|
|
|
Abstract
The role of conflict in work teams is determined by the manner in which it is managed. Conflict is a driving force of change that can result in improved decision-making processes and progressive team development. However, teams must learn to be confrontational without destroying the team process. Teams are able to handle conflict and perform at a high level by following a framework of communication needed for managing conflict constructively. Teams capable of mediating their own conflicts, improve both productivity and member relationships.
Managing Conflict in Work Teams
Teams are typically made up of a diverse group of individuals; each member possessing different capabilities and skills. This element is what makes the use of teams so advantageous; however, diversity can also create conflict. Therefore, it is important for teams to understand the dynamics of conflict and to regulate its natural flow. The following discussion presents several conflict resolution methods and skills for managing team conflict, while generating team growth, development, and an increased quality of decision-making (Rayeski & Bryant, 1994).
Contrary to the common belief that conflict is limited to a disruptive effect, a number of researchers acknowledge the substantial benefits of conflict to team processes (for example, McDaniel, Littlejohn, & Domenici, 1998; Sessa, 1996). Conflict is a driving force of change (McDaniel et al., 1998). When managed correctly, conflict produces the following results: new ideas for changing organizational processes, solving of continuous problems, a chance for workers to expand their capabilities, and the introduction of creativity into thoughts about organizational problems (Bowditch & Buono, 1997).
Unfortunately, these positive outcomes are frequently unattainable due to uneducated, reactionary efforts to eliminate the source of conflict (Sessa, 1996). The consequences of poorly handled team conflict such as this are a lowering of team energy, disruption of healthy relationships, and the prevention of job accomplishment. Additionally, there is an avoidance of the disputed subject and the creation of an environment of fear (Rayeski & Bryant, 1994). Too often, conflict is smoothed over by a team leader and is not resolved; the end result is a building up of resentment between team members that deteriorates the team’s performance level (Wisinski, 1995).
The key issue in dealing with team conflict is for the team to realize that the focus is not on conflict itself, but how it is managed. The idea behind managing conflict is not to reduce conflict, but to handle it in a constructive manner (Rayeski & Bryant, 1994). Teams must learn to be confrontational without destroying the team process. Research indicates that high performing teams are capable of mediating their own conflicts while improving productivity and strengthening relationships (McDaniel et al., 1998).
Before the rise in the use of teams, classic literature (Coser, 1956) studying group behavior acknowledged the importance of conflict in groups. Coser (1956) states that both positive and negative factors contribute to the formation of a group. A group that is devoid of conflict is a group without process or structure. The life of a work group is dependent on this need for conflict for the group to thrive and prosper, just as much as the group relies on the need for cooperation (Coser, 1956). Current team research (for example, McDaniel et al., 1998; Rayeski & Bryant, 1994) extends this outlook toward the positive aspects of conflict and proposes various methods by which teams may cultivate positive outcomes.
Team Conflict Resolution Methods
Team Mediation Process
McDaniel et al. (1998) offer a step by step mediation process for teams
dealing with conflict. This mediation process provides the work team with
skills and structure for mediating their own disputes. Using a simple process
framework for applying communication skills to a situation, team members
are able to manage conflict in a way that maintains and strengthens the
team environment. Each member must learn and commit themselves to a consistent
process for communicating and resolving conflicts with others. The anticipated
outcomes of this process are higher team performance levels, less stress,
and a more positive work environment (McDaniel et al., 1998).
There are four requirements for effective implementation of this team mediation process (McDaniel et al., 1998):
The first requirement is for each team member to be able to learn the appropriate communication skills and the overall mediation process. If a few team members do not make the effort to learn the skills necessary for accepted communication, then the process is incapable of working effectively. These communication skills include learning to confront others, listening to other’s concerns, acknowledging opposing perspectives, responding appropriately, and committing to a plan of agreed action.
The next requirement is the individual certification of competency for each member’s use of the mediation skills and understanding of the process. Competency ratings are used in other areas of skill, such as technical competencies, and are appropriate measures of interpersonal conflict skill usage.
The third requirement for effective mediation implementation is an environment in which the team is empowered to solve their own conflicts. The team must have the authority to create and establish its system of mediation. For example, the team begins to establish the system by brainstorming over the ideas of conflict, the negative results, and the positive outcomes for the team. Within this process, the team defines agreed upon team values, expectations, and procedures. This process is referred to as setting the "path" or boundaries of acceptable behavior for the team. It is very important for the team as a whole to enforce these behavioral boundaries when they are crossed; the process is ineffective when an outside party is expected to supply such reinforcement.
The fourth requirement ensures that once these first three requirements are met, team members are expected to recognize and resolve conflicts collectively. Team self-reliance for conflict resolution ranges from situations involving only two members, to complex situations, involving disagreement among all team members. The proposed mediation process provides the team with the ability to handle conflict at both extremes.
If a team meets the four prerequisites of this mediation process, the next step is for all team members to participate in skill development training. Within the training, team members learn how to coach one another through the mediation process. They also practice applying communication skills to increasingly difficult conflict scenarios. The training methods taken from the skills training are centered around the conclusion that conflict can be addressed through a three step cycle of concern, vision, and action (McDaniel et al., 1998):
The first step teaches the responsibility of both parties participating in a dispute to understand the other person’s concerns. This requires the understanding of the emotions, needs, and reasons behind the stated position of the opposition.
The second step illustrates the importance of both parties envisioning one another’s view of a win-win solution for the team. Recognizing the perspective of the team as whole is a critical element when arriving at a fully accepted solution. This becomes a meeting point between the two arguing parties.
The third step is a commitment by both disputing sides to take the appropriate actions to ensure the particular conflict will not reoccur. These actions are stated by both parties, along with a prescribed method for mediating the problem should it reoccur.
Team Resolution Process
Rayeski and Bryant (1994) suggest the use of the Team Resolution Process
for managing conflict in teams. The process allows the team to address conflict
as it occurs, thus providing the team with self-sufficient methods for handling
disagreement on their own. However, if the conflict escalates beyond the
individual control of the team members, an outside mediator is brought in
to resolve the dispute. The desired outcome of the team resolution process
is to produce a team environment in which there is "creative tension."
Creative tension develops in an environment in which well-managed conflict
leads to healthy team discussions and quality decision-making (Rayeski &
Bryant, 1994).
Team Resolution Process is defined by Rayeski and Bryant (1994) as, "the process by which an individual, when provided an opportunity for improvement, accepts and makes a conscious, personal commitment to act upon this opportunity to enhance their performance" (pg. 188). Because conflict and discipline have a cause and effect relationship, the applicable knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA’s) need to be identified in order to handle both issues. These skills are provided as a resource to the team in the form of an educated facilitator or manager. Team members have the option of consulting with this person for advice in handling unique conflict situations and as a result, learning the correct management skills for future use (Rayeski & Bryant, 1994).
Rayeski and Bryant’s (1994) procedure includes three steps for addressing an escalating conflict:
The first step is collaboration. Initially, as conflict arises, it should be handled informally between the two team members in a private setting. It is useful for each person to address as many facts as possible regarding the disagreement in an open and honest manner. This method of collaboration provides the opportunity for self-corrective behavior by the individual, without the need for any formal disciplinary action. Efforts are made to relate the problem to customer and/or organizational needs. Each party is required to sign a documented copy of the meeting’s discussion.
The second step is mediation. If the situation escalates, a mediator is brought into the dispute to assist both sides in reaching an agreement. This mediation step is needed when an issue between individual members becomes disruptive to the team and collaboration attempts are ineffective. Efforts are made to relate the problem to customer and/or organizational needs. Each party is required to sign a documented copy of the meeting’s discussion. The success of this step relies on the neutrality of the mediator and the degree to which the team trusts this individual.
The third step is team counseling. If efforts of collaboration and mediation fail, this is the final step for resolving an escalating team conflict situation. Team counseling is held at a team meeting, with all members of the team present. The issue is presented along with all the facts surrounding the disagreement. Efforts are made to relate the problem to customer and/or organizational needs. Each member is required to sign a documented copy of the meeting’s discussion.
Team Conflict Resolution Skills
Some people have trouble being a member of a team, especially those people
accustomed to making decisions on their own. Once a person enters into a
team membership, he or she is entering into an interdependent relationship.
There is a sense that a person is giving up one’s individuality, yet
the contribution to the team produces an end result greater than that achieved
by individual effort. This interdependent relationship naturally leads to
episodes of conflict (Wisinski, 1995). Wisinski (1995) proposes the use
of six skills required for team membership to maintain strong team relationships
needed for addressing conflict:
Participation indicates that a member is involved in the team in a balanced manner; the member is neither too withdrawn, nor overbearing or dominant. Each member is aware of this balance and helps others to maintain their respective balance.
There is a need for individual members to sell their ideas. For example, when offering an alternative solution for a problem, the member is prepared ahead of time and provides the necessary perspective on what this means for the team as a whole. In addition, the member is able to defend his or her view with logic rather than emotion.
Relinquishing is the ability of a team member presenting his or her personal opinion to withdraw it if it fails to gain the support of the team. The member relinquishes the position in favor of a direction agreed upon by the entire team.
Evaluating is the responsibility of each member to offer feedback stating any improvements or failures for the work of the team.
Relationships are detrimental to the process of managing conflict productively. Each member is responsible for maintaining supportive, healthy relationships within the team. There is a strong need placed on the individual to manage conflict between other team members.
Task accomplishment is the responsibility of a team member to understand what items and tasks they are responsible for in a functioning team role. This includes knowing when tasks need to be completed and the steps involved to complete each task.
If team members are not mutually respective of one another and fail to harbor a willingness to disagree and resolve disputes, no method of team resolution is effective (Weiss, 1997). Weiss (1997) indicates four skills that team members are responsible for practicing in order to disagree on issues without creating consequences damaging to the team:
The first skill is listening. For a person to listen effectively, he or she must clear their mind of all distractions and concentrate on the people’s words, as well as nonverbal gestures, such as tone of voice, posture, and hand movements. Ninety percent of what a person is saying is conveyed by nonverbal gestures. Being a good listener, enables a person to understand the content and feeling of a disagreement, thus increasing the likelihood of reaching an agreement.
The second skill is acknowledging someone else’s position and feelings within a dispute. An example of the difference between agreeing and acknowledging is a statement of acknowledgment such as, "If I understand you, you think we should...". A person may continue to disagree with another, yet the other person realizes that they comprehend his or her position. Acknowledgment assures each team member that they are not being misunderstood.
The third skill is responding. A person responding with constructive feedback to another person’s argument clarifies his or her points of contention, while offering an alternative for that person to contemplate. It is noted that efforts should be made to avoid defensive responses. Defensiveness does not improve the situation.
The fourth skill is resolving remaining differences. First, the real problem is defined by looking for the direct cause of the dispute. Next, the problem is analyzed into segmented parts. At this point, alternative solutions are suggested by each party. Finally, working together, both parties select the most reasonable and accepted solution.
Conflict as a Measure of Team Development
The ability of a team to resolve conflict is a valid measure of team development. Conflict and chaos are central elements to the development of teams; therefore, conflict is an appropriate indicator of team growth. Many teams function in unstable environments, plagued with unanticipated problems. Therefore, there is a strong need for teams to progressively confront conflict in order to extend team growth beyond the early developmental phases (Drinka, 1994). Drinka (1994) identifies the following commonly used styles of conflict resolution:
Coercing is a process in which groups use confrontational tactics, such as argument, use of authority, or threat, to achieve the goals of each group regardless of the expense paid by the other.
Withdrawal is the process by which both parties involved in a disagreement postpone or ignore the issue causing the conflict.
Negotiation is the process by which both groups selectively ignore certain interests in order to reach an agreement, thus achieving partial satisfaction for each side.
Accommodation is the process by which one group neglects its own interests by satisfying the needs of the other group involved.
Collaboration is the process by which each party attempts to reach mutual satisfaction by collectively confronting the conflict, recognizing the concerns of each group, and problem-solving.
Intertwined with the use of these conflict resolution styles, Drinka’s model of team development displays the dynamic changes of conflict through the following developmental phases: forming, norming, confronting, and performing. The forming phase consists of the superficial sharing of names and background information among team members. In this stage, members are unsure of team purposes and are guarded. Conflict is neither discussed, nor addressed. Typically, this is a stage where accommodation is overused, as members size one another up and hesitate to assume strong positioning in the team (Drinka, 1994).
During the norming stage, members address initial conflicts that grow out of a lack of understanding of team goals. Procedures and policies are made in writing. Negotiation is used in the norming stage to help aid in establishing the team’s written guidelines. Having a written set of rules and policies keeps situations from erupting into disagreements. Team members refer to these policies as a way of avoiding open conflict. Frustration builds during the advanced stages of the norming phase. At this point, members begin to coerce others in an attempt to retain their power within the team. By contrast, some individuals revert to withdrawal tactics as a way of holding onto their power (Drinka, 1994).
The confronting phase is the next developmental level. The main point of conflict erupts during this phase as there is a struggle for leadership and the continued retention of power. Members tend to act coercive toward one another, or other members withdraw. In mid-phase, some members realize the advantages of constructive confrontation as a tool for problem solving. These members go on to become functional leaders. With this transition, the balance of power is altered until the rest of the team members find their potential for filling a functional team role. Once every member realizes the contributive power within each functional role, they feel empowered to use conflict for collaboration; thus, the team gains the capacity to develop further. The last step of this phase is the team’s demonstrated reliance on collaborative skills for problem solving and obtaining agreed upon solutions. This phase of confrontation is critical to the continued development of the team. A typical consequence of unmanaged conflict during this stage is the regression of the team to earlier developmental stages. Therefore, there is a strong emphasis for team members to recognize the equal participation in decision making and leadership available in each functional role of the team (Drinka, 1994).
The next level of development is the performing phase, in which members assume advanced teaching roles in the team and protect the right to power of other members. Conflict in this final stage is directed at the content of task issues and less towards the individual members. The differences of each team member are appreciated and members trust one another enough to view conflicts as normal. By the time the team reaches the performing stage, a comfortable environment is created in which each member is accustomed to open disagreement. As a result of this open environment, the team reestablishes itself with greater depth and understanding after resolving each conflictual issue. The ability to promote disagreement in the form of constructive confrontation comes with the achieved roles of advanced team members. Having reached the performing stage, these members are able to continuously manage conflict as it erupts. This is detrimental to the success of the team as the innovativeness of the conflict solution depends on the applicability of the style of management used to fit the situation. Also, it is imperative that all team members learn to assume leadership. The passing on of this learned, leadership knowledge to new members of the team helps combat the regression pitfalls of turnover rates in teams (Drinka, 1994).
Throughout development, Drinka points out the need for the focus of the team to be directed toward conflict. In this manner, each member is cognizant of the importance that conflict plays in the success of the team. Cohesive work teams are those that recognize and address conflict at a high functional level. A team working at this level increases the quality of the decision-making process, appreciates the value of diversity, and more important, is capable of handling change over time (Drinka, 1994).
Perspective Taking in Managing Team Conflict
Perspective taking is shown to be a useful tool in managing conflict in teams, and it is an important communicative element of a conflict situation. Team members need to be able understand the information and perspectives being offered to them from other disagreeing members. Sessa (1996) defines perspective taking as, "the cognitive process of understanding how another person thinks and feels about the situation and why they are behaving as they are" (pg. 105). Team members with high functioning perspective taking abilities are capable of accurately comprehending another member’s argument, and are therefore more likely to consider alternative views when discussing the problem at hand (Sessa, 1996).
Perspective taking is successful in managing conflict, because conflict and negative affect are not always dependent upon one another. Sessa defines affect as, "the shared emotion exhibited by team members" (pg. 104). Thus, the emotions of each team member involved in a disagreement influence each other and the shared situation. Conflict is seen as arising as a result of preexisting conditions, such as each member of the team having different cognitions, and is considered to be either task-oriented or people-oriented. Task-oriented conflict is directed toward the ideas and procedures of a task on which the team is working and is not associated with the affective tone of a team. People-oriented conflict is directed towards other members of the team and is found to be negatively associated to the affective tone of the team. Examples of people-oriented conflicts are personality differences, struggles over leadership, and the questioning of other members’ competencies. When a situation results in team member’s interpreting the source of conflict due to another member, the result is an average negative emotional tone for the entire team. The type of conflict surrounding a dispute becomes the deciding factor of whether or not the disagreement creates a negative affect in the team. Therefore, the team’s collective interpretation of the type of conflict is very important (Sessa, 1996).
Sessa’s (1996) findings indicate that a team with a high average in perspective functioning is more likely to interpret a conflict situation as task-oriented, as opposed to people-oriented. These high functioning teams were recipients of a three hour training session in which perspective taking is explained, as well as the importance of its use within the team. Included in the training are role playing activities that allow team members to practice and understand the cognitive role that perspective taking plays in the team decision-making process. A wrap-up segment is conducted at the end of the training session to discuss things learned and the application of the training in team interaction. Sessa proposes that future work in this area needs to be focused toward the most effective means of providing perspective taking training for teams (Sessa, 1996).
Managing Conflict in Project Teams
In regard to conflict and the use of project work teams, Kezsbom (1992) states, "diversity does not breed conflict, it also encourages innovation" (pg. 58). Cross-functional teams are used more and more to complete projects that require input from multiple team members originating from various disciplines. These elements collectively contribute to discrepancies of project team work, ranging from communication problems, to personality conflicts. If handled properly, conflict is beneficial to both the project and the project team by indicating the areas deserving special attention, appropriate strategies, and more effective procedures (Kezsbom, 1992).
Kezsbom’s (1992) research indicates a change from the classic literature (Thamhain & Wilemon, 1975) involving project teams and conflict. The previous research occurred at a time when the technology, organizational structure, and markets differed dramatically from the projects of the nineties. For example, Kezsbom’s findings show that goals and priority definition are the highest ranking conflict category, contrary to previous studies representing scheduling to be the highest cause of conflict. Kezsbom explains the difference in results due to the increased modern day usage of multi-project teams and cross-functional membership, requiring members to report to several project managers, in addition to functional managers. The result is team confusion regarding the intended goal of the project and the priority of the project’s tasks. The importance of scheduling has been recognized by today’s organization as a necessary tool for survival when dealing with project work. Therefore, there has been a shift of emphasis in conflict categories and the degree to which each affects project team processes (Kezsbom, 1992).
The third ranking conflict category in Kezsbom’s (1992) work points to problems in communication and information flow. The consequences of each are poor levels of communication and confusion surrounding project goals and priorities. As goals and priorities often change throughout a project, the project teams become frustrated, unmotivated, and levels of team productivity decrease (Kezsbom, 1992).
Compared to previous findings, there has been a rise in personality differences disrupting project teamwork. Current research shows personality and interpersonal conflict to be the second highest overall source of project conflict. The increase is thought to be due to the prevalence of cross-functional teams; thus, people of various disciplines must deal with multiple personality types for accomplishing their own objectives (Kezsbom, 1992).
There are several precautionary measures to take when managing conflict in project teams. First, more effective communication from management, down through each individual project team provides a more timely decision-making process. To facilitate this procedure, management must determine their organizational priorities and make a firm commitment in directing the focus of project teams toward the intended project goals. Also, by holding frequent meetings and review sessions, each team’s perspective of goal attainment remains aligned throughout the project. Secondly, with regard to minimizing personality conflict, Kezsbom recommends increasing human relations training and implementing team building activities. Every avenue of support needs to be pursued, so the members of cross-functional teams understand the unique nature of the teamwork process, as well as the realization that member differences are of value to the team as a whole. Thirdly, conflict should be addressed in initial project planning sessions in order to target open item issues, team concerns, and high risk areas. The foundation for potential project setbacks are established during the early project phases if conflict is avoided. Increasingly, the use of a participative team approach to project planning, scheduling, and controlling is resulting in a team understanding that each member is responsible for the project outcome (Kezsbom, 1992).
The research of Barker, Tjosvold, and Andrews (1988) validates effective conflict approaches for a project team manager. Project team managers are an integral part of the work process. For a project manager to prepare for team conflict, selective attention is needed to monitor potential areas of eruption. The position requires the management of diverse resources, and this complexity requires the skill of using the appropriate approaches to deal with the resulting conflicts (Barker et al., 1988); Thamhain & Wilemon, 1975). Barker et al. (1988) studied the use of the following four approaches to managing conflict:
The co-operative approach places an emphasis on mutual goals, joint benefit, and incorporation of several views for a team solution.
Confirming conveys that the other person is accepted as effective and avoids blaming or trading insults.
The competitive approach assumes that conflict is a win-lose struggle. There is a use of force and coercion to make team members conform to one perspective.
Avoiding tries to maintain team harmony and smooth over any differences between members. This method avoids frustration and aggression.
Project team managers who use a co-operative approach, naturally use a confirming approach, as well. This combined method leads to high measures of conflict constructiveness and management effectiveness. Confirmation strengthens co-operative elements in a relationship while a lack of confirmation, exacerbates competitive elements. For example, a team member’s competency, confirmed by a project manager, leads to an increase in confidence for taking risks that co-operative encouragement favors (Barker et al., 1988).
Project managers opting to use methods of competition and avoiding, do so by alternating between each style. This combined method leads to undesirable outcomes. For example, team members are less likely to interpret the resolution to be constructive or the result of effective management. Typically, a project manager relies on competitive methods when it is favorable that he or she is winning the disagreement; yet, the same manager often converts to avoidance tactics if the outcome of the disagreement is uncertain. These findings clarify the responsibility of project team managers to rely on a balanced approach to conflict, applying both co-operative and confirmational resolution methods (Barker et al., 1988).
Conclusion
The role of conflict in work teams is determined by the manner in which it is managed. Conflict pervades the core of team processes, and, if unaddressed, conflict serves to stunt the development of a team. However, teams educated in the dynamic nature of conflict are capable of harnessing the energy created by its elements, resulting in productive outcomes. With growing emphasis, the advantages of the constructive management of team conflict are becoming more evident in today’s business world (McDaniel et al., 1998).
References