How Management Teams Can Have a Good Fight - Book Report/Review Example

Article Summary: “How Management Teams Can Have a Good Fight”Team conflict is seen in management literature as essential to innovation and group-based critical thinking, but when improperly managed, it can spiral into bitter, emotional disagreements (Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, and Bourgeois 78). Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, and Bourgeois, in the article “How Management Teams Can Have a Good Fight,” studied the dynamics of conflict, quality of decisions, and speed of decision-making for twelve top-management teams.

These teams operated in technology-based industries. Findings showed that only eight out of the twelve companies were able to use substantive conflict in improving the quality of their decision-making process and decisions (Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, and Bourgeois 78). These authors analyzed the tactics of “good fights,” where good fights mean that teams used conflict to generate creative and timely outcomes by lessening the impact of interpersonal conflict on their decisions. The tactics of a good fight are: working with more information and debating on facts; creating different avenues to broaden debates; sharing commonly-agreed goals; adding humor to discussions; preserving balance in the power structure; and finding resolutions without forcing a consensus (Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, and Bourgeois 78).

The tactic of having more information works through producing tight internal controls, where team members have the data they need to understand what is happening to the company and to make decisions based on facts. Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, and Bourgeois mention examples of companies that use their company controls to gather as much information as possible. For companies with limited information, managers have problem defending their ideas, which result to attacking personalities instead. Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, and Bourgeois assert that relying on facts help reduce interpersonal conflicts because the tendency to make guesses and assumptions are reduced.

Having more alternatives reduce unproductive group conflict because people consider more issues and dimensions of the decision (Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, and Bourgeois 79). With more alternatives, people consider more options, which reduce conflict. Furthermore, the process also connects the management team to one another because of their shared goals (Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, and Bourgeois 80). The process can be fun and creative, instead of being stifling. Management teams with only one or two options, however, tend to develop bitter quarrels (Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, and Bourgeois 80).

Teams with less interpersonal conflict share common goals, use humor, balance power, and do not force reaching the consensus. Common goals inspire people to collaborate and to overlook their personal ambitions (Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, and Bourgeois 80). Injecting humor into the company and management activities reduces the tension and stress of managing difficult decisions (Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, and Bourgeois 81). Finally, team members tend to accept decisions that come from a balanced power structure, even if they do not agree with them (Eisenhardt, Kahwajy, and Bourgeois 82).

Perceptions of fairness help reduce interpersonal conflict.The writer of this essay agrees with the authors’ argument that substantive conflict will reduce groupthink and maximize the role of team dynamics in producing creative decisions and products for the company. Indeed, more critical-thinking heads are better one. They tap each other’s strength in analyzing issues and problems and finding diverse alternatives. Furthermore, humor reduces workplace stress and enables people to defend themselves against embarrassment and disappointment.

The weaknesses of the article are its small sampling, and it does not consider how apathetic or overly aggressive members can be properly handled. The strengths of the article are that it considers the different causes of good fights (i.e. lack of relevant information and fair processes) and balances the need for speed and quality of decisions. It enhances the significance of the process of the decision-making too. Thus, an engaging decision-making process reduces the impact of interpersonal conflict on productive conflict.

Work CitedEisenhardt, Kathleen M., Kahwajy, Jean L., and L.J. Bourgeois. “How Management Teams Can Have a Good Fight.” Harvard Business Review (1997): 77-85. Print.