Resolving Conflict in Work Teams

------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:

1. Administrative Procedures: If the team lacks good groundwork for what
it's doing, its members will not be able to coordinate their work.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Responsibilities: Each team member must know what areas are assigned
and who is accountable for them.

6. 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:

1. Listen for meaning.
2. Understanding is not agreeing.
3. Seek clarification before responding, if needed.
4. Apply listening skills when receiving a message.
5. 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:

1. Diagnosis: Recognizing areas of understanding and areas of
differences.
2. Initiation: Bringing the disagreements to the surface.
3. Listening: Hearing not only what the other person is saying, but the
Emotional aspects as well.
4. 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:

1. What is the problem, as you perceive it?
2. What does the other person do that contributes to the problem?
3. What do you want or need from the other person?
4. What do you do that contributes to the problem?
5. 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.

1. Acknowledge that the conflict exists.
2. Gain common ground by putting the conflict in perspective with the
goals and purpose of the team.
3. Seek to understand all angles of the disagreement, keeping in mind
that understanding is different from agreement.
4. Attack the issue, not each other. Channel anger and hostility into
problem solving and action planning.
5. 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:

1. More frequent and effective upward, downward, and team communications.
2. More frequent meetings and status review sessions to increase
communication between functions and minimize inconsistent perceptions
of project goals and priorities.
3. 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

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.