A few years ago Armstrong Worldwide, Inc., put together a team of information systems employees and outside consultants to select and install a new client–server network. Before long team members at the flooring and building materials company were engaging in several heated disagreements. The consultants preferred working 12-hour days, Monday through Thursday, then flying home on Friday. This didn’t sit well with Armstrong’s people, who lived nearby and therefore favored a traditional schedule. A second dispute centered on who was in charge.
Armstrong’s executives decided that the consultants should lead the project, but this meant that Armstrong’s people were stuck with whatever system and configuration the consultants decided. A third source of tension was that some information systems employees were worried about losing their jobs to the outside consultants. “[These conflicts] created a large amount of stress and some turnover for us,” recalls Armstrong’s information systems development manager.
The client–server network installation team at Armstrong Worldwide experienced the wrath of dysfunctional conflict and its consequences. Conflict is a process in which one party perceives that its interests are being opposed or negatively affected by another party.
Armstrong’s information systems employees experienced conflict with the consultants (and with Armstrong’s own managers) because they believed the consultants were deliberately or incidentally opposing their interests, including hours of work, long-term technology obligations, and job security. Notice that conflict is a perception, which means that it begins long before observable disagreements. Thus managers need to look for subtle signs of conflict perceptions to prevent dysfunctional behaviors that may follow.
TASK VERSUS RELATIONSHIP CONFLICT
A few decades ago management experts warned that conflict was bad and that effective managers prevented conflict from developing. They observed that conflict resulted in the same problems that Armstrong Worldwide experienced, including stress, turnover, lack of information sharing, and nonproductive behavior toward others. The more intense the conflict, the lower the team’s performance and satisfaction.
More recently management writers have adopted the view that conflict is good to a certain degree. They have developed an elegant upside-down U-shaped model showing that team performance is highest when managers encourage moderate levels of conflict (the top of the upside-down U). This advice is based on evidence that some level of conflict motivates team members to more thoroughly debate and analyze problems and opportunities. Conflict-motivated debate brings out new ideas and improves everyone’s understanding of the issue, which then produces better decisions and team performance, particularly for ambiguous tasks.
Unfortunately the “moderate conflict is good” advice isn’t quite correct, either. To understand the influence of conflict on team effectiveness, we need to distinguish between task related conflict and relationship conflict. Task-related conflict (also called constructive conflict ) occurs when team members perceive that the conflict is in the task or problem rather than in each other.
Team members view the problem as something “out there” that needs to be resolved, and the employees are merely messengers in this discussion. In contrast, relationship conflict occurs when team members view differences as personal attacks that threaten their self-esteem and resources. The conflicting parties view others (their attitudes, biases, and decisions) as the source of conflict.
Consider the different conflict perspectives adopted by Bob Goodenow and Ted Saskin, the former and current leaders of the National Hockey League Players’ Association. For 15 years Goodenow took an uncompromising approach that rewarded players handsomely, but critics say it also generated relationship conflict with NHL team owners. That relationship conflict may have been a factor in the cancellation of an entire hockey season a few years ago.
When the owners canceled the season, Goodenow didn’t mince words, saying that the players “never had a real negotiating partner.” Goodenow stepped down when players agreed to the NHL owners’ request to cap team salaries. Goodenow was replaced by Ted Saskin, who has taken a more conciliatory and task-oriented approach to the conflict. “We’ve got to be able to work more cooperatively (with the NHL) in the future,” Saskin announced on the day he took over.
NHL board of governors chair Harley Hotchkiss thinks Saskin’s approach to resolving differences is good for the sport’s future. “I will say nothing bad about Bob Goodenow,” insists Hotchkiss. “I just think that in any business you need a spirit of cooperation to move forward, and I think Ted Saskin will handle that well.”
Minimizing Relationship Conflict The “moderate conflict is good” advice assumes that relationship conflict can remain low as task-related conflict increases up to some midpoint.
Unfortunately it isn’t that simple. Relationship conflict flares up in some teams even when members experience low levels of task-related conflict. Other teams can have high levels of task-related conflict without developing perceptible levels of relationship conflict. The best advice for managers is to encourage task-related conflict and apply the following four strategies to suppress relationship conflict:
INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLES
Sometimes team members approach conflict with a winner-take-all attitude that views the other party as a competitor. Or they might try to resolve the conflict with the perception that everyone can come out ahead through creative problem solving. The conflict literature identifies five interpersonal conflict management styles, each with a unique degree of cooperativeness and assertiveness (see Figure below).
Interpersonal Conflict Management Styles
No single style is best in every situation. However, as we mentioned, some styles are more likely than others to transform task-related conflict into relationship conflict.
STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS TO TEAM CONFLICT
So far we have looked at the interpersonal side of team conflict. But when conflict escalates or continues without resolution, managers need to identify the structural causes of that conflict and apply corresponding solutions. One of the most common structural causes of conflict is incompatible goals. Consider the disagreement described earlier between Armstrong Worldwide employees and the external consultants over work schedule preferences. The employees wanted a well-spaced balance of work and leisure, whereas the external consultants wanted a large chunk of work so they could fly back home for a longer weekend.
There is no easy solution to goal incompatibility, but one idea is to emphasize superordinate goals to both groups. Superordinate goals are common objectives held by conflicting parties that are more important than the departmental or individual goals on which the conflict is based. By increasing commitment to corporatewide goals, employees place less emphasis on, and therefore feel less conflict with, coworkers regarding competing individual or departmental-level goals.
A second source of team conflict is the different beliefs, backgrounds, and values that employees bring to the group. Your values shape your preferences and motivation, so people with different values tend to prefer different choices and have different motivations. Earlier we noted that diverse values and backgrounds improve team effectiveness, so reducing this diversity isn’t usually the best solution to conflict. Instead managers need to find ways for employees to understand each other’s differences—in other words, to increase empathy among team members.
Task interdependence is a third reason why conflict exists. The more tightly interconnected your work is with other people’s work, the more likely your actions are to interfere with their goals. And because a team is partly defined by the interdependence of its members, conflict is going to occur. If conflict gets out of hand, managers might look at ways to reduce the intensity of interdependence. For instance, rather than have two people perform highly interdependent services for a customer, it may be better for each employee to provide both services.
Finally, conflict often results from ambiguity over rules and responsibilities. Look back at the Armstrong Worldwide conflict again. Armstrong’s employees and the external consultants lacked clear guidelines over work hours and (at first) leadership responsibilities, which motivated them to act competitively toward each other. Eventually Armstrong executives doused the conflict by clarifying these duties and expectations. They also set up an advisory group to make further rules if employees and consultants developed future disputes.
Principles of Management Related Interview Questions
|Principles of service marketing management Interview Questions||Corporate Governance and Business Ethics Interview Questions|
|Strategic Planning for Project Management Interview Questions||Principles of Management and Organisational Behaviour Interview Questions|
|Travel and Tourism Interview Questions||Channel Management Interview Questions|
|Marketing Interview Questions||Project Coordinator Interview Questions|
Principles of Management Related Practice Tests
|Principles of service marketing management Practice Tests||Corporate Governance and Business Ethics Practice Tests|
|Travel and Tourism Practice Tests||Channel Management Practice Tests|
Principles Of Management Tutorial
The External And Internal Environments
Globalization And The Manager
Stakeholders, Ethics, And Corporate Social Responsibility
Planning And Decision Making
Developing High-performance Teams
Staffing And Developing A Diverse Workforce
Motivating And Rewarding Employee Performance
Managing Employee Attitudes And Well-being
Managing Through Power, Influence, And Negotiation
Managing Innovation And Change
All rights reserved © 2018 Wisdom IT Services India Pvt. Ltd
Wisdomjobs.com is one of the best job search sites in India.