The Value Of Conflict

The Value of Conflict

The word conflict stirs up thoughts of anger, friction, mistrust, frustration, and hostility. Rarely does anyone think of conflict as a tool for deeper thinking, better results, and communication that is more dynamic. When unmanaged, team conflict can destroy cohesiveness, but teams that use conflict resolution strategies can turn their conflict into an asset. Managed conflict can promote an exchange of ideas to generate well-thought-out results, encourage team members to think outside of their own ideas, and develop deeper understanding.

Sal Capobianco, Mark Davis, and Linda Kraus attempt to dispel the myth that all conflict is bad in their article "Good conflict, bad conflict: How to have one without the other" (2004 a). In the article, they state that "some kinds of conflict result[ing] from organizational growth and change ... can be simply the result of new ideas being generated and debated; this kind of conflict can be invigorating, and even vitally important for the organization" (Capobianco et al, 2004, 3). The authors confirm that conflict can be a robust exchange of ideas that can breathe life into an organization or team. However, the line between productive, healthy conflict and destructive, unhealthy conflict is a thin one. Only focused conflict management strategies can keep the team on a path to success. Capobianco, Davis, and Kraus remind teams "the ultimate goal is to shape and guide conflict so as to minimize its hurtful and destructive forms, and to encourage its more positive constructive forms." (Capobianco et al, 2004, 3)

Many articles and journals contain volumes of conflict resolution techniques. Essentially, most of them boil down to five basic approaches. These five approaches are described in an article by Glenn Starks, called "Managing Conflict in Public Organizations" (2007): collaborating, compromising, accommodating, competing, and avoiding. Each of the approaches carries pros and cons. However, the only conflict management approach that truly is set to foster an exchange of ideas and work toward the best result is collaboration.

While compromising comes in as a close second to collaboration, its premise is to agree on meeting in the middle. Claire White and Greta Thornbory also write about the five approaches to conflict management in their article, "How to...manage conflict and confrontation" (2007). In the article, they describe collaboration as a "lose-lose strategy, and the issue may need to be addressed again later" (White and Thornbory, 2007, 10).

The other three approaches do not foster deep thinking and do not encourage teams to exercise alternative thinking or develop a deeper understanding of the issues. Avoiding dismisses the conflict altogether leaving the issue unresolved and the conflict essentially unmanaged. White and Greta point out "this can lead to the issue escalating and requiring greater effort in the future" (White and Thornbory, 2007, 7). The accommodation approach described by White and Greta as "agreeing to something just to keep the peace" (White and Thornbory, 2007, 8), has one or more team members not contributing to the result. Similar to accommodation, authoritarian allows one person to take control and dictate the resolution based solely on his or her power or position. This approach leaves the majority of the team feeling discontent and not included. White and Greta explain that this results in a team with "little listening, discussion, or information sharing" (White and Thornbory, 2007, 11).

The final and best approach is collaboration. This approach involves all members of the team and challenges them to contribute their ideas and thoughts in order to discover the best solution. White and Greta describe this approach as "the parties accept there is a conflict, take time to discuss the root causes, discuss different solutions, and identify the drivers and inhibitors to a resolution" (White and Thornbory, 2007, 13). Collaboration digs deeper into possible solutions, and at the same time taps into the wealth of resources and experiences of each team member. Collaboration takes more effort than the other four approaches. Each person must employ good listening and communication skills. This process will assist in dynamic conversations and exchanges of ideas. Collaboration takes much more effort and time, but the results can be well worth the investment.

One of the greatest benefits of managed conflict is collaborative teams exchange ideas. The conflict challenges its members to think outside of their own comfort zone and develop a deeper understanding of the issue. Steven Jungst, Janette Thompson and Gary Atchison support this belief in their article "Academic Controversy: Fostering constructive conflict in Natural Resources Education" (2003). They contend: "Students do, in fact, develop a better understanding of central issues as a result if having experienced [productive conflict]" (Jungst et al, 2003, 1). Lively discussions on opposing views are mini-debates on the issues. Each member expresses his or her ideas and beliefs about the topic and a proposed solution. In turn, the other members are in a position to think through others' viewpoints in order to defend their own perspective or challenge the other's argument. This process results in deeper discernment of the issue. Deborah Kezsbom wrote