In recent years, the intersection of organizational life and social issues has become a fertile ground for intense conflict, significantly reshaping workplace dynamics across corporate America. Luke N. Hedden, assistant professor at the University of Miami Patti and Allan Herbert Business School, highlights an emergent phenomenon he terms Moralized Opinion-Based (MOB) Intergroup Conflict. This conflict arises when deeply held moral opinions surrounding divisive social topics infiltrate organizations, resulting in polarization that compromises productivity and undermines cooperative efforts within workgroups. The implications of such conflicts extend far beyond interpersonal quarrels, often stalling organizational goals and creating an emotionally charged atmosphere that is difficult to navigate or resolve.
Hedden, along with co-authors Michael Pratt of Boston College and Hamza Khan of the University of Illinois Chicago, has articulated these dynamics in a comprehensive study published in the Academy of Management Review. Their paper, “‘MOB’ Mentality?: On the Formation and Consequences of Moralized Opinion-Based Intergroup Conflict in Organizations,” dissects how moralized opinions on social issues, such as racial justice, gender equality, climate change, and LGBTQ rights, catalyze intergroup tensions. These issues, once considered private or peripheral to workplace conduct, have become flashpoints that trigger entrenched divisions and disrupt traditional norms of professional interaction.
What distinguishes MOB Intergroup Conflict from other workplace disagreements is its moralized nature, which imbues opposing viewpoints with a sense of existential significance. The authors emphasize that this moralization is often underpinned by the powerful and visceral emotion of disgust. Unlike more superficial disagreements, MOB conflicts are dehumanizing, contagious, and prone to escalation. When employees perceive their deeply held values as under attack, the ensuing friction transcends rational discourse and instead evokes defensive, sometimes hostile, reactions that fracture organizational cohesion.
This disruptive dynamic has been vividly illustrated by recent events in major corporations such as Wayfair, Disney, and Coinbase. Hedden points out that employees have resorted to collective actions such as walkouts, letter-writing campaigns, and outright resignations to express their moral dissatisfaction. These behaviors, while reflective of genuine social concerns, inadvertently impair operational efficiency and dilute the focus on core organizational objectives. The challenges posed by MOB Intergroup Conflict thus have tangible consequences on workforce stability and the ability of businesses to function effectively in an increasingly polarized social landscape.
Underlying this phenomenon is a broader societal shift in employee expectations regarding corporate social responsibility and leadership engagement with contentious social issues. Workers today often demand that their organizations take explicit stances on political and social matters, placing pressure on executives and managers to craft public declarations of principle. Hedden explains that once such leadership affirmations are made, they can act as catalysts, intensifying moralized conflict by polarizing employee groups along ideological lines, thereby elevating the risk of internal discord.
To address this escalating challenge, Hedden and his colleagues suggest two pivotal approaches. The first involves “lowering the temperature,” or reducing the emotional intensity that fuels these conflicts. By intentionally de-escalating charged interactions, organizations can create space for more constructive dialogue and reduce the risk that moral disagreement will spiral into entrenched antagonism. The second strategy focuses on “reducing certainty” through the cultivation of generative doubt. This approach encourages employees to reconsider rigid, binary views of right and wrong, promoting a more nuanced and empathetic engagement with contentious social issues.
At a deeper analytical level, the research advises organizational scholars and managers to reconceptualize the nature of conflict in contemporary workplaces. Traditional conflict resolution mechanisms often assume that disputes are primarily about interests or information; MOB Intergroup Conflict, however, challenges these assumptions by foregrounding the moral and emotional dimensions. This shift demands novel theoretical frameworks and practical interventions that can account for the unique corrosiveness of moralized disputes and their capacity to erode the social fabric of organizations.
Importantly, the authors clarify that their research does not advocate for organizational disengagement from social issues. On the contrary, they recognize the significant role companies can play in advancing positive social change. The inherent tension lies not in the act of engagement itself but in the manner and context in which it occurs. Effective management of MOB conflicts requires balancing the moral convictions of diverse stakeholders while safeguarding organizational unity and productivity.
Moreover, understanding the psychological mechanisms that underlie MOB Intergroup Conflict opens pathways for targeted interventions. Since disgust is a key emotion driving the moralization process, strategies to mitigate this visceral response might include reframing contentious issues to appeal to shared values or deploying communication techniques that emphasize common humanity. These psychological insights enrich the toolkit available to leadership and human resource professionals striving to navigate an increasingly polarized workplace climate.
The industrial implications of this research are profound. In an era where corporate reputation and brand identity are often intertwined with social activism, the potential fallout from mismanaged moral conflicts imposes serious risks. Companies must therefore develop sophisticated competencies not only in social issue advocacy but also in conflict psychology, emotional intelligence, and organizational behavior to remain resilient amidst cultural turbulence.
As MOB Intergroup Conflict continues to manifest across various sectors, future investigations might explore its long-term effects on employee well-being and organizational outcomes. While productivity decline is evident, the psychological toll on individuals caught in these disputes warrants further attention. Integrating findings from sociology, psychology, and management studies can yield more holistic solutions that honor both the ethical commitments of organizations and the psychological safety of their workforce.
In sum, Luke N. Hedden and his collaborators have identified a critical, yet underappreciated, challenge confronting modern organizations. MOB Intergroup Conflict represents a new frontier where social morality and workplace dynamics converge, demanding innovative scholarly insights and pragmatic leadership strategies. Recognizing and addressing the emotional intensity and certainty entrenched in these moral disputes will be essential for organizations seeking to thrive amid the complexities of twenty-first-century corporate culture.
Subject of Research: Moralized Opinion-Based Intergroup Conflict in Organizations
Article Title: “MOB” Mentality?: On the Formation and Consequences of Moralized Opinion-Based Intergroup Conflict in Organizations
News Publication Date: 18-Jul-2025
Web References: http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2022.0212
References: Academy of Management Review
Keywords: Conflict theory, Social issues
