18
Manage Intra-team Conflict through Collaboration
LAURIE R. WEINGART AND KAREN A. JEHN
The basic principle we espouse in this chapter is that intra-team conflict should be managed using collaboration. Intra-team conflict occurs when team members hold discrepant views or have interpersonal incompatibilities. There has been a debate in organizational research regarding whether agreement or disagreement within teams is advantageous for overall performance. While a recent large-scale analysis of prior research on team conflict (i.e. a meta-analysis) found that on average, all types of conflict (task and relationship) can impede team performance (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003), conflict researchers have also found that while relationship conflicts based on personality clashes and interpersonal antagonism are detrimental to team performance and morale, task conflicts can be beneficial if managed collaboratively (Amason, 1996; Ensley and Hmieleski, 2005; Jehn, 1995, 1997; Liang, Liu, Lin, and Lin, 2007; Matsuo, 2006; Olson, Parayitam, and Bao, 2007). Our central argument is that collaboration can benefit both task and relationship conflict, but that task conflict should be actively managed (not necessarily eliminated) through collaboration in the work setting whereas relationship conflict should be collaboratively managed off-line, outside the work setting, (or avoided) to ensure high performance of teams.
Collaboration is a joint endeavor, involving two or more people working together to complete a task. Collaboration includes teamwork - the coordination of efforts of a group of people around a stated purpose. It involves constructive discussion among team members regarding the common workgroup goal. Different from negotiations (see Chapter 28), where parties often have divergent interests, teamwork, as we address it, is focused on groups in which members have common goals, thus making collaboration a key component to successful team outcomes. When embedded in the culture of an organization, this can be more than coordination and cooperation, but rather a continuous partnering of people based on shared values (Haskins, Liedtka, and Rosenblum, 1998).
There are three fundamental steps in managing team conflict through collaboration. The first step is to identify the type of intra-team conflict. The second is to identify appropriate collaboration strategies to resolve disputes. We argue that collaboration is a key strategy, but it needs to be applied differently, depending on the type of dispute. The third step is to cultivate conditions that increase the likelihood of collaboration. We address each step below.
The first major principle in dealing with intra-team conflict collaboratively is to determine the type of conflict. Task conflict involves disagreements among team members on performance-related activities. Some of these performance-related activities have to do with the actual task and others have to do with the process of doing the task or delegating resources and duties.
Task content conflicts are disagreements among group members regarding ideas and opinions about the task being performed, such as disagreement regarding an organization’s current hiring strategies or determining the information to include in an annual report. Task content conflicts include debates over facts (driven by data, evidence) or opinions (De Dreu, Harinck, and Van Vianen, 1999). Task process conflicts are about logistical and delegation issues such as how task accomplishment should proceed in the work unit, who’s responsible for what, and how things should be delegated (Jehn, 1997). They are often about the coordination of the task (e.g. three subtasks need to be completed) or coordination of the people (e.g. we should meet at 3 pm each day to update; Behfar, Mannix, Peterson, and Trochim, 2008). One important distinction about task conflict is that it often provides more useful information about the task, the process, or the people involved and their capabilities (Chapter 17). While the debate can be contentious, the differing views discussed will add to the group’s overall store of knowledge. Relationship conflict is less likely to have this informational advantage (Cronin and Bezrukova, 2006).
Relationship conflicts are disagreements and incompatibilities among group members about personal issues that are not task related. Relationship conflicts frequently reported are about social events, gossip, clothing preferences, political views and hobbies (Jehn, 1997). Relationship conflicts are characterized by more personal and interpersonal concerns, can be driven by personality differences, and are more likely to affect group maintenance functions, such as cohesiveness, but can also interfere with task performance.
Take an R&D team: when the different researchers disagree about data interpretation and the meaning of the results, they are experiencing task content conflict. If they argue about who’s responsible for writing up the final report and who will make the presentation, they are having a task process conflict. Disagreements about the fastest route to work, automobile gas mileage requirements by the government, politics, religion, and the intelligence level of anyone who would take the bus (which one member does) are relationship conflicts. Ongoing research on the distinction between task and relationship conflict is beginning to separate the content of the relationship conflict (on-task vs off-task) from the emotionality and source of that conflict (Cronin and Bezrukova, 2006; Jehn, Greer, Levine, and Szulanski, 2008; Weingart, Bear, and Todorova, 2008).
Relationship conflicts are characteristically more emotional than task conflicts - and those emotions tend to be negative ones - frustration, anger, stress (Greer and Jehn, 2007). Behavioral expressions of negative emotions include yelling, crying, banging fists, slamming doors, and having an angry tone and, when expressed in this way, are associated with conflict escalation. In contrast, a simple acknowledgment of emotion (e.g. “What you said about me makes me angry”; see Chapter 8) is less likely to elicit a heated exchange, but rather a discussion of causes and attempts to repair.
These negative emotions arise because relationship conflicts often involve threats to people’s self-identity or self-esteem - the conflicts are often deeply value laden. For example, a conflict over whether a woman or minority could make a good US president taps into deeply held values and can be very personal both to men and women and majority and minority members. When negative emotions run high, collaboration between the disputants might not be possible. Collaboration requires a high level of interdependence and willingness to work together. Team members that feel animosity, frustration, anger, or distrust are not likely to be willing to rely on one another.
In contrast, task conflict tends not to be as deeply rooted in people’s value systems. However, that’s not to say that task conflict is never emotional. Debates of how to perform a task can get very heated - often because both sides believe they are right and have strong convictions to their opinions (Cronin and Bezrukova, 2006; Jehn, 1997).
People can also experience positive emotions in response to conflict. Consider a debate about an organization’s strategy that is stimulating and energizing. Many positive emotions can accompany those task conflicts - happiness, elation, positive challenge. Ongoing research suggests that task conflict elicits more active positive emotions (e.g. active, interested, alert) as compared to other types of emotions (negative emotions and passive, positive emotions, e.g. content, at ease, quiet), whereas relationship conflict is more likely to elicit all types of emotions, but passive, positive emotions to a lesser extent.
Two other aspects of conflict that are important to consider are the dynamic nature of conflict and the different individual perspectives that members have. Conflicts can transform from task-oriented conflict to more relationship-focused conflicts over time. We consider this in the section on using collaboration to overcome the escalation of conflict. Thus, when considering the type of conflict, we also need to take into account the context within which it occurs and the origins of the conflict (Jehn and Mannix, 2001; Greer, Jehn, and Mannix, 2008). For example, what currently appears as an intense interpersonal conflict could have begun as a series of conflicts over task performance. On the other hand, relationship conflicts can also be disguised as, or turn into, task conflicts such that if a member has a personal issue with another member they may sabotage the group by undermining any opinion or suggestion the other member may have.
In addition, individuals within groups may have different perceptions about the level or type of conflict in the group (Jehn and Chatman, 2000; Jehn and Rispens, 2008). One member may perceive that there is a high level of conflict while others may think there is no problem. This can interfere with the process of resolution as it is difficult to find a collaborative solution when there is not even agreement as to whether there is a conflict or not. A first step, that we discuss in detail later, is to recognize the differences in perceptions and communicate openly regarding the existence (or lack) of conflict within the group.
We assert that the detrimental effect of relationship conflict can be minimized if collaboratively managed outside of the task setting and the beneficial effect of task conflict can be maximized if collaboratively managed within the task setting. Thus, the appropriate collaborative strategy depends on the type of conflict experienced.
Task conflict
Although task conflict has been shown to have an overall negative impact on team performance (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003), it can improve decision quality, strategic planning, learning, and creativity (Amason and Schweiger, 1994; Cosier and Rose, 1977; De Dreu, 2006; Jehn and Rupert, 2008; see also Chapter 17). The cognitive, task-focused aspect of conflict can enhance the assessment of shared information and deliberate, careful assessment of alternatives. The useful give and take among members, the consultative interaction and problem solving, and the increased information exchanged enhance performance. Avoidance or suppression of conflict has been shown to interfere with team performance. When members agree with other group members about concepts or actions without presenting dissenting viewpoints, superior alternatives may be overlooked and thus performance may be suboptimal (Janis, 1982; see also Chapter 25). Putting pressure on dissenters, self-censorship, and collective justifications (all associated with groupthink) increase defective decision making (Chapter 17).
Relationship conflict
While direct collaboration is effective for task conflict, it is less so for relationship conflict. Collaboration (or contention) over non-task issues takes much time away from task performance, thus reducing functioning and effectiveness (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003; Murnighan and Conlon, 1991). However, collaboration can be used effectively to resolve many relationship conflicts when engaged offline. Offline discussions give team members opportunities to discuss relationship conflicts in a more private and personal forum. Without an audience, disputants should be less likely to posture and more likely to be open to the other party’s point of view. Offline discussions can be engaged directly by the disputants or with the help of others. Sometimes facilitation might be necessary to bring the disputants together and dampen negative emotions.
However, some relationship conflicts are better avoided. Relationship conflicts that have their roots in deeply held values and assumptions are often impossible to resolve in the workplace where activities are primarily task focused. Thus, trying to get at true underlying interests for relationship conflicts may result in even more intractable disputes, distracting from task performance and escalating negativity. When relationship conflicts have a low potential for resolution they are sometimes better to avoid (De Dreu and Van Vianen, 2001; Druckman, 1994).
Collaboration is effective in managing conflict, task or relationship, in that it sets a positive, team-oriented tone for the group (Mintzberg, Dougherty, Jorgensen, and Westley, 1996). However, collaboration doesn’t just happen. Collaboration within teams must be fostered by promoting a team orientation, composing the team of members who are motivated to cooperate and think deeply, and reinforcing actions that promote problem solving (i.e. member behavior). Although we talk about team orientation, team member motives, and team member behavior as distinct categories, they are interrelated. For example, certain team member behaviors (e.g. information exchange) will influence a team orientation (e.g. open communication norms) and vice versa.
Create a team orientation
For a team to be collaborative, its atmosphere must support interdependence, reliance, respect, trust, open communication, and collective efficacy (Chapter 10). While a team orientation can be considered a precondition for effective collaboration, it will also improve as the group experiences successful collaborative events. In this way, norms are developed which perpetuate interdependence, reliance on, and respect for one another.
Framing. Creating a team orientation refers to framing the group’s activities as belonging to the team rather than solely as a set of individual accomplishments. A common group goal and a superordinate team identity can promote this (see Chapters 9 and 17). With a team orientation, there is a sense that although we are each responsible for our individual contributions to the group, “we” are jointly responsible for the group’s final product. Team-oriented members take personal pride in the team’s performance and feel personally successful when the team is successful.
Team goals. When team goals and individual goals support one another, teams that focus on a meta-goal or team-goal are more likely to have constructive conflict management (Thatcher and Jehn, 1998). This is in contrast to the case where individuals focus only on their own contribution, claiming (or denying) responsibility for the overall group’s performance.
Develop collective efficacy. Collective efficacy refers to a group’s shared belief in its capabilities to perform a task (in this case, resolve a conflict) (Bandura, 1997; also see Chapter 10). Often what is most important in predicting high performance is that team members feel they have the capabilities to resolve the task and relationship conflicts at hand (Jehn et al., 2008). If members feel they, or others in the group, have the capabilities to constructively manage the conflict, they will engage in positive discussions with one another relying on the competence of the group to reach a satisfactory resolution consistent with the group goal.
Collective efficacy is driven both by the team’s beliefs about its ability to work as a unit as well as team members’ beliefs about their own and others’ capabilities. Self-efficacy (held by an individual) can be raised using several mechanisms (Bandura, 1997; and, as noted, see Chapter 10), three of which also seem relevant to collective efficacy in teams. First, collective efficacy can be raised through “enactive mastery experience,” in our case, prior successes at managing similar, challenging conflicts that required effort and perseverance to overcome (Jehn et al., 2008). Through experience, team members learn effective strategies for diagnosing and managing conflict, which increase their confidence for managing future conflicts that might arise. Second, collective efficacy can be raised through observing and modeling other teams’ collaboration strategies. Teams that can observe similar teams’ inner workings and subsequent performance can use that information as a comparator to determine where they stand relative to others. They can also learn from the other team’s successes and failures. Third, collective efficacy can be raised via social persuasion - when others express confidence in the team’s capabilities.
Affective integration. A key component in collaborative approaches to conflict resolution is the attitudes members have toward one another. Affective integration is a group-level concept representing the feelings that team members hold for one another, specifically in terms of their interpersonal trust, respect, and liking (Cronin, Bezrukova, Weingart, and Tinsley, 2008; Weingart, Cronin, Houser, Cagan, and Vogel, 2005). These attitudes influence the beliefs about and behavioral inclinations members have toward each other. Trust evokes beliefs that others can be relied upon (Rotter, 1971). This is often called trustworthiness, and it leads to the willingness to be confident in another person’s competence, integrity, and good will (Chapter 21). Respect, on the other hand, evokes beliefs about the intrinsic value of others and liking implies a general attraction to others (Chaiken, 1987) and at the group level this is often conceptualized as cohesion (Festinger, 1950).
Affective integration increases the likelihood that team members’ assets (knowledge, skills, and abilities or KSAs) are actually used by the team while collaborating. Both trust and respect play a key role. Trust influences the willingness to share information and receive information as accurate (Carnevale and Lawler, 1986; Kimmel, Pruitt, Magenau, Konar-Goldband, and Carnevale, 1980). Without trust, team members will be unwilling to rely on the KSAs of others for fear that teammates might not follow through on their promises or work to undermine teammates’ interests. Respect is what leads people to a priori assume potential utility in the ideas of others. People will devote more attention to these ideas in order to find the value that they assume exists.
Affective integration also buffers against the stresses and strains that often arise as a result of team conflict. Trust decreases the likelihood that task conflicts will be perceived as attacking or personal in nature (Simons and Peterson, 2000) because of the implied benevolence in those who are trusted. When people respect each other they take great care not to violate fairness norms regarding how people should behave toward one another (Bies and Moag, 1986). Respect has been shown to relate to (perceptions of) fair treatment as well as the inclination to acknowledge others’ status and dignity (Tyler, Degoey, and Smith, 1996; Tyler and Lind, 1992). Finally, liking and its resultant cohesion can serve to prevent people from withdrawing from each other in the face of conflict.
Open and constructive conflict communication norms. Collaboration requires norms for the expression of task-related conflict that support freedom to disagree and to constructively respond. Conflict communication norms can either be open to a free exchange of concerns and dissention, discouraging, or avoidant of those exchanges. If group members feel that it is appropriate and acceptable to discuss their differing opinions, disagreements are more likely to have a positive effect on group process and performance than if these disagreements are discouraged or avoided (Lovelace, Shapiro, and Weingart, 2001). However, openness must be accompanied by restraint and respect for others’ contributions so that conflicts do not escalate and become more emotional, relationship conflicts. Openness can be communicated by using an inquiry approach to group decision making (Garvin and Roberto, 2001), for example allowing others to make their point without interruption, asking questions to improve your understanding, and engaging in active listening (i.e. repeating back what others have said in your own words to ensure that you heard and understood what they said) (Rogers and Farson, 1979). The ideal culture for a group is to have conflict norms that will allow constructive, open task-related debates but not critical, personal attacks detrimental to performance.
When task conflict is suppressed, the lines of communication will need to be opened for collaboration to be successful. Openness and trust must be nurtured within these teams (Simons and Peterson, 2000). Trust must be allowed to develop over time - through positive experiences group members will grow more comfortable engaging in collaboration. The team leader can play an important role in setting the norms for open conflict communication in the team (see Chapters 15 and 21). Research shows that teams with leaders who are rated to be effective experience more constructive conflict, more freedom to express doubts, and are more innovative (Lovelace et al., 2001; Manz, Barstein, Hostager, and Shapiro, 1989; Van de Ven and Chu, 1989). In addition, providing the team with the collaborative skills through training can aid in successful conflict management.
Identify team members with a propensity to collaborate
A team is more likely to engage in collaboration if its members are inclined to use collaboration. A team member’s propensity to collaborate will be higher when he or she is motivated to work hard toward improving outcomes for oneself and for other members of the team. This requires a cooperative orientation (focus on self and others) (Van Lange, 1999) and epistemic motivation (the desire to develop and hold a rich and accurate understanding of the world) (Kruglanski, 1989). A cooperative orientation provides a focus on collaboration whereas epistemic motivation provides the drive (De Dreu and Carnevale, 2003). Both are needed for groups to be effective; for example, for win-win agreements to be achieved (De Dreu, Beersma, Stroebe, and Euwema, 2006).
Cooperative orientation. Team members who are cooperatively oriented place value on maximizing outcomes for all team members and tend to engage in more collaboration as a means to this end (De Dreu, Weingart, and Kwon, 2000; Messick and McClintock, 1968). People who only care about themselves (individualistically oriented) have less interest in collaboration (Messick and McClintock, 1968). Since people who are solely interested in their own achievements will have little interest in teamwork, they may be better off working alone or having their ideas communicated to a group by a third party (Locke, Tirnauer, Roberson, Goldman, Latham, and Weldon, 2001). This is not to denigrate independent thinking which is the basis for constructive conflict (Chapter 17) - without independent thinking within groups (and the conflict that results), the group easily lapses into conformity and groupthink (Locke et al., 2001).
Cooperative orientations influence quality of agreements through their effect on group member behavior (De Dreu et al., 2000; Weingart, Bennett, and Brett, 1993). Cooperatively motivated team members tend to engage in more integrative/problem-solving tactics (e.g. truthful information exchange about preferences and priorities, multi-issue offers, tradeoffs) and fewer contentious tactics (e.g. threats, substantiation of position, power tactics) than do team members who are only individualistically motivated. Groups with mainly individualistic members, however, sometimes realize that disinterest in group collaboration will not allow them to reach an agreement and cooperation is necessary to reach their own goals (often referred to as “enlightened self-interest”; Rubin, 1991), resulting in a shift to team problem solving when they hit an impasse and are aware they are working with other people like themselves (Schei, Rognes, and De Dreu, 2008). As implied earlier, cooperative groups can become too cooperative, resulting in compromise (giving in rather than problem solving) and suboptimal agreements. This is most likely to occur when they do not have a strong reason to resist yielding, for example when they are under time pressure, have low aspirations, have bad alternatives, or are not accountable to others (De Dreu et al., 2000; Pruitt and Rubin, 1986).
To remedy the above, individualistically motivated group members can adopt problem solving to achieve their goals as a way to avoid impasse and cooperative group members may adopt more competitive strategies to protect themselves from being dominated by individualists who do not want to cooperate. However, the latter is more likely (Kelly and Stahelski, 1970). Faced with conflicting member motives, cooperative negotiators have been shown to become more competitive than individualists are to become more cooperative (Weingart, Brett, Olekalns, and Smith, 2007).
Although cooperatives will shift their overall approach toward competition as the number of individualists increases, they may also attempt to shift the interaction back to cooperation by strategically interjecting collaborative behaviors. For example, cooperatives who were in the minority in negotiating groups responded to attempts by individualists to claim value by providing information that could be used to find mutually beneficial agreements (i.e. integrative information). They also rewarded the individualists for providing integrative information by reciprocating with additional integrative information (Weingart et al., 2007).
Whereas these orientations (called “social value orientations” in the research literature) are treated as relatively stable individual differences, situational cues can also influence one’s propensity to collaborate. As such, moving a group toward collaboration would require either changing the composition of the team to all cooperative members (via turnover and selection) or providing strong cues about the collaborative nature of the task and the cooperative motives of others. Team members can be instructed to adopt a cooperative approach or be incentivized, making cooperation in everyone’s self-interest. Instructions from a supervisor or rewards for high joint value agreements have been shown to be effective. The expectation that team members will continue to interact on cooperative tasks in the future (“expected cooperative future interaction”) has also been shown to increase cooperative motives (De Dreu et al., 2000). Finally, team members can adjust their motives in response to the behaviors of others in the group. Cooperative actions by others can serve as a signal of willingness to collaborate, but individualistically oriented members also need assurances that cooperation is in their own self-interest (Locke et al., 2001).
Epistemic motives. People with high epistemic motivation have a desire to gain knowledge, think deeply, and more thoroughly process information. They engage in more deliberative and systematic processing (De Dreu and Carnevale, 2003). In that people with high epistemic motivation process information more thoroughly and are more likely to revise their view of a given situation (De Dreu, Koole, and Steinel, 2000), it is likely they would make strong contributions to collaborative teams.
People with low epistemic motivation are believed to solve problems and make decisions using heuristic processing, which is relatively quick and effortless. Low epistemic motivation has been shown to impede the quality of information processing and the collaborativeness of group decision making. Research on negotiation shows that low epistemic motivation increases reliance on stereotypes and irrelevant anchoring information (De Dreu et al., 1999). Small groups composed of members with a high need for closure have been found to be less egalitarian in their decision making and more tolerant of an authoritarian leader (De Grada, Kruglanski, Pierro, and Mannetti, 1999), both of which run counter to collaboration.
Like a cooperative orientation, epistemic motivation is jointly determined by individual differences and situational cues. People with low epistemic motivation are likely to have a high need for closure (Webster and Kruglanski, 1994). The internal pressure to quickly complete the task at hand associated with a high need for closure tends to limit the motivation to deeply process information. Similarly, external time pressure has been shown to limit team members’ epistemic motivation (De Dreu et al., 1999).
To increase the odds that a team includes epistemically motivated members, one could screen people in terms of their need for closure or for cognition. In addition, epistemic motivation can be induced by reducing time pressure (reducing the need for closure) or making them accountable for their process. Process accountability has been shown to increase epistemic motivation because when people expect to be observed and evaluated by others regarding the processes they engage they are more likely to use a more thorough process (Lerner and Tetlock, 1999).
Propensity to collaborate as a combination of cooperative orientations and epistemic motives. The two dimensions, cooperative orientations and epistemic motives, are independent - cooperatives and individualists can hold high or low epistemic motivation. However, both a cooperative motive and high epistemic motivation are necessary for team members to effectively collaborate (De Dreu et al., 2006). Team members who hold the goal of maximizing joint (individual and group) gain and are motivated to process information thoroughly are most likely to engage in problem-solving behaviors and succeed in mixed-motive negotiations. The same should hold in teamwork contexts.
Team member behavior
Collaboration is enacted through group member behavior. Thus it is important to identify the behaviors that constitute collaboration. Although collaboration differs from negotiation, we can look to the negotiation literature to consider how to manage conflict in collaborative settings. The negotiation literature has identified integration of interests as a collaborative strategic approach for managing conflict (see Chapter 28). Integration of interests includes increasing the availability of resources (thus, “expanding the pie”) as well as sharing in the distribution of those resources. The literature on integrative negotiation has identified a host of tactics that aid in the identification of opportunities for joint gain. We focus on three that are central to the process: exchange information, use packaging and tradeoffs, and work to break the chain of conflict escalation.
Exchange information. A key mechanism for enacting an integrative strategic approach involves the exchange of accurate information. Exchanging information increases insight into the other party’s preferences and priorities and the probability that negotiators will find integrative agreements, if a zone of agreement exists (Pruitt, 1981; Putnam and Jones, 1982). The benefit of sharing information varies depending on the type of information that is shared and how it is used. Sharing factual information, like constraints or costs, can be used to merely inform the other party (a collaborative application) or to substantiate one’s position in an attempt to persuade the other party (a less collaborative approach). Sharing information about preferences for a given issue (i.e. what you want and why you should have it your way) can be more confrontational in nature and does not necessarily improve the quality of an agreement (Weingart, Hyder, and Prietula, 1996). In contrast, exchanging information about priorities across issues (i.e. the relative importance of the issues to a negotiator and why) represents an effective, collaborative type of information exchange as it involves multiple issues and can facilitate tradeoffs across issues (Pruitt and Lewis, 1975; Thompson, 1991).
Use packaging and tradeoffs. It is not uncommon for discussions of multi-issue conflicts to progress one issue at a time - with the group resolving one issue before moving to the next. The problem with this approach is that tradeoffs cannot be made across issues. Tradeoffs occur when both parties make concessions on less important issues (to themselves) to gain advantage on another (Pruitt, 1981). This tactic is effective at reconciling interests when parties have differing priorities on issues when each party gains more than they lose in the tradeoff.
When team members are unwilling to share this information (because they fear the other party might not reciprocate, putting themselves at an information disadvantage), effective tradeoffs can be identified by exchanging multi-issue offers (i.e. packaging). When issues are packaged together, instead of being considered independently and sequentially, it is easier to arrange trades or concessions as negotiators search for packages that are mutually beneficial (Thompson, Mannix, and Bazerman, 1988; Weingart et al., 1993). Discovering tradeoffs through the exchange of packaged offers is a more indirect method in that team members must infer other’s priorities by stated package preferences (Adair, Weingart, and Brett, 2007).
Work to break the chain of conflict escalation. One of the most difficult aspects of a successful negotiation is trying to balance the cooperative and competitive components of mixed-motive negotiations (Lax and Sebenius, 1986). Once a conflict takes on a competitive or personal tone (i.e. becomes a relationship conflict), it is very difficult to shift it to a more cooperative task-focused interaction, as the conflict can escalate into a destructive cycle. One way to break the chain of contentious behavior is to respond with integrative, collaborative responses (Brett, Shapiro, and Lytle, 1998; Putnam and Jones, 1982). Collaboration is then more likely to continue when that collaborative behavior is reciprocated than when it is not (Weingart, Prietula, Hyder, and Genovese, 1999). Another method for breaking conflict spirals is explicitly labeling the contentious reciprocation as unproductive during the interaction. When a conflict is contentious and one party identifies the process as such, the other party would be hesitant to continue in a contentious manner without appearing irrational. Directly responding to a threat by identifying it (“Are you threatening me?”) demonstrates that the threat was not effective and may cause the party making the threat to shift tactics or refocus onto the process (Brett et al., 1998).
Another component of conflict that encourages a negative escalation cycle is emotion (see Chapter 8). When people begin to take negative comments about their task performance or ideas personally, the conflict becomes more emotional and task conflict can escalate to become relationship conflict. Relationship conflict of this type is best handled by mediation by an outside party to sort through the negative emotions and ascribe more positive attributions to team members’ behavior. Another option is that team members who are not emotionally inflamed might take the disputants off-site, such as into a social setting for drinks, or a walk, where they can reestablish their interpersonal bonds and discuss their concerns. If the negative emotions are so inflamed among two members that they are not willing to talk, we recommend having two members who are closest to each of the adversaries talk, collaboratively, with each of the parties. Then the two facilitators (i.e. 3rd and 4th parties) can talk and try to bring all four together. Finally, a trusted outsider to the team (e.g. manager or colleague) could help high negative emotion teams get to the point where they can engage in collaboration and constructive conflict without assuming the worst of others. When possible, irrational team members can be replaced.
In order to illustrate the use of collaboration in teams, we present two case examples of team conflict: one managed ineffectively, the other effectively. These examples are compilations of conflicts we have observed in our research on teams in organizations. Both examples involve task conflict within cross-functional product development teams working to design a high-quality, low-cost automobile that will meet customers’ preferences and desires. These teams are comprised of many parties (including marketing representatives and suppliers), but here we will focus on two central parties - designers and engineers. Each subgroup has its own concerns. The designers are responsible for the brand image and appearance of the car. The engineers are responsible for the functioning of the car and its components and have primary responsibility for keeping costs within budget. Unfortunately, these interests are not always in line with one another.
Dysfunctional cross-functional product development team
Consider a cross-functional product development team designing a subsystem of a new model of an automobile. This team is responsible for the design of the car’s interior. They are at mid stage in the design process. Many decisions have been made about the design and functionality of the interior. Models have been developed and general layouts for components (e.g. the console, instrument panel, etc.) have been determined. Engineering feels it has worked out most of the major functionality issues and was able to remain within budget, but just barely. Then design comes in with a change in styling. In order to maintain brand identity, the shape and flow from the instrument panel to the console needs to change. Engineering is furious. Implications for this change are large. The changes will require a redesign of the placement of internal components within the instrument panel and console. To make these changes will be costly - it will require money that is not there. Design is indifferent to these concerns - they believe that the aesthetic component is what sells the car - and their job is to make sure the automobile sends a coherent message to the customer.
Each group sees the problem from its own perspective and neither is willing to give ground. Engineering tells design, “It can’t be done.” Design is tired of engineering’s “no can do” attitude and continues to put pressure on engineering until engineering is willing to “make it work.” Several meetings occur in which engineering and design try to convince the other on the merits of their positions. Arguments get heated, tempers flare. Little progress is made. After many heated discussions, a compromise solution is reached which moves away from the design intent, compromises functionality, and increases cost.
This conflict can be characterized as a task conflict with low resolution potential (i.e. team members have low collective efficacy). It involved an important aspect of their task performance and needed to be resolved, but neither side believed they had the ability to resolve the conflict. There was no sense of a shared fate - rather than focus on developing the best product, each side focused on its own concerns. Conflict norms were more toward blaming and attacking than listening and building. Negative emotions were evoked. What transpired was a contentious conflict, pitting “us” against “them,” resulting in a solution that neither party was especially happy with. Was there another way out of this conflict? What could the team have done to find a better solution?
Collaborative integrated product development (IPD) team
Consider another design team working on the same component. This team faces the same change in styling. But this time, design presents the change in terms of a shared problem - they take responsibility for the change and are willing to consider its implications. Engineering is then willing to collaborate with design to try to make the change possible. The IPD team has a frank discussion about the implications of the change. Design tries to come up with less expensive and less disruptive ways to change the console and instrument panel while maintaining design intent. Engineering tries to develop innovative ways to fit the internal components in the new space. They also start looking for additional sources of funding for the change from the overall vehicle budget. Some discussions grow heated, but because frustration is focused on the problem rather than one another, tension is quickly dispersed. Several potential solutions are developed. A dominant option emerges which includes a slight design modification that provides adequate space for a key component and some additional funding is found.
This conflict situation differed in several ways from the previous example. While the conflict was just as important and difficult to resolve, collective efficacy was high. Both engineers and designers believed a solution was possible. They viewed themselves as a team tackling a common problem. As such, members were cooperatively oriented and epistemically motivated to work hard to find a mutually beneficial solution. Conflict norms supported open information exchange and constructive discussions. Emotions remained under control (Chapter 8). An integrative solution evolved because the entire IPD team “owned” the problem and worked together, collaboratively, to develop a solution. They trusted one another’s expertise, motives, and information in a way that allowed them to reach a mutually satisfactory solution. A team orientation, trust in one another, and a belief that a jointly beneficial solution was possible motivated the team to search together for a solution. This search involved sharing information, creativity, some tradeoffs, and an effort to avoid turning task frustration into personal attacks. In addition to a high-quality agreement, this successful conflict resolution process reinforced the team’s belief in its ability to solve problems and will make the team more willing to tackle similar problems in the future.
Summary of cases
The first team’s conflict was very contentious, plagued by low affective integration and individualistic orientations - an “us versus them” framing of the problem. In contrast, the collaborative team shared ownership of the problem and developed solutions that recognized the concerns and interests of all parties involved. The first team was not willing to openly share information nor did they trust the information that was received. The information exchange that did occur served the purpose of bolstering a priori positions. In contrast, the collaborative team used information to develop understanding and potential solutions. Because motives were cooperative, it was easier to trust the information provided. In addition, they worked hard at processing the information made available to them, signaling high epistemic motivation. Finally, where the first team was very positional in making demands (“my way is the only way”) resulting in a stalemate, the collaborative team used creativity and tradeoffs to develop potential solutions. What resulted for the non-collaborative team was a time-consuming, contentious, and sometimes emotional and personal conflict and an unsatisfactory solution. The collaborative team was able to succeed because it managed the conflict by focusing on team goals, exchanging truthful information, developing trust, and using tradeoffs and creativity to find integrative solutions that satisfied both engineering and design’s concerns.
CONCLUSION
The literature on teamwork, negotiation, and conflict provided the foundation for this chapter. The principles gleaned from this prior research demonstrate that the broad set of activities associated with collaboration can be used to effectively manage team conflict. Managing task conflict via collaboration can improve the quality of team decision making and performance. Collaboration is fostered when there is a strong team orientation, team members are both cooperatively and epistemically motivated, and team members engage in problem-solving behaviors. Yet, the management of conflict is often difficult because negative emotions are easily evoked - defensiveness, anger, frustration. Collaboration provides a way to focus more objectively on the task at hand and integrate conflicting perspectives.
Adair, W., Weingart, L.R., and Brett, J. (2007). The timing and function of offers in U.S. and Japanese negotiations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1056-1068.
Amason, A. (1996). Distinguishing effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123-148.
Amason, A., and Schweiger, D.M. (1994). Resolving the paradox of conflict, strategic decision making, and organizational performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 239-253.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. NY: W. H. Freeman.
Behfar, K., Mannix, E., Peterson, R., and Trochim, W. (2008). Coordinating both people and task: Revisiting and explicating the process conflict construct. Paper presented at the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA, August.
Bies, R. J., and Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, and M. H. Bazerman (eds), Research on Negotiation in Organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Brett, J., Shapiro, D., and Lytle, A. (1998). Breaking the bonds of reciprocity in negotiations. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 410-424.
Carnevale, P., and Lawler, E. (1986). Time pressure and the development of integrative agreements in bilateral negotiations. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 30, 639-659.
Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P. Zanna and J. M. Olson (eds), Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 3-39). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Inc.
Cosier, R., and Rose, G. (1977). Cognitive conflict and goal conflict effects on task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 378-391.
Cronin, M. A., and Bezrukova, K. (2006). Sweet and sour conflict: Information and affront as active ingredients of disagreements. Presented at International Association of Conflict Management Conference, June 2006, Montreal, Canada.
Cronin, M. A., Bezrukova, K., Weingart, L. R., and Tinsley, C. (2008). Subgroups within a team: the role of cognitive and affective states. Manuscript under review.
De Dreu, C. K. W. (2006). When too little or too much hurts: evidence for a curvilinear relationship between task conflict and innovation in teams. Journal of Management, 32, 83-107.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Beersma, B., Stroebe, K., and Euwema, M. C. (2006). Motivated information processing, strategic choice, and the quality of negotiated agreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 927-943.
De Dreu, C. K. W., and Carnevale, P. J. D. (2003). Motivational bases for information processing and strategic choice in conflict and negotiation. In M. P. Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 235-291). New York, Academic Press.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Evers, A., Beersma, B., Kluwer, E. S., and Nauta, A. (2001). A theory based measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 645-668.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Harinck, F., and Van Vianen, A. E. M. (1999). Conflict and performance in groups and organizations. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 14, 369-414.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Koole, S., and Steinel, W. (2000). Unfixing the fixed pie: A motivated information-processing account of integrative negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 975-987.
De Dreu, C. K. W., and Van Vianen, E. M. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 309-328.
De Dreu, C. K. W., and Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741-749.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Weingart, L. R., and Kwon, S. (2000). Influence of social motives on integrative negotiations: A meta-analytic review and test of two theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 889-905.
De Grada, E., Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., and Mannetti, L. (1999). Motivated cognition and group interaction: Need for closure affects the contents and processes of collective negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 346-365.
Druckman, D. (1994). Determinants of compromising behavior in negotiation. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 38, 507-556.
Ensley, M. D., and Hmieleski, K. A. (2005). A comparative study of new venture top management team composition, dynamics and performance between university-based and independent start-ups. Research Policy, 34, 1091-1105.
Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara, 57, 271-282.
Garvin, D. A., and Roberto, M. A. (2001). What you don’t know about making decisions. Harvard Business Review, September, 108-116.
Greer, L., and Jehn, K. (2007). The pivotal role of emotion in intragroup process conflict. In M. Neale, E., Mannix, and C. Anderson (eds), Research on Managing Groups and Teams (pp. 21-43). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Greer, L. L., Jehn, K. A., and Mannix, E. A. (2008). Conflict transformation: An exploration of the relationships between task, relationship, and process conflict and the moderating role of resolution potential. Small Group Research, 39(3), 278-302.
Haskins, M. E., Liedtka, J., and Rosenblum, J. (1998). Beyond teams: Toward an ethic of collaboration. Organizational Dynamics, Spring, 34-50.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Victims of Groupthink (2nd edition). Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Jehn, K. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256-282.
Jehn, K. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 530-557.
Jehn, K. A., and Chatman, J. (2000). The influence of proportional and perceptual conflict composition on team performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1), 56-73.
Jehn, K. A., and Mannix, E. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: A longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238-251.
Jehn, K., Greer, L., Levine, S., and Szulanski, G. (2008). The effects of conflict types, dimensions, and emergent states on group outcomes. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(6), 465-495.
Jehn, K., and Rispens, S. (2008). Conflict in workgroups. In C. L. Cooper and J. Barling (eds), Handbook in Organizational Behavior. Sage Publications Ltd.
Jehn, K., and Rupert, J. (2008). Group faultlines and team learning: How to benefit from different perspectives. In V. Sessa and M. London (eds), Continuous Learning in Organizations: Individual, Group, and Organizational Perspectives (pp. 119-148). Lawrence Erlbaum Press.
Kelley, H. H., and Stahelski, A. J. (1970). Social interaction basis of cooperators’ and competitors’ beliefs about others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 66-91.
Kimmel, M. J., Pruitt, D. G., Magenau, J. M., Konar-Goldband, E., and Carnevale, P. J. D. (1980). Effects of trust, aspiration, and gender on negotiation tactics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 9-23.
Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). The psychology of being “right”: The problem of accuracy in social perception and cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 395-409.
Lax, D. A., and Sebenius, J. K. (1986). The Manager as Negotiator: Bargaining for Cooperation and Competitive Gain. New York: Free Press.
Lerner, J. S., and Tetlock, P.E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255-275.
Liang, T. P., Liu, C. C., Lin, T. M., and Lin, B. (2007). Effect of team diversity on software project performance. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 107, 636-653.
Locke, E. A., Tirnauer, D., Roberson, Q., Goldman, B., Latham, M. E., and Weldon, E. (2001). The importance of the individual in an age of groupism. In. M. E. Turner (ed.), Groups at Work: Theory and Research (pp. 501-528). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lovelace, K., Shapiro, D. L., and Weingart, L. R. (2001). Maximizing crossfunctional new product teams’ innovativeness and constraint adherence: A conflict communications perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 779-783.
Manz, C. C., Barstein, D. T., Hostager, T. J., and Shapiro, G. L. (1989). Leadership and innovation: a longitudinal process view. In A. Van de Ven, H. L. Angle, and M. S. Poole (eds), Research on the Management of Innovation: The Minnesota Studies (pp. 613-636). New York: Harper and Row.
Matsuo, M. (2006). Customer orientation, conflict, and innovativeness in Japanese sales departments. Journal of Business Research, 59, 242-250.
Messick, D. M., and McClintock, C. G. (1968). Motivational basis of choice in experimental games. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 1-25.
Mintzberg, H., Dougherty, D., Jorgensen, J., and Westley F. (1996). Some surprising things about collaboration - knowing how people connect makes it work better. Organizational Dynamics, Spring, 60-71.
Murnighan, J., and Conlon, D. (1991). The dynamics of intense work groups: A study of British string quartets. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 165-186.
Olson, B. J., Parayitam, S., and Bao, Y. (2007). Strategic decision making: the effects of cognitive diversity, conflict, and trust on decision outcomes. Journal of Management, 33, 196-222.
Pruitt, D. (1981). Negotiation Behavior. New York: Academic Press.
Pruitt, D., and Lewis, S. A. (1975). Development of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 621-633.
Pruitt, D. G., and Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social Conflict: Escalation, Stalemate, and Settlement. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Putnam, L. L., and Jones, T. S. (1982). Reciprocity in negotiations: An analysis of bargaining interaction. Communication Monographs, 49, 171-191.
Rogers, C., and Farson, R. (1979). Active listening. In D. Kolb, I. Rubin, and J. MacIntyre (eds), Organizational Psychology (3rd edition). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Rotter, J. B. (1971). Generalized expectations for interpersonal trust. American Psychologist, 26, 443-452.
Rubin, J. (1991). Some wise and mistaken assumptions about conflict and negotiation. Journal of Social Issues, 45, 195-209.
Schei, V., Rognes , J. K., and De Dreu, C. K. W. (2008). Are individualistic orientations collectively valuable in group negotiations? Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 11, 371-385.
Simons, T., L., and Peterson, R. S. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 102-111.
Thatcher, S., and Jehn, K. (1998). A model of group diversity profiles and categorization processes in bicultural organizational teams. In M. A. Neale, E. A. Mannix, and D. H. Gruenfeld (eds), Research on Managing Groups and Teams: Vol. 1. Composition (pp. 1- 20). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Thompson, L. L. (1991). Information exchange in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27, 161-179.
Thompson, L. L., Mannix, E. A., and Bazerman, M. H. (1988). Group negotiation: Effects of decision rule, agenda, and aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 86-95.
Tyler, T., Degoey, P., and Smith, H. (1996). Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 913-930.
Tyler, T., and Lind, E. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115-191.
Van de Ven, A. H., and Chu, Y. (1989). A psychometric assessment of the Minnesota Innovation Survey. In A. H. Van de Ven , H. L. Angle , and M. S. Poole (eds), Research on the Management of Innovation: The Minnesota Studies (pp. 55-103). New York: Harper and Row.
Van Lange, P. A. M. (1999). The pursuit of joint outcomes and equality in outcomes: An integrative model of social value orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 337-349.
Webster, D., and Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049-1062.
Weingart, L., R., Bear, J., and Todorova, G. (2008). Reconceptualizing relationship conflict: Interpersonal attitudes, emotions, and behavior. Work in progress.
Weingart, L. R., Bennett, R. J., and Brett, J. M. (1993). The impact of consideration of issues and motivational orientation on group negotiation process and outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 504-517.
Weingart, L. R., Brett, J. M., Olekalns, M., and Smith, P. L. (2007). Conflicting social motives in negotiating groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 994-1010.
Weingart, L. R., Cronin, M. A., Houser, C. J. S., Cagan, J., and Vogel, C. (2005). Functional diversity and conflict in cross-functional product development teams: Considering representational gaps and task characteristics. In L. L. Neider and C. A. Schriesheim (eds), Understanding Teams (pp. 89-110). Greenwich, CT: IAP.
Weingart, L. R., Hyder, E. B., and Prietula, M. J. (1996). Knowledge matters: The effect of tactical descriptions on negotiation behavior and outcome. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1205-1217.
Weingart, L. R., Prietula, M. J., Hyder, E., and Genovese, C. (1999). Knowledge and the sequential processes of negotiation: A Markov chain analysis of response-in-kind. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 366-393.
Personal assessment of your team conflict management style
Using the DUTCH scale (De Dreu, Evers, Beersma, Kluwer, and Nauta, 2001):1. Use the scale below to respond to the following items as they describe how you typically approach conflict within a team. Answer in terms of your general tendencies across a broad range of situations.1 = Never
2 = Once in a while
3 = Sometimes
4 = Fairly often
5 = Very frequently
6 = Continually
When I’m involved in a team conflict, I do the following: Your response
Y I give in to other team members’ wishes.
F I push my own point of view.
P I examine issues until I find a solution that really satisfies me and my other team members.
C I strive whenever possible towards a 50-50 compromise.
A I avoid differences of opinion as much as possible.
F I search for personal gains.
P I examine ideas from different sides to find a mutually optimal solution.
C I try to realize a middle-of-the-road solution.
A I avoid a confrontation about our differences.
Y I concur with the other team members.
C I insist we all give in a little.
F I do everything to win.
P I work out a solution that serves my own and others’ interests as much as possible.
Y I try to accommodate the other team members.
A I avoid a confrontation about our differences.
C I emphasize that we have to find a compromise solution.
Y I adapt to other team members’ goals and interests.
F I fight for a good outcome for myself.
P I stand up for my own and others’ goals and concerns.
A I try to make differences loom less severe.
2. Average the scores for the questions that have the same letter preceding them (A, C, F, P, Y). For example, if you filled out all 5s for Y, your average score for Y is “5”. Each average represents your reliance on a specific conflict management approach.
3. Identify your dominant conflict management approach and consider the questions associated with each approach.A = Avoiding - you tend to avoid conflicts that occur. Ask yourself, “Am I avoiding all conflicts (task and relationship)? How is my reliance on avoiding helping or hindering my team’s performance?”
C = Compromise - the higher the score the more likely you are to compromise when faced with a conflict. While meeting in the middle may seem fair, sometimes you can miss opportunities to find creative solutions that are better than average for everyone. Ask yourself. “When will compromise be the most or least effective way in dealing with my team’s conflict?”
F = Force - people who score high on forcing like to get their way, regardless of others’ concerns. While this might be satisfying to you in the short term, it can leave other team members feeling resentful and unwilling to work with you in the future. Ask yourself, “Under what circumstances do I tend to rely on forcing? What are the typical repercussions that I face? What alternative approaches are usually available to me?”
P = Problem-solve - problem-solvers work hard to find solutions that meet the needs of everyone involved in the conflict. They try to satisfy others without losing sight of their own interests. Ask yourself, “How does problem solving best promote cooperation within a team? What are the costs of using this approach?”
Y = Yield - a yielding approach is the opposite of forcing. Yielders give in to the demands of others. This approach may end the conflict, but can leave you feeling taken advantage of. However, yielding can lead to a strategy of reciprocation, that is, “I’ll give in now, but you owe me.” Ask yourself, “What are the risks of relying on yielding, especially when you consider that open discussion of alternatives and respect are critical to group success?”
4. Break into small groups, ideally groups of people who have worked together before. Share your scores with one another. Discuss whether others see your conflict management approach as determined by this scale. What do they see as your strengths? Weaknesses?
Conflict analysis
Gather in groups of three people. Each person needs to come prepared to discuss a conflict situation from their personal work or school experience.
1. Each participant: Come prepared to discuss a conflict situation in which you are currently or were recently involved on a team at work or at school. Describe who is involved (no names necessary, just their relationship with you), what the conflict is about (describe the nature of the conflict, issues, concerns), where it occurred (context), when it occurred (how recent, how frequently), how it unfolded (actions and reactions; how people behave or typically manage the conflict).
2. Discuss the conflict situation in terms of the principles outlined in this chapter. Some possible discussion questions are outlined below.a. What type of conflict occurred? Task, relationship, or some combination?
b. What was the root cause of the conflict? Was it driven by differences in personality, areas of expertise, culture, etc.?
c. How emotional was the conflict? Were the emotions positive or negative? How did this influence the team’s ability to understand and manage the conflict?
d. Did the conflict escalate over time? Did it transform from one type to another? At what point did the team begin to address the conflict? What impact did that have on your ability to manage the conflict?
e. Was everyone in the team equally comfortable in dealing with the conflict? If no, how did you deal with people’s differing comfort levels?
f. What approach did the team use in managing the conflict? Was it an appropriate approach? Were there alternative ways for doing so?
g. Was the situation ripe for collaboration?i. Was there a focus on teamwork? Did team members feel prepared to manage the conflict that arose? Did team members trust and respect one another? Were the communication norms open?
ii. Describe the motives of team members. What were the team members’ primary motivations regarding cooperation? Were members epistemically motivated?
iii. Did team members engage in effective conflict management behaviors?
h. Did the conflict help or hinder the team’s performance? Why and how?i. What role did you play in the conflict? Did you help or hinder its resolution? What were your strengths in handling the situation? What could you do to improve your ability to collaborate through conflict situations?