726 Chapter 21 Conflict

individual competence, performance and target set-
ting (33 per cent); and the level of support or resources
provided (23 per cent).
• The most common, perceived negative conflict
behaviour reported was lack of respect (61 per
cent); followed by bullying, intimation or harassment
(33 per cent); and the refusal to work together or
cooperate (33 per cent).
• The two consequences of conflict which clearly stood
out were an increase in employee stress (43 per cent)
and a reduction in motivation and commitment (39
per cent). Staff responded to conflict by discussing it
with their manager or a human relations department
member (37 per cent); by discussing it informally with
another person (26 per cent); or by talking about it
with someone outside work – a family member or
friend (23 per cent).
The researchers found that both informal discussion with
another person, and the formal grievance, discipline or
complaint procedure, were equally effective in resolving
interpersonal conflict. However, the Institute recommended
the use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such
as mediation and what it called ‘facilitated discussions’ to
complement the aforementioned formal approaches.

STOP AND SEARCH YouTube for How to disagree with your boss.

Group-level conflict

Group (or intra-group) conflict exists when there are perceive interpersonal incompatibilities
or differences between the individuals within a group or team. These can be the result of
relationship, task or process causes.

• Relationship conflict relates to an awareness of interpersonal incompatibilities between

group members. It includes emotional components such as feelings of tension and
friction. These result in conflict over personal issues such as dislike of fellow members
and feelings of annoyance, frustration and irritation.
• Task conflict relates to an awareness of differences between members in their ideas, viewpoints
and opinions concerning the group task. Task conflicts generally lack the intense interpersonal
negative emotions that are more commonly associated with relationship conflict.
• Process conflict relates to a group failing to agree on deadlines, task pacing, performance
milestones or allocation of task responsibilities. Members can become dissatisfied with the
uncertainty created and may express a desire to leave the group (Jehn and Mannix, 2001).

Collectively, these conflicts within a group increase the communication problems between
its members, diminish their commitment to team decisions, and decrease their commitment
to their organization.
 Conflict levels and causes 727

Dysfunctional conflict can impede a team’s performance and endanger its existence. How
does conflict in a team begin and then spread to infect all of its members? Lindred Greer and
her colleagues (2014) discovered three phases of conflict contagion within a group and three
mechanisms by which it spreads (Table 21.3)

Table 21.3: Phases and mechanisms of group conflict contagion

Phase 1
Meeting 1 Dyadic disagreement begins when team member A has an idea and member B disagrees with it.
Phase 2
Meeting 2 Faction building follows as member C (a friend of member A) intervenes to support them. Member D,
listens, weighs arguments, and sides with member B. Coalitions within the team begin to build.
Coalition forming is a conflict spreading mechanism
Meeting 3 Other team members, not interested in the issue or unaware of the growing disagreement, remain uninvolved.
Conflict begins to affect group performance. Those uncomfortable with the conflict withdraw either intellec-
tually or physically. The created factions within the group address additional issues and the tensions increase.
Emotionally-charged behaviour is a conflict spreading mechanism
Meeting 4 Negative emotions spread through the team, and previously uninvolved members engage in emotional
outbursts. Resentment builds so that an issue of importance to only a few members begins to dominate the
team agenda putting its entire output in jeopardy. Goal-focused members attempt to bring the high-jacked
agenda back on track.
Threats to team outcome is a conflict spreading mechanism
Phase 3
Full-blown conflict follows. The team’s performance, efficiency and creativity all suffer. Since all members are
now involved in the conflict, many of them will want to resolve it.

Source: based on Greer et al. (2014)

Greer et al. advise team leaders and managers to intervene before the initial dyadic conflict
spreads to the rest of the team. They should keep attuned to possible dyadic disagreements
which have the potential to escalate and to nip them in the bud. They should ensure that they
understand the real issues underpinning the disagreement (e.g. personal antagonism, status
envy) before intervening, and be aware of their own biases, perhaps delegating any required
intervention to a neutral third party.
Lindred Greer

STOP AND SEARCH You Tube for in e ee anaging Conflict in eam (7:59).
728 Chapter 21 Conflict

While intervening immediately after a leader is aware of a disagreement in their team is

commendable, it still represents a reactive approach to team conflict. Waiting for a problem
to arise before intervening risks frustration building up and trust being lost. Ginka Toegel and
Jean-Louis Barsoux (2016) advocate a proactive approach to team conflict. They recommend
surfacing team members’ differences before a team starts work so as to pre-empt any
destructive conflict later.
It involves a team and its leader coming together and sharing preferences and expectations
in order to identify the most likely areas of future friction and suggesting ways in which
Ginka Toegel
differences can be accommodated. The focus is on team members’ attitudes and behaviours
rather than on the underlying sources of their differences (e.g. personality); and upon the
process of the team’s work rather than its content. The intention is to immunize members
against unproductive future conflict. So how do you reveal group members’ differences? The
authors suggest exploring team members’ respective world views using a Five Questions
technique in which questions are used to start conversations between team members as
shown in Table 21.4.

Table 21.4: Five questions for revealing team members’ world views
Jean-Louis Barsoux
Look Individuals quickly assess a peer’s character, competence and status on
Spotting the the basis of how they look, dress, move and their tone of voice. Team-
difference inappropriate clothing can also put colleagues off. Members reflect
on how they want to come across to others compared with how they
actually do.
Questions: In your world, what makes a good first impression, what do you
notice first about another person, what do you value about and judge them
on?

Act Differing body language norms (e.g. gestures, interaction distances) can
Judging be a cause of group friction and disrupt communication especially if
behaviour members are from different cultures. So too can their differing attitudes
to work timekeeping, appropriate levels of assertiveness and expectations
about helping one another. Members establish team norms around those
issues.
Questions: In your world, how important are punctuality and time
limits, what is a comfortable physical distance for interacting in the
workplace, should members volunteer for tasks or wait to be assigned
them?

Speak Communication styles of team members with different native languages

Divided by can cause controversy. The actual words chosen can cause misunderstand-
language ing since meanings differ – ‘yes’ can mean ‘maybe’, ‘let’s try it’ or ‘no way’.
Members also differ in their tolerance for candour, humour, speaking pauses
and being interrupted. Members establish guidelines on speaking up within
the team.
Questions: In your world, is a promise an aspiration or a guarantee, do inter-
ruptions signal interest or rudeness, is unsolicited feedback welcome?

Think Members’ backgrounds and personalities affect how they think about their
Occupying differ- work, make decisions and solve problems. Some use methodical thinking,
ent mindsets others employ intuitive thinking, some prefer experimentation and others
value predictability. Members make themselves aware of each others’ pre-
ferred cognitive styles and the value of each.
Questions: In your world, is uncertainty viewed as a threat or opportunity, is
it better to be reliable or flexible, how do people respond to deviations from
plan?
 Conflict levels and causes 729

Feel How members display and manage their emotions in the face of disagree-
Charting emotions ment can trigger conflict. Over-enthusiasm can fuel scepticism while displays
of anger can be upsetting or intimidating. The team can discuss the dangers
of ‘telling it like it is’ and bottling things up. Incivility in the form of
withdrawal, sarcasm or private complaining, can be equally conflict-inducing.
The aim is to establish ways of disagreeing productively.
Questions: In your world, which positive and negative emotions is it ac-
ceptable and unacceptable to display in the workplace? How do people
express anger and enthusiasm? How would you respond if a team mate had
annoyed you?

Source: based on Toegel and Barsoux (2016, pp.81-84)

Organizational-level conflict

At the organizational level, a failure of coordination can trigger conflict. The process of
organizing by senior managers acts to divide up work activities, and a conflict can thus be
seen as a symptom of management’s failure to adequately coordinate these same activities
later on. A coordination–conflict four-stage model is shown in Figure 21.2. It organizes the
diverse theoretical discussions and research findings into a framework that explains how
conflict at the organizational level arises and how it might be managed. Such management
may involve either the use of conflict resolution approaches (to reduce or eradicate conflict)
or conflict stimulation approaches (to encourage and increase conflict).

Stage 1: Organizing
The first stage of the model consists of organizing, defined as the process of breaking
up a single task and dividing it among different departments, groups or individuals.
For example, a car company allocates the work involved in building a new vehicle
to its different departments – human resources, accounting, production, sales and
research. Such functional specialization is one of many bases on which to divide the
total work involved. Specialization is rational because it concentrates specialists in
departments, avoids duplication, allows performance goals to be established, and
specifies practices.
 730

unsuccessful con ict resolution

approaches
Chapter 21 Conflict

Organizing perceptions
coordination
(differentiation) and feelings
con ict stimulation
too successful devices

Organizing Coordination Perceptions and Conflict management

(differentiation) (managing feelings
causes: relationships)
by means of :

goal orientation rules, policies and con ict resolution approaches:

and evaluation procedures competition
collaboration
self-image and using hierarchy avoidance
stereotypes accommodation
compromise
task interdependencies goal clari cation con ict perceived
and communication

time frame temporary task con ict stimulation devices:

forces communications
restructuring
overlapping permanent project bringing in outsiders
authority teams felt con ict appointing devil’s advocate
leadership style
scarce resources liaison roles

integrator roles

Figure 21.2: Coordination–conflict model