Management of Conflict in Teams



Management of Conflict in Teams

Rex C. Mitchell

Some conflict is inevitable in teams. How it is managed, and mismanaged, has strong effects on the members of the team and on the dynamics and effectiveness of the team. Research has revealed the following effects of interpersonal conflicts on teams:

● A team member's commitment to the team and the team mission decreases if conflict goes unresolved, but can increase if conflict is managed effectively.

● If unhealthy conflict goes unresolved for too long, team members are likely to quit or to search for alternatives.

Therefore, it is critically important for those working in or with teams to understand conflict and how to manage it constructively. This article provides a concise overview of important concepts for understanding conflict and team members' behavior when in conflict, followed by recommendations for managing conflict and making use of its positive effects in teams

WAYS OF THINKING ABOUT CONFLICT

There are many varied definitions of conflict in the literature. One colloquial definition is that conflict occurs when two people try to occupy the same "space" at the same time. This space could range from the simple case of a physical space, such as the last open seat on a crowded bus, to psychological space, in which each party believes that there are incompatibilities in what the various parties want; for example, conflict may emerge when two members of a team want to be the most powerful member. One useful definition of conflict (Wilmot & Hocker (2001), is: Conflict is an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources, and interference from others in achieving their goals.

Conflicts often evoke strong feelings. Typical reactions are that conflict is something to be avoided, that conflict needs to be settled as rapidly as possible, and that participants in a conflict situation are likely to leave with negative feelings. Even among professionals who deal with various aspects of human behavior, a negative view of conflict predominated for many years, and the field was called "conflict resolution." Gradually, there emerged a more balanced view of conflict, which recognizes that conflict can have positive as well as negative effects.

Properly managed, conflict can be associated with a range of positive effects. It can cause problems to surface and be dealt with in a team, clarify varying points of view, stimulate and energize individuals, motivate the search for creative alternatives, provide vivid feedback, create increased understanding of one's conflict style, test and extend the capacities of team members, and provide a mechanism for adjusting relationships in terms of current realities. There also are many possible negative results from conflict, including reduced cooperation, trust, and motivation. Properly managed, conflict can help to maintain an organization of vigorous, resilient, and creative people. The goal of conflict management is to increase and make use of the positive aspects and to minimize the negative aspects of a conflict situation.

CONFLICT EPISODE MODEL

What goes on in a conflict? It is important to be aware of important variables that may influence conflict behaviors as a basis for intervening productively in conflict situations. The following model is a slight modification of the process model of Thomas (1976, 1979). It's a useful way of viewing conflicts.

Conflicts are considered to occur in a series of episodes, each of which may be quite short, e.g., a few seconds or minutes. Each episode is influenced by the outcomes of previous episodes and also influences future episodes. The conflict episode model, shown in Figure 1, has six components or stages. For simplicity, the description below deals with only two individuals in conflict, although the model extension to multiple individuals is direct.

[pic]

Figure 1. Conflict Episode Model

The first stage represents each individual's entering state, which is determined by such variables as his or her behavioral predispositions (personality, if you please), events and pressures from the social environment, recent experiences with others, and previous experiences, especially conflict episodes, with the other party. Typically, some stimulus (the second component) occurs that initiates or catalyzes an episode, although it need not be an explicit event.

The entering state and stimulus lead to frustration (the third stage of the model). Frustration may result from a wide variety of stimuli--for example, active interference with one team member's actions by another, competition for recognition, the breaking of an agreement, or the giving of an overt or imagined insult (e.g., the other person does not agree with my ideas, or is preventing me from getting the information, money, time I need, or is undermining my influence with someone else).

The fourth stage, conceptualization, is very important. The conceptualization of the situation by each individual forms the basis for his or her reactions to the frustration and subsequent behavior. This step in the episode could be thought of as each party answering and reacting to the imagined answers to such questions as: What is going on here? Is it good or bad for me? Why is this other person doing this to me? An example of a conceptualization is: "You just can't trust that (type of) person." A dispute between a team member and the leader might be conceptualized by the leader as "this guy is acting out his counter-dependent position and trying to take over the team" and by the member as "I must push this issue for the sake of the team because nobody else has the guts to stand up to this arrogant show-off." Conceptualizations involve inferences, attributions, and evaluations that may be far removed from the actual words and actions of the individuals during the episode.

Each party in a conflict develops his or her own implicit conceptualization of the situation. This is done quickly and usually tacitly (i.e., the individual doing it is not conscious of the process).

There are many different ways to conceptualize and respond to the same situation - seldom will the parties conceptualize in the same way. Usually they are blind to and/or want to ignore any alternative conceptualizations, e.g., a conflict between teachers and administration in a school district was conceptualized by the school board as "this is anarchy; they are trying to take over the running of this district" and by teachers as "we must push this issue to retain quality in the education of our students." The ways each party conceptualizes the problems and episode have a great deal of influence over the behaviors that will result, the kinds of feelings that will be created during the conflict episode, and the chances for a constructive outcome.

The fifth stage is behavior (i.e., a sequence of behaviors and interactions between the two parties). The initial behavior of each individual is determined heavily by his/her conceptualization. The behaviors of each party have an effect on the subsequent behavior of the other. This interaction tends to increase or decrease the level of conflict.

The sixth and final stage in the conflict episode model is the outcome or result of the conflict episode. The outcome refers to the state of affairs that exists at the end of the episode, including decisions, actions taken, agreements made, and feelings of the participants.

Subsequent episodes may happen, immediately or later and with similar or different issues. The process described above is repeated for each episode, with the outcome of previous episodes affecting the entering state of each individual in subsequent episodes. Succeeding episodes can move higher in conflict intensity (escalation) or lower in intensity (de-escalation)

OPPORTUNITIES FOR INTERVENTION IN A CONFLICT

The conflict episode model can help us identify various points for intervention in managing conflict, both as a participant and when assisting others with their conflicts, for example:

1. We can affect the entering state of individuals by helping them learn to deal better with other issues and stressors in their lives, helping them to remain better "centered."

2. We can reduce the incidence of stimuli by changing or controlling the conditions under which individuals interact, e.g., reducing their need for interaction, clarifying their roles, and establishing processes by which disputes can be handled.

3. We can help individuals better manage their frustrations both by being better centered and by developing improved skills for communications in conflict-potential interactions.

4. The conceptualization stage is a fertile one for intervention, often requiring assistance of a third-party. We can help individuals distinguish between the data (i.e., actual verbatim statements plus actual actions made by the individuals) and their inferences, attributions, and evaluations extrapolated from the data. We can help them consider, even begin to accept, the radical possibility that each person's conceptualization is unique to him/her, and that other intelligent, well-intentioned individuals might possibly conceptualize the same situation in different ways! From such a foundation, we may be able to help the individuals begin to talk in more constructive ways about what happened, what was meant, and what might be done to manage the conflict.

5. We can intervene at the behavior stage to establish norms and/or set limits on acceptable behaviors and facilitate the actual interactions.

6. At the final outcomes stage, we also can intervene to help individuals put the events, results, and their feelings into a more constructive context, and to help them approach future events and conflict episodes with less negative "baggage" from the past.

CONFLICT RESPONSE MODES

The behavior of the participants is one of the steps or events in the conflict model described in the preceding section. A key determinant of behavior is the primary orientation (mode of dealing with conflicts) of the individual. There are many different ways to respond. Most individuals tend to use a limited range of responses, but could profit from enlarging their repertoire.

There have been many similar models of conflict response modes in the literature over the last 40 years, each categorizing an individual's orientation in terms of two dimensions: roughly emphasis on satisfying his/her own concerns and emphasis on satisfying concerns of the other(s). Such models can be used to describe typical ways that individuals behave in response to conflict, thus providing a helpful tool in conflict management. For convenience, these models define five primary conflict response modes, representing the four extremes or polarized modes plus a center mode of compromising. Figure 2 displays some of the labels applied to both the two dimensions and the five primary response modes.

The competing orientation or response mode involves an emphasis on winning one's own concerns at the expense of another--to be highly assertive and uncooperative. This is a power-oriented mode, with efforts to force and dominate the other, often in a "win-lose" fashion, although it may be seen as merely "asserting my rights."

Accommodating is both unassertive and cooperative, concentrating on trying to satisfy the other's concerns without attention to one's own concerns. It includes appeasement, yielding to the other, and acquiescing. There could be a note of self-sacrifice and selfless generosity in this mode.

Collaborating is a mode with great emphasis on satisfying the concerns of all parties--to work with the other party cooperatively and creatively to find an alternative that integrates and fully satisfies the concerns and interests of all. This mode is both assertive and cooperative. It also requires a relatively larger initial investment in time and energy to do such joint problem solving.

| | | | |

| |Accommodating | |Collaborating |

| |(Yielding) | |(Problem |

| |(Smoothing) | |Solving) |

| |(Obliging) | |(Integrating) |

| | | | |

|Concern about others' needs | |Compromising | |

|(Cooperativeness) | |(Sharing) | |

|(Concern for people) | |(Bargaining) | |

| | | | |

| |Avoiding | |Competing |

| |(Withdrawing) | |(Contending) |

| |(Inaction) | |(Forcing) |

| |(Neglecting) | |(Dominating) |

| | |

| |Concern about own needs |

| |(Assertiveness) |

| |(Concern for production) |

Figure 2. Conflict Response Modes

Avoiding reflects inattention to the concerns of both parties--a neglect, withdrawal, indifference, denial, or apathy. It is neither assertive nor cooperative.

The remaining orientation, compromising, is intermediate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. It reflects a pragmatism or preference for settling on an expedient, mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies the concerns of both parties. It might mean trading concessions, splitting the difference, or finding a satisfactory middle ground.

Each of us tends to be better at and more comfortable with certain types of behavior in conflict situations. This does not mean that we always respond in the same way. In terms of the five modes just described, however, most individuals tend to make predominant use of one or two of the modes, while making relatively less use of the remainder. Each of the modes has value; none is always good, bad, or preferable in all situations. One worthwhile goal for individuals is to increase their repertoire of responses to conflict plus the flexibility to use various modes in different situations and in appropriate ways.

In a team, it is of value to help participants become aware of and provide feedback to each other about their responses to conflict. It is important to help team members realize that all the response modes have value. Because a team can be viewed as a microcosm of larger settings, the learnings also can be transferred to situations outside the team.

Some of the potential advantages of these five primary response modes plus situations in which each would be appropriate are outlined below. These lists were developed from brainstorming by groups of graduate students and managers, although many literature sources have also discussed this topic, for example, Blake & Mouton (1964, 1978), Pruitt & Rubin (1986), Rahim (1986). Thomas (1976, 1979, 1992), Thomas & Kilmann (1974), Wilmot & Hocker (2001).

Competing

1. When you do not believe agreement is possible, and the situation involves issues important to you

2. When collaborating and/or compromising seem to have failed, and you don't want to accommodate the other parties

3. When others are using aggressive, "hard ball," and/or "unfair" tactics and you need to protect yourself and your interests

4. When you want to defeat the other person(s)

5. When competing is expected, e.g., in sports, battles, auditions, beating competing companies

6. When quick action is needed and you think you know what should be done, e.g., in an emergency

7. When you lack confidence in the expertise of the others (especially under time pressures)

8. When you have the power and need to implement an unpopular action, e.g., cutting budgets, laying off staff, etc.

9. When it is necessary to overcome assertive subordinates or others

10. Where an unfavorable decision by the other party may be unacceptable or costly to you

11. When the relationship with the others is not very important or long-term

12. Sometimes, to demonstrate to others the importance of the issue to you

13. Sometimes, to help generate new and creative ideas

Accommodating

1. When the stakes are low and the consequences of the outcome are not particularly important, especially for you

2. When the relationship (and/or harmony) is important to you

3. When you realize or believe that you may be wrong

4. When you are unsure about your information or position and/or when you have high confidence in the other's expertise and judgment

5. When you are dealing from a weak position and want to minimize losses

6. When you are willing to give up something now in order to position yourself to gain something else on a different issue or in the future

7. To allow others (e.g., children, subordinates) to learn from their own mistakes

8. As an empathetic or goodwill gesture when the other has had special problems recently

Collaborating

1. When issues are very important, with precedent-setting or other future implications, especially when the parties believe that agreement is possible

2. When issues are complex and pooling of information and synthesis of ideas are needed to come up with better solutions

3. When a combination of resources from the various parties is needed to solve their (shared) problems

4. When a high degree of understanding and commitment to a solution is needed from all parties

5. When the parties are in long-term and important relationships

6. When the parties are open to ideas from others, want to learn from them, are willing to have their ideas and preferences tested

7. When enough time and resources, plus skill and willingness by the parties, are available for integrative problem-solving

8. This can show respect for the other parties, affirm that both relationship and content goals are important, and help build teams

Avoiding

1. When the stakes are low for you or all parties -- the issue and/or consequences of outcomes are not very important

2. When other, more important issues demand your attention

3. If the relationship is not important

4. When others can manage the conflict fine without your involvement

5. When you need time to think before dealing with the issue; when you don't know what to do

6. When a cooling-off period is needed

7. To avoid harm to you, if any other response will cause this

8. To keep the other from influencing you and/or concluding that they can in the future

9. When you think you are in a no-win situation (and can only lose more by engaging)

Compromising

1. When the goals of the parties are mutually exclusive

2. When the parties have roughly equal power in this situation

3. When other conflict response modes have failed or are clearly unsatisfactory

4. (Alternatively) when other modes, including collaboration, have resolved some issues, and a few remain in a "stuck" mode

5. When a temporary or partial solution to a complex issue is needed

6. When time and resources are limited

7. Frequently, this mode appears reasonable (has "face validity") to most parties

The entire range of conflict responses, represented by the five primary modes above, is useful and of value. The challenge is in broadening one's repertoire and increasing flexibility in being able to respond in a wide range of modes. The art is in learning how and when to make appropriate use of the full range of responses. Further, it is appropriate and useful to use various modes at different stages in a single conflict management process; one does not have to stay with a single mode throughout dealing with a conflict situation.

MANAGING CONFLICT IN TEAMS

Conflicts occur at various stages in a team's development and center around a variety of concerns. In early stages of a team, members begin experimenting with each other and "testing the water" by expressing negative feelings about other team members and the leader. At later stages in a team's evolution, periodic conflicts may become more intense. Conflict can occur at any stage in a team's life; however, in successful teams it has mostly positive consequences such as clarification of goals and roles, bringing up difficult issues, sharpened understanding of differences, release of hostility, and stimulating interest.

The following recommendations have particular salience for team leaders; however, they also apply to all team members, who should share responsibility for the team processes, and to third-party facilitators. First are several recommendations that reduce the likelihood and severity of conflicts, followed by some recommendations for effective team interactions and management of conflicts when they arise.

Reducing the Likelihood and Severity of Conflicts

1. Have shared purpose and clearly understood, common goals. This is a cornerstone of any team, and narrows considerably the range of conflicts that may occur. It also provides a common reference point for use in dealing with conflicts after they arise.

2. Clarify roles and responsibilities. This needs to be done at early stages of a team and updated, clarified, and renegotiated during the team's life span as various circumstances change and as issues arise. It is important to have clarity, but not rigidity. Effective teams exhibit flexibility in adapting to changing and unexpected requirements and conditions.

3. Create norms for diversity and differences. Team members should accept that diversity of backgrounds, experience, and opinions is a positive factor for the team. They should encourage expression of differences and healthy debate. "The absence of conflict is not harmony, it's apathy" (Eisenhardt, et al., 1997).

4. Establish processes and guidelines for work. This needs to be done explicitly by the team, with later extensions and modifications, as guided by the team's experience. One good candidate for inclusion is the platinum rule, which encourages us to treat our team members as they would like to be treated rather than as we like to be treated (the golden rule).

5. Develop norms for dealing with confrontation and conflict. These norms typically include acceptance of conflict and encouragement for bringing up problems and issues, and facing them openly and honestly. It is especially important for the team leader to both model and communicate conceptually about such norms. Also, the leader can provide reassurance and reinforcement or openness by team members, especially the participants in a conflict.

6. Avoid occurrences of the Abilene Paradox. This is the now famous trap of groups of people who make decisions that seem to reflect total public agreement, but which may be opposed by most or all the individuals privately. The Abilene Paradox refers to a classic story by Jerry Harvey (1974) in which he and three relatives, on their own volitions, took a 106-mile trip across what he called a "Godforsaken desert " in furnace-like temperatures through a cloudlike dust storm to eat unpalatable food at a hole-in-the-wall cafeteria in Abilene, Texas--when none of them wanted to go! They discovered after completing the ordeal that this was the opposite of what each wanted to do, but none of them had voiced their true feelings. Each went along to be agreeable with what they assumed the others wanted to do. Unfortunately, this sort of paradoxical behavior sometimes happens in teams, when disagreements and conflicts are not expressed and dealt with.

7. Develop good skills in communications, conflict management, and team building. Among the particularly important communication skills are active listening, effective feedback, summarizing, balancing advocacy with inquiry, and distinguishing among facts, opinions, inferences, attributions, and evaluations. This article includes a summary of many key concepts in conflict management. There are many publications about team building; one of the best is Dyer (1995).

8. Critique team processes and learn from experience with conflicts. Too often, individuals and teams fail to reflect on, analyze, and learn from their experiences. In teams, this often means that conflicts reoccur needlessly, and managing them is no more effective than it was previously. It is good to heed George Santayana's classic maxim: those who fail to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.

Managing Conflicts When They Arise

9. Use effective communication techniques. These are always important, but especially so during a conflict. Any team member, not just the leader or a facilitator, can help the individuals in conflict give and receive communicative signals that are reliable and accurate by intervening to ensure that each party understands the other. Inquiry, asking focusing questions, summarizing, clarifying, and cuing active listening by each party are examples of the interventions that would help this to occur.

10. Facilitate I-statements and direct statements. Particularly in the earlier stages of a team's development, negative remarks often are indirect and focused away from both the sender and the object. It is helpful to encourage two changes: (a) moving the focus to and responsibility for statements to the speaker, rather than elsewhere in the team (e.g., "I feel..." rather than "You are a...") and (b) replacing indirect references to an issue with direct statements (e.g., replacing "there is a problem with trust here" with a statement of the form "Sue, when you said X, I felt Y because Z"). When intervening to promote such changes, it usually is most productive to coach the person expressing the negative feelings, although it is also appropriate to check out the reactions and feelings of the other person receiving the criticism, as well as those of other team members.

11. Make a distinction between the problem and the person. Formulate the conflict issues as shared problems that you have to solve cooperatively. State clearly what you feel and want and invite your counterpart to help in finding solutions. Avoid blaming and voicing negative opinions about others. Opinions and emotions should be expressed in ways that facilitate the process of achieving satisfying outcomes. This and the following recommendation are central components of what Fisher & Ury (1991) call "principled negotiation."

12. Focus on interests rather than rights, positions, and power. A closely related component is to develop a rich range of alternatives, including some that creatively bridge the gap between initial positions adopted by conflicting parties.

13. Reframing. Individuals in conflict almost always have individual and very different ways of "framing" the conflict and related matters. Framing involves selecting and highlighting certain aspects of a situation while excluding or minimizing others. It also involves language and descriptions that favor the viewpoint of the individual who holds and may express his or her frame. Reframing usually requires a third-party, which could be the leader or another team member. It involves rephrasing the issue in different words and phrases, offering a new frame as an alternative to the competing frames of the individuals for the purpose of trying to help bridge the gulf between the parties and to help them move more constructively in managing their conflict. Encouraging the disputants to focus on underlying interests rather than on their entrenched positions, as Fisher and Ury (1991) do, is a form of reframing. Appealing to the importance of shared purpose and common goals in the team is another form of reframing.

14. Maintain a reasonably balanced power structure. When some team members feel powerless, they are likely to suppress negative feelings and conflictual issues, with subsequent negative effects on their behavior and the team. When the leader uses high power in managing the team, this can generate feelings of unfairness and resentment. Conversely, weak leaders create conflict because the power vacuum at the top encourages individuals to compete to fill the void. Teams manage conflict better when the leader's use of power is in the mid-range and when there are not wide disparities in power among the team members.

15. Help the team members deal with their different conceptualizations of a conflict situation and events in the team. Often, the parties will conceptualize a situation very differently, even when they have access to the same information about the situation. For example, one member may see another member's active behavior as "he's trying to take over the team," while the active member may believe "I'm just trying to be helpful." Individuals have unique "alignments" (internal frames of reference) from which they interpret events and form conceptualizations. A useful book by Culbert (1996) that deals with alignments and their implications is worth attention by those wishing to improve skills in conflict management.

16. Help the team members in conflict synchronize their efforts toward resolution of the difficulty. It is likely that the two parties may make initiatives and be willing to deal with issues at different times; they may interpret differences in timing as rejection and indications of bad faith. Often a third-party is needed to help the individuals synchronize the timing, focus, and extent of their overtures and responses. Helping participants understand each other's conceptualization can also assist in synchronizing their timing.

17. Inject humor into team interactions. Effective teams make attempts to relieve tension and make their work together fun. Unfortunately, humor can be used as a way to evade conflict and push it underground. It also can backfire if it appears to be directed at someone in the group other than the speaker.

Dealing With Some Special Problems

In most teams, there are some members who thrive on conflict and seem to enjoy it. Such members present challenges for the team and its leader. Frequently, those who thrive on conflict may be trying to satisfy a drive for identity, a drive for a sense of adequacy, or a drive for power. Others may enjoy conflict for its seeming vitality and energizing qualities for themselves. Members with either of these motivations tend to share a lack of commitment to the team and a lack of intention or effort to change. A third reason that some members overuse conflict, without constructive outcome, is that they are not skilled at other modes of behavior.

There are no quick, unique solutions for team members with these types of difficulties; however, there is another recommendation. Direct, constructive confrontation by the leader or other team members may be necessary to help some individuals take responsibility for themselves and make sufficient commitment to even consider change. In the case of a participant who seems to need conflict because it is energizing to him or her, the team leader might say something such as "after seeing you continue this hassle with Sam, I get the impression that you enjoy conflict for conflict's sake and don't really want to understand or deal with the issue."

Conflicts with the team leader also occur for some members. Especially in the early stages of a team, such conflicts are important and influential in developing the future course of the team. It is particularly important that the leader demonstrate interest in receiving and understanding negative feedback and show a willingness to learn from it, when appropriate. It also is important for the leader to avoid the trap of dropping his or her leadership responsibilities and responding to the challenge by becoming "just another member." Balancing these two sets of factors is complex and important.

Cross-Cultural Complexities

Team members work in increasingly diverse environments: in terms of age (more older workers), gender (more women), race, language, and nationality (more diversity in all of these). Beyond these differences, there are also additional deep cultural differences that influence the way conflict is approached.

One of the core dimensions along which countries and cultures differ is individualism versus collectivism, the extent to which members identify with the group (in this case the team) rather than themselves as individuals (Hofstede, 1980). Individualistic cultures place a high value on autonomy, initiative, creativity, individual recognition, and development of the individual. Individual interests tend to have higher value than group interests, and group commitment is largely a function of a perceived self-benefit. Collectivist cultures value the group above the individual and are less focused on differentiating the individual from the group. Group conformity and commitment is maintained at the expense of personal interests. Harmony, getting along, avoiding conflict and confrontation, and maintaining "face" are seen as crucial. The dominant culture in the USA, Canada, Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand is individualistic, while collectivism predominates most of the rest of the world. However, examples of both are found everywhere. In California, with its cultural diversity, it can safely be assumed that a relatively high percentage of the workforce comes from a culture that is collectivist.

What are some of the complexities that cultural diversity creates for managing conflict in teams?

Feelings About Conflict. Collectivists, who place a high value on harmony, getting along, and "face", see conflict as a sign of interpersonal failure. Their comfort levels with conflict situations are low. Consequently conflict is often repressed and avoided. Although many individualists also feel discomfort with conflict, they feel it is not something to be ashamed about. They are much more likely to acknowledge the existence of conflict and deal with it directly.

Communication Styles. There are many cultural differences related to communication style. Directness is one area of difference. Some cultures are very direct. People from such cultures like to express their ideas and feelings directly, sometimes emotionally, and get frustrated with someone who seems to "beat around the bush." People from indirect cultures prefer to deal with relational aspects first, and to restore or ensure harmony before addressing substantive issues. Closely related to directness is the extent to which communication style is expressive or restrained. Some team members may have been socialized to reveal strong emotions and to feel comfortable with prolonged eye contact and touch. Others may be more stoic, and mask emotions with a poker face, use monotone speech, and avoid eye contact.

These different communication styles can cause problems when individuals interpret actions differently or draw inferences and make attributions about others without considering the different styles. For example, if team members disagree and an individual presents some views and feelings forcefully with a raised voice, another more restrained team member may interpret that as insensitive and hostile. To compound the misunderstanding, the forceful team member may conclude that the restrained team member doesn't care because little is said, or is untrustworthy because eye contact is not maintained.

Negotiation Style. Competitive and collaborative negotiations are two contrasting styles often discussed. Competitive negotiations tend to be position-based, involving trying to convince the other to agree to your position (proposal or demands), without a clear understanding of underlying interests. By contrast, collaborative negotiations often use an interest-based approach, which focuses on the needs and concerns of the parties and attempts to find creative solutions that satisfy key interests of the parties (Fisher and Ury, 1991, provide one good approach to collaborative negotiations). Some cultures, especially those that prefer a direct communication style will seek direct, face-to-face communication rather than indirect shuttle diplomacy, which might be favored by indirect communication cultures. Teams should develop negotiation styles that take into account differences among the members.

Involvement and Role of Third Parties. Team members from a collectivist culture will probably be more comfortable with a fellow team member addressing a conflict, rather than bringing in someone from the outside. Individualists, on the other hand, may prefer an impartial outsider, whose relationship to the team is remote, such as a Human Resource representative or an external mediator. The expected role of the third party is also influenced by cultural dimensions. In western individualistic cultures mediation has evolved as a process in which the third party does not make decisions for the disputants. Some mediators provide an evaluation of the strengths and weakness and they are described as evaluative. At the other end of this continuum are mediators who do not make evaluations; they are purely facilitative. In collectivist cultures, mediators are often expected to provide counsel, evaluate and advise in an effort to restore harmony. Disputants engage a third party precisely because they are unable to find a solution themselves.

Since many teams are comprised of diverse individuals with unique cultural backgrounds, it is especially important that team members and leaders become aware of how these different backgrounds affect interactions in the team. Each team member needs to interpret actions of others from the context of the other's culture, rather than the interpreter's own culture. Talking about cultural differences and conflict management issues up front can do a lot to help develop an effective and high-performing team.

A FEW FINAL COMMENTS

Managing conflicts in teams is of paramount importance. When managed effectively, conflict can have many positive effects and contribute significantly to team effectiveness. There are various ways to respond to conflict, and developing the ability to respond in multiple modes, appropriately for the immediate situation, is of vital importance in being effective in conflict situations. Fortunately, it is possible for individuals to develop increased flexibility and skills in managing conflict, both conflicts involving that individual and those of others. High-performing teams manage conflict very well.

REFERENCES

Blake, R.R., & Mouton, J.S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston: Gulf.

Blake, R.R., & Mouton, J.S. (1978). The new managerial grid. Houston: Gulf.

Culbert, S.A. (1996). Mind-Set management: The heart of leadership. New York: Oxford Press.

Dyer, W.G. (1995). Team building: Current issues and new alternatives (3rd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Eisenhardt, K.M., Kahwajy, J.L., & Bourgeois, L.J. (1997, July-Aug). How management teams can have a good fight. Harvard Business Review, p.77-85.

Fisher, R. & Ury, W. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. New York: Penguin.

Harvey, J. (1974, Summer). Managing agreement in organizations: The Abilene paradox. Organizational Dynamics, p.63-80. (See also Harvey, J.B. (1988). The Abilene paradox and other mediations on management. San Diego: University Associates.)

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences;. Newbury Park CA: Sage.

Pruitt, D. and Rubin, J. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate and settlement. New York: Random House.

Rahim, M. A. (1986). Managing conflict in organizations. New York: Praeger.

Thomas, K. (1976). Conflict and conflict management. In M.D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 889-935). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Thomas, K.W. (1979). Conflict. In S. Kerr (Ed.), Organizational behavior (p. 151-181).

Columbus, OH: Grid.

Thomas (1992). Conflict and negotiation processes in organizations, in M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp.651-717), Vol. 3. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Thomas, K.W., & Kilmann, R.H. (1974). Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode instrument. Tuxedo, NY: XICOM.

Wilmot, W. W., & Hocker, J. L. (2001). Interpersonal conflict (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Rex Mitchell is Professor of Management at California State University, Northridge. He earned a Ph.D. in management from UCLA, an M.A. in educational psychology from California State University, Northridge, and an earlier Ph.D., in chemical engineering, from the University of Utah. During thirty-two years of consulting practice, he has worked with a wide range of executives and organizations, primarily in the areas of strategic management, organization development, and executive leadership. In addition to consulting and twenty-two years as a university professor, he has had twenty-five years of professional business experience in several organizations, including twenty years of management experience. This included assignments as Vice President, Corporate Strategic Development at Health Net, Vice President of Human Resources for Blue Cross of California, and several line and program management positions with Rockwell and General Dynamics. He also has been a member of four boards of directors and had a private practice as a licensed psychotherapist for twenty years.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download