Conflict as a Team Tool - Essay Example

CONFLICT AS A TEAM TOOL al Affiliation CONFLICT AS A TEAM TOOL Introduction Departments have adopted team formation as a way of management. In team composition, work is sub-divided into small interrelated units called tasks that are delivered by a small group of the departmental workforce. This group is referred to as a team and, eventually, the accomplished tasks lead to an accomplished corporate goal. Team members are chosen such that they complement each other in terms of their abilities. By working together as a team, the team members help each other to realize their full potential hence maximizing their strengths and minimizing weaknesses (Torrente, Salanova, Llorens & Schaufeli, 2012). Team formation has been a modern management model for quite a long. Both scholars and non-scholars have argued in its favor or disfavor. In this regard, the focus of this study is not to investigate the merits or demerits of this tool but to probe the level of independence that should be tolerated within teams. It is also in the interest of this study to establish how conflicts between groups affect departmental performance. Task independence To achieve their ultimate goals, departments divide the entire project into sub-units called tasks, each of which should be delivered by each team. Eventually, the accomplished works are brought together to realize the final goal (Bezrukova, Thatcher, Jehn, & Spell, 2012). In the course of their work, these teams require some independence so that they can perform their duties efficiently. What is of concern though is the level of independence these teams should be entitled to. Conflicts are bound to arise between various teams in their day to day duties. These conflicts have impacts on departmental performance and should be pointed to concern. Independence simply means that a team works without any interference or intervention from non-team members. This freedom cannot be exercised entirely since the teams must be interdependent at some points. As a result of the interdependence, disagreements and dissatisfactions may arise leading to conflicts. Independence gives teams some sense of autonomy. The teams will be in a position to come up with work timetables suitable to them so that the members work at convenient times. Such flexible schedules are right for the minds of the team members because they feel less controlled, and they work when only ready. The performance of the workers will, therefore, be better because they will be mentally and physically prepared for working. (Bezrukova, Thatcher, Jehn, & Spell, 2012) Independence in the teams helps eliminate the barriers that exist between management and the junior staff. With the erosion of these obstacles, the management-employee relationship improves, and these employees can freely contribute their ideas within the various teams. If allowed to be independent, the sense of responsibility will grow among team members. They will develop a feeling of handling the outcome of their actions, and this will be a motivation factor to work hard. This is a management theory that was fronted by Drucker. Drucker is a great management writer who was the founding CEO of Microsoft, Bill Gates, actually admired. Teams cannot be fully autonomous, though, because this can be catastrophic for departmental performance. Team members will respond differently to independence. Some team members will always need direction and may not take group freedom positively. These individuals are not ready to assume full responsibility for the outcome of the decisions made. They cannot bear the imagination that their names will be entirely associated with the results of the tasks performed. Such individuals will need some control and should not be entirely left on their own (Haas, 2010). While discussing management, Drucker argues that independence within teams comes along with shortcomings. He argues that this autonomy leads to instability, and the intervention of the management is required lest the teams go astray. Since Bill Gates believed so much in Drucker’s work, I have all the reasons to believe that he exercised moderation in allowing team independence. Back in the year 2013; Microsoft did poorly in the sales of smartphones and tablets. In response to that, Ballmer, Bill’s successor, chose to do restructuring. The intention of Ballmer was to introduce a system where there is interdependence between the various teams of the company. He believed that the company would not realize success when teams operated as standalone entities but when they complemented each other. The team members may not be fully equipped to undertake the tasks assigned to them. These individuals may lack the prerequisite training to deliver on the work. Some of them may also lack the character necessary to drive the team agenda. Due to such factors, tension might develop within the team leading to poor performance (Harrison & Humphrey, 2012). Team members who do not get the concept of independence may feel that managerial work is delegated to them if they are left to their own devices. As a result, this group of workers may become skeptical of the scheme, and that may be injurious to departmental performance. Some of them might even demand increased pay because they will have this feeling that their duties have been expanded. Team independence should only be allowed to the point where it does not lead to confusion in management. Confusions can arise if the independence boundary is not clearly defined. Take, for instance, the Mobility Partner Program that HP joined Intel and Microsoft to form in July, 2014. Such is a large team that draws its membership from different companies and is not likely to progress in the desired direction if the management input is not factored in. The managers will help the teams in crystallizing the goals of the partnership (Harrison & Humphrey, 2010). Microsoft and Intel have engaged each other to deliver low-cost windows 10 phones this year, 2015. That is an enormous venture that must be thoroughly monitored. The team from both companies that is to deliver the goals of this partnership must be constantly supervised to ensure that there is no deviation from the strategies. Meetings must be frequently scheduled to assess the progress and communications promptly made. Such can only happen when the teams are not a hundred percent independent and management interjection is provided for. Different departments have employees code of conduct, some of which may not be similar. Consider a case where employees are drawn from different companies to form a team. For instance, Microsoft is integrating the superior processor capabilities of Intel to come up with a better browser that will succeed internet explorer this summer. That is a task that must be delivered by a team of professionals from both companies. If such a team is left totally autonomous, then the employees might conduct themselves in a manner not allowed by their respective companies and get away with it. To curb the occurrence of such, supervision is mandatory. Impacts of intergroup conflicts on departmental performance Conflicts between teams can result from several factors. Some of these factors are avoidable while some are not. Lateness for meetings or failing to show up at all is some of the factors that cause conflicts within teams. Conflicts also occur when teams fail to honor their ends of the bargain and therefore frustrating other teams. In most cases, conflicts between groups lead to undesirable results because they slow down the pace of task delivery. These conflicts can also have positive impacts on departmental performance. Conflicts are usually rampant at the initial stages of the team. At this point, the leadership of the organizations still lacks the framework on which they should work together. Their roles may still be unclear, and this could lead to the overlap of jurisdictions causing tension. Besides, the teams may not be aware of the code of conduct that they should adhere to (Kugler, Rapoport & Pazy 2010). Assuming conflicts in Intel, the employees are not supposed to look at conflicts negatively. Instead, they should embrace conflict and develop ways of solving them. In fact, it is purely a culture of disagreeing to agree with the organization. They call it confronting one another not for the wrong reasons but constructively. If factors stated in the previous paragraph are the causes of inter-team conflict, then there should be no reason for alarm because there are inherent positive impacts. That is because the teams will develop structures upon which they relate with one another. They will also endeavor to define precisely their goals so that no team oversteps its mandate. Therefore, these teams will develop conflict resolution skills, and that will improve the performance of the department in current and future assignments (Tjosvold, Wong &Feng, 2014). If not approached with caution, one conflict can even lead to more conflicts. For that matter, they should be solved in such a manner that each party feels valued and respected. Also, all teams must be willing to solve the conflicts if they occur, and that must be done expeditiously. I want it to be clear that conflict can never be enough. What is important, however, is how the conflicts are managed. As I have stated above, conflicts can sometimes drive teams towards achieving their goals. First of all, the occurrence of conflicts can make team members ponder over some problems that can be experienced in a particular solution. On top of that, the conflicts will make the teams and the department as a whole reviews the set goals and the strategies that are to be used. Such a review ensures that the department makes the best decisions (Shaw, Zhu, Duffy, Scott, Shih, & Susanto, 2011). Conclusion In conclusion, independence is an excellent tool for departmental leadership. The management should accord individuals and teams the necessary freedom so that they become creative and productive. However, this task independence comes with its defects, and some control mechanism must be instituted so that they do not become uncontrollable The teams should not be entirely autonomous. Also, conflicts should be solved promptly and in a manner that does not dampen the spirit of the parties to the conflict. The cause of the conflict should be established before venturing into solving it. No judgment should be made before the conflicting source is determined. The conflict solution arrived at should not injure the interest of the department in question. References Bezrukova, K., Thatcher, S., Jehn, K. A., & Spell, C. S. (2012). The effects of alignments: examining group faultlines, organizational cultures, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 77. Haas, M. R. (2010). The double-edged swords of autonomy and external knowledge: Analyzing team effectiveness in a multinational organization. Academy of Management Journal, 53(5), 989-1008. Harrison, D. A., & Humphrey, S. E. (2010). Designing for diversity or diversity for design? Tasks, interdependence, and within‐unit differences at work. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(2‐3), 328-337. Kugler, T., Rapoport, A., & Pazy, A. (2012). Public good provision in inter‐team conflicts: Effects of asymmetry and profit‐sharing rule. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 23(4), 421-438. Lee, P., Gillespie, N., Mann, L., & Wearing, A. (2010). Leadership and trust: Their effect on knowledge sharing and team performance. Management Learning. Shaw, J. D., Zhu, J., Duffy, M. K., Scott, K. L., Shih, H. A., & Susanto, E. (2011). A contingency model of conflict and team effectiveness. Journal of applied psychology, 96(2), 391. Tjosvold, D., Wong, A. S., & Feng Chen, N. Y. (2014). Constructively managing conflicts in organizations. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav.,1(1), 545-568. Torrente, P., Salanova, M., Llorens, S., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). Teams make it work: How team work engagement mediates between social resources and performance in teams. Psicothema, 24(1), 106-112. Read More