding process with appropriate support.
The report warrants serious attention because it describes repeated negative acts and a power imbalance. More context is needed to describe the type; an isolated account should not be turned into a diagnosis. The priority is the person’s safety, documentation and a suitable reporting route rather than requiring them to negotiate alone.
Look for these in your work
- Definition applied with limits
- Type not assumed
- Protective process proposed
Common mistakes
- Confusing intra-group with inter-group conflict
- Assuming one Thomas–Kilmann mode is always best or that a response labels a person permanently
- Treating bullying as a mutual disagreement without examining duration, power and ability to defend or escape
- Claiming every bullying case follows the same phases or has a single cause
- Applying a conflict-resolution exercise in a way that exposes a targeted person to further harm
What can you explain now?
What distinguishes dispute-related from predatory workplace bullying in Einarsen’s account?
Compare with the explanation
Dispute-related bullying develops from an escalating interpersonal conflict; predatory bullying targets someone without an earlier dispute.
In both cases, examine repeated behaviour, power and the target’s difficulty defending themselves or escaping.
After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.
Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.
Make it stick
Classify conflict by level, map each Thomas–Kilmann mode to assertiveness/cooperativeness, and distinguish a dispute from repeated bullying using pattern, power and the target’s ability to defend or escape.
If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.