TEAM BUILDING AND TEAM INTERACTIONS
6.5 CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
Conflict can be considered an inevitable part of running a project, especially a large one. It is not necessarily and always negative. It often can be turned into a positive, growing, and learning experience. In this section, we explore how conflict may be approached and managed, and also some of the styles that people adopt in attempting to deal with conflict. As with the other inter- personal relationship issues in this book, we acknowledge that there is great deal that cannot be covered here and attempt to focus on the key elements and essentials that must be known to both the Project Manager (PM) and the Chief Systems Engineer (CSE).
6.5.1 Areas of Conflict
Studies have shown the areas in which conflict tends to arise most frequently.
Apparently, these areas have also changed with time. As an example, the following list shows conflict areas and their rank in studies in 1986 and in 1976 [6.5]:
Conflict Area Rank in 1976 Rank in 1986
Schedules 1 1
Costs 6 2
Priorities 2 3
Staffing 3 4
Technical opinions 4 5
Personality 7 6
Procedures 5 7
It is interesting to note the persistence of schedules over the decade shown as the number 1 area in which there is conflict. Costs jumped into the number 2 position, with overall priorities staying within the top three. Thus, we see schedule and cost as critical items over which conflict occurs. Technical opinions is about midrange in both lists, and personality conflicts are present but toward the bottom of the list.
Conflicts regarding impersonal issues (schedules, costs, etc.) can be easier to deal with than personal issues. In principle, the former deal with different perceptions of objective facts. Personal issues are less than objective, and people will be at odds with one another simply because they do not like or approve of one another. From the point of view of the PM or the CSE, conflicts and conflict management should be considered part of the job. The question is how to deal with it when it does occur and what are one’s indi- vidual propensities toward coping with conflict situations. These are referred to in the literature as conflict resolution styles, and are examined in what follows.
6.5.2 Styles
People approach conflict in different ways and these can be identified and measured. As an example, conflict styles may be articulated as [6.5]:
r Competing (forcing) r Compromising (sharing) r Avoiding (withdrawal) r Accommodating (smoothing) r Collaborating (problem solving)
In addition, there exists a measurement instrument known as the Thomas- Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument [6.6] whereby one can measure an in- dividual’s tendency toward adopting one or another mode of conflict man- agement. The reader with a interest in knowing more about his or her own tendency is urged to contact Thomas and Kilmann and take their conflict mode measurement “test.”
Competing (forcing) is an approach whereby power is used to resolve a conflict. This may be done in a variety of ways. The most obvious is to utilize the dominant position as a supervisor in order to force resolution. In effect,
“We will do it this way because I am the boss.” This may temporarily resolve the conflict, but it may not persuade or convince anyone to change positions.
The power may be applied directly or even subtly, but competing or forcing is not a long-term and reliable way to resolve conflicts. In certain situations, it may exacerbate the conflict and cause people to respond in kind when they have greater power leverage.
Thecompromising or sharing style involves trying to find a position that is acceptable to all parties. It is a classical “negotiation” stance and can often lead to an effective resolution. Unfortunately, the results may be acceptable in terms of human relations but may be wrong for the project. As an example, if a conflict occurs with respect to estimation of the time it might take to perform a given set of activities, a compromise solution might be to accept the mean value between the estimated values. This argues for “beauty” instead of “truth,” and may hurt the project by failing to get to underlying facts that might be important. Some researchers in the area of conflict resolution have also called this approach the “lose-lose” solution because the combatants each lose a little in order to come to a resolution. This approach might work well in international negotiations, but has its shortcomings in a project context.
The avoiding or withdrawal approach simply refuses to come to terms with the conflict and face it squarely. Under these conditions, of course, the conflict remains and festers like a bad sore. No resolution occurs, and a poor model of behavior is established. The conflict may go underground for a while, but because its essence is not dealt with, it does not really go away.
Many novice managers adopt this mode of behavior because they are unsure as to their position, power, and skill in contentious situations. Some do not see alternative modes of behavior that lie between the extremes of “fight” or
“fly” and therefore prefer to fly. It is not a recommended way of resolving conflicts because it really “pretends” that the conflict does not exist or, if it does, is not in need of action.
Theaccommodatingor smoothing solution acknowledges the conflict but plays down its severity or possible impact. This approach is sometimes re- ferred to as suppression because its ultimate purpose is to dampen the conflict and reduce its potential effects. It can be a good approach when the conflict cannot be dealt with at the moment it occurs. For example, if two members of the team flare up in conflict at a meeting, it may be entirely reasonable to suppress such a conflict, thus preventing progress on the meeting’s agenda.
In short, accommodating may be a good temporary solution but it does not really resolve the conflict. It is recommended only when the situation at hand does not provide sufficient time to tackle the conflict in a more fundamental manner.
Acollaborating or problem-solving style recognizes that the combatants have a right to state their different views and that all views are accepted as valid. In this mode, there is encouragement to bring all views and perspectives to the forefront so that they can be explored in detail. Reasons “why” are elicited so that there is a clarification as to the issues and positions. If handled correctly, this will usually lead to a better understanding between combatants and a willingness to go beyond the surface conflict to its deeper roots and rationale. Listening is encouraged so that the participants can learn how to accept other positions with grace and equanimity. The objective of this approach is not only to collaborate, but also to truly solve the immediate problem. It may indeed have the ultimate effect of teaching people how to resolve conflicts in a productive manner. This, of course, is the recommended conflict resolution mode and, when skillfully applied, can support the long- term effectiveness of the project team.
We do not expect, in this short discussion, to delve deeply into a subject as complex as the human behavior aspects of conflict and its resolution. The basic point is that all of us have natural tendencies to handle conflict in different ways. If you can identify your own tendencies in relation to the preceding alternative modes, you may have a new way of looking at and approaching the difficult problem of handling conflict. Many people are good in conflict situations as long as they are not one of the combatants. In general, it is a good idea to try to see alternatives when you are a part of the conflict and can take a step back in an attempt to move into a less personal problem-solving mode.
Backing down from a previously held position is not the end of the world.
Indeed, it may actually represent the dawning of a new acceptance of the wisdom you have gained. Giving up old styles of combatting and competing may help you avoid ulcers and burnout.