Conflict in Close Quarters - Case Study Example

Conflict in Close Quarters By S. McShane and T. Travaglione Case Study Report Submitted By: Executive Summary This is a case study report analyzing the case ‘Conflict in Close Quarters’ for the various episodes or incidences of conflict occurring in the case. The analysis apart from identification of points of conflicts also roots down the sources to which the origination of these conflicts are attributed to. The entire process of conflict and the various stages it undergoes has been finely studied keeping the point of view of the case in perspective. This report also brings forth the various conflict management styles and interventions which have been evident in the course of resolution of conflict in the case. The several conflict management styles have also been described along with the appropriateness of applying each of these in various situations according to the necessity which arises. The need for presence of conflicts and how certain conflicts can be beneficial for organizations has also been illustrated. This case however is a typical example of conflicts proving detrimental to the objectives of the team as well as the organization on the whole and conflicts of such stature bring no good to organizations and should be prevented from occurring frequently or occurring at all. Such conflicts are meaningless and deprive the individuals the benefit of a productive outcome and sense of fulfillment through a process of cordial and interactive group work. Table of Contents Table of Contents 3 Introduction The case ‘conflict in close quarters’ is a very valid illustration of various types of conflicts which occur within organizations from time to time. Conflict is a state of perception. Generally, when one party perceives a potential harm or an intent which would harm their interests by another party, a state of conflict arises (Thomas, 1992). The traditional view elicits that any conflict within an organizational inevitably hurts the organization’s interest; on the other hand, a more modern approach towards the study of conflicts support the view that although majority of the conflicts lead to malfunctions within an organization (dysfunctional conflicts), however, certain conflicts do have a positive (functional conflicts ) impact (Dreu & Vliert, 1997). Conflict therefore, has come to be seen as ‘necessary evil’. Functional conflicts can be understood by a small example of groups brainstorming and debating at discussions leading to generation of new ideas and convergence of diverse viewpoints through snowballing effects. Organizations devoid of a culture of free expression of differences of opinion and harboring sycophantic people never prosper and grow. Thus, conflicts although not desirable to a large extent do need to be present in adequate measure to benefit groups and organizations. Conflicts broadly have been categorized as: Task, Relationship and Process conflicts. Task conflict deals with disagreements over the job’s content and objectives, whereas Process conflict deals with incongruence in the method/manner of accomplishing a task. A Relationship conflict however involves differences in personality styles and thereby is an interpersonal conflict. The case ‘Conflict in close quarters’ is an example of Relationship conflict (also known as Value/Behavioral conflict) arising due to interaction/intermingling of two different cultures and ethnicity. Conflict Episode and players Involved This case involves a team of international researches and Russian cosmonauts with 110 day experimentation in an isolated chamber. A particular instance in the case describes the celebration of New Year Eve which saw the incidences of conflict arise. Firstly, two of the Russian cosmonauts indulged in a physical fight which was violent enough to risk a possibility of fatal accident occurring owing to the initial fistfights which let to blood sheds to a certain extent and might had an involvement of knives and hence stabbing each other with those. These two Russians were in conflict with each other not just in the party but were usually at loggerheads with each other in normal circumstances too. Secondly, an indecent behaviour on the part of Russian commander towards a lady participant from Canada where he forcefully kisses her twice leads to another incident of conflict between the International team and the Russian Team. Thirdly, a complaint from the team of international researchers to IBMP is met by a cold reaction from IBMP’s side which leads to anxiety and thus, the conflict graduates to a level higher from the level of conflict between individuals to conflict between organizations over the issue of maintaining the safety and sobriety of the international researchers on the mission. For instance, no reaction from IBMP led the international crew to write strictly and contemptuously to the Russian Institute and the Japanese space program also convening a meeting to discuss over the New Year Eve’s incidence which resulted in the withdrawal of their candidate from the international crew of researchers and thus marking the initiation of conflict between Japanese and Russian institutes also. The entire process of conflict (Robbins & Judge, 2007) can be summarised in five major stages. The first stage started with potential opposition/incompatibility with reasons varying from communication, structural to personal/value differences. In this case, differences existed in the form of both intra-group (between members of Russian crew) as well as inter-group (between Russian and international crew). The manifestation of conflict (second stage) took place in the New Year Eve’s party. The third stage involved the conflict handling methodologies adopted by the various parties involved. The fourth stage was denoted by behavioural conflicts over the behaviour/reactions of conflicting parties in response to the conflict handing. The neutral response of IBMP invited negative reactions from the international researchers and respective authorities. The final stage of conflict process is the effect on group’s performance (either deteriorates or improves). This case does not provide conclusive evidence of effect on the team’s performance, however, the resignation of a team member, barriers in the interaction of local and international crew and still prevalent dissatisfaction among the team members as seen from the statement made by Lapierre proves that the conflict is far from resolved and thereby, has the risk of re-surfacing again at the slightest provocation which is definitely not a positive indication for the team mission. Sources or Causes of Conflict The entire conflict process starts at an early routine group interaction level. This case elicits both intra-group and inter-group conflicts: The first instance of conflict between the two Russian cosmonauts started on a day-to-day basis. They did not get along well with each other thus illustrating intra-group conflict where the reason for their conflict could have basically been personality differences. A general dislike for the other person’s habits and routine activity (Kelley, 1979) incites them to dislike the other person and induce feelings of difference making them incompatible with each other. Personal likes and dislikes (Wall & Nolan, 1987) lead to antipathies against each other giving rise to personal/emotional conflicts. At an inter-group level, there were various root causes for the occurrence of conflict: (a) The local crew indulged in alcohol consumption while on mission and were inclined towards enduring the life of isolation with least moral restraints, ultimately leading to the ugly and indecent behaviour of Russian commander towards a lady. The international crew conversely belonged to a culture much more inclined towards feminism and adaptation towards the new environment in a peaceful, pleasant manner. The cultural contrast was a source of conflict here. (b) Moreover, a communication disconnect between the two crews, was the second major source of conflict (Peterson & Behfar, 2003). The difference in linguistic patterns made it mandatory for each of them to communicate in a common language English; however, it was not the first language for any of them. This hurdle in free communication (Thibaut & Coules, 1952) prevented the growth of a bond between the individuals. The lack of a sense of togetherness resulted in the offensive behaviour towards a fellow teammate. It emanated out of a complete emotional disconnect, lack of understanding and a lack of sense of belongingness amongst them. Had there been a proper attachment between them, a friendlier, empathetic and considerate conduct could have been seen. Conflict Management Styles The two dimensions of conflict-management styles are: Cooperativeness – Degree of importance given to other party’s apprehensions. Assertiveness – Degree of importance given to one’s own interests. This gives rise to five basic styles of Conflict Management namely (Sternberg & Soriano, 1984): Competing: Low on cooperativeness, high on assertiveness. Collaborating: High on both cooperativeness and assertiveness. Avoiding: Low on both cooperativeness and assertiveness. Accommodating: High on cooperativeness, low on assertiveness. Compromising: Moderation in both cooperativeness and assertiveness. In this case, various styles have been demonstrated. Lapierre and the IBMP psychologist, Gushin for instance, followed a ‘Competing’ style. Lapierre, as the situation so occurred where she was forcibly kissed by the Russian commander, was completely taken by surprise and tried to fight him off. This assertiveness on her side was well positioned, the place where she was, she had to forcefully stand for her right to dignity and she did. She voiced her opinions strongly at regular intervals. It was to justifiably uncooperative towards the inactive stance adopted by IBMP. On similar lines, however unjustifiably, Gushin maintained a stand of indifference towards the entire episode of hostility, violence and conflict in the experiment chambers. It represented a highly uncooperative approach towards the affected parties. He was highly assertive and concerned about his own interest concerning the mission for which he considered it better for the crew to resolve its own issues and personal problems without outside help. The international crew (especially Japanese) somewhat adopted an ‘Avoiding’ style where they paid attention to neither to the welfare of the mission, nor to their own welfare in staying associated with it. It was to a certain extent, hot-headedness and haste on their part to resign from the international crew. This demonstrated an ‘avoiding’ type of conflict management style where they leave the conflict situation rather than finding out a solution to resolve the dispute or waiting long enough to judge whether the situation can be brought under control or not. The withdrawal from the scene of action symbolized an attempt to suppress the conflict rather than resolving it. However, the rest of the international crew’s request of putting a door barring the interaction of Russian and international crew was ‘Collaborative’ in nature. It emphasized the need for a win-win situation achieving both, their own interest (safety concerns) as well as the mission’s interest of successful completion of the experiment. However, no style can be adjudged as best for every situation. Different situations call for different type of management style such as ‘competing’ for emergencies and quick decisive actions; ‘collaborative’ for integrative solution when both sets of concerns are equally important; ‘Avoidance’ in case of trivial issues; ‘Accommodation’ when other party’s interest is more reasonable; and ‘Compromise’ when equal opponents need to achieve temporary settlements to complex issues (Forsyth, 2007). Conflict Management Interventions The intervention in the case is ‘Altering the Structural variables’ (Robbins & Judge, 2007) represented by the closure of doors between the chambers of Russian and International crew limiting their interaction. This was a step towards altering the formal structural variables of the organization which involves changing the interaction patterns of the parties at conflict. It would prevent the conflict from aggravating further. However, there could be certain alternative strategies. A ‘Problem solving approach’ (Robbins & Judge, 2007) involving a face-face meeting of the parties at conflict with the sole agenda of identifying the problem could help resolving issues through open discussion under a moderated environment. Another strategy could be ‘Authoritative command and code of conduct’ (Robbins & Judge, 2007). This mission is one of great significance at both nationally and internationally. Its success is a serious and prestigious matter for IBMP and organizations associated with it. Given the grave significance of the mission, the participants have to be accordingly solemn and sombre in their conduct so as not to jeopardize the successful completion of the mission in any manner. This crucial objective calls for rigorous selection procedure of candidates who can stand the test of character and discipline similar to military assignments. This also requires a certain code of conduct in place within the organization which sets the guidelines for the participants to adhere to and follow as a standard norm within the organization, failing which they would face serious repercussions. This would eliminate irresponsible behaviours as seen in the case by the Russian crew members. IBMP is the body of authority and should exercise its ‘Authoritative Command’ to deny any further tolerance for behaviours which give rise to conflicting situations on the mission and causes harm to those involved with it. Conclusion The case ‘Conflict in close quarters’ carries several episodes of clashes (some which are overt, violent and hostile in nature as those involving the two Russian crew members; and Lapierre and Russian Commander). There have been conflicts in this case due to a complete incoherence between the behavioural expectations and the actual mannerisms of the crew members of the team on the mission. This case illustrates a significant lesson on conflicts within organizations which involve multi-cultural team interactions and thus give rise to unprecedented events which threaten the success of the task undertaken by the team. This team conflict can be both constructive as well as destructive (Jehn, 1994). Although, this case elicits episodes of destructive conflicts, conflicts can also be constructive in nature which helps bring out the best within a team through debates and brainstorming as has been explained at the initiation of this report. It is a well known fact that inadequate conflict can hamper a task as does excessive conflicts. Accordingly, different conflict situations call for different style of conflict management and interventions. Although it is neither possible nor desirable to eliminate conflict completely, dysfunctional conflicts which harm the task undertaken and the organization needs to be tackled quickly and effectively. Read More