Conventional wisdom about conflict seems pretty much cut and dried. Too little conflict breeds apathy (冷漠) and stagnation (呆滞). Too much conflict leads to divisiveness (分裂) and hostility. Moderate levels of conflict, however, can spark creativity and motivate people in a healthy and competitive way. 

Recent research by Professor Charles R. Schwenk, however, suggests that the optimal level of conflict may be more complex to determine than these simple generalizations. He studied perceptions of conflict among a sample of executives. Some of the executives worked for profit-seeking organizations and others for not-for-profit organizations. 

Somewhat surprisingly, Schwenk found that opinions about conflict varied systematically as a function of the type of organization. Specifically, managers in not-for-profit organizations strongly believed that conflict was beneficial to their organizations and that it promoted higher quality decision making than might be achieved in the absence of conflict. 

Managers of for-profit organizations saw a different picture. They believed that conflict generally was damaging and usually led to poor-quality decision making in their organizations. Schwenk interpreted these results in terms of the criteria for effective decision making suggested by the executives. In the profit-seeking organizations, decision-making effectiveness was most often assessed in financial terms. The executives believed that consensus rather than conflict enhanced financial indicators. 

In the not-for-profit organizations, decision-making effectiveness was defined from the perspective of satisfying constituents. Given the complexities and ambiguities associated with satisfying many diverse constituents executives perceived that conflict led to more considered and acceptable decisions.