Conflict: IntergroupClass 1 of 2

March 24, 2015

• Research & Development vs. Engineering• Sales vs. Marketing• Execs vs. everyone else• Everyone else vs. HR• Engineering vs. Manufacturing• Finance vs. Accounting• Managers vs. their Subordinates and on and on and on…

Common Intergroup Conflicts in Organizations

We evolved as part of groups…

…yet, our psychological adaptations — our inherent “group-ish-ness” — now sow the seeds of group conflict

Self Categorization & Social Identity Theories• Presence of salient categorical differences

leads to automatic categorization– Affiliation, expertise, gender/race, age, etc.– Activates the “groupish mindset”– “Who I am” and “who I am NOT” (varies from

situation to situation i.e., context)

• Approach intergroup situations with a basic desire to see one’s group in a favorable light– As comparing favorably with other groups– Impacts self-esteem– Engage in mental “gymnastics” to achieve

• Automatic in-group favoritism and out-group derogation– Positive traits are more prevalent in in-group than

out-group– Negative traits are more prevalent in out-group

than in-group

STRIKING STATISTIC

• 97% of Fortune 500 companies reported that they plan to increase the use of cross-functional teams (i.e., teams where members come from different functions, disciplines, etc.)– Only 10% of teams were considered successful

Five Conflict Management Styles

CooperativenessUncooperative Cooperative

Asse

rtive

nes

sU

nass

ertiv

eAs

serti

ve

COMPETING

AVOIDING

COLLABORATING

COMPROMISING

ACCOMMODATING

When “Might” each Style be Appropriate?• Avoidance

– Let people “cool down”• Accommodation

– Realize you are wrong– Issue is much more important to other group– Build credit for the future

• Competition– No long term intergroup relationship– “Protect” group from untrustworthy others– Unpopular courses of action need implementation– Its an issue of survival (not be manufactured)

• Collaboration– Both groups’ concerns are too important to be compromised– Gain commitment; need other group to help execute

• Compromise– Outcome is less important to your group than other group– Mutually exclusive goals– Temporary settlement is needed– Intense time pressure

The problem is...we so rarely choose appropriately!Experience of conflict knee-jerk reaction to:• avoid (it’s easy)• compete (we must WIN!)

Primed by a zero-sum / fixed-pie world:• Tournaments• “Up or out” employment• Social Darwinism• We love to rank everything!• Zero-sum culture?• Recent Goldman Sachs resignation and PR nightmare• GS versus its clients (AKA “muppets”)??

Not sustainable because few games are one-shot games

Best way to Resolve Intergroup Conflict• Focus on superordinate goals– What are we trying to accomplished?– Why do we work here?– Common adversary

• Redefines “the group” and changes underlying psychology

• IMPORTANCE OF LEADERSHIP: Leaders create a vision, a common understanding of who we are and where we are going (e.g., culture)

Conflict: IntragroupClass 2 of 2

March 26, 2015

Underlying Sources of Conflict(the potential energy of conflict)

• Miscommunication and misinformation (surface)• Real or perceived differences in needs and priorities

(deep)• Real or perceived differences in values, perceptions,

beliefs, attitudes and culture (deeper – rarely, if ever, verbalized)

Promoters of Conflict(“get the ‘conflict ball’ rolling in the wrong direction”)

• Heightened evaluation:– Constantly criticizing/judging others, finger pointing, insults,

defensiveness

• Abusing Power: – “My way or the highway,” imposing the will of one group

member on others, threats and ultimatums

• Intransigence: – Being rigid in one's unwillingness to compromise, listen to others

• Neutrality and/or indirect communication:– Beating around the bush and/or demonstrating indifference, lack of commitment.

• Avoidance: – Running away from the problem, hoping it goes away

when others feel it must be dealt with

• Assuming others’ intentions:– Telling someone why he/she did something

• Telling others and not the source:– rated as one of the most destructive-behaviors

Two main types of negotiations Distributive

Single issue (usually price/money) Typically zero-sum bargaining (conflicting

goals) Integrative

Multiple issues (price, quantity, timeline, etc.)

Opportunities for joint gain can be identified

Willingness to trust other party usually facilitates better deals and future relationship

Requires a collaborative problem solving approach

Negotiation Essentials Don’t fall for the fixed-pie bias Shift from “positions” to “interests” Transform single-issue to multi-issue Informal situations are just as

important and formal Life/business is NOT a one-shot game

Compete now and “win” often pay later

Job negotiations – think ongoing relationship

A negotiation should typically not be a conflict

So if we all learn to “steer clear” of these behaviors, to “play well with others,” there will be no conflict?

Might minimize, but not likely to eliminate:• Task conflict can be independent of relationship conflict• Our own and others’ behaviors are subjectively perceived • We bring a lot of “personal baggage,” faults, biases, etc. into

group settings, and so does everyone else• Despite best intentions, conflict is an inevitable byproduct of

most interaction

Types of ConflictType Definition Examples used to assess/ measure

Relationship Disagreements based on personal/social issues unrelated to work

•How often do people get angry while working in your team? •How much relationship tension is there in your team?

Task Disagreements about the work being done

•To what extent are there differences of opinion in your team? •How much conflict is there about the work you do in your team? •How often do people in your team disagree about opinions regarding the work to be done? •How frequently are there conflicts about ideas in your team?

Process Centers on task strategy and delegation of duties and resources

•How often do members of your team disagree about who should do what? •How frequently do members of your team disagree about the way to complete a team task? •How much disagreement about the delegation of tasks exists within your team?

Group Conflict is Complex, takes Many Forms…

Task

Task Task

Relationship

Relationship

Process

Process

(Process

Task

Process

RelationshipX

X

+ Task)X

Relationship

Effects of Conflict

• HUGE amount of data showing that relationship conflict hinders team productivity (and profits $$$)

• This is why the market pays top Executive Coaches and Conflict Resolution Specialists so well

Importance of Conflict Resolution in Teams

• Avoidance is far poorer “solution” than engagement with the conflicting situation – Avoiding conflict will lead to less optimal decision-making

and even prevent teams from finishing projects

• Manager’s perspective: simple cost/benefits analysis – The cost to the organization is greater when teams avoid

conflict than when they engage it

Managing Team ConflictsStep 1: Diagnose the Conflict i.e. “What are we dealing with here?”

• Define the conflict– Who are the critical parties?– How do they see the conflict?

• Identify the sources of conflict– Relationship– Task– Process

• Look for spillover effects– task to relationship, relationship to task, etc.

• Do the group members know that a conflict exists? • Are the members dependent on each other to get work done?

Managing Conflict: Act (or don’t)

Step 2: Choose whether to act or not

Avoidance: attempt to avoid conflict by postponing it, hiding feelings, changing the subject, leaving the room or quitting the project, etc. can (VERY

infrequently) be a useful strategy

Avoidance may be appropriate when: • we need time to calm down because relationships

are at stake • time is needed to gather more information

Avoidance NOT appropriate 95% of the time: • the issue is important • a decision is needed quickly • not deciding has a major impact on the situation • postponing the issue will only make matters worse

Avoiding the conflict is usually NOT satisfying to the individual nor does it help the group resolve a problem

When Choosing to Act, Consider:

Choose the right time for confronting the conflict (if possible): – Individuals have to be willing to address the conflict – Likely to resist if we feel we are being forced into discussion

Acknowledging past conflict: – If there is another problem from the past blocking current

communication, list it as one of the issues in this conflict– Strategically consider which conflict to deal with first

Prepare to only deal with one issue at a time:– Only one issue at a time can be addressed so the problem is

manageable– Someone in the group needs to provide leadership to identify the

issues involved

Managing the Conflict SettingStep 3: Setting the Stage for “Real” Discussion

• Prior to stating one’s view:– Actively seek to understand what others have said, and use the language of the

other side (mimicry promotes liking)• Make explicit what the opposing sides have in common:

– Helps to reinforce what is shared between the disputants, distance between sides feels smaller

• Acknowledge Emotions: – First step in dealing with emotions is to acknowledge them– By saying "you seem to be very angry about what happened" you encourage the

other person to explain why they are angry • Validates this person’s reactions • Gives you some ideas about how you might be able to fix the situation (i.e., hot

buttons)• Use Humor:

– Laughter can effectively relieve tension– Gives time to rethink positions and see alternatives (positive affect promotes

creativity)

Work to Defuse Heated Situations so Discussion can be Productive

During Conflict Resolution DiscussionsStep 4: Discussing the Issue(s)

• Thank the other side for having expressed his/her view and feelings – Recognizes the personal risk the individual took

• Be willing to practice perspective taking– Try to see the other’s point of view, it might not be so bad??– Do not think of the setting as a competition

• Don’t ignore/dismiss others’ feeling, beliefs, etc.– Negative emotions will arise and other side will shut down

• Keep focused on the TASK– Sometimes the task is to solve a relationship conflict – goal is to

do so without adding additional personal issues

But not all Conflict is Harmful…

“Absence of conflict is not harmony, its apathy”

• Task conflict is often beneficial to team functioning

Effect of Task Conflict on Performance• Non-routine tasks:

– low conflict low performance– moderate-high conflict high performance– very high conflict moderate performance

• Routine tasks: – low conflict moderate performance– moderate conflict high performance– high conflict low performance

Positive Task Conflict

• Positive task conflict: notion that a healthy discourse may exist in the disagreement among group members

• Any tolerable amount of task conflict is vital to group success – Helps avoid Groupthink – Minimizes conformity pressure– Generates more innovative ideas, better decisions

• Positive conflict creates buy-in, offers elements of ownership, sense of cooperation, enhanced membership

Why is maintaining positive task conflict difficult?

Answer: Because 1) constant discussion and debate takes time and effort and 2) task conflict can very easily

become relationship conflict

• It’s natural to begin taking ownership over our ideas, solutions, opinions, etc. When this happens having our point of view critiqued is akin to a personal critique or attack

• “I vs. We”– Is my position best for the team (i.e., the task), or for me?

• If “me” you’ve taken dangerous step toward making conflict personal– Is ego (mine or others’) what is making discussion seem personal?

Keeping positive task conflict from becoming harmful relationship conflict

Communication is Key

Remain strictly focused on the job to be done• Focus statements toward the task, goal, etc. not on others• Reiterate common goals, purpose• Helps keep discussion on “We” rather than “I”

Communicating openly and honestly • Others can tell when you’re holding back and will wonder why and about

what• Go directly to the source, be sincere, constructive

Avoid reacting to or making unintentional remarks• Words like "always" and "never" are often reacted to strongly and do not

necessarily convey what the speaker means

Keeping task conflict from becoming relationship conflict continued…

Emotion Management and Conveyance Stay in control of your emotions• Emotions are contagious: if you get upset, other will as well (seriously)• If things get heated, stay focused on task, highlight commonalities, use humor

– “If passion drives you, let reason hold the reigns.” – Ben Franklin

Show comfort with the existing conflict, make task conflict normativeDon't insist on being right• There are usually several reasonable solutions to every problem• Consider the potential cost of “being right”

Agree to disagree• Respect for one another, value of relationships, two good reasons to disagree• Don’t force consensus

Benefits of disagreement (successful teams work with more viewpoints)• Creativity, performance, team building

Key Takeaways• Steps can be taken to minimize conflict, but conflict is inevitable

• The “big deal” is not the conflict itself, it’s what you do about it

• Remember: You’re going to have to work/interact with those you have/had conflict with in the future

• Relationship conflict must be managed

– Defuse the situation

– Keep task at the center

• Task conflict should be embraced/facilitated

– Prevents Groupthink, irrational escalation, Abilene Paradox

– Enhances creativity and innovation (next week’s topic)

Leading Conflict Resolution• Recognize when there isn’t enough task conflict/discussion

– Deliberately develop alternatives, critiques, etc. (e.g., devils advocate)

• Recognize relationship conflict and be brave enough to act– Much like speaking up during dysfunctional decision-making processes, if you

notice something, its likely someone else does as well– But…it doesn’t matter what is noticed if no one is willing to act upon it!– To act often requires settling one’s own persona conflict of “I vs. We”

• “Insight into the two selves within a [person] clears up many confusions and contradictions. It was our understanding that preceded our victory.” -- Vernon Howard, philosopher

• Good leaders will “check their egos at the door,” willing to say they were/are wrong, concede, and still push hard for group success– Will get a lot of credit for admitting a mistake or conceding for the benefit of the

group; resented for stubbornly holding a position to “win,” display power, etc.– Will appear objective, discerning, and interested in the good of the group– Continually focus on commonality, purpose, objectives, goals (“eye on the prize”)