Team

Performance The self-directed team

Management A conflict resolution analysis
5,2
Steven H. Appelbaum, Chahrazad Abdallah and
60 Barbara T. Shapiro
Concordia University, Montréal, Québec, Canada

Keywords Conflict, Conflict resolution, Decision-making, Empowerment, Negotiation, Teams

Abstract To stay competitive on both local and global scales, companies have to respond rapidly
to their customers and to the increasing role of information technology. One way of answering the
demands that face today’s management, is to increase employees’ implication in the organization
by empowering them. The shift from top to bottom authority to a team-oriented organization is
part of this process. Self-directed teams (SDT) are a key element in making this shift work. In this
paper, after a brief definition and description of this kind of team, we will focus on conflict
management as an important factor for their success. Conflict and its mechanisms will first be
developed, its consequences on group decision making will be studied at the SDTs level, and a set
of conflict management alternatives will finally be presented.

Team Performance Management,
Vol. 5 No. 2, 1999, pp. 60-77.
© MCB University Press, 1352-7592
Introduction
The use of teams has become the criteria for organizational success throughout
the late 1990s. Cross-functional teams, continuous improvement teams, and
lately self-directed teams (SDT) are being used as ways of achieving employee
participation as well as getting closer to the customer. These teams also called
semi-autonomous work groups or self-managing teams, have been
implemented in various companies including Coca-Cola, Federal Express,
General Electric, Motorola, Procter & Gamble and Xerox (Piczak and Hauser,
1996). However, with the rising use of teams, there is an increasing concern that
productivity and efficiency may be hurt rather than helped by team-oriented
organizational structures. Lower rates of productivity, poorer decisions, and
increased employee dissatisfaction have in fact been the experiences of some
organizations.
The paradox, however, is that the very act of bringing people from different
backgrounds together may be the reason why they fail to achieve their
objective. Conflict, inherent in the nature of teams (and in the organization as a
whole) is a factor that can determine their success. More specifically, how
conflict is managed within the group can bring out the best or the worst of
team-oriented organizations. In the case of SDTs, the relationship between the
team and the organization is different. Members of SDTs have a responsibility
for managing themselves and their work. Team members learn multiple tasks
that were once exclusively related to supervisors and managers.
Conflict within SDTs has another dimension that this article intends to
explore. The notion of the SDT will first be defined and some attention will be
drawn to its theoretical foundations. The nature of conflict at the group level
will then be examined as well as its consequences upon the decision-making The self-directed
process. Finally, several conflict management alternatives will be discussed in team
the light of SDTs specificity.

What are self-directed work teams

The concept of SDT had a great impact on companies with traditional
organizational structures where top-to-bottom authority prevailed and teams 61
were used as basic organizational “tools”. Today, SDTs are “small groups of
employees who have day-to-day responsibility for managing themselves and
their work. Members of SDTs typically handle job assignments, plan and
schedule work, make production-related decisions and take action on problems”
(Wellins, 1992, p. 24). This view is further defined by Felts, who addresses the
implications of SDTs on the organization. According to Felts, SDTs are
permanent in nature, control a specific process from start to finish and imply a
downward push of management’s power to the employee ranks. SDTs are “formal
permanent organizational structures (that) operate with fewer layers of
management than traditional organizational structures. They require team
members to learn multiple jobs or tasks, and to take on many tasks that were once
reserved for supervisors or managers including hiring, firing, conducting
appraisals, and schedule settings” (Felts, 1995, pp. 21-22). In other words, SDTs
consist primarily of two dynamic components: (1) the process of self-management
and (2) collaborative teamwork. Attributes such as: team-controlled individual
member task assignments (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1992, p. 355-77; Wellins et al.,
1990), team-responsibility for quality control, purchasing, absenteeism, and
training (Wellins et al., 1990), and group compensation and performance feedback
(Wall et al., 1986) are commonly linked to SDTs.
The transition of power that takes place with the development of SDTs is the
example of the increasing managerial concern with empowerment and
employee participation. Empirical research reports that implementing SDTs
improves quality (Cohen and Ledford, 1994, pp. 13-43; Wellins et al., 1990) and
productivity (Cohen and Ledford, 1994, pp. 13-43; Goodman et al., 1988,
pp. 295-327; Kirkman and Rosen, 1996) along with reduced costs to produce
goods and services (Cohen and Ledford, 1994, pp. 13-43). These findings are
consistent with the assumptions underlying the basic idea of participation
which are that providing employees with more control, information, and
responsibility improves worker satisfaction and increases productivity.
The next section will present two organizational behavior (OB) models for
SDTs. These models will serve as a theoretical foundation to understand the use
of SDTs in an organization.
Over the past decades, there has been a growing commitment to the concept
of participation. The basic idea of participation represents a shift toward
sharing control and power. These two notions of participation are the
foundations of the following OB models for SDTs.
Campbell (1988, p. 304) introduced Hackman’s model of work group
effectiveness. The main concepts of this model are three activities: effort,
Team knowledge, and appropriateness of the task performance strategies. An
Performance increase in these three activities should, according to Hackman, improve the
Management overall effectiveness of the group. The basic strategies to change the process
effectiveness are group design, organizational context and group synergy.
5,2 Figure 1 presents the main concepts of Hackman’s model.
SDTs bring direct changes in group design and organizational context,
62 which in turn produce changes in group synergy. All three factors should affect
the effectiveness of the team. In other words, change in the structure of the
group by SDTs directly affects the amount of effort expended and the level of
group synergy. Changes in the group synergy impact the “adherence to task
performance” (Campbell, 1988, p. 304).
Miles and Snow (1994, p. 11) introduce the human investment model
approach to the work group issue by introducing the evolution of different OB
models. Under the human investment paradigm, the organization empowers the
employees by investing training and development resources directly to those
who need them. With such competences, the team members use the information
and a shared understanding of the business goals in order to plan and exercise
self-control in their own activities. “The intent is to create the opportunity and
capacity for individuals and work teams to operate effectively in market
environments and to govern themselves. This can only occur if there is heavy

Organizational context
A context that supports
and reinforces competent
task work via:
• Rewards system
• Education system
• Information system
Group Design
A Design that prompts
and facilitates competent
work on the task via:
• Structure of the task
• Composition
• Group norms about
performance process
Figure 1.
Hackman’s model of
work group
effectiveness
Source: Campbell 1988, p. 305
Material Resources
Sufficiency of material
resources required to
accomplish the task
well and on time
Process Criteria
of effectiveness
• Level of effort brought
to bear on the group
task
• Amount of knowledge
and skill applied to Group Effectiveness
task work
• Appropriateness of the • Task output acceptable
task performance to those who receive or
strategies used by review it
the group • Capability of members
to work together in
future is maintained
or strengthened
• Members’ needs are
more satisfied than
Group synergy
frustrated by the group
Assistance to the group experience
by interacting in ways that
• Reduce process losses
• Create synergistic
process gains
investment in the technical, business, and leadership skills of everyone The self-directed
concerned” (Miles and Snow, 1994, p. 11). team
The human investment model exemplifies the changes in the organization
structure and culture required for SDTs. The implementation of such a drastic
change can very much be a starting point for conflict, making it even more
difficult to manage in a new context. The following section of this article will
examine this conflict potential within SDTs more closely and will propose 63
alternative ways of managing it.

Conflict
Conflict refers to a process of social interaction involving a struggle over claims
to resources, power and status, beliefs, and other preferences and desires.
Obviously the potential sources of conflict are almost infinite, and the objectives,
scope, intensity, methods, number of participants, and outcomes, may also vary
greatly. For this, conflict is a natural phenomenon in social relations, as natural
as harmony. It is difficult to envision the attainment of positive social goals
without it. Humans have been unable to understand conflict because they relate
it to destructiveness, antagonism, uncomfortable relationships, violence and
war. This idea about conflict has led to avoiding trying to confront a conflict in
its early stages, thus leading to the escalation of the situation.

Perception and reality

There are perhaps as many definitions of conflict as there are occasions for its
occurrence. Some definitions suggest that conflict exists where there are real or
perceived differences that arise in specific circumstances and that engender
emotion as a consequence (Kolb and Putnam, 1992, p. 312). Others have focused
more narrowly on the phenomena associated with competitive intentions such
as the deliberate interference with the others goal (Thomas, 1992, p. 268). Still
other researchers have identified the conflict process in their definition of
conflict. “The amount of attention given to the elements of conflict tends to
depend on the researcher’s preferred approach and methods for conceptualizing
and investigating conflict; currently no one definition appears predominant”
(Lewicki et al., 1992, p. 211).
Despite the lack of consensus, however, there are three themes among the
definitions of conflict (Thomas, 1992, p. 269). The first, is that whether conflict
exists or not is a perception issue. Of course the perceived difference may not be
real but conversely if the difference is real but not perceived there is no conflict.
The second common theme is that there is interdependence among parties (i.e.
each has the potential to interfere with the other). Third, there are issues of
blockage, opposition, and scarcity. Resources, for example, money, power and
prestige, are limited. Their scarcity creates blocking behavior. When one party
blocks the means to a goal or interest of another, a state of conflict exists
(Robbins, 1994, p. 169).
Research indicates that managers use 20 per cent or more of their time
dealing with conflict or trying to avoid it. Realizing this fact, sociologists and
Team management scientists spent much of their time studying conflict. Early
Performance attempts at conflict management research (i.e. Frederick Taylor) sought
Management efficiency and rationality and proposed designs, values and roles that would
reduce conflict and give managers the means to end it decisively. Rather than
5,2 these traditional assumptions which concentrated on “dominance-and-control”,
researchers in the field then shifted to using conflict to develop strong cultures
64 to gain the commitment not the compliance of employees.
Resulting research suggested that two kinds of models have been used to
manage conflict: structural models and process models.
Structural models are concerned with factors influencing behavior and the
conflict process (Drenth et al., 1984, p. 252). For example, these types of models
would focus on internal structures and personalities of conflicting parties.
Process models, on the other hand, are concerned primarily with the
dynamics of conflict, and the sequence of events which occur as conflict takes
place (Drenth et al., 1984, p. 252). The focus of process models, for instance,
would be the mental (conceptualization) and behavior reactions of the
participants rather than personality traits of the members. Process models have
had the largest impact on management science because they provide a useful
organizing framework (Thomas, 1992, p. 269).
One such model that seems to still dominate the literature on conflict is
Pondy’s organizational conflict model (Pondy, 1967). Originally posed in 1967,
the model “attempts to synthesize the relationships among structural and
personality variables that affect conflict processes and conflict outcomes by
treating them as elements of a ‘conflict episode’” (Lewicki et al., 1992, p. 212).

The conflict process

A conflict episode in a group, in the case of a self-directed work group, can be
thought of as a progression of four related stages (see Figure 2). These stages
are (a) antecedent conditions; (b) cognition and personalization of conflict,
leading to (c) behavior manifestation and then to (d) some aftermath of conflict
(Robbins, 1994, p. 172).

Antecedent conditions
The first step in a conflict incident is the presence of conditions that allow for
conflict to occur. The presence of these conditions is a necessary precedent for
conflict to take place (Robbins, 1994, p. 170). These sources of potential
opposition are related to the structure, personal idiosyncrasies, and
communication present in the group.
Organizational characteristics such as the number of hierarchical levels, the
degree of routinization, specialization, and standardization of the tasks
assigned to the group can be conducive to conflict (Drenth et al., 1984, p. 252). In
addition, within the group, characteristics such as group polarization,
construction and ingroup-outgroup differentiation are also possible sources of
conflict. In the case of SDTs, the potential causes of conflict are obvious. One of
them is that there are immediate changes in the organization structure. “SDTs
 Stage I Stage II Stage III Stage IV The self-directed
Potential opposition Cognition and Behavior Outcomes
personalization team

Perceived Increased
conflict group
performance
Antecedent conditions:
65
• communication Overt conflict
• structure
• personal variables
Decreased
Felt group
conflict performance
Conflict-handling
behaviors:
• competition
• collaboration
• accommodation Figure 2.
• avoidance The four stages of a
• compromise conflict incident

shake up the existing organizational structure and require immediate changes

in the roles of supervisors and managers” (Holpp, 1992, p. 74). In fact, the
transition to SDTs requires major organizational and cultural changes. The
employee involvement characteristics on which the use of SDTs is based,
requires a slow decision control transfer to the employees. The involvement
attribute of the transition is therefore difficult for managers/supervisors
“because of their natural fears, including job security, loss of perceived control
and decreased ego gratification” (Ray and Bronstein, 1995, p. 107). With the
arrival of the SDT concept, supervisors often find it difficult to overcome the
attitudinal barrier. “Even if the managers understand the logic of the network
organization [SDTs] (…) they may resist building such an organization because
doing so conflicts with their beliefs about people and how they should be
managed” (Miles and Snow, 1994, p. 17). Moreover, it is equally difficult for
employees who are dealing with something new (Piczak and Hauser, 1996).
“A common misconception most of us carry around with us is that poor
communication is the reason for conflicts” (Robbins, 1994, p. 171). There is
evidence, however, that indicates that the communication process, semantic
difficulties, insufficient exchange of information and noise in communication
channels are all possible antecedent conditions to conflict (Robbins, 1994, p.
125). Semantic difficulties arise as a result of differences in training, selective
perception and inadequate information or information overload.
Finally, interpersonal conflict is one of the most important conditions of
conflicts in SDTs. Various conflict behaviors can be traced to personal
characteristics. Some research suggests that there is a direct relationship
between education, perception and conflict (Robbins, 1994, p. 173). Aggressive
behavior could be related in the case of SDTs to managers/supervisors
insecurity in terms of their situation in the team.
Team Cognition and personalization
Performance If these antecedent conditions are present, they generate frustration and hence,
Management conflict. The issue of conflict could be one of the following:
5,2 • Scarce resources. One tries to secure in a conflict his/her interest. As long
as two parties share the same interests we commonly refer to this as
competition.
66
• Collective procedures and/or policies. It is often activities, intended or
accomplished, that cause conflict. Conflict in groups (i.e. SDTs) tends to
centre around intention, execution, co-ordination of results, or control of
group activities.
• Role behaviors of individuals. This relates to what individual members
should and should not do. Frustration of an individual’s or a group’s
identity can result from the denial of ones self-image (case of managers/
supervisors decreased ego gratification) (Drenth et al., 1984, p. 252).
A conflict issue can be perceived and/or felt by group members. “Employees
will feel vulnerable in a self-directed team because it lacks the familiar clarity of
a hierarchical structure. Therefore, those who join such teams need to know
how the shared leadership concept works and with whom they will share their
power” (Arnold, 1996). When members feel emotional involvement (e.g. in cases
where the issue is role behavior), anxiety, tension, and hostility can potentially
lead them to burst out (unrealistic conflict behavior).

Behavior manifestation
This is the point where conflict is out in the open. Expressions of conflict can be
subtle, indirect and highly controlled or can take the form of aggressive, violent
and uncontrolled struggle (Robbins, 1994, p. 173). Such explicit expression may
generate different types of reaction from other members of the group. Based on
a study of conflict in which 57 managers were interviewed, Lippit (1982)
suggests that there are five principal interpersonal conflict handling behaviors:
(1) Withdrawal: retreating from an actual or potential conflict situation.
(2) Smoothing: emphasizing areas of agreement and de-emphasizing areas
of difference over conflictual areas.
(3) Compromising: searching for solutions that bring some degree of
satisfaction to the conflicting parties.
(4) Forcing: exerting one’s viewpoint at the potential expense of another
(often open competition and a win-lose situation).
(5) Confrontation: addressing a disagreement directly and in a problem-
solving mode, the affected parties work through their disagreement
(Lippit, 1982, p. 68).
The interplay between the overt conflict and conflict handling behaviors results
in consequences or outcomes of conflict.
Outcomes The self-directed
More often, destructive outcomes of conflict are recognized over its potential team
benefits. These outcomes include physical or psychological injury, increased
hostility and misperception, hardened antagonistic positions, and emotional
exhaustion. All these factors lead to low productivity, less efficiency and
effectiveness and failure to achieve organizational objectives.
Conflicts can have benefits as well as costs. Among the potentially positive 67
outcomes are the development of a sense of solidarity among members of
groups engaged in conflict; the emergence of creative ideas; the formulation of
new policies, procedures, and services; the reformation and renewal of
organizations and their programs; and heightened enthusiasm and purpose
among the conflicting participants.
What brings about these functional and dysfunctional (i.e. desirable and
undesirable) outcomes is closely related to the cognition/personalization stage
of the conflict process and the groups decision making process. Decision-
making in groups typically involves considering possible alternatives and
reaching agreement as to which of the several courses of action is most
desirable for achieving the organization’s goals. Literature on conflict identifies
two sides of conflict that can have two distinctly opposite consequences on the
group decision-making process.

Cognitive/affective conflict
The initial category to study is cognitive conflict, which is also called functional
conflict. This type of conflict revolves around differences in decisions. For
example, disagreement on how to achieve the organization’s objectives. The
process of decision making in the face of cognitive conflict is underlined by the
debate between all members of a group, each defending his or her perspective, in
order to reach the final decision. Cognitive conflict is inevitable as is natural
conflict in teams. In the case of SDTs, it is even more prevalent. The transition of
the traditional organization to a network organization implementing SDTs could
be an important cause of cognitive conflict since the achievement of the
organization’s goals is perceived differently by members of the team. In fact, the
manager/supervisor becomes a facilitator in the transition process whose
function is not to control anything, but rather to support everything which is
team related. This change from a traditional manager to SDT facilitator is thus
a critical issue that can generate cognitive conflict within the team since a
discussion of the manager’s former role in taking the final decision could surface.
Another cause of cognitive conflict when considering SDT implementation is
the dilemma facing the manager/supervisor when the team is mature. The role
of team facilitator changes to one of staff support person for the team. This can
lead the manager/supervisor to reject his/her new role and to refuse his/her new
situation in the organization, thus generating a conflictual situation. “The big
challenge for management, and the most dangerous potential minefield, is how
to get people to stay committed to improving their process when they may be
working themselves out of a job” (Felts, 1995, p. 22).
Team The second type of conflict present in groups is affective conflict. It is a
Performance conflict that is aimed at a person and not an issue. Affective conflict is
Management considered dysfunctional and usually leads to poor and unacceptable decisions
(Brockmann, 1996, p. 61).
5,2 In a study of the relationship between functional and dysfunctional conflict
Amason studied 164 managers from 53 management teams in the food
68 processing and furniture manufacturing industries, he suggested that both
cognitive and affective conflict could occur together but lead to quite different
outcomes (Amason, 1996, p. 148). Cognitive conflict may turn into affective
conflict if misunderstood by the members of the group. In addition to simulate
cognitive conflict (in Amason’s opinion) it could backfire and trigger affective
conflict instead. Cognitive conflict could have positive outcomes since it could
encourage discussion and exchange of ideas, whereas, affective conflict should
be discouraged to avoid the emotional escalation of a conflictual situation.
In the following section of the article, the effect of conflict on group decision
making will be studied in the SDT context.

Effect of conflict on group decision making

Conflict is a central element that can make team decision making effective if
managed effectively. However, working in teams may give rise to conflict because
different members have different ideas and perspectives. Thus it may have a
negative impact on the group and its members. Yet, the best outcome is that it can
be used to the advantage of the group (Sessa, 1996, p. 101). Recent research
proposes that conflict is a natural consequence of teamwork owing to different
conditions of the members such as goals and ethics. As conflict is inevitable when
working in groups (in the case of the SDT), the aim is not reducing conflict but
ensuring that this conflict is beneficial (Sessa, 1996, p. 111).

Advantages
Much of the functional outcomes of conflict arise from cognitive conflict
because it occurs as team members examine, compare and reconcile differences
of opinions and perspectives. Cognitive conflict is key to high quality solutions
and team effectiveness because it focuses the group’s attention on group
activities (Harrison et al., 1995, p. 20).
When dealt with effectively, cognitive conflict can help members of a group
reach a consensus on their final decision. Furthermore, by facilitating open
communication of alternatives, cognitive conflict encourages innovative
thinking and promotes creative solutions to insurmountable problems.
Decisions become more than the opinion of the group’s most vocal member.
In addition to improving decision quality, cognitive conflict promotes the
acceptance of decisions. Once consensus has been reached and conflicts
resolved within the group, team members tend to “buy into” the decisions. As a
result, group decisions are easier to implement both within the group as well as
in the organization as a whole.
 Finally, research suggests that cognitive conflict undermines one of the The self-directed
negative results of using a team-oriented organizational structure. Good team
decisions can be made only when group members have a right to question
underlying assumptions and speak their mind about issues at hand. Once
identified and resolved, cognitive conflict ensures that basic assumptions of
problems are not taken for granted by the group.
69
Disadvantages
Unlike the finding of Amason’s study (1996, p. 148), Harrison et al. (1995, p. 25)
suggest that affective conflict emerges when instances of cognitive type conflict
are somehow corrupted. The team’s inability to manage cognitive conflict can
“provoke hostility, distrust, cynicism, and apathy among group members”
(Harrison et al., 1995, p. 21).
Owing to the personalized emotions present, members of groups with
affective conflict tend to withdraw from the activities that are critical to the
team effectiveness. Teams with affective conflict cannot engage in types of
discussions necessary to synthesize different perspectives. Thus, affective
conflict results in the loss of creativity and quality of group decisions.
Additionally, members are not likely to understand, much less commit to group
decisions. Therefore, “in the best case, these members are unable to carry out the
decisions. In the worst case, these disgruntled team members are unwilling to
work to implement the decision as intended” (Harrison et al., 1995, p. 25).
Affective conflict also undermines the team’s ability to function effectively in
the future. Team members who have been negatively affected by this type of
conflict are less likely to participate in future meetings.
Defining conflict and its aspects (cognitive and affective) is the first step
when dealing with this issue. Managing conflict is the ambiguous part. There
are different ways of managing conflict that will be developed in the next
section of this article.

Managing conflict
The usual approach for conflict resolution when a management conflict occurs
is to remove the immediate cause. This approach is ineffective and will probably
lead to a spread of conflict in the organization (Rahim, 1989, p. 9). An effective
approach to conflict resolution needs to be beneficial, impartial, and equitable.
It needs to promote morale in the workplace and will direct those employees,
especially those involved in the conflict, to take a more positive view of
management. The resolution of conflict becomes the challenge for management.
“… Conflict resolution means terminating conflict by methods that are
analytical and get to the root of the problem. Conflict resolution, as opposed to
mere management or settlement, points to an outcome that, in the view of the
parties involved, is a permanent solution to the problem” (Tillett, 1992, p. 123).
It is important for any manager to know and understand the basic kinds of
conflicts and their underlying sources. This is because he or she must have a
clear picture of a conflict situation when he or she is faced with one. Perception
Team of conflict alone is not sufficient for making considered action decisions. The
Performance manager has to confirm and assess the existence of a genuine conflict in order
Management to take a decision as to whether to avoid or go ahead with conflicting managing
activities (see Figure 3).
5,2
This decision depends on the estimated costs and benefits of the conflict
(Hoffman, 1993, p. 100). This analysis demonstrates the following criteria.
70 On the benefits side, a manager has to determine:
• whether the conflict has an equalizing effect;
• whether the conflict has an attention-arresting effect; focussing attention
on the real problem of the circumstance;
• whether the conflict has a solidifying effect – increasing the internal
cohesion of an individual psychological and spiritual being or that of a
group or organizations;
• whether the conflict would encourage growth and change of individuals,
groups or organizations;
• whether the conflict is stimulating innovation;

CONFLICT
• process
• sources/kinds

Consequences

Constructive (+) Destructive (–)

Avoid (–) Effective Avoid (+)

Conflict
Management (++)

Perception/ Confrontation Communication Other Skills

Affirmation

Generating Conflict Emergent Agreement Negotiation

Figure 3.
Types of conflict and
underlying sources SOLUTION “WIN - WIN” SOLUTION
 • whether the conflict is functioning as a “safety value” for the individual, The self-directed
group, organization or system. team
On the costs side, a manager has to determine:
• whether the conflict would likely result in conquest, elimination or
annihilation of one of the parties;
• whether the use of avoidance or withdrawal are entailing costs and 71
damages; and
• whether or not cycles of vengeance are likely to ensue from the manner
in which the conflict is being managed.
Where these costs are higher than the benefits it would be justifiable for a
manager to avoid a conflict situation (Hoffman, 1993, p. 102). There are many
ways of avoiding conflict. Some include:
• Denial. Denial may result from anxiety, from lack of a correct
understanding of the situation, or because relevant information is not
available.
• Flight. One decisive way in which to avoid a conflict is to get out of the
situation by physically removing oneself. Sometimes structural changes
in an organization can accomplish the same purpose.
• Relinquishment. One may avoid a continuing conflict by disengaging
from a situation with the most minimal cost possible.
• Suspension. It is desirable on certain occasions to disengage temporarily
from a conflict situation by means of a “truce”. Suspension may be useful
in a variety of ways: It can provide for regrouping of resources or adding
the existing resource, or it may provide for the conflict to be resumed at
a more advantageous time or site.
Although conflict resolution may be cumbersome for managers, it is necessary,
fully justified, and can have more benefits than costs. In the case of SDTs, it is
necessary to have someone to share the responsibility of conflict resolution. As
the notion of hierarchy disappears, one member of the group still has to act as
the catalyst of his or her team-mates conflictual forces. This person has to face
conflict rather than avoid it. The following includes some of the components
found in Figure 3 to demonstrate ways to resolve conflicts:

SDT: Conflict resolution management strategies

Generating conflict
In many cases, a conflict could be a constructive, vital aspect in any
organization. In such cases, “generating conflict” would be an appropriate mode
of conflict management especially:
• When non-conflictual means are effectual in promoting or attaining
positive organizational goals.
• When the costs of not engaging in a conflict would be high.
Team • When the resources to conduct conflict are effectively available.
Performance • When the benefits of the conflict are high.
Management When taking a decision for generating conflict, a manager (facilitator in the
5,2 SDT situation) should identify the resources available, e.g. power/influence
resources, strengthen the weak available resources (e.g. creating an alliance, or
72 build confidence in conflict management among the parties of the conflict).
One widely-used and studied technique for promoting structured cognitive
conflict in group decision making to be considered is devils advocacy (DA).
“The DA approach begins with a recommended decision, plan or course of
action. A critique of the recommended plan is then developed which identifies
the plan’s most important assumptions and raises questions about them.
Following the consideration of the plan and critique, a final decision is reached”
(Valacich and Schwenk, 1995, p. 369).

Direct negotiation:
Gerald I. Nierenberg, the father of contemporary negotiating (1973), comments,
“Everything in life is a negotiation”. Most often the negotiation option is the
preferred choice for managing conflict. Styles of negotiation will vary and the
skills may include accommodating or yielding, compromising, trade-offs, and
other bargaining behaviors. Lewicki and Litterer (1985) suggest that
negotiation occurs when:
• conflict of interest exists between two or more parties;
• no fixed or established rules exist for resolving the conflict;
• the parties prefer to search for agreement rather than to fight, openly
capitulate, break off interaction, or take their dispute to a higher
authority level to resolve.
Negotiation has typically been conceptualized as a form of decision making that
occurs under conditions of mutual interdependence (Lewicki et al., 1992, p. 252).
Within this framework of interdependence, the respective parties attempt to
reach a mutually satisfactory agreement through the pursuit of different
strategies, like: concessions, promises, or threats.
Negotiation refers to the strategic process through which adversaries try to
come to terms, that is, to reach an agreement on matters in which they are in
conflict.
There are two major approaches to negotiating agreements, described below.

The distributive sub-strategy

Based on the assumption that opposing goals, interests, or preferences are at
stake and that the most effective method of attaining one’s objective is to try to
secure concessions from the other party, while at least implicitly, being willing
to grant some to the opponent.
The integrative sub-strategy The self-directed
It is an approach that emphasizes negotiating outcomes that are mutually team
advantageous, although not necessarily of equal benefit for both parties. The
four phases of the negotiation process are the following:
(1) Establishing the issues and constructing the agenda:
• Defining the right place and time.
73
• Fractionating the issue in more manageable parts.
• Issue control: it must be very specific and clearly defined.
• Issue rigidity: Do not leave room for manoeuvring on misconceptions.
• The issue must be clearly defined by both parties.
(2) Opening moves: Advancing demands and uncovering interests. After
establishing the agenda, the opening moves in negotiation usually
consists of each side putting forth its positions and demands.
(3) Intensification of the negotiation: Bargaining and discovering new
options. At this stage, promises, threats, bluffing, and personal attacks
are likely to emerge. Effort must be made not to personalize at this stage,
participants must be objective and focus the facts and not the
assumptions.
(4) Working out an agreement: In case of a resistance to finalize an
agreement because of uncertainty as to how it will work out in practice,
apply the “re-opener provision”. This provision is an agreement that
after a given period of time the decision arrived at by the parties will be
subject to re-examination and possible modification.
In essence it is important to reach a good negotiation as long as the manager/
facilitator employs the following:
• Not approach negotiations as if they are a game.
• Follow the planned strategy.
• Not personalize issues.
• Not be afraid to fail.
• Negotiation is not always feasible.
• Be open to come into an agreement.
• Be flexible to the other party’s needs (Hoffman, 1993, p. 113).

Emergent agreement
Another effective mode of conflict management suggested is “Emergent
agreement”. In this case, not only are the benefits of conflict higher than the
costs, but also both parties end in a “win-win” situation rather than a “win-lose”
situation. This method can be used where there is willingness from both
participants to resolve the issue by collaboration. This strategy encompasses
the tactics of joint problem solving, fact finding, gentle persuasion, and
Team consensual problem solving. There are basic conditions that should exist in
Performance order to use this approach:
Management • Joint problem-solving. The contending parties acknowledge that it is a
5,2 problem for both and neither is satisfied with the existing proposals or
position, with no preferable alternative at hand.
74 • Fact finding. When conflict emerges owing to inadequate or incorrect
data. This may be used as a tactic by itself or as a technique within
another approach.
• “Gentle” persuasion. This technique of persuasion can be used as a
gradual process in which one party influences the other based on
reasoning and understanding. Skills in communication become a major
tool in this process. “Gentle” in this case distances persuasion from one
party forcing or imposing on the other.
An interesting point to note here, is that persuasion can be used not only to
resolve conflict but also to generate it.

Consensual decision making

This “tactic” is often available as an option in meetings, legal systems or certain
ideologically-oriented groups. It is more effective in relatively small groups
where there are no sharp clashes of interest or principles.
This is very different from being content with a compromise agreement
reached through negotiation. It is rather a matter of capitalizing on the
differences, a clear articulation of each party’s interests, the acknowledgement
that there is seldom a fixed set of costs and benefits in any conflict. One has to
recognize that what may be a requirement (a high priority) for one party may
not be a disadvantage (incur costs) to the other.
There are things that are wrong with approaches to conflict that fail to get
parties talking so that they can discover what their real interest is. At times a
compromise settlement really can be a second outcome, and through emergent
agreement we can reach a “win-win” outcome in a conflict situation (Hoffman,
1993, p. 104).

Conclusion
Conflict is a stubborn fact of organizational life. Discussions in this article
indicate that conflict is inherent in the nature of businesses because it depends
directly on perceptions, interaction and blockage of access to scarce resources
such as power. From an organizational perspective, it is most beneficial to view
conflict as a process rather than an act of the parties involved in the conflict. A
process view of conflict offers an organizing framework that is useful in
establishing team-oriented operations. Conflict is inherent to the notion of
self-directed work teams, as they are the combination of new changes to the
organizational structure, a perceived threat to managers’ control and power,
and a new situation for members of the team. SDTs are groups where people are
no longer segmented into functions that only control part of an organizational The self-directed
process. Each team consists of a group of employees with the responsibility for team
an entire process, product or customer relationship. In SDTs, everyone shares
equally in the responsibilities (Blanchard, 1995).
Within SDTs, there could be positive (functional) or negative (dysfunctional)
conflict depending on the type of conflict present. Cognitive conflict can
increase group effectiveness through focusing the groups’ attention on activities 75
and issues. On the other hand, affective conflict can undermine the usefulness of
groups by reducing the creativity and quality of the teams’ work.
Managers in the traditional organizational framework, or facilitators in
SDTs, have two fundamental options when faced with conflict. They can either
face conflict or avoid it. In certain circumstances, the manager/facilitator may
be wise to avoid conflict (e.g. when costs of confronting are greater than the
benefits). To do so, he/she may use techniques such as denial, flight, and
relinquishment. On the contrary, if the manager/facilitator chooses to confront
conflict, emergent agreements and negotiation are possible options in which to
resolve conflict.
Where there is no conflict, but, its occurrence would be beneficial to the
group, the manager/facilitator may choose to generate it. One way of generating
conflict is the DA approach.
External demands such as competitiveness, globalization, and customer
satisfaction have made it necessary to operate businesses in a group-based
organizational structure. At the same time, as new groups enter the workforce,
the opportunity for conflict based on class, gender, race, and ethnicity is
increasing. As discussed in this article, conflict is inevitable; thus, in this
continually changing environment, effective conflict resolution will have great
significance in the future organization. Organizations are moving to more
knowledge-based institutions, where employees will be more specialized, and
where computers and technology (information technology) will have greater
control. Ultimately, relationships will become threatened and conflict will be
more difficult to resolve. Therefore, conflict management should be considered
as a very important skill for managers and as an urgent matter for their
organization to deal with by their organizations objectively in order to achieve
constructive solutions.

References
Amason, A.C. (1996), “Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on
strategic decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams”, Academy of
Management Journal, No. 39, pp. 123-48.
Arnold, V. (1996), “Making teams work”, HR Focus, February, pp. 12-13.
Blanchard, K. (1997), “Out with the old and in with the new”, Incentive, pp. 59-61.
Brockmann, E. (1996), “Removing the paradox of conflict from group decisions”, Academy of
Management Executive, Vol. 10 No. 2, p. 61.
Campbell, J.P. (1988), “Productivity in organizations”, New Perspectives from Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Team Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Oser, R. and Flanagan, D.L. (1992), “Work teams in industry: a selected
review and proposed framework”, in Swezey, R.W. and Salas, E. (Eds), Teams: Their Training
Performance and Performance, Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 355-77.
Management Cohen, S.G. and Ledford, G.E. Jr. (1994), “The effectiveness of self-managing teams: a quasi-
5,2 experiment”, Human Relations, No. 47, pp. 13-43.
Cordery, J.L., Mueller, W.S. and Smith, L.M. (1991), “Attitudinal and behavioral effects of
autonomous group working: a longitudinal field study”, Academy of Management Journal,
76 Vol. 34, pp. 464-76.
Drenth, P.J., Thierry, H., Willems, P.J. and de Wolf, C.J. (1984), Handbook of Work and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1, Page Brother (Norwich) Ltd., pp. 521-37.
Felts, C. (1995), “Taking the mystery out of self-directed work teams”, Information Management,
March/April, pp. 21-6.
Goodman, P.S., Devadas, R. and Griffith-Hughson, T.L. (1988), “Groups and productivity:
analyzing the effectiveness of self-managing teams”, in Campbell, J.P. and Campbell, R.J. (Eds),
Productivity in Organizations: New Perspectives from Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 295-327.
Harrison, A.W., Thompson, K.R., Amason, A.C. and Hochwarter, W.A. (1995), “Conflict: an
important dimension in successful management teams”, Organizational Dynamics, Fall,
pp. 20-35.
Hoffman, B. (1993), Win-Win Competitiveness Made in Canada, Captus Press Inc., North York,
Ontario, pp. 84-104.
Holpp, L. (1992), “Making choices: self-directed teams or total quality management?”, Training,
May, pp. 69-76.
Kirkman, B.L. and Rosen, B. (1996), “Testing a model of team empowerment: an empirical
investigation of the antecedents and outcomes of empowered self-managing work teams”,
proceedings paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management,
Cincinnati, OH.
Kolb, D.M. and Putnam, L.L. (1992), “The multiple faces of conflict in organizations”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 311-21.
Lewicki, R.J. and Litterer, J. (1985), Negotiation, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Lewicki, R.J., Weiss, S.E. and Lewin, D. (1992), “Models of conflict, negotiation and third party
intervention”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 209-52.
Lippit, G.L. (1982), “Managing conflict in today’s organizations”, Training and Development
Journal, pp. 64-7.
Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1994), “The new network firm: a spherical structure built on a human
investment philosophy”, Organizational Dynamics, Winter, pp. 5-17.
Nierenberg, G. (1973), Fundamentals of Negotiating, Hawthorn Books, New York, NY.
Piczac, M.W. and Hauser, R.Z. (1996), “SDWTs: a guide to implementation”, Quality Progress,
May.
Pondy, L.R. (1967), “Organizational conflict”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 2,
pp. 296-320.
Rahim, M.A. (1989), Managing Conflict: An Interdisciplinary Approach, Prager Publishers, New
York, NY, pp. 7-10, 251-62.
Ray, D. and Bronstein, H. (1995), Teaming Up: Making the Transition to a Self-Directed, Team-
Based Organization, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Robbins, S.P. (1994), Essentials of Organizational Behavior, Prentice-Hall, NJ, pp. 169-183.
Sessa, V.I. (1996), “Using perspective taking to manage conflict and affect in teams”, Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 101-15.
Thomas, K. (1992), “Overview of conflict and conflict management”, Journal of Organizational The self-directed
Behavior, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 263-74.
Tillett, G. (1991), Resolving Conflict: A Practical Approach, Oxford University Press, Melbourne,
team
pp. 5-21; 104-5.
Valacich, J.S. and Schwenk, C. (1995), “Structuring conflict in individual, face-to-face, and computer
mediated group decision making carping versus objective devil’s advocacy”, Decision Science,
Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 369-93.
Wall, T.D., Kemp. N.J., Jackson, P.R. and Clegg, C.W. (1986), “Outcomes of autonomous work groups: 77
a long term field experiment”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29, pp. 280-304.
Wellins, R.S. (1992), “Building a self-directed work team”, Training & Development, December,
pp. 24-8.
Wellins, R.S., Wilson, R., Katz, A.J., Laughlin, P., Day, C.R. Jr. and Price, D. (1990), Self-Directed
Teams: A Study of Current Practice, DDI, Pittsburgh, PA.
(Dr Stephen H. Appelbaum, Professor of Management, Chahrazad Abdallah, and Barbara T.
Shapiro, Lecturer, are all based in the Faculty of Commerce and Administration, Concordia
University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada.)