TEAM CONFLICTS

Conflict is a common occurrence on teams. Conflict itself can be defined as antagonistic

interactions in which one party tries to block the actions or decisions of another party.
Bringing conflicts out into the open where they can be resolved is an important part of
the team leader’s or manager’s job.

There are two basic types of team conflict: substantive (sometimes called task) and
emotional (or relationship).

• Substantive conflicts arise over things such as goals, tasks, and the
allocation of resources. When deciding how to track a project, for example,
a software engineer may want to use a certain software program for its user
interface and customization capabilities. The project manager may want to
use a different program because it produces more detailed reports. Conflict
will arise if neither party is willing to give way or compromise on his
position.
• Emotional conflicts arise from things such as jealousy, insecurity,
annoyance, envy, or personality conflicts. It is emotional conflict when two
people always seem to find themselves holding opposing viewpoints and
have a hard time hiding their personal animosity. Different working styles
are also a common cause of emotional conflicts. Julia needs peace and
quiet to concentrate, but her office mate swears that playing music
stimulates his creativity. Both end up being frustrated if they can’t reach a
workable resolution.

Why do team conflicts take place?

There are varying approaches to studying team conflict and where it comes from: these
can be broadly sorted into two categories: intra-group and organizational. On the one
hand, research considers the sources of team conflict on the individual and inter-
personal level. De Wit, Greer and Jehn (2012) in their comprehensive meta-analysis of
intrapersonal conflict identify three main sources of conflict in teams: task conflict,
relationship conflict, and process conflict.

Task conflict: conflict because of what

Task conflict, as the name says, revolves around the particular task a team is given. In
other words, it is about the content of the decisions made by the team in relation to a
specific task (Simons and Peterson, 2000). According to Troth (2009), this type of
conflict comes from differences in ideas and views on the task, and sometimes even
stems from disagreements on what the task to be done is in the first place. Greer et al.
(2012) point out that task conflict is less destructive when it is isolated, i.e. when it is not
underpinned by other types of conflict, for example relationship conflict.
Relationship conflict: conflict because of who
In relationship conflict, it is the team members relationships with each other that are at
stake. Relationship conflict thus includes differences involving different preferences,
personal and interpersonal styles, and attitudes (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003). This is
one of the types of conflict most likely to be destructive to teams, because it is often
linked to negative emotions, hostility and personal dislike, which is not only destructive
but also distracting (Greer et al., 2012). For some scholars (Simons & Peterson, 2000),
relationship conflict is a shadow of task conflict, as the quality of inter-group
relationships is linked to the ability to solve tasks together.

Process conflict: conflict because of how

Process conflict has to do with the delegation of tasks and the process through which
team tasks are solved, that is to say, the logistics of accomplishing a task. Conflict
arises when there are disagreements over task division and responsibility, as well as
strategy on how to best tackle the task (Behfar, Peterson, Mannix and Trochim, 2008).
Process conflict is considered by De Wit, Greer and Jehn (2012) as the worst form of
intra-group conflict: not only is it linked to a specific task, but the issues at hand is often
linked to disagreements about who is in which role and gets to control resources,
meaning it shows attributes of relationship conflict too.

How to solve team conflicts? Different conflict management strategies:

Generally, the rule of thumb in organizational studies is that what matters in conflict
management is not the conflict itself, i.e. the concrete issue, but the way in which it is
managed (Rayeski & Bryant, 1994). The first step to determining how to best manage
conflict is to understand the causes of the issue. The second step is to evaluate the
objective: is the goal to simply end the conflict, or to lay the foundations that prevent it
from happening again in the future?
Arguably, these are the two broad directions that conflict management interventions
could take:

Focus on the conflict, issues underpinning it, and resolving the situation
This form of conflict management could be considered the “traditional” type, referring to
management interventions that make conflicts vanish quickly. However, there is a high
chance that conflicts re-appear.
Research originally carried out by Blake and Moutin (1964), which was extended and
modified several times, points to five intra-personal strategies usually found in this
sphere:
• Integrating,
• Obliging,
• Dominating,
• Avoiding, and
• Compromising.
In addition, Proksch (2016) lists “top-down” interventions like new team composition,
redefining hierarchies, specifying objectives and reallocating resources as measures
that are readily employed but don’t have long-term benefits. Rather, these strategies are
likely to make the conflict re-emerge at some point.

Focus on the causes of the problem, the broader picture, and future outcomes
On an inter-personal level, cooperative approaches that prioritise collective goal-
attainment are beneficial. Building on Deutsch’s theory of collaboration and competition
(1973), inter-group strategies that help solve conflict sustainable include:
• Identifying underlying causes together
• Emphasizing cooperative goals
• Communicating openly
• Listening open-mindedly
• Practicing empathy and understanding
• Promote mutual goals and resolve problems for mutual benefit
Such strategies help team members be productive, bolster confidence and trust, and
help nurture the belief that future problems can also be solved together (see Tjosvold,
1998).
In the same context, Proksch (2016) lists basic forms of “top down” conflict
management. These look beyond the traditional, “mechanistic” methods described in
the previous category and also echo the nature of inter-personal strategies :

• Mediation
• Moderation
• Supervision
• Coaching
• Team development
These management interventions take into account the “life” of the organization and
seek to focus on individuals, their needs, and integrative measures to improve the
situation for the team on the long run. Proksch also points to broader organizational
development as a so-called “complementary method”, which could be characterized for
example by structures that foster collaborative relationships (Almost et al., 2016).