Paper By:
Lindsey Kirpan
Daron Santo
Lashenda Burton
Jennifer Shriver
Working in a team provides many benefits to its members both on a professional and personal level. Members will learn from each other through their varied experiences, thought processes, and personalities. This diversity is essential to broadening one’s understanding, but it also can be the cause of misunderstandings and conflict. Learning how to handle these conflicts “will result in a finished product that will meet the team’s needs and exceed the quality of what one member could accomplish” (Porter, 2004, p. 1).
Conflict, in itself, is not the dilemma. “It is, rather, our reactions to it that determine the impact, and thus cause us to characterize it as a negative experience” (Porter, 2003, p. 1). If used to motivate further exploration of ideas and options, conflict can be productive for the team. When the conflict becomes a barrier to progress, it needs to be brought under control. The five major avenues through which a group can manage conflict are avoidance, competition, accommodation, compromise, and collaboration.
Avoidance occurs when group members believe the conflict is not important enough to put the time and energy into resolving. They believe it is best to continue and hope the conflict disappears or resolves itself (Engleberg, Wynn, & Schuttler, 2003).
Choosing avoidance can be a risky choice, especially if the conflict requires serious attention. If avoided, the conflict may resurface or even cause adjacent problems at a later time. The choice of avoidance may lead to both conflicting parties being unhappy of the eventual outcome. As De Janasz, Dowd, and Schneider (2002) states, “avoidance can lead to a ‘lose-lose’ scenario; goals may not be addressed or achieved and the relationship may not be able to progress beyond its current state” (p. 248).
However, there are two situations in which avoidance may be the best choice. First, if the conflict is of minor importance, time and energy should be put into something else other than trivial issues. Second, when emotions are running high between the two conflicting parties and no chance of reconciliation seems possible, both parties should avoid the situation and walk away (De Janasz, Dowd, & Schneider, 2002).
The conflict resolution style of competition occurs when individuals of the group become more concerned of their personal goals than the goals of the group. This style is popular when a member believes his or her ideas are superior to anyone else. The competitive individual will put in the time and energy to ensure the outcome favors their point of view (Engleberg et al., 2003).
Competition is a win-lose situation. The conflicting parties involved will do anything to achieve their objective even if it means sacrificing relationships within the group. Those who fail to convince others of their point of view may feel resentment and be reluctant in working with certain individuals of the group or even the entire group itself.This feeling of animosity may cause other issues to occur in future group activities (De Janasz et al., 2002). As Engleberg, Wynn, and Schuttler (2003) states, “when used inappropriately, the competitive style may be characterized by hostility, ridicule, and personal attacks against group members” (p. 151).
However, competition can be an appropriate style to use when there is a severe time constriction. If a situation occurs when a decision has to be made and the group must act urgently, competition may be the best solution to resolve the conflict (De Janasz et al., 2002).
From an individual’s standpoint, competition can benefit one’s chance at receiving his or her way. One’s motives may be appropriate if the individual strongly believes the group may be acting unethically or illegally (Engleberg et al., 2003).
The opposite of competition is accommodation. Instead of demanding one’s way, the accommodator relinquishes the choice to another teammate. “Accommodating may take the form of selfless generosity or charity, obeying another person’s order when one would prefer not to, or yielding to another’s point of view” (Blitman, 2002, p. 14). This may be an appropriate technique when the accommodator does not value the issue, or values it less than other issues faced by the team. In either case, the teammate will appreciate the support, and may be willing to return the favor in a future decision.
Another reason to use this approach is if the value of the team relationship is more important than the issue at hand. For instance, if the group has to be together for a length of time, it will be vital to handle conflict without damaging the relationships with the other members. This strategy may be the best choice “when harmony is of greater importance to you than ‘winning’ on the issue” (De Janasz, et al., 2002, p. 248).
Accommodating another’s wishes certainly has its advantages. It offers support to the teammates, it is less time-consuming, and it can be used as a bargaining tool for future discussions. However, this technique should be used on a limited basis for the health of the team member and the team itself. “Over-reliance on accommodating in conflict situations could be harmful to you and the relationship in the long term as you are likely to build up resentment over your unmet needs” (De Janasz et al., 2002, p. 248). Resolving a conflict through accommodation should not happen if it is detrimental to the team’s goal.
“’You win some, you lose some.’ In other words, you consciously agree to accept that sometimes in the relationship you’ll get your way and other times you won’t” (DeJanasz et al., 2002, p. 248). This form of conflict resolution is known as compromising.
Compromising gives up more than competition but less than accommodation. It will address issues more directly than avoidance, but does not explore it in much depth and detail as collaboration. Compromising is the common middle-ground in which opposing individuals or groups meet to agree to a resolution of combined goals (Blitman, 2002).
Compromising tends to work best in long-term relationships when people are aware of the other individual’s needs, wants, and personalities. For example, a husband and wife who have been successfully communicating for 50 years will be able to go instantly from disagreement to compromising (De Janasz et al., 2002).
When we can compromise, the needs of every individual may not be completely met but enough in which an understanding between the conflicting parties will be met.However, it is wise to look at the other options before deciding to rush into compromising. As De Janasz, Dowd, and Schneider (2002) states, “many people and groups jump to this strategy too quickly without pursuing synergy or collaboration. Perhaps it’s our feelings about risk: ‘I’m better off getting half of what I want than risking it and getting nothing.’ Whether this is true or appropriate, depends on the situation” (p. 248).
When deciding to use compromise as the choice for resolution it is important to take into account the camaraderie of the group. When groups are not cohesive, it can make it difficult to come to an agreement. The understanding of each individual’s needs is one of the most important elements to a successful conflict resolution in the form of compromising.
Unlike avoidance, competition, accommodation, and compromise, the resolution style of collaboration searches for solutions that will achieve both individual goals and goals of the group. Collaboration looks to find a way to satisfy everyone (Engleberg et al., 2003).
Collaboration offers several advantages. First, when done properly, everyone wins. The conflicting parties search for new and creative solutions that satisfy each member of the group without compromising any of the group’s objectives.
Second, a successful collaboration usually leads to a long-term solution. When everyone is in complete agreement of the resolution, chances of the conflict resurfacing or causing adjacent problems are minimal.
Finally, collaboration maintains relationships within the group. Collaboration brings new levels of understanding of the situation to each individual. This, in turn, improves quality and commitment to the solution, which ensures the group to remain or become even more cohesive after the conflict has resolved (De Janasz et al., 2002).
Although collaboration is the ideal win-win strategy in conflict resolution, there are two important drawbacks. First, this technique requires much time and energy. Dealing with each individual’s unique personality and point of view, finding the one solution to satisfy everyone can be a daunting task. It requires much time and energy to establish everyone’s opinions on the matter and list the possible solutions that will satisfy each individual. Collaboration would not be the proper choice if the group cannot afford the time to do this. Only when there is time and the conflict supersedes the main objective of the group, collaboration may be the correct choice in resolving the problem.
The second drawback is commitment. Full and complete participation from every member of the group is necessary. Everyone needs to be 100% committed to resolving the conflict and work as one. Conflicting schedules, learning styles, and personalities are some of the obstacles a group has to overcome to solve a conflict through collaboration (Engleberg et al., 2003).
Doing away with conflict is not the solution to team success. Instead, the team needs to determine which decision-making method is appropriate for the good of the team. “The diversity of the team gives it strength, but this diversity can also result in a wide variety of approaches to problem solving within the team” (Porter, 2004, p. 1). Team members must consider factors such as time constraints, the relative importance of the particular issue at hand, the importance of team relationships versus the issues, and the length of time the team needs to maintain these relationships. Conflict should be used to enhance the discussions and goals of the team, and the team members need to discern which approach to use when the conflict impedes progress.
Resources
Blitman, B. (2002). Conflict Resolution Techniques. Commercial Law Bulletin, 17(4), 12. Retrieved from MasterFILE Premier database.
De Janasz, S. C., Dowd K. O., & Schneider B. Z.(2002). Interpersonal Skills in Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill. pp. 371-393, 241-259.
Engleberg, I., Wynn, D., and Schuttler, R.(2003). Working in groups: Communication principles and strategies (3rd ed.) Boston: Houghton Mifflin. pp. 146-170.
Porter, S. (2003). Managing Conflict in Learning Teams. University of Phoenix. pp. 1-9.
Porter, S.(2004). Team Decision-Making. University of Phoenix. pp. 1-13.