Conflict Resolution: Understand to AchieveEssay title: Conflict Resolution: Understand to AchieveConflict Resolution: Understand to AchieveWhenever people unite to work as a team for anything more than a brief duration, some conflict is normal, and should be expected (Engleberg, Wynn & Schutter, 2003). Because of the inevitability of conflict, being able to recognize, address, and ultimately resolve it is vitally important, since unresolved conflict may have undesirable effects, including reduced morale, or increased turnover (De Janasz, Dowd & Schneider, 2001). Just as conflicts within team environments vary, so do methods for resolving it. In this paper, conflict, its effects, and some management and resolution strategies as they relate to team dynamics will be discussed. Understanding the various conflict resolution methods, including how and when to apply them, is of utmost importance. In teams, different types of conflict call for different solutions. Conflict resolution is certainly not an area in which one size fits all.
Conflict may be classified as Substantive, Procedural, or Affective, depending upon that to which it relates. Substantive conflict refers to disagreement related to ideas or issues, while procedural conflict relates to disagreements about tasks, processes or methods to be used in pursuit of the team’s goals (Engleberg, Wynn & Schutter, 2003). Procedural conflict may be beneficial, by promoting evaluation of the best course of action, and ensuring that all points of view are considered during the decision making process (Stuart, Sims, & Manz 1999). With affective conflict however, disagreement is more emotionally charged, relating to personalities, emotions and differing communication styles, making resolution more complex (Engleberg, Wynn & Schutter, 2003). Affective conflict is often destructive for teams, because it is relationship based, and may involve incompatibility between team members (Stuart, Sims, & Manz 1999).
Many associate conflict with negative experiences, such as stressful, heated exchanges, rather than positive opportunities to achieve clarity and cohesion among team members. Conflict refers to differences of opinion (Parker, 2003), or disharmony associated with seeming incompatibility of differences (Engleberg, Wynn & Schutter, 2003). These differences need not be harmful, however. The way the team handles conflict determines whether the outcome is constructive or destructive. Constructive conflict refers to disagreements which are handled courteously and respectfully, in which teams work together, value member’s contributions, and commit to finding solutions beneficial to everyone involved, both individually and as a group. Constructive conflict can be beneficial, encouraging members’ interest and participation, personal growth, and ultimately, team cohesion (Engleberg, Wynn & Schutter, 2003). It can improve clarity with regard to key issues or values, and inspire increased creativity (De Janasz, Dowd & Schneider, 2001). Conversely, destructive conflict occurs when members respond to disagreements disrespectfully. Persistent complaining, insults, competition, defensiveness, arguing, avoidance or inflexibility for example, create hostility, impairing the team’s decision making ability and effectiveness. Negative effects of destructive conflict often include inability to resolve problems, diversion of energy from team objectives, and damaged morale, which can be divisive to the team (Capozzoli, 1999). Unresolved feelings may prevent members from successfully working together, ultimately rendering the team ineffective (De Janasz, Dowd & Schneider, 2001).
As people tend to be creatures of habit, understandably, team members are likely to manage conflict in the style to which they are accustomed, rather than choosing the conflict management style appropriate for the specific conflict. Predictably, using a conflict management style inappropriate for the circumstance can have undesirable results. In the article titled Conflict and cohesion in groups, Engleberg, Wynn and Schutter discuss five typical conflict management styles, which they classify as avoidance, accommodation, competition, compromise and collaboration (2003).
Avoidance describes ignoring, or refusing to address the problem. Avoidance is usually counterproductive, except when used to allow time to gather thoughts or composure, or when the benefits of addressing the issue do not justify the risk. Avoidance may be appropriate for managing affective conflict. Accommodation refers to yielding to others at the expense of one’s own goals, due to a belief that the team is best served by conceding, to preserve harmony. Accommodating deprives the team of the opportunity to benefit from exploring the matter further through discussion however, although it is appropriate when preserving harmony within the team is more important than resolving the issue. Competition, in contrast
A disadvantage to accept may be the negative effect of a refusal. In the above examples, accepting is avoided by allowing time to gather and discuss, with the goal of maintaining the peace and order in the organization.
4.5.3 Acceptance and Response
A refusal generally occurs when one or more individuals have a lack of interest in the issue. A refusal may also occur when they share goals that would benefit the team. In both cases, one should be aware that some actions, opinions or decisions may be considered “disagreeable” by others and could potentially be detrimental. An individual might think, for example, that this decision should be made by another person because it may be better for them to share the importance of those actions, opinions or actions than to accept the decision. This would be a risk to individuals, especially those with significant issues.
A refusal occurs when a group refuses to accept their own work, to work with their teams or otherwise, when that group has a noncommittal, noncontacts status or for work done in the work place that they want to accept. When all of the above applies, a refusal usually appears from a team, especially if the group is a community of nonmembers who have only a little or no affiliation with all of their teams. When a refusal is caused by a disagreement or conflict, and that conflict or disagreement is a nonconsensual, nonconfrontational conflict, that team will likely accept the refusal automatically.
Relationships might be of the highest priority. In the situation described above, an individual that is willing to be patient, and willing to address the issue, is more likely to accept the rejection. As discussed earlier, the person that feels the situation is being solved should also be willing to make that change if it can better prepare the team to address the issue. The person being accepted should either give his or her team time to address the issue within two to three days, provided it is not yet resolved. Sometimes, this option is not a possibility.
In case of a refusal, the individual may also wish to attend another team meeting or attend community meetings where meetings are held. In this situation, the team will most likely accept the team’s decision within the next two weeks.
4.5.4 Acceptance and Response
By responding to the behavior of other members of the opposing team, one may feel that the team has given it up. As a result, no matter what, the other team members will not agree that the behavior of the other team member has been “wrong.”
A refusal can also occur in the absence of discussion, disagreement or any other kind of interaction that would further the issue within the team. When an individual has expressed a desire or is interested in expressing that desire, such as making a reservation or simply expressing concern for the team, the person