Conflict Resolution: Understand To Achieve

Conflict Resolution: Understand to Achieve

Whenever people unite to work as a team for anything more than a brief duration, some conflict is normal, and should be expected (Engleberg, Wynn & Schutter, 2003). Because of the inevitability of conflict, being able to recognize, address, and ultimately resolve it is vitally important, since unresolved conflict may have undesirable effects, including reduced morale, or increased turnover (De Janasz, Dowd & Schneider, 2001). Just as conflicts within team environments vary, so do methods for resolving it. In this paper, conflict, its effects, and some management and resolution strategies as they relate to team dynamics will be discussed. Understanding the various conflict resolution methods, including how and when to apply them, is of utmost importance. In teams, different types of conflict call for different solutions. Conflict resolution is certainly not an area in which one size fits all.

Conflict may be classified as Substantive, Procedural, or Affective, depending upon that to which it relates. Substantive conflict refers to disagreement related to ideas or issues, while procedural conflict relates to disagreements about tasks, processes or methods to be used in pursuit of the team's goals (Engleberg, Wynn & Schutter, 2003). Procedural conflict may be beneficial, by promoting evaluation of the best course of action, and ensuring that all points of view are considered during the decision making process (Stuart, Sims, & Manz 1999). With affective conflict however, disagreement is more emotionally charged, relating to personalities, emotions and differing communication styles, making resolution more complex (Engleberg, Wynn & Schutter, 2003). Affective conflict is often destructive for teams, because it is relationship based, and may involve incompatibility between team members (Stuart, Sims, & Manz 1999).

Many associate conflict with negative experiences, such as stressful, heated exchanges, rather than positive opportunities to achieve clarity and cohesion among team members. Conflict refers to differences of opinion (Parker, 2003), or disharmony associated with seeming incompatibility of differences (Engleberg, Wynn & Schutter, 2003). These differences need not be harmful, however. The way the team handles conflict determines whether the outcome is constructive or destructive. Constructive conflict refers to disagreements which are handled courteously and respectfully, in which teams work together, value member's contributions, and commit to finding solutions beneficial to everyone involved, both individually and as a group. Constructive conflict can be beneficial, encouraging members' interest and participation, personal growth, and ultimately, team cohesion (Engleberg, Wynn & Schutter, 2003). It can improve clarity with regard to key issues or values, and inspire increased creativity (De Janasz, Dowd & Schneider, 2001). Conversely, destructive conflict occurs when members respond to disagreements disrespectfully. Persistent complaining, insults, competition, defensiveness, arguing, avoidance or inflexibility for example, create hostility, impairing the team's decision making ability and effectiveness. Negative effects of destructive conflict often include inability to resolve problems, diversion of energy from team objectives, and damaged morale, which can be divisive to the team (Capozzoli, 1999). Unresolved feelings may prevent members from successfully working together, ultimately rendering the team ineffective (De Janasz, Dowd & Schneider, 2001).

As people tend to be creatures of habit, understandably, team members are likely to manage conflict in the style to which they are accustomed, rather than choosing the conflict management style appropriate for the specific conflict. Predictably, using a conflict management style inappropriate for the circumstance can have undesirable results. In the article titled Conflict and cohesion in groups, Engleberg, Wynn and Schutter discuss five typical conflict management styles, which they classify as avoidance, accommodation, competition, compromise and collaboration (2003).

Avoidance describes ignoring, or refusing to address the problem. Avoidance is usually counterproductive, except when used to allow time to gather thoughts or composure, or when the benefits of addressing the issue do not justify the risk. Avoidance may be appropriate for managing affective conflict. Accommodation refers to yielding to others at the expense of one's own goals, due to a belief that the team is best served by conceding, to preserve harmony. Accommodating deprives the team of the opportunity to benefit from exploring the matter further through discussion however, although it is appropriate when preserving harmony within the team is more important than resolving the issue. Competition, in contrast to avoidance or accommodation, refers to arguing between members who may be more interested in their own goals than in satisfying the needs of the team. This style of conflict management may damage relationships within the team, as it does not pursue a win-win solution, preferring instead, a win-lose outcome. Consequently, one might surmise that competition would never be an appropriate choice. In some circumstances however, such as when beliefs are extremely strong, when the team urgently needs to take immediate action, or when the potential exists for serious or harmful consequences of the decision, competition is appropriate. Compromise refers to searching for middle ground, conceding some issues in order to prevail in others, ensuring fairness, since everyone wins and loses equally. However, because team members achieve only limited satisfaction, members may not whole-heartedly commit to solutions. Compromise may be appropriate when progress toward a solution has stalled and insufficient time remains to explore innovative solutions (Engleberg, Wynn & Schutter, 2003). Another concern is that members preferring to compromise may fail to explore more creative options when conflict arises, thereby depriving the team of the opportunity to achieve higher quality solutions through constructive conflict (Stuart, Sims, & Manz, 1999).

Since no single conflict management style is effective in every situation, the style chosen should be specific to the conflict to be managed and the objectives of the team. Therefore, the conflict in any given situation must be thoroughly analyzed and understood to determine which conflict resolution method is most appropriate. One method recommended by Engleberg, Wynn and Schutter for achieving clear understanding, is the 4 Rs Method, in which each of the four steps is identified by a word beginning with the letter R (2003). Before reacting to the conflict, one must know each of the four Rs, which are as