Ways of the Conflict Resolution - Case Study Example

THE POISONED CHALICE- CASE STUDY by Student’s Name Course Professor Institution City/State Date Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 1.0 Introduction 4 2.0 Body 5 2.1 Analysis of the Case 5 2.2 Ways of Overcoming Conflict in the Department 7 3.0 Conclusion 13 4.0 Recommendations 13 Executive Summary Joseph, a new manager at a government department responsible for environment and heritage, took up his new position without knowing that there were team conflict issues he had to deal with. His role entailed taking up the role of a manager of a taskforce, which had been set up five months previously. There were internal conflicts within the task force, which comprised of a policy team and implementation team, and between the taskforce members and the rest of the department. The two teams in the task force were highly antagonistic of each other and this conflict escalated after a chain of emails from some members of the policy team were leaked by a member of the implementation team. The emails had some disparaging remarks about people from other sections with whom they had been working. The previous manager had made no efforts to solve the conflict hoping it would go away whereas his manager used the compromising conflict management technique, which provided only a temporary solution for the issue. Joseph was thus faced with the issue of providing a permanent solution to the conflict between the team members to ensure that it did not affect performance further. The best method, which should have permanently solved the conflict, was cooperative method-mediation- where all the team members were involved in the problem solving techniques. This would have provided a win-win situation for the team members. Identifying conflict as a mutual issue, which requires a general solution and consideration would have resolved the conflict permanently. 1.0 Introduction According to Shetach (2012), conflicts within working teams are common and often stem from incongruent interests or from differences of opinions. Specifically, the teamwork settings associated with project processes and assignment create suitable conditions for conflicts and how well these conflicts are addressed usually have a considerable impact on the overall, final results of the associated projects. Dreu and Weingart (2003) noted that task conflict is less negatively associated with team performance whereas task relationship and conflict are weakly, instead of strongly interrelated. Curseu and Schruijer (2010) that trust directly impacts team effectiveness and promotes team efficacy through its impacts on other developing situations such as potency and conflict. The three journal articles are relevant to this case, which entails a conflict between the policy team and implementation team in a government department. The manager is facing a challenge of dealing with this conflict. Shetach (2012) covers the nature of conflict, team management, and conflict leadership, project decision-making processes, team implementation processes and the interwoven team-leadership conflict management model, which can help the manager to resolve the conflict between the policy team and implementation team. The model provides a framework for helping us understand the motivations and emotions of the team members and the values and attitudes of management. Curseu and Schruijer (2010) explored the interaction between conflict and trust as antecedents of team efficacy. In the current case study, task conflict has triggered relationship conflict and this has negative impacts on performance and team members’ contentment. This paper thus helps to understand the source of conflict and ways of resolving it. Dreu and Weingart (2003) study presented a research meta-analysis on the relationship between team performance, task conflict, relationship conflict, and team members’ satisfaction. The analysis revealed negative and strong connection between team member contentment, relationship conflict and, team performance. There are stronger and negative correlations between conflict and team performance in extremely intricate contexts (decision-making tasks).These correlations are relevant for this case and are useful in analyzing the case and developing solutions for the problem. 2.0 Body 2.1 Analysis of the Case In the Case Study, Joseph had just been hired as a manager of a taskforce in a government department responsible for environment and heritage. The position appeared good when he started working, but then after a few weeks found there were serious issues he had to deal with, which had led the previous manager to quit. The task force he was to lead comprised of two teams: the policy team and the implementation team. The first major problem he had to deal with was bad relationship between the taskforce and the rest of the department-the rest of the members were unhelpful and difficult to deal with when he made requests of them or sought to initiate collaborations. Secondly, the two teams were antagonistic towards each other and there was an obvious hostility between them. This had affected the team’s performance and very little has been achieved since the taskforce was set up and hence it was behind the government schedule. Joseph discovered that the policy team treated the implementation team as inferior because they members were younger in age and because they had made a major blunder which led them to be referred to as ‘idiots’. The policy team also took a superior attitude towards members of other sections within the department because of their close relationship with the minister’s office. A member of the implementation team had also leaked some e-mails that he had received in advertently from the policy team. In the e-mails, members of the policy team had made disparaging remarks about people from other sections with whom they had been working. This caused chaos in the departments and several complaints were made about members of the policy team. The previous manager failed to deal with the problem by closeting himself away in the office, hoping that the issue would go away. Attempts to reconcile both teams by Max, John’s manager after the events got out of control was only successful for a short while, after which the antagonism between the two teams returned. It appeared that nothing could be done to repair the damages inflicted by the leaking of e-mails. This led the John to resign and no member of the department was willing to apply for the vacant position of taskforce manager. Joseph had been given a ‘poisoned chalice’ that nobody else wanted because of the conflict within the taskforce and the whole department. He began getting worried that that taskforce would not meet the government and department timeline and objectives and he would be blamed for the failure, and this would badly affect his long-term career as well as future promotion prospects. Conflict follows a specific course. The process usually begins with the particular pre-existing conditions also referred to as the antecedent conditions (Rahim 2011). Conflict is felt or perceived by the involved parties as the situation develops. This triggers a manifest or response behavior. At this stage, the conflict is either suppressed or resolved, causing development of new attitudes and feelings and may create new conflicts. In the department, the manager failed to address the antecedents’ conditions and this caused the disagreement between the policy team and implementation team to move to the conflict level. The sources of these conditions usually include disagreement in values, goals, and resource utilization (Rahim 2011). In this case, the implementation team was treated as inferior as its members were younger in age and because they made a major blunder. The antecedent condition in this case was also the dependency of one group (implementation group) on another (policy group). The presence of these circumstances created opportunities for conflict to surface. These conditions negatively affected the relationship between the two teams and this led to the actualization of the opposition. At this stage, the team members became emotionally involved and this led the parties to experience tension, anxiety, and frustration. The conflict escalated because of the policy team attributing the incorrect intents to the implementation teams. Intentions usually intervene among people emotions, perception, and overt behaviors; they are decision to take action in a particular manner. They are separated out as a distinctive phase as one has to infer the others intention to know how to respond to that others behavior. The behaviors of the team members led the conflict to be evident. The behavior stage comprises of actions, statements, as well as responses by the conflicting members. In this case, conflict was evident in the actions and reaction of the implementation team towards the leaked e-mails. For instance, the formal complaints about the members of the policy teams who had made the disparaging remarks. These conflict behaviors are generally explicit endeavors to put into practice the intentions of every party; however, they have a stimulus quality that is separate from intentions (Shetach 2009). This step is usually a dynamic interaction process. All conflicts usually occur along this continuum. The action-reaction interplay amongst the conflicting party leads to consequences or outcomes that are either functional or dysfunctional (Griffin & Moorehead 2012). When conflict leads to improvement in team performance, it is functional whereas when it hinders team performance, it is dysfunctional. In this case, the conflict was dysfunctional because the taskforce had achieved very little and was behind the government schedule. 2.2 Way of Overcoming Conflict in the Department Successful team management, according to Shetach (2012) is all about extracting as well as capitalizing on the potential core of conflicts and of conflict circumstances within teams. The process of communication among teams is inlaid with conflicts-possible underlying differences and over contradictions of interests and opinions. According to Shetach (2012), monitoring these and navigating towards the required results is mastering team leadership to perfection. For successful management of the conflict between ‘the policy team and implementation team’ and that between the task force and the rest of the department, Joseph has to master team leadership to performance through handling the conflict situation towards creative and fitting goal-oriented solutions and promotion of overall successful team results. Joseph can use either competitive or cooperative conflict management strategies. Both of these strategies entail active conflict engaging patterns, however they depict different care for others or cooperativeness levels. The competitive strategy is founded on assumptions of win-lose and entails dishonest communication, mistrust, and a rigid position from both parties. On the other hand, the cooperative strategy is based on diverse assumptions; the potential for win-win outcomes, honest communication, trust, and openness to risk and vulnerability and the idea that the whole is greater than the summation of the parts (Nelson & Quick 2011). To achieve a win-win outcome in the government department, the conflict should be approached with an unbiased discussion of opposing outlooks between the policy team and implementation team. Through the open-minded discussion, both parties will be able to incorporate views and form new resolutions that aid productivity and reinforce the relationship; the outcome of feelings of unity instead of separation (Nelson & Quick 2011). According to Nelson and Quick (2010), this style is important when the goal is to “find an integrative solution when both sets of concerns are too important to be compromised and, when objective is to learn, to merge insights from people with different perspectives” (p. 463). In addition, it is important when the management is seeking to gain commitment by incorporating concerns into a consensus and to work through feeling that have interfered with a relationship. There is a high concern for the self and the other parties in cooperative style. This style has been regarded as collaborative, solution-oriented, problem-solving, integrating, positive sum or win-win. In contrast, the competitive method entails a high concern level for oneself, however a lower concern level for other parties. It is also termed as controlling, zero-sum style, competing, contending, or win-lose style (Rahim 2001). In this case, there is need for team member to emphasize their mutual goals within the taskforce. This way, they will identify conflict as a mutual issue, which requires a general solution and consideration, and they acknowledge that the achievement of an individual team supports the success of every other member. Supported by this mutual success as well as affirmation, the team members are positive that they can deal with the conflict and interpersonal issues effectively. They will be able to reach effective decisions, which will consecutively lead to the achievement of objectives within the government schedule. Alper, Tjosvold and Law (2000) demonstrated that conflict management based on mutual benefit envisaged the extent to which members deemed they could deal with a range of conflicts and their supervisor assessment regarding the team effectiveness. Mediation is one of the problem solving techniques, which can be used in this case to solve the conflict between the team members. This is a cooperative strategy, which entails collaboration between the team members to resolve the issue (win/win). This approach will be aligned with the process of integrative bargaining and will lead to team members seeking win-win solution. The first stage, which will help the manager to deal with conflict will be preparing for resolution. Under this stage, there will be an acknowledgement of conflict. Conflict has to be acknowledged before it is dealt with. The conflict between the policy team and implementation team and that between the task force and other members of the department is evident in their behaviors and treatment of each other; as a result, the process of resolution can start. The manager and both teams should discuss the impact of the conflict on team performance and dynamics. For instance, the fact that the task force had achieved very little since it was implemented. Secondly, they should agree to a cooperative process whereby every team member should agree to collaborate in resolving the inherent conflict. This will means that the individual members will put the team first and may entail putting aside their ideas or opinion for the time being. The third issue under this step will entail agreeing to communicate- this is a very imperative thing throughout the conflict resolution process. All the members should keep communications open. The team member involved should talk about the conflict issue and discuss their strong feelings. De Dreu and Beersma (2005) argued that encouraging interactions affect relationships amongst team members through determining their roles and communication -this is one of the most effective team’s conflict management styles. There is need for collaborative communication between the members and active listening is important because to move on, the members need to understand where their counterparts are coming from. The second stage should entail understanding the situation. Once each member of the team and the department is ready to resolve the conflict, the next step should be to understand the situation and every team member point of view. The manager should take time to ensure that every person position is heard and understood. Strong emotions will be demonstrated at this stage and it is the managers’ task to intervene to reveal the true nature of the conflict. During this stage, the manager should also clarify the team members’ positions. The policy team and implementation teams are highly antagonistic towards each other. Shaw, Zhu and Duffy et al (2011) noted that high levels of relationship conflict generate “intolerance and antagonistic attributions concerning each other’s intentions and behaviors.” (p. 392). There is relationship conflict between the two teams. Shaw et al. (2011) suggested that high relationship conflict leads to negative relationship between task performance and task conflict whereas low relationship conflict leads to higher team performance. Relationship conflict between the two teams has altered the attributions that the team members make about each other behaviors and opinions. There is thus need to address the relationship conflict in order to ensure it does not affect team performance. Clarifying the team member positions will play an important role in resolving the conflict as it will help the teams to view the facts more objectively and with less emotion (Jehn, Rispins, & Thatcher 2010). The manager should then ask the team members about the beliefs, assumptions, and facts they hold about their team and the other team- what the team members believe, what they value, the information they are using as a basis for the beliefs, the decision-making processes and criteria they use. Examining these aspects is a great starting point for raising questions or simply clearing the mind of preconceived notions or airing differences upfront. The questions will also lead to revelations from some team members, which cause them to undermine the other members. Where at least a member has reservations about another member assumption, the manager should ask the person to express his or her concern. To eliminate false assumptions and beliefs, the manager should challenge them (Weiss & Legrand 2011). Alternatively, the manager can analyze the members’ beliefs, values, and assumptions by breaking the teams in smaller groups and separating those who are in alliance. In the smaller groups, the manager should then analyze and dissect every position, and the associated beliefs, assumptions and facts. He should determine the assumptions and facts, which are true and those, which are important to organizational outcome. He can use formal decision-making processes or formal evaluation where appropriate. By taking into consideration the belief, assumptions and facts and decision making which lead to the team members positions, the groups will have a better understanding of the positions. This might reveal new solutions, ideas, areas of agreement that make the best of every perspective and position. The process of uncovering assumptions and facts will allow the people to move away from their emotional attachments and view the current issues in an objective manner (Weiss & Legrand 2011). The third stage should be to reach an agreement. When all the members have understood each other positions, the team should then decide what course of action or decision to take. With the assumptions and facts considered, it will be easier for the manager and team to see the best of action and reach an agreement. After the resolution of conflict, the manager and the team should take time and acknowledge the contributions of all members towards reaching the solution. This will build team confidence and cohesion in their problem solving skills and will help prevent further conflict. This process will help solve the team conflict effectively and efficiently. The basis of this method is gaining understanding of the diverse points of views from the policy team and implementation team and the rest of the department and using them as a basis for resolving the conflict. The actions taken by Max to resolve the conflict was not appropriate in this case because he just spoke to the team members individually and as a group without engaging them further. Max should have first prepared for the resolution by setting up a situation whereby all parties were aware that the goal was to resolve the conflict and made sure that all the parties wanted to resolve the conflict. For conflict resolution to be effective, all members have to accept that the conflict is a mutual problem (Dreu & Weingart 2003). Max should have explored the reason for the conflict together with the team members and generated solution options. This would have allowed the parties to assess their beliefs and assumptions about the other group to discover the root source of the problem and choose the most appropriate solution. Involving the team members in the conflict resolution process is important and it empowers them such that they are able to avoid future conflicts and they develop stronger mutual respect. Max used the compromising conflict management technique, which provided only a temporary solution for the issue. It led to a situation where both parties were not satisfied with the outcome (lose-lose situation). 3.0 Conclusion Joseph was handed down a manager’s job without knowing that there were serious internal conflict issues he had to resolve among the task force members. The conflict resolution method used to resolve the conflict was only a temporary solution and hence there was need to use a conflict resolution strategy which would provide a permanent solution and which would enable the task force to reach its objectives within the government schedule. The best solution that John would have used to solve the conflict was the cooperative or collaborating method (problem solving or problem confronting method). This method would have provided a win-win situation as it entails involving the team members and the rest of the department member in the conflict resolution process in order to find a solution that satisfies the concerns of every member. This approach would have led to a permanent mutually beneficial result through identifying the main concerns of the opponents and coming up with an alternative for meeting every party concerns. 4.0 Recommendations The best method for permanently solving the conflict in the department was cooperative method-mediation- involving the team members in solving the problem. This would have provided a win-win situation for the team members. Identifying conflict as a mutual issue, which requires a general solution and consideration would have resolved the conflict permanently. The previous method of only talking to the team members individually and as a group offered only a temporary solution for the issue. The first stage in the mediation process should be preparing for resolution and discussing with the team members the impact of the conflict on team performance and dynamics. The team members should agree to a cooperative process whereby every team member should agree to collaborate in resolving the inherent conflict. They should also agree to communicate keep communications open. The team member involved should talk about the conflict issue and discuss their strong feelings. The second stage should be understanding the situation. The manager should take time to ensure that every person position is heard and understood. Clarifying the team member positions will play an important role in resolving the conflict as it will help the teams to view the facts more objectively and with less emotion. The manager should then ask the team members about the beliefs, assumptions, and facts they hold about their team and the other team- this a great starting point for raising questions or simply clearing the mind of preconceived notions or airing differences upfront. The process of uncovering assumptions and facts will allow the team members to move away from their emotional attachments and view the current issues in an objective manner. The third stage should be to reach an agreement. The team should then decide what course of action or decision to take. The manager and the team should take time and acknowledge the contributions of all members towards reaching the solution as it builds team confidence and cohesion in their problem solving skills and will help prevent further conflict. Reference List Alper, S, Tjosvold, D, & Law, K 2000, Conflict management, efficacy, and performance in organizational teams, Personnel Psychology, vol. 53, pp. 625–642. Curseu, P & Schruijer, S 2010, Does Conflict Shatter Trust or does Trust Obliterate Conflict? Revisiting the Relationships between Team Diversity, Conflict, and Trust, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 66-79 De Dreu, C & Beersma, B 2005, Conflict in organizations: Beyond effectiveness and performance, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, vol. 14, pp. 105–117. De Dreu, C & Weingart, L 2003, Task versus Relationship Conflict, Team Performance, and Team Member Satisfaction: A Meta-Analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 741-749 Griffin, R &Moorehead, G 2012, Organizational Behavior, South-Western, Mason, OH. Nelson, D & Quick, J 2010, ORGB2, 2ed, South Western College Pub, Mason, OH. Nelson, D & Quick, C 2011, Organizational Behavior: Science, The Real World, and You, South-Western, Mason, OH. Rahim, A 2011, Managing Conflict in Organizations, 4ed Fourth Edition, Transaction Publishers, New Jersey. Rahim, A 2001, Managing conflict in organizations, Quorum, Westport. Shaw, J, Zhu, J, Duffy, M & Scott, K2011, A contingency Model of Conflict and Team Effectiveness, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 391-400 Shetach, A 2012, Conflict Leadership: Navigating toward effective and efficient team outcomes, The Journal for Quality and Participation, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 25-30 Shetach, A 2009, The Four-Dimensions Model: A Tool for Effective Conflict Management, Journal of International Studies of Management and Organization, pp. 82-106. Weiss, D & Legrand, C 2011, Innovative Intelligence: The Art and Practice of Leading Sustainable Innovation in your Organization, John Wiley & Sons Canada, Mississauga, Ontario. Read More