How Management Teams Can have a Good Fight (Group 7)

Ruchi Goel, Devang Madhani, Tejashree Rane, Piyush Shah, Nayan Jain & Utsav Thakkar

20/11/2011

op-level managers know that conflict over issues is natural and even necessary. Management teams that challenge one another's thinking develop a more complete understanding of their choices, create a richer

range of options, and make better decisions. But the challenge--familiar to anyone who has ever been part of a management team--is to keep constructive conflict over issues from degenerating into interpersonal conflict. From their research on the interplay of conflict, politics, and speed in the decision--making process of management teams, the authors have distilled a set of six tactics characteristic of high-performing teams: They work with more, rather than less, information. They develop multiple alternatives to enrich debate. They establish common goals. They make an effort to inject humor into the workplace. They maintain a balanced corporate power structure. They resolve issues without forcing a consensus. These tactics work because they keep conflict focused on issues; foster collaborative, rather than competitive, relations among team members; and create a sense of fairness in the decision-making process. Without conflict, groups lose their effectiveness. Managers often become withdrawn and only superficially harmonious. The alternative to conflict is not usually agreement but rather apathy and disengagement, which open the doors to a primary cause of major corporate debacles. Focus on the facts Some managers believe that focusing on the facts reduces the number of interpersonal conflicts. When you have strong on facts and are well informed of the

subject at hand, the team tends to focus more on the issue at hand rather than personalities or debate on hunches and guesses which may or may not be true. Multiply the Alternatives Having multiple choices reduces inter-personal conflicts. Multiple alternatives allow teams to discuss on a wider range of options, and managers can change positions without having to lose face. Also when there are more options the team focuses on the problem and the debate does not get personal and increases the likelihood of obtaining integrative solutions. Create Common Goals When teams lack common goal, they tend to perceive themselves to be in competition with one another, which arises the number of conflicts. Common goals help teams to focus on important aspects which build on their cohesiveness. They are less likely to look at themselves as individual winners or losers, rather they learn from each other. Humour It is a powerful tool which can be used by teams to relieve some stress in todays highly competitive environments. It is noticed that humour is absent in teams marked with high interpersonal conflicts. It helps change the mood of the employees as well, making the people in a more collaborative than competitive frame of mind. Balance the Power Structure Most people will accept decisions they disagree with if they feel the process was fair. For senior executives fairness is seen as an opportunity to have input that is seriously considered. Another aspect of fairness is a belief that the ultimate decision is driven by facts and good analysis, not by personality and politicking.

A balanced power structure is one in which all members of the team wield substantial power. The CEO is usually the most powerful member of the team, but is not an autocrat who centralizes power into his own hands. High levels of interpersonal conflict are found on teams with autocratic leaders as well as on teams with very weak leaders. The teams with the lowest levels of interpersonal conflict were the ones in which all members participated in the important decisions. Members of those teams often described the CEO as a team player. Seek Consensus with Qualification All of the teams that were effective at handling conflict put significant effort into reaching consensus, but did not force consensus. If the full group couldnt come to agreement, the CEO or the most relevant executive would make the decision with input from the group. This approach meets the goal of perceived fairness described above, without needlessly delaying decisions. All of these tactics help shift the focus toward business goals and away from personalities. They create an atmosphere of openness where people can hear differing views and change their minds without losing face. My one quibble with this article is that it seems to imply that interpersonal conflict is just a by-product of poor problem solving processes rather than a legitimate source of contention. As useful as the 6 tactics may be, they wont help when people have clashing work styles. Linking conflict, speed, and performance It is essential for teams to have some conflict among themselves as this would create an environment where people get a deeper understanding of the issue and come up

with a richer set of problem solutions. It is very important to mitigate interpersonal conflict.