Engineering Conflict for Organizational Innovation through Social Capital and Relational Structure in Hybrid School Governance for Advancing SDG 16
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63230/jocsis.3.4.327Keywords:
Conflict Engineering, Hybrid School Governance, Organizational Innovation, Relational Structure, Social CapitalAbstract
Objective: To examine conflict engineering as a proactive organizational practice that deliberately structures naturally occurring tensions into a repeatable cycle of organizational learning and innovation, rather than merely resolving conflict after it emerges. Method: Using a qualitative multi-site case study, the research investigates governance practices in two hybrid schools combining academic and residential functions in Lamongan Regency, Indonesia. Data were collected from 34 purposively selected informants through semi-structured interviews, participant observation, and document analysis, and were analyzed using within-case coding and cross-case synthesis. Result: The findings reveal that conflict engineering operates through six interconnected stages: detection, diagnosis, intervention design, facilitation, evaluation, and learning. Social capital, manifested in trust, shared norms, and informal networks, enables organizational actors to channel tension into constructive competition and collaborative problem-solving. The findings further identify relational structure as a provisional boundary condition: horizontal conflicts among peers were more amenable to engineering and were associated with organizational innovation, whereas vertical conflicts tended to encourage avoidance under conditions of high power distance. Novelty: The study’s novelty lies in conceptualizing conflict engineering as a cyclical governance mechanism enabled by social capital and conditioned by relational structure, while repositioning the classical POAC functions (Planning, Organizing, Actuating, and Controlling) as its operational mechanism rather than its theoretical foundation. The study thus extends conflict management from reactive resolution toward deliberate organizational learning and innovation.
References
Alanazy, W., & Alzamil, S. K. S. (2026). The impact of emotional intelligence on conflict management styles used by Saudi nurse managers a cross-sectional, correlational study. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1630530. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1630530
Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive effects of conflict: A cognitive perspective. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01390436
Bodin, Ö., & Crona, B. I. (2009). The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference? Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 366–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.05.002
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120. https://doi.org/10.1086/228943
Coser, L. A. (1967). Continuity in the study of social conflict. Free Press.
de Dreu, C. K. W., & Gelfand, M. J. (2008). Conflict in the workplace: Sources, functions, and dynamics across multiple levels of analysis. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
de Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
DeChurch, L. A., Mesmer-Magnus, J. R., & Doty, D. (2013). Moving beyond relationship and task conflict: Toward a process-state perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(4), 559–578. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032896
Edmondson, A. C., & Bransby, D. P. (2023). Psychological safety comes of age: Observed themes in an established literature. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10, 55–78. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-120920-055217
Elgoibar, P., Munduate, L., & Euwema, M. C. (2021). Editorial: Conflict management and trust relationships in organizations. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 764332. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.764332
Garipağaoğlu, B. Ç. (2025). Achieving organisational agility in K-12 schools through school mindfulness: The role of school social capital as a mediator. European Journal of Education. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.70170
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. https://doi.org/10.1086/225469
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Huang, X., Liu, Y., & Zhao, J. (2024). The impacts of work-family conflict and corporate innovation on organizational performance. SAGE Open, 14(6), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241247626
Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530–557. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393737
Kim, K. Y., Atwater, L., Peterson, R. S., Clark, K. D., Ugwuanyi, I., & Baik, K. (2026). A contingency model of top management teams’ task conflict and organizational-level outcomes: Evidence for a curvilinear relationship. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 33(1), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/15480518251362568
Kolleck, N., Schuster, J., Hartmann, U., & Gräsel, C. (2021). Teachers’ professional collaboration and trust relationships: An inferential social network analysis of teacher teams. Research in Education, 111(1), 89–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/00345237211031585
Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2000.3707712
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
Liu, S., Wei, H., Xin, H., & Cheng, P. (2022). Task conflict and team creativity: The role of team mindfulness, experiencing tensions, and information elaboration. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 39(4), 1367–1398. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-021-09771-z
Mintzberg, H. (1994). The rise and fall of strategic planning. Free Press.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533225
Niedlich, S., Kallfaß, A., Pohle, S., & Bormann, I. (2021). A comprehensive view of trust in education: Conclusions from a systematic literature review. Review of Education, 9(1), 124–158. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3239
OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 results (Volume I): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. OECD Publishing.
O’Neill, T. A., Allen, N. J., & Hastings, S. E. (2013). Examining the “pros” and “cons” of team conflict: A team-level meta-analysis of task, relationship, and process conflict. Human Performance, 26(3), 236–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2013.795573
O’Reilly, C. A., III, & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0025
Pondy, L. R. (1967). Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(2), 296–320. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391553
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
Rahim, M. A. (2010). Managing conflict in organizations (4th ed.). Transaction Publishers.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday.
Sholeh, M., & Trihantoyo, S. (2019). Evaluating teachers’ assignment implementation as school principals preparation program in Indonesia. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Education Innovation (ICEI 2019), 134–137. Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/icei-19.2019.36
Simmel, G. (1955). Conflict and the web of group affiliations. Free Press.
Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations (4th ed.). Free Press. (Original work published 1947)
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0223
Tantawi, R., Ishak, I. M., Noviana, N. A. H., Botutihe, M., & Hidayat, F. (2026). Understanding Indonesian organizational culture through Hofstede Insights: A comparison with Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. Jambura Science of Management, 8(1), 42–61. https://doi.org/10.37479/jsm.v8i1.34101
Terry, G. R. (1977). Principles of management (7th ed.). Richard D. Irwin.
Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and conflict management: Reflections and update. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130307
Thomas, K. W., & Kilmann, R. H. (1978). Comparison of four instruments measuring conflict behavior. Psychological Reports, 42(3), 1139–1145. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1978.42.3c.1139
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (A/RES/70/1). United Nations.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. SAGE.
Weiser, A.-K., & Laamanen, T. (2022). Extending the dynamic equilibrium model of paradox: Unveiling the dissipative dynamics in organizations. Strategic Organization, 20(3), 489–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877221090317
Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy. The World Bank Research Observer, 15(2), 225–249. https://doi.org/10.1093/wbro/15.2.225
Yaseen, S. G., El Refae, G. A., Dajani, D. M., & Ghanem, A. A. (2021). Conflict management styles and innovation performance: The mediating role of organizational agility. International Journal of Human Capital and Information Technology Professionals, 12(4), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJHCITP.2021100103
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). SAGE.
Zhang, Y., Waldman, D. A., Han, Y., & Li, X. (2015). Paradoxical leader behaviors in people management: Antecedents and consequences. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 538–566. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2012.0995
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2027 Journal of Current Studies in SDGs
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
