|
Resolving
Conflict in Work Teams
sponsored
by Fresh Tracks - Team
Building That Works
Abstract
As organizations
continue to restructure to work teams, the need for training in
conflict resolution will grow. Conflict arises from differences,
and when individuals come together in teams, their differences in
terms of power, values, and attitudes contribute to the creation
of conflict. To avoid the negative consequences that can result
from disagreements, most methods of resolving conflict stress the
importance of dealing with disputes quickly and openly. Conflict
is not necessarily destructive, however. When managed properly,
conflict can result in benefits for a team.
Resolving
Conflict in Work Teams
A major advantage
a team has over an individual is its diversity of resources, knowledge,
and ideas. However, diversity also produces conflict. As more and
more organizations restructure to work teams the need for training
in conflict resolution will continue to grow. Varney (1989) reports
that conflict remained the number-one problem for most of the teams
operating within a large energy company, even after repeated training
sessions on how to resolve conflict and how to minimize the negative
impact on team members. One reason for this may be that mangers
and other leaders within organizations are not giving the issue
of resolving conflict enough attention. Varney's research showed
that although most managers are aware of disagreements and have
received training in conflict resolution, they seldom assign a high
priority to solving conflict problems. With this in mind, it is
critical that team members possess skills to resolve conflict among
themselves.
Conflict arises
from differences. When individuals come together in work teams their
differences in terms of power, values and attitudes, and social
factors all contribute to the creation of conflict. It is often
difficult to expose the sources of conflict. Conflict can arise
from numerous sources within a team setting and generally falls
into three categories: communication factors, structural factors
and personal factors (Varney, 1989). Barriers to communication are
among the most important factors and can be a major source of misunderstanding.
Communication barriers include poor listening skills; insufficient
sharing of information; differences in interpretation and perception;
and nonverbal cues being ignored or missed. Structural disagreements
include the size of the organization, turnover rate, levels of participation,
reward systems, and levels of interdependence among employees. Personal
factors include things such as an individual's self-esteem, their
personal goals, values and needs. In order for conflict to be dealt
with successfully, managers and team members must understand its
unpredictability and its impact on individuals and the team as a
whole.
Conflict in
work teams is not necessarily destructive, however. Conflict can
lead to new ideas and approaches to organizational processes, and
increased interest in dealing with problems. Conflict, in this sense,
can be considered positive, as it facilitates the surfacing of important
issues and provides opportunities for people to develop their communication
and interpersonal skills. Conflict becomes negative when it is left
to escalate to the point where people begin to feel defeated, and
a combative climate of distrust and suspicion develops (Bowditch
& Buono, 1997). Nelson (1995) cautions that negative conflict
can destroy a team quickly, and often arises from poor planning.
He offers this list of high potential areas from which negative
conflict issues commonly arise:
Administrative
Procedures: If the team lacks good groundwork for what it's doing,
its members will not be able to coordinate their work.
People Resources: If the team does not have enough resources to
do the job, it is inevitable that some will carry too heavy a load.
Resentment, often unexpressed, may build, so it is crucial that
team leaders ensure adequate resources.
Cost overruns: Often inevitable, cost overruns become a problem
when proper measures are not taken. The whole team should know early
on when cost becomes a problem so additional funding can be sought
by the team. This way the problem can be resolved before it grows
into a problem for management.
Schedules: The schedule is highly consequential to the team's project
and should be highly visible. All members should be willing to work
together to help each other meet their deadlines.
Responsibilities: Each team member must know what areas are assigned
and who is accountable for them.
Wish Lists: Stick to the project at hand and avoid being sidetracked
into trying to fit other things into it. Wait and do the other things
you would like to do after successful completion of the original
project.
Team members can and should attempt to avoid negative conflict from
occurring. Being aware of the potential for negative conflict to
occur, and taking the necessary steps to ensure good planning will
help.
Handling
Negative Conflict
When negative conflict does occur there are five accepted methods
for handling it: Direct Approach, Bargaining, Enforcement, Retreat,
and De-emphasis (Nelson, 1995). Each can be used effectively in
different circumstances.
1. Direct Approach:
This may be the best approach of all. It concentrates on the leader
confronting the issue head-on. Though conflict is uncomfortable
to deal with, it is best to look at issues objectively and to face
them as they are. If criticism is used, it must be constructive
to the recipients. This approach counts on the techniques of problem-solving
and normally leaves everyone with a sense of resolution, because
issues are brought to the surface and dealt with.
2. Bargaining:
This is an excellent technique when both parties have ideas on a
solution yet cannot find common ground. Often a third party, such
as a team leader, is needed to help find the compromise. Compromise
involves give and take on both sides, however, and usually ends
up with both walking away equally dissatisfied.
3. Enforcement
of Team Rules: Avoid using this method if possible, it can bring
about hard feelings toward the leader and the team. This technique
is only used when it is obvious that a member does not want to be
a team player and refuses to work with the rest. If enforcement
has to be used on an individual, it may be best for that person
to find another team.
4. Retreat:
Only use this method when the problem isn't real to begin with.
By simply avoiding it or working around it, a leader can often delay
long enough for the individual to cool off. When used in the right
environment by an experienced leader this technique can help to
prevent minor incidents that are the result of someone having a
bad day from becoming real problems that should never have occurred.
5. De-emphasis:
This is a form of bargaining where the emphasis is on the areas
of agreement. When parties realize that there are areas where they
are in agreement, they can often begin to move in a new direction.
Managing
Cooperative Conflict
Though we often view conflict through a negative lens, teams require
some conflict to operate effectively. Cooperative conflict can contribute
to effective problem solving and decision making by motivating people
to examine a problem. Encouraging the expression of many ideas;
energizing people to seek a superior solution; and fostering integration
of several ideas to create high-quality solutions (Tjosvold, 1988).
The key is to understand how to handle it constructively. If members
understand how to do it, differences that arise can result in benefits
for a team.
While it is
true that suppressed differences can reduce the effectiveness of
a team, when they are brought to the surface, disagreements can
be dealt with and problems can be resolved. The actual process of
airing differences can help to increase the cohesiveness and effectiveness
of the team through the increased interest and energy that often
accompanies it. This in turn fosters creativity and intensity among
team members. In addition, bringing differences to the surface can
result in better ideas and more innovative solutions. When people
share their views and strive toward reaching a consensus, better
decisions are reached. Team members also improve their communication
skills and become better at understanding and listening to the information
they receive when differences are freely aired. Fisher, Belgard,
and Rayner (1995) offer these tips on improving listening skills:
Listen for
meaning.
Understanding is not agreeing.
Seek clarification before responding, if needed.
Apply listening skills when receiving a message.
Evaluate yourself for how well you listened at the end of any conversation.
The tension of well-managed conflict allows teams to confront disagreement
through healthy discussion and improve the decisions made (Rayeski
& Bryant, 1994). This leads to greater team efficiency and effectiveness.
Effectively managing conflict allows teams to stay focused on their
goals. Swift and constructive conflict management leads to a broader
understanding of the problem, healthy expression of different ideas
or alternatives, and creates excitement from the positive interaction
and involvement which will help the team through periods of transition
and on to greater levels of performance.
As teams become
more responsible for managing themselves, it is important for organizations
to help them by identifying the knowledge, skills, and abilities
(KSAs) required to handle conflict. Then developing plans to transfer
these skills and capabilities over to their teams. Because conflict
is inevitable in teams, the focus needs to be on how it is managed.
Conflict that is poorly handled creates an environment of fear and
avoidance of the subject. On the other hand, if properly managed,
it can lead to learning, creativity, and growth.
Team Resolution
Process
Rayeski and Bryant (1994) recommend using the Team Resolution Process
to handle conflict when it occurs in teams. Conflict should first
be handled on an informal basis between the individuals involved.
This, they say, will allow time for resolution or self-correction
by the individuals. If the conflict remains unsettled, a mediator
can be brought in to help resolve the situation. If resolution is
still not achieved the dispute should be openly discussed in a team
meeting. A formal discipline process needs to occur, if resolution
is not achieved after being addressed at the team level. The escalating
process of Team Resolution is as follows:
1. Collaboration
(One-on-one): Handle the new problem person-to-person. Use as many
facts as possible and relate the issue to customer, team, or organizational
needs. Be open and honest and conduct the session in a private setting.
Document the concerns or issues, the dates, and the resolution,
if any, and have both parties sign it.
2. Mediation
(One-on-one with Mediator): If collaboration did not work or was
inappropriate, handle the problem with a mediator. The mediator
must be trained in conflict resolution, understand policy and ethics,
be trusted by the team, and have the ability to remain neutral.
Gather facts and talk over the issue with the people involved. Bring
up as many facts as possible and relate the issue to customer, team,
or organizational needs. Be open and honest and conduct the mediation
session in private. Document it and have all parties sign.
3. Team Counseling:
The conflict is now a definite issue to the team. Collaboration
and/or Mediation could not be done, were not appropriate, or did
not work. Handle the conflict at a team meeting; put the problem
on the next agenda and invite the necessary individuals. Again,
bring up the facts, relate the issue to customer, team, or organizational
needs. Be open and honest, discuss it in a private setting, document
it, and have all parties sign it. Anyone on the team can put an
issue or problem on the team agenda, however, this step should be
used only after Collaboration, and Mediation has been ruled out.
Because every
team is different, disputes that arise will be too. However, Stulberg
(1987) recognizes patterns common to all controversies. He calls
them the Five-P's of Conflict Management:
1. Perceptions:
People associate conflict with negative responses such as anger,
fear, tension, and anxiety. Rarely do we perceive any benefits from
being involved in a dispute. Our negative perceptions impact our
approach in resolving conflict as we strive to eliminate the source
of these negative feelings.
2. Problems:
Anyone can be involved in a conflict, and the amount of time, money,
and equipment needed for resolution will vary according to its complexity.
3. Processes:
There are different ways to go about resolving disputes: Suppress
the conflict, give in, fight, litigate, mediate, etc.
4. Principles:
We determine the priorities of all resolution processes on the basis
of an analysis of our fundamental values regarding efficiency, participation,
fairness, compliance, etc.
5. Practices:
Power, self-interest, and unique situations are all factors relating
to why people resolve disputes the way they do.
Stulberg proposed
these patterns as an aid for formal mediators, but anyone dealing
with conflict can benefit from understanding the elements common
to disagreements.
Negotiation
Although there are common patterns, there is no one best way to
deal with conflict. Disputes arise for different reasons and every
team is unique. Varney (1989) proposes that negotiation is the most
effective response to conflict when both parties stand to gain something,
each has some power, and there is interdependency. Negotiation offers
flexibility and viability other responses, such as Avoidance, Confrontation,
and Diffusion lack. The process of negotiation involves listening
to both sides, seeking out common areas of interest and agreement,
and building on them so that individuals can understand each other's
points of view. Varney believes there are four essential skills
team leaders need to learn and apply to effectively resolve disagreements
using the negotiation process:
Diagnosis:
Recognizing areas of understanding and areas of differences.
Initiation: Bringing the disagreements to the surface.
Listening: Hearing not only what the other person is saying, but
the Emotional aspects as well.
Problem Solving: A process with numerous steps including data gathering,
Considering its impact, examining alternatives, identifying solutions,
and developing a plan of action.
In order to resolve their differences, Varney (1989) recommends
bringing the parties together and, with the assistance of a third
party, asking the following questions:
What is the
problem, as you perceive it?
What does the other person do that contributes to the problem?
What do you want or need from the other person?
What do you do that contributes to the problem?
What first step can you take to resolve the problem?
Each party should be questioned while the other listens, asking
questions only for clarification. Then the parties discuss a mutual
definition and understanding of the problem. They should be allowed
to express their feelings and get hostility out of their systems
at this stage, but both parties must be willing to admit partial
responsibility for the problem. This requires good listening, low
defensiveness, and an ability to stay in a problem-solving mode.
Agreement should be reached on what steps will be taken to resolve
the problem, and should be put in writing in order to prevent later
misunderstandings.
The key to
Varney's negotiation process is exposing the different positions
as early as possible. If conflict is left to simmer and then erupt
into open warfare, it becomes much more difficult to resolve. Revealing
the sources of conflict early on enables people to understand the
facts of the dispute, before emotions get the upper hand, which
may allow them to more easily see their areas of agreement. When
agreement areas are identified, people can then work toward arriving
at a consensus and develop a process for resolving problems in the
future.
Fisher et al.
(1995) offers a similar five-step approach to resolving conflict.
Acknowledge
that the conflict exists.
Gain common ground by putting the conflict in perspective with the
goals and purpose of the team.
Seek to understand all angles of the disagreement, keeping in mind
that understanding is different from agreement.
Attack the issue, not each other. Channel anger and hostility into
problem solving and action planning.
Develop an action plan describing what each person will do to solve
the problem.
This method allows both parties to acknowledge the nature of the
conflict, then jointly work toward resolving it. As with Varney's
(1989) approach, the key to this process is responding quickly and
effectively when conflict presents itself. Teams are cautioned to
avoid covering up painful issues. Sooner or later, unresolved issues
tend to resurface, often in uglier forms than before. Along the
same lines, teams should not automatically defer an issue to management,
as this disempowers the team. Instead, they should learn how to
handle disputes themselves, requesting help from management only
when their own attempts at resolution have failed. Fisher et al.
(1995) stress that team members should be encouraged to voice their
concerns in team meetings rather than outside the team setting,
in an attempt to avoid what they call the AParking Lot Commentary
(p. 212). This happens when team members are afraid to voice feelings
to the team so they begin to talk about team issues in conversations
with individuals. When this occurs it undermines the trust and integrity
of the team.
Sources
of Conflict Among Project Teams
Though the recognition that conflict can be productive is not new
( for example, Coser, 1956; Deutsh, 1969), some of the conflict
issues that organizations are dealing with are. For instance, one
study (Kezsbom, 1992) looked at sources of conflict among project
teams and found that the number one issue developed from goals and
priority issues. Previous literature (Posner, 1986; Thamhain &
Wilemon, 1975) presented the number one source of conflict as being
disagreements over schedules, which ranked at number seven in Kezsbom's
study. It makes sense that goals and priority issues have risen
on the list as organizations have evolved into multi-project, streamlined
environments. In these new complex, hybrid organizations, employees
often find themselves serving on a variety of project teams, being
led by a variety of project mangers while reporting directly to
functional managers. This sets the stage for Kezsbom's third conflict
category: communication and information flow. When reporting relationships
are complex it becomes more difficult to share information.
Personality
and interpersonal issues, ranked in the number two category by those
in high technology environments, presented another dramatic change
from previous studies. This change may be related to the increased
use of cross-functional, self-directed teams in which individuals
with technical backgrounds must rely on the work of others to get
their own work done. This specifically illustrates how important
it is to provide training in communication and interpersonal skills
to cross-functional team members, while emphasizing an appreciation
of the value of differences.
Overall, this
study provides valuable insights for organizations, project leaders,
and project team members. Because goal and priority issues frequently
change, communication must be improved. Kezsbom (1992) makes these
recommendations:
More frequent
and effective upward, downward, and team communications.
More frequent meetings and status review sessions to increase communication
between functions and minimize inconsistent perceptions of project
goals and priorities.
Increase human relations training and facilitate more active team-building
efforts.
Organizations must be aware that conflict grows from differences,
but so does innovation. If project teams are properly trained in
human relations and team-building skills, production and quality
measures will increase.
No matter what
kind of team it is, no method of managing conflict will work without
mutual respect and a willingness to disagree and resolve disagreements.
Donald Weiss, president of Self-Management Communication, Inc.,
believes each person on the team must be willing to take the following
four steps when a team meeting erupts into a storm (Weiss, 1997):
listen, acknowledge, respond, and resolve remaining differences.
Listen: To
hear what someone else is saying is not the same as listening. To
listen effectively means clearing your mind of distractions and
concentrating not only on the words but also on nonverbal gestures,
which often convey ninety percent of what the person is trying to
say. When resolving disagreements, you often have to deal with feelings
first.
Acknowledge: You can acknowledge people's positions without agreeing
with them. Show this with statements like, "I understand that
you're angry," "If I understand you, you think we should",
or "Let's explore your opinion further." You may still
disagree with them, but at least they know you've heard them.
Respond: You've listened and acknowledged what the other person
is saying. Now it is your turn to be heard. If you're offering criticism
of your teammate's ideas, make sure it's constructive, and if you're
disagreeing with them, be ready to offer an alternative. Be willing,
also, to be questioned or challenged, while avoiding defensiveness
when you answer.
Resolve remaining differences: Define the real problem by looking
for what's causing the disagreement. Then analyze it into its manageable
parts. Now you can generate alternative solutions to the problem
and select the alternative on which everyone can agree.
For individuals to work effectively in teams they must be able to
clearly communicate their ideas, to listen, and be willing to disagree.
Although it is difficult, learning to appreciate each other's differences
reflects a team's ability to manage conflict. When conflict occurs
we must not turn our backs and hope it will go away. Instead, we
must learn to tolerate it, even welcome it, for well-managed conflict
can be the source of change and innovation. As more and more organizations
attempt to make the difficult transition to teams, they must develop
and provide programs for their employees which offer training in
conflict management skills and techniques. I hope the ideas in this
paper can help organizations and their teams begin, or continue,
this challenging task.
Carole
A. Townsley, RV Armstrong
and Associates
References:
Bowditch, J.
L., Buono, A. F. (1997). A primer on organizational behavior (4th
ed.). New York, NY: JohnWiley & Sons.
Coser, L. A.
(1956). The functions of social conflict. Glencoe, IL: The Free
Press.Deutsh, M. (1969). Conflicts: Productive and destructive.
Journal of Social Issues, 25 (1), 7 - 41.
Fisher, K.,
Rayner, S., Belgard, W., (1995). Tips for teams: A ready reference
for solving common team problems. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Kezsbom, D.
S. (1992). Re-opening Pandora's box: Sources of project conflict
in the >90s. Industrial Engineering, 24 (5), 54 - 59.
Nelson, M.
(1995). Interpersonal team leadership skills. Hospital Material
Management Quarterly, 16 (4), 53 - 63.
Rayeski, E.,
& Bryant, J. D. (1994). Team resolution process: A guideline
for teams to manage conflict, performance, and discipline. In M.
Beyerlein & M. Bullock (Eds.), The International Conference
on Work Teams Proceedings: Anniversary Collection. The Best of 1990
- 1994 (pp. 215 - 221). Denton: University of North Texas, Center
for the Study of Work Teams.
Stulberg, J.
B. (1987). Taking charge / managing conflict. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
Thamhain, H.,
& Wilemon, D. L. (1975). Conflict management in project life
cycles. Sloan Management Review, 17 (3).
Varney, G.
H. (1989). Building productive teams: An action guide and resource
book. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass, Inc.
Weiss, D. H.
(1997). Four steps for managing team storms. Getting ResultsYFor
the hands-on Manager, 42 (7), 7.
return
to top
|
