amason conflict

8/13/2019 Amason Conflict

1/16


2/16

ployee to spend more time considering his orher role in relation to the organizations goals.Consequently, teams can be looked upon as ameans of focusing employees attention be-yond narrow duties to the broader role ofmeeting external needs, such as the needs ofthe customer.

Teams have also proved useful in im-proving the quality of decision making, help-ing to build consensus and support for action,and helping to build a cooperative , goal-or i-ented culture. Team interaction helps to buildthe consensus that is so essential to the exe-cution of a decision. In theory, by having ev-eryone participate in a decision, a better deci-sion should result-one that everyone willaccept and work toward.This is critical when the coordinated ef-forts of key employees are essential to reach-ing organizational goals. When creative solu-tions are needed, teams are especiallybeneficial because their diverse members canevaluate new and different ideas. Everyonecan be called upon to suggest creative ways tobetter serve the customer with new productsor improved processes. These solutions maybe modifications to existing processes orcould invo lve a total rethink of the problemitself-what is sometimes called finding anew paradigm.The reality , however, is often differentfrom the promise. As a result, we are begin-ning to hear managers voice discourage-ment-even cynicism-with the use of teams.Whi le teams offer the potential of majorbreakthroughs, too often they slow the deci-sion-making process. Moreover, the resultingdecis ions are not much different from whatthe team leader might have concluded alone.Decisions over important issues canbreed a win/lose mentality, with politicalgamesmanship overpowering a view ofwhat is best for the organization. Team meet-ings can drag on forever. Compromised de-cisions, sacrificing good business judgmentfor the sake of total agreement, fuel frustra-tion among organizational leaders and teammembers alike. This blight is known asgroupthink, and it infects any group thatfails to critically evaluate its own ideas, choos-

ing instead to get along rather than chal-lenge their assumptions and perspectives.

WHAT, EXACTLY,MAKES THE DIFFERENCE?On one hand, teams hold true potential forimproving an organizations culture. On theother hand, teams can be a source of prob-lems that hinder or even prevent the organi-zations advancement.In an effort to get to the heart of the mat-ter-the pivotal issues on which a teams ef-fectiveness or ineffectiveness hinges-weconducted on-site interviews with teams fromten diverse organ izations. In each case, theseteams were responsible for making importantstrategic decisions for their companies. Ineach case, we found that how the teams man-aged conflict was the crux of team effective-ness. This proved true in industries as variedas seafood processing and furniture manufac-turing, and in companies ranging in size from$3 million to $300 million in sales.The successful teams used conflict to theiradvantage to arouse discussion and stimulatecreative thinking. The less successful teamsdid a poor job of managing and resolv ingtheir diffe rences. They found conf lict to be aburden-something to be avoided. Thisavoidance led to poor decis ions and a pooruse of the team as a way to improve both de-cision making and acceptance of the decisionsthat were made.

Conflict in TeamsConflict is central to team effectiveness be-cause conflict is a natural part of the processthat makes team decision making so effectivein the first place. Effective teams know how tomanage conflict so that it makes a positivecontribution. Less effective teams avoid con-flic t altogether or allow i t to produce negativeconsequences that hamper their effectiveness.This is one of the paradoxes in understandingthe role of teams in organizations. Whi le anumber of studies have found that conf lict isimportant to a teams effectiveness, just as

21


3/16

Allen C. Amason is an assistant professorof management at Mississippi State Universi-ty. His research focuses primarily on strategicdecision m aking and top managemen t teaminteractions. His work has been published injournals such as the international Journal ofConflict Managem ent, Managerial Finance,and Interfaces. He has also presented nu-merous competit ive papers at professionalmeetings. He currently serves on the editorialreview board of Entrepreneu rship, Theoryand Practice. He continues to research andconsult in the area of team decision making,conflict managem ent, and consensus devel-opment. Allen received his Ph.D. from the Uni-versity o f South Carolina.

many studies have concluded that conflict canharm a teams effectiveness.Are there different types of conflict? Issome conflict good and some conflict bad?Over and over during our interviews withteam members, we heard that conflict can im-prove decision making and enhance a teamsperformance. We also heard, however, thatconf lict can create more problems than itsolves and thus should, in many instances, beavoided altogether.Understanding how teams manage con-flic t firs t requires understanding that not allconflicts are created equal. The consequencesof conflic t, whether posit ive or negative, arelargely dependent upon the types of differ-ences that lead to the disagreement. We foundthat teams genera lly experience two types ofconflict-one that improves team effective-ness and one that is detrimental to teams.

C-Type ConflictIn essence, while disagreements among teammembers are bound to occur, so long as theyfocus on substantive, issue-related differencesof opinion, they tend to improve team effec-tiveness. Conflict theorists call these types ofdisagreements cognitive conflict, or what wecall C-type conflict.

While conducting our interviews, it be-came clea r to us that this type of disagreementis a natural part of a properly functioningteam. Natural, because as team membersgather to make important decis ions, theybring different ideas, opinions, and perspec-tives to the table. C-type conflict occurs asteam members examine, compare, and recon-cile these differences. This process is key to theteams ability to reach high-quality solutionsthat are understood and accepted by all teammembers. Thus, most of the managers withwhom we spoke believed that C-type conflictimproves overall team effectiveness.In one company, a $15 million processingcompany, the vice president of operations un-derscored this point by noting that everyonecant be an expert on everything. Conse-quently, he explained, different team mem-bers are going to have different opinions

22


4/16

about how best to clo their work. C-type con-flic t occurred as this team confronted and re-solved these differences. Similar ly, a vice pres-ident in a $50 million import/export firmstated that multip le opinions make for betterdecisions. Of course, before a decision can beacted upon, those differences must be exam-ined and resolved. In another instance, thepresident of a $42 million wholesale distribu-tion company stated that his team membersneeded to be empowered with understand-ing to be effective decision makers. In hisopinion, empowerment occurred when ev-eryone had an equal opportunity to speaktheir minds. This open airing by the teammembers brought to the surface disagree-ments about the relative strengths and weak-nesses of the different positions and ideas.Once identified, these disagreements could bethoroughly considered and resolved.C-type conflict is beneficial because it re-quires teams to engage in activ ities that are es-sential to a teams effectiveness. C-type con-flic t focuses attention on the all-too-oftenignored assumptions that may underlie a par-ticular issue. By facilitating frank communica-tion and open considerat ion of different alter-natives, C-type contlict encourages innovativethinking and promotes creative solutions toproblems that otherwise might seem insur -mountable. As a consequence, C-type conf lictimproves the quality of team decisions. In fact,without C-type conflict, team decisions are lit-tle more than the decisions of a teams mostvoca l or influentia l member.In addition to improving decis ion quality,C-type conflict also seems to promote accep-tance of the decision itself among the teammembers. By encouraging open and frankcommunication and by integrating the variousski lls and abilities of the teams members, C-type conf lict builds understanding and com-mitment to the teams goa ls and decis ions.Team members told us that, as they engage inC-type conflict they tend to buy into the de-cision. The result is not only a better decisionbut a decis ion that can be more effective ly im-plemented throughout the organization. Thepresident of the wholesale distribu tion com-pany mentioned earlier explained that C-type

Kenneth R. Thompson is an associate pro-fessor and the former chair of the managementdepartment at DePaul University. He has writ-ten articles in the areas of organizational be-havior, total quality management, and procedu-ral justice. He has co-authored four books anddoes con sulting in the application of behavioralprinciples in the work setting , application of a to-tal quality management culture in organizations,and leadership. He is past president of the Mid-west Divis ion of the National Academy of Man-agement, is presently on the board of directorsfor the Midwest Academ y, serves on the edito-rial review board of three professiona l journals,and is in charge of publisher relations for theNational Academ y of Managem ent.

From 1984 to 1986, Thompson was thedirector of the Center for Management andExecutive Development for the University ofArkansas and was a major developer of theWalton Institute of Leadership. In this role, heworked directly with Sam Wa lton and otherWal-Mart executives in developing a week-long program 54 cont act ho urs) for all storemanagers and assistant managers stressingmanagement and leadership skil ls. Over thenext f ive years, more than 4,300 Wa l-Martmanagers attended the program.

His current resea rch interes ts include ap-plication of total quality management ap-proaches in service and academic institu-t ions and programs to improve theeffectiveness of the educational efforts in col-legiate environments. He received his Ph.D.from the University of Nebraska in 1977.

23


5/16

Wayne A. Hochwarter is an assistantprofessor of managemen t at MississippiState University. His primary research inter-ests include top managemen t teams, em-ployee selection processes, and individualdifference factors. He has had his researchpublished in Personne l, Ben efits Quarterly,Journal of Social Behavior and Person ality,Labor Law Journal, Supervision , and Journalof Managerial Issues. H e has also writtenbook chapters that have appeared in Re-search in Personnel, and Human ResourceManageme nt and Occupational StressHandbook. Wayne received his Ph.D. fromFlorida State University.

conflict was a learning process through whichteam members come to understand how a de-cision will work and what role they will playin implementing the decision.To illustrate just how essential C-typeconflict can be to a teams effectiveness, con-sider the example of a $20 million import andwholesale distribution company we visited.So important was C-type con flict in the mindof this companys president that he cited itsabsence as the primary reason for a poor deci-sion that the management team had made.The president stated that, had that decisionbeen serious ly debated, the team wouldhave recognized the flawed assumptions onwhich the decision was based. Because theteam accepted those assumptions withoutchallenge, the company built a large, state-of-the-art warehousing fac ility, on ly to find thatthey were unable to attract enough new busi-ness to make full use of the additional space.In retrospect, the company president believedthat some additional conf lict would have dis-rupted the atmosphere of groupthink thatseemed to characterize the teams meetings.Because there was so little C-type conflict, thisteam made a mistake that very nearly cost thiscompany its existence.

A-Type ConflictWe also heard frequently that conf lict can beharmful. Our study participants explainedthat conflict can provoke so much animosityamong a teams members that decis ion quali-ty actually declines along with the commit-ment and understanding necessary to get thedecision successfully implemented.Unlike disagreements over substantive is-sue-oriented matters, which seem to be large-ly beneficial, disagreements over personal-ized, individually oriented matters are largelydetrimental to team performance. Conflic ttheorists collectively call these types of dis-agreements affective conflict-what we call A-type conflict. A-type conflict lowers team effec-tiveness by provoking hostility, distrust,cynicism, and apathy among team members.The descriptions we heard of A-type con-flict all focused on personalized anger or re-

24


6/16

sentment, usually directed at specific individ-uals rather than specific ideas. We found it es-pecially interesting that these A-type dis-agreements seemed to emerge wheninstances of C-type conflict somehow becamecorrupted. For example, a vice president at a$300 million international food processing anddistribut ion company told us that when teammembers challenge one another about theirdifferent opinions, Sometimes they get an-gry. This individualized anger can persistwell beyond the boundaries of the task athand.Unlike C-type conflict, A-type conflict un-dermines team effectiveness by preventingteams from engaging in the kinds of activitiesthat are critica l to team effectiveness. A-typeconflict fosters cynicism, distrust, and avoid-ance, thereby obstructing open communica-tion and integration. When that happens, notonly does the quality of solutions decline, butcommitment to the team itse lf erodes becauseteam members no longer assoc iate themselveswith the teams actions.Effective teams learn to combine the di-verse capabilities of their members. In con-trast, team members who are distrus tful of orapathetic toward one another are not will ingto engage in the types of discussions neces-sary to synthesize their different perspectives.As a consequence, the creativity and quality ofthe teams decisions suffer.Likewise, team members who are hostileor cynica l are not likely to understand, muchless commit to, decisions that were madelargely without their participation. Thus, inthe best case, these members are unable to car-ry out the decis ion because they do not un-derstand it. In the worst case, these disgrun-tled team members are unwilling to work toimplement the decis ion as intended. A-typeconflict also undermines a teams ability tofunction effectively in the future. Team mem-bers who have been burned by A-type conf lictare less likel y to participate fully in futuremeetings.For example, another vice president at theprocessing firm mentioned earlie r stated thatwhen d ifferences of opinion turned into per-sonalized disagreements, some members of

Allison W. Harr ison is an assistant pro-fessor of management at Mississippi StateUniversity. Her primary research interests in-clude a variety of work-group issues includ-ing cohesion, conflict, and personality ofgroup members. She has published her re-search in Decision Sciences, Educationaland Psychological Measurem ent, Journal ofBusiness Strategy, and Journal of Manage-ment information System s, as well as sever-al conference proceeding s. Allison receivedher Ph.D. from Auburn University.


7/16

the team would simply throw up their handsand walk away from the decision. Thosefrustrated team members ceased to be activeparticipants in the decision process. Not onlydid the team lose the value of their input, butthe members lost the desire to work vigor-ously for the accomplishment of whatever de-cision was reached.There was wide agreement among theteam members whom we interviewed that A-type conflict adversely affects the willingnessof team members to support the teams deci-sions. Thus, as the president of the food dis-tribution company noted, If people are an-gry, they are not going to work for you nomatter what you decide.We heard th is sentiment repeated in dif-ferent ways by nearly all of the team memberswe interviewed. Basic ally we were told that asteams experience greater A-type conflict, theytend to become less effective. They make low-er quality decisions, their members becomeless committed to seeing the decisions imple-mented, and their members become less ac-cepting of the team and its goals. The impli-cation is that for all the different measures ofteam effectiveness, C-type conflict improvesteam performance and A-type con flict curtailsteam performance.These observations are consistent withother research suggesting that conf lict can beboth benefic ial and detrimental to team effec-tiveness, depending on whether it is C-typeconflict or A-type conflict. As illustrated in Ex-hibit 1, C-type confl ict enhances team effec-tiveness by improving both decision qualityand the chances that decisions will be suc-cessfu lly implemented. At the same time, A-type conflict reduces team effectiveness bydecreasing quality and undermining the un-derstanding and commitment necessary forsuccess ful implementation of a decision.

HOW TEAMS MANAGEC WITHOUT GETTINGTRAPPED IN AOn the basis of our experiences, the most ef-fective teams are those that seem to be intu-

itively aware of the two types of conflict.Teams that understand the importance of C-type conflict, and that can use C-type conflictwithout provoking A-type conflict, seem todevelop attributes or abilit ies that other teamsdo not have. These attributes or abilit ies arefundamental to team effectiveness. And whilethey seem to flourish in the presence of C-type conflic t, they all but disappear in thepresence of A-type conflict. We labeled theseattributes&used activity, creativity, integration,and open communication.

Focused ActivityEffective groups are focused. Focused groupsget to the core issues of the problem and stayclose to the core. They stick closely to the taskat hand and make decisions quickly and effi-ciently. Less effective groups allow issues towander. They labor over trivial points and al-low task goals to take a back seat to social fa-cilitation. As a consequence, focused groupsdefine problems and develop solutions morequickly than less focused groups.For example, in a large academic depart-ment of a Midwestern unive rsity, departmen-tal meetings would regularly last three to fourhours. Conversation would drift to mattersnot relevant to the issue at hand. The end re-sult was a high degree of frustration by mem-bers of the team that meetings were a waste oftime; nothing ever seemed to get done. A newdepartment chair was hired, one who ran amore focused meeting. To keep the team ontrack, he would publish an agenda with max-imum discussion times indicated for eachagenda topic. After the agenda time expired,the team voted on whether to continue on thesame topic, vote on the issue at hand, or tablethe issue for a future meeting. The end resultwas a higher degree of satisfaction by mostteam members that their meetings were moreproductive, and significantly shorter.The president of another organization, a$100 million furniture manufacturing compa-ny, stated that the ability to remain focusedand thus make decisions quickly had givenhis company a distinct advantage over itscompetitors. The president stated that one

26


8/16

EXHIBIT 1THEOUTCOMESOFC-TYPEANDA-TYPECONFLICTDecision-makingInteraction Flow

A-type conflictDestructive conflictReduced progressPoorer decisionsDecreased commitmentDecreased cohesivenessDecreased empathy

C-type conflictBetter decisionsIncreased commitmentIncreased cohesivenessIncreased empathyC understanding

thing that were able to beat our competitorswith is that we can make a decision. His com-pany was often able to take advantage of op-portunities while competitors were still busytrying to define the problem and narrow thealternatives.Teams that are comfortable with C-typeconflict can quickly identify and address theproblem and its possible solutions. They canevaluate different alternatives quickly and ef-ficiently without worrying about the politicalramifications of their choices. Thus, they canmove quickly to closure and on to other mat-ters. Teams that are uncomfortable with con-flic t tend e ither to avoid it altogether or allowthe conf lict to drift onto any number of unre-lated issues. Both produce long, meaninglessdiscuss ions that seem to go everywhere ex-cept in the needed direction. The end resu ltsare frustration and cynicism .CreativityEffec tive teams encourage thinking beyondnormal options. Creativity comes from get-ting the group to think of problems different-ly and finding solutions that approach theproblem from a totally new perspective. BobGalvin, former CEO of Motorola, stressed theimportance of listen ing to the minor ity re-port. He part icular ly wanted to hear opin-ions that were out of the mainstream. The

goal was to generate as many ideas as possibleand approach each with an open mind.CSX Railroad encourages creativitythrough the use of stretch goals that forceteams to look for innovative solutions. Theonly way to reach these types of goals is to re-think the entire system . Teams have the po-tential abilit y to synergize the thoughts andperspectives of their different members, ex -tracting and combining the strongest parts ofeach members ideas. As a consequence,teams are often able to produce innovat ive so-lutions to problems that seem insurmount-able to single individuals.C-type conf lict is at the very heart of teamcreativity. By encouraging dissenting opin-ions and promoting innovative suggestions,Galvin was cultivating C-type conflict. As thepresident of the above-mentioned furnituremanufacturing company said, We dontneed people who just agree. One of the ben-efits of having diverse team members is thatthe resulting conflicts will inspire creativityand innovative solutions to problems that,from the perspective of any single individual,looked hopeless. A vice president at a $15 mil-lion processing firm told us that sometimesone of us wi ll see something that the otherones do not see.However, conflicts that arouse personalanimosity and that strain the interpersonal re-lationships among the team members obstruct

27


9/16

creativity . In the Motorola example, for in-stance, if some team members felt threatenedby other members of the team, they would notlikely be willing to offer their creative ideas.Hence, the fruits of A-type conflict-anger,apathy, and avoidance-can undermine ateams ability to produce innovative solutions.

Open CommunicationsEffective teams have more open communica-tion than less effective teams. Effective teamsenjoy a culture that allows their members tospeak freely and challenge the premises of oth-er members viewpoints, without the threat ofanger, resentment, or retribution. Open com-munications are central to getting sincere in-volvement from team members, wh ich en-hances decision quality and reinforces teamconsensus and acceptance. Less effective teamsseem to have less open communications. Teammembers offer only guarded responses andare fearful of expressing their true opinions.Often, those in less effective teams feel theneed to be politically sensitive with their com-ments. T his leads to less communication andresults in less effective teams.Open communications are central toteam effectiveness and conflict is a key tomaintaining open communications. As onevice president at that food processing plantexpressed, I have a graduate degree in foodengineering; another VP s background is insales. When we make a decision he speaksfrom his expertise and I speak from mine.Team members overcome this functionalspecialization by asking one another ques-tions and challenging one anothers assump-tions. The vice president called this processan exercise that facilitated understandingand uncovered flawed logic and outrightmistakes.Natura lly, this sort of frank, open, andhonest communication produces some dis-agreement and conflic t. Again, however, ifteam members recognize that the conf lict istask-oriented and designed to improve theiroverall effectiveness, they tend to respond to itpositively. It is when the conflict appears tohave unhealthy motivations that it begins to28

undermine team communication. When dis-agreements seem to be self-serving , promot-ing the interests of one at the expense of an-other, team members adopt a defensive stancethat prevents open and honest communica-tion. For instance, the president of the whole-sale distribution company related the follow-ing story. While considering whether to en-ter a new line of business, this companysmanagement team became embroiled in adispute that pitted two VIs against one an-other. Over the course of several meetingsand several weeks, the disagreement be-tween the two became so intense that theyquit speaking to one another at team meet-ings, choosing instead to go to the presidenton their own to promote their positions. Thesource of this bitter dispute was the compa-nys bonus system, which would have givena disproport ionately high reward to one VPand a disproportionately low reward to theother. Neither wanted to admit beingtrapped in a self-centered concern, so eachfound other ways to critic ize the decision andthe other person. When the president real-ized the problem and corrected the inequityin the bonus system , the team was able toopenly discuss the matter and move forwardon the decision.The message is clear: Teams that canmanage conf lict can keep the lines of commu-nication open. In theory, open communica-tion and C-type conf lict are two sides of thesame coin. Each should flourish in the pres-ence of the other. When teams do not managetheir conflicts well, however, A-type conflicterupts and team communication inevitablysuffers.IntegrationEffective teams make the fullest possible useof all their members. Effective teams are con-scious of the need to include and get the bestfrom all of the members of the team. In less ef-fective groups, there is often a disproport ion-ate contribution between members. The val-ue of using a team is lost if only a minority ofteam members play an active role in the deci-


10/16

Eflective teams enjoy a culture that allows theirmembers to speak freely and challenge thepremises of other members viewpoints, witboutthe threat of anger, resentment, or retribution.

sion-making process. Leaders of effectiveteams, more often than not, help to integrateall team members by seeking out opinions ofthosewho are less active and attempting tomoderate the contribution of those memberswho monopolize the discussion. Integrationis particularly important to obtaining a com-mitment to the decisions being made.

For example, the president of a $35 millionchair and bedding manufacturer stated, Youcant simp ly tell people that this is the way it sgoing to be and then expect them to go outand do it the way ,youd like them to. If theydont buy into it, theyre not going to do agood job. This company had just decided tocompletely reorganize its two factories. Thepresident believed that complete commitmentto this decision by all the managers involvedwould be essential to the decisions success . Assuch, several rounds of meetings were held,where every team member was encouraged tovoice his or her opinions, concerns, and objec-tions, before the decision to move forwardwas made. The president believed that whathe lost in speed while making the decision, hegained back in commitment for ultimately see-ing the decision implemented.Teams that encourage discussion, debate,and integration can gain higher leve ls of sat-isfact ion from their members than teams thatignore their differences. The abili ty to manageconf lict so that team members feel free to statetheir concerns or opinions, even when thoseconcerns or opinions counter the majority, iskey to achiev ing integration of the teammembers. Obviously, the role of the teamleader is central in getting each member of theteam involved, as well as building the sort ofculture that will improve the teams effective-

ness. To that end, we now focus on how tobuild that sort of culture.

MAKING CONFLICTWORK IN TEAMSThe question for teams is not so much a mat-ter of whether to allow confl ict, but how tochannel it when it exis ts. The research on thesubject, supported by our own experiences, i sclear: conflict can improve team effectiveness.The problem is that, once aroused, conflict isdifficult to control. Sometimes it remains taskfocused, facilitating creativity, open commu-nication, and team integration. In other in-stances, it loses its focus and undermines cre-ativ ity, open communication, and integratedeffort.Teams must accept con flict if they are toreach their full potential. But, by allowingconflict, teams run the risk of provoking de-structive, A-type conflict. As Exhibit 2 illus-trates, teams become more effective onlywhen they encourage the good conf lict andrestrain thebad con flict. The real issue is howto do this so as to get the most beneficial as-pects of conf lict to improve team perfor-mance.One theme that surfaced repeated ly inour interviews held that the responsibility formanaging conflict within the team falls dis-proportionately on the team leader. The fol-lowing eight steps provide a set of strategiesfor the team leader to use to build an effectiveculture before, during, and after the team in-teractions. Developing the appropriate cul-ture must be the central focus of the leadersresponsibilities.

29


11/16

EXHIBIT 2THE OUTCOMES OF ENCOURAGING OR SUPPR ESSING CONFLICT

Individual clashes/

andpersonal tensionLittle consensus ,

ConflictEncouraged --) More a-conflict or acceptance \ .F,,More c-conflict s\ Complete discussion ofproblem, underlying zcauses, alternativesolutions, and / Possibly betterdecisionsconsequences of the solutionsLittle discussion

Conflict ~,Less a-conjlict / of differences ~Discouraged --) Less c-conflict$

1 Incomplete airing of -2 Iproblems, causes,alternatives, and - Poorerconsequences decisions

~.DISSEMINATEAFULLAGENDAEARLY.An effective meeting doesnt just happen; it isplanned. A team leader needs to build a posi-tive focus to the meeting and create a full un-derstanding of the teams purpose in the pro-cess. Thus, an agenda is critical. An agendaprovides focus and can do much to reduce A -type conflict . For example, the leader can orderthe agenda to discuss the less controversialitems first. This may encourage participationwhile desensitizing the team members to themore emotional issues to come later.If meetings begin with a highly contro-versial issue in which team members have apersonal stake, C-type conflict may quicklyerode into A-type conflict. In other words, ateam that gets off on the wrong foot may findit difficult to get back on track. Making lesssensitive decisions first may also give theteam momentum for making more controver-sial decisions later. Once they have achievedearly successes, team members may begin tofeel more like members of an effective team.It may be helpful to require that the agen-30

da not only have an itemized list of proposalsto consider, but also include the proposa lsand their rationales. This has the advantage ofallowing members to consider proposalsahead of time and get clarif ication if needed.In addition, team members wi ll have a sensethat all the issues are aboveboard and thateach team member is coming to the meetingwith full knowledge of the issues to be cov-ered. This will save time in the meeting, inthat proposals wi ll not have to be formulated,only modified through the teams discus-sions.

Also, allowing the team members to con-sider the proposa ls before the meeting givesthem the time to carefully formulate theirown reactions. This will improve the qualityof the discussion and the resulting decision.Presenting surprise proposals at meetings isnot a good strategy to build trust.2. STATE THE PHILOSOPHY FOR THETEAMANDBACKUPTHATPHILOSOPHY. Stat-ing the philosophy behind team decis ionmaking will be helpful. A discussion of the


12/16

importance of C-type conflict to the process,combined with cautions about the dangers ofA-type conflict, should be a part of this dis-cussion. The team should openly considerhow the team leader should act when A-typeconf lict begins to arise. The road map thatevolves from this discussion will help thegroup understand the positive and negativeaspects of conflict and what ways might beused to ensure that the process stays on tracktoward C-type conflict.The key, however, is not just to openlydiscuss how best to structure the teams envi-ronment, but to back up that discussion withconcrete actions that produce the desired en-vironment. Discuss ion without action will notbe sufficient.~.PROVIDE THE RIGHTENVIRONMENTFOR THE MEETING. Providing the appropriateenvironment can increase the teams perfor-mance and reduce A-type conflict. For exam-ple, seating location at the meeting might beassigned in advance so that there are no ap-pearances of coalitions. Having team mem-bers seated in a neutral order that keepsmembers from the same department separatemay foster the development of networks andfriendsh ips within the total team. The goal isto focus on the group as the center of rela-tionships, not the various organizational de-partments that team members represent.Fina lly, even the shape of the meetingtable can help reduce the potential for affec-tive conflict. Round tables neutralize status orpower. Rectangular tables accent status orpower, giving the person at the head of thetable the appearance of greater command.While these sorts of details may seem pet-ty to some, remember the kind of environ-ment that needs to be created. Members withnegative dispositions are likely to read theworst into every situation and thus may re-spond to the perception of A-type conflic t,even when none is present.4.HAVE BEHAVIORAL STR ATEGIES ToRUN THE MEETING IN MIND BEFORE THEMEETING BEGIN S. While structuring the teammeeting is important, the behavior of theteam leader is central to keeping the meetingproductive. What kinds of traits should the

team leader exhibit? There is a great deal ofresearch indicating that openness and coop-erativeness are necessary for the effective useof conflic t. Increasing the leve l of openness todiverse and dissenting opinions can stimulateC-type conflict where none previously exist-ed. Similarly , encouraging and rewarding co-operativeness can avert some of the personalinsecurity and distrust that prompt A-typeconf lict. In our own experience, we foundthat teams whose interactions were open toand tolerant of critici sm and dissent experi-enced more positive C-type conflict. We alsofound that more cooperative teams experi-enced less negative A-type conflict. For exam-ple, the president of a $42 million wholesa ledistribu tion firm we interviewed stated thathis primary responsibility was to initiate acooperative decision-making system whereopenness and cooperation are encouraged.Openness and cooperation do not justhappen, however. The leader has to havestrategies to ensure a climate of openness andcooperation. This is difficult because the lead-er is also concerned with proceeding with thestated agenda. Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart, would often appoint someone else tolead the team through the agenda during thecompanys Saturday morning corporate gen-eral meetings. Walton would then be free tofocus on the process aspects of the meeting,observing elements such as, Are people un-derstanding what the organization is trying todo? Do people agree with what is being said?Is there commitment toward the goals? Is dis-sent being shared so that it can be dealt withopenly? He would interject into the meeting,asking questions, validating acceptance ofwhat was being said, or challenging teammembers to become the dev ils advocate. Ob-viously, to fulfill this role the leader mustread the verbal and non-verbal cues fromthe team, which is hard to do when the lead-er is also directing the agenda.~.KEEPASENSEOFWHERETHEDISCLJS-SIONS ARE GOING. To further encourage co-operativeness and openness, the team leadermay need, at least initially , to facilitate andstrict ly monitor team discuss ions in order tolimi t persona lized statements made during

31


13/16

heated debate. Personalized statements suchas your idea, or my department, or youdont know what you are talking about, oryou dont understand our situation, placeemphasis on the individual rather than theidea. Such individual emphasis may detractfrom the collective group nature required tomake effective decisions. These types of state-ments would move conflict toward A-typeand away from the C-type.Personalized or individualized state-ments may also anger some individuals, fur-ther reducing openness and cooperativeness.For example, the VP of marketing may sug-gest to the VP of operations that he or she al-ter the production schedule to meet a uniquedemand in the marketplace. If the VP of man-ufacturing responds, You dont know whatyou are talking about because you dont un-derstand our operation, the VP of marketingwill probably respond as though personallyattacked. Such an attack would likely result inhostility and anger, which would likelyprompt a personal counterattack. Oncearoused, this groundswell of A-type con flictwould undermine the chances of reachingany sort of solution that would be satisfactoryto both parties.~.CHANNELDISCUSSIONFROMA-TYPECONFLICT TOWARD C-TYPE CONFLICT. Theteam leader needs not only to monitor teamdiscussions , but also to channel discussionfrom A-type conflict back toward C-type con-flict. It is not sufficient merely to monitor theprocess-the leader must also act to keep thegroup focused on the posit ive aspects of opendiscussions . It takes particular ski ll for theleader to be sens itive to the behaviora l dy-namics of the meeting. The leader must bal-ance the goals of open and frank discussion ofthe issues while also trying to reduce the ten-dency towards A-type conflict. In essence, theleader is trying to draw people out to get theiropinions, but also trying to get those opinionsby a means that will not personally attack oth-ers in the process.However, when the leader suppresses A-type conflict, he or she runs a risk: might therest of the group read into it that the leader re-ally only wants to hear one side of an argu-32

ment? That possibility makes the leaders jobdoubly difficult and it takes a well-focusedleader to encourage a full discussion of thetopic in a C-type manner while making itclear that A-conf lict will not be tolerated.The team leader may need to hold anopen discussion on why he or she wants tochange the direction of the discussion. Thismay be necessary to help team members un-derstand how to focus their comments sothey are directed toward the issues and nottoward the individuals. Initially at least, it willlikely be hard for team members to see thedifference. Research has shown that mostpeople cannot readily distinguish betweenthe different types of conflict. As children, welearned to think of ourselves as bad whenwe were corrected for acting in a certain way,rather than to see the action as not appropri-ate. Hence, the leader has quite an educationjob to do.7. SUPPORT THE TEAM. A leader mustcontinually exhibit behavior that shows sup-port for the team. As discussed above, there isa need to focus the team so that it is function-ing as a team and not a collection of indiv idu-als. This team focus increases the caring na-ture of each member toward each other andbuilds support for the team decision. Supportfor the team is important as it tends to replacemuch of the you versus me mentality of in-dividual group members with an us men-tality, which is essential for trust and confi-dence to develop. A stronger sense of identitywill strengthen the groups ability to wrestlewith meaningful, positive confl ict without thedestruc tive nature of negative conflict.For example, part of Wal-Marts difficul-ty is bringing a sense of family into a verylarge organization. Yet it is important to havepeople work for Wal-Mart as an organization,not for themselves or their departments. Wal-Mart, under Sam Walton, wanted each asso-ciate to care about serving the customers andlooking toward improving the organization.At weekly meetings in Bentonville, Arkansas,Walton would ask people for their commentson issues being discussed. He honestly want-ed to know what each person s feelings wereon the issue. At times he would challenge the


14/16

group to make the situation better. Waltonwanted to support the notion of the Wal-Martfamily. There was a higher purpose in anassociates life at Wal-Mart than just doing hisor her job. Creating this greater purpose is be-hind much of the employee empowerment is-sues in the total quality management ap-proaches advocated by such experts asDeming, Juran, and Crosby. The individualemployee is the key to making the organiza-tion succeed through involvement in decisionmaking and in the organization unlocking theindividuals creativity while building commit-ment to the organization.

8. BE PROACTIVE AND REACTIVE,NOTPASSIVE.To take many of the concepts aboveand roll them into one set of actions, the teamleader must actively support a positive cul-ture for the team. The development of thisculture is done before, during, and after eachteam interaction, The leaders behavior needsto focus on building the team and the culturethat will support active debate that is positiveand constructive. The leader needs to be sup-portive of group members to bring them intothe decision process and to ensure that theybelieve that their views are being heard andacted upon.The practice of distributing a full agenda,with proposals attached, before the meeting,demonstrates that each member is importantto the team. This action implies that eachmember should have an opportunity to con-sider the agenda in advance in order to de-velop their own opinions. In addition, theleader should contact team members in ad-vance to see that they understand the issuesthat wil l be considered in the meeting. Thisreinforces the importance of each member tothe process.During the meeting, the leader continuesthe job of reinforcing a climate that is sup-portive of the group and the groups work.Again, the goal is to build a team-centered de-cision-making body in which every member

is a valued and important contributor.After the meeting, the leader can do muchto further reinforce the team and build a per-formance-centered culture. Minutes that re-flect the issues and thinking of the meeting canbe shared and the leader can thank each mem-ber personally for their contributions. The

leader can also reward the team as a whole fortheir efforts rather than try to single out indi-viduals for particular praise or attention.

CONCLUSIONOur investigation has shown that the abilityto discourage A-type conflict while encourag-ing C-type conflict is critically important tothe overall team success. Unfortunately, thetask is not at all simple, and many teams per-form well below their potential. However, byfocusing on critical , fundamental issues-notthe personalities of the participants-teamsare, at least, pointed in the right direction.This discussion can best be summed up by theCEO of a petroleum firm who stated, Ourbiggest problem was that we found that wewere making lousy decisions. Basically, wefound that we had two groups left standing atthe end of our meetings, those who won andthose who lost. Not surprisingly, this teamexperienced a great deal of A-type conflict.However, when it adopted techniques thatnurtured only issue-related conflict, the focuschanged dramatically. We found that our de-cisions were of higher quality, noted theCEO, and we had only one group standingat the end-all winners.

If you wish to make photocopies orobtain reprints of this or otherarticles in oRGANrz417ONAL DmMMICS,please refer to the spec ial reprintservice instructions on page 96.

33


15/16

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Team decision making has become increas-ingly popular in todays organizations be-cause teams have the potential to producehigh quality, innovative solutions to complexproblems. For further reading on the subject ,see D.C. Hambrick, The Top ManagementTeam: Key to Strategic Success, CaliforniaManagement Review, Fal l 1987, pp. 88-107; L.G.Bolman and T.E. Deal, What Makes a TeamWork? Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 21,1992,pp. 34-44; J.R. Katzenbach and D.K. Smith,The Wisdom of Teams (Boston: Harvard Busi-ness School Press, 1993); and K.A. Bantel andSE. Jackson, Top Management and Innova-tions in Banking: Does the Composition of theTop Team Make a Difference? Strateg ic Man-agement Journal, Vol. 10, 1989, pp. 107-112.While the conflict literature is as rich andmultifaceted as any in the field of social sci-ence research, here we deal almost exclu-sivel y with intragroup conflict. For more de-tailed discussions of the multidimensionalityof intragroup conf lict, see A. Rahim, Mea-surement of Organizational Conflict, Journalof General Psychology, Vol. 109,1983, pp. 189-199; R.L. Pinkley, Dimensions of ConflictFrame: Disputant Interpretations of Con-flict, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75,1990, pp. 117-126; B. Brehmer, Socia l Judge-ment Theory and the Ana lys is of Interper-sonal Conflict, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 83,1976, pp. 985-1003; M. Deutsch, Conf licts:Productive and Destructive, Journal of SocialIssues, Vol. 25, 1969, pp. 7-41; and K.A. Jehn,Enhancing Effectiveness: An Investigationof Advantages and Disadvantages of Value-based Intragroup Conflic t, InternationalJournal of Conflic t Management, Vol. 5, 1994,pp. 223-238.For more specific discussions of the ef-fects, both positive and negative, of conf lict34

on decision-making teams, see R.A. Cosierand R.L. Rose, Cognitive Conflic t and GoalEffects on Task Performance, OrganizationalBehav ior and Human Performance, Vol. 19,1977,pp. 378-391; D.M. Schweiger, W.R. Sandberg,and P.L. Rechner, Experiential Effects of Di-alectical Inquiry, Devi ls Advocacy and Con-sensus Approaches to Strategic Decision Mak-ing, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32,1989, pp. 745-772; CR. Schwenk, Conf lict inOrganizational Decision Making: An Ex-ploratory Study of Its Effect in For-profit andNot-for-profit Organizations, ManagementScience,Vol. 36,1990, pp. 436-488; R.A. Cosierand CR. Schwenk, Agreement and ThinkingAlike: Ingredients for Poor Decisions, Acade-my of Management Executive, Vol. 4, 1990, pp.69-74; A.C. Amason and D.M. Schweiger, Re-solving the Paradox of Conflict, Strategic De-cision Making and Organizational Perfor-mance, International ]ournal of ConflictManagement, Vol. 5, 1994, pp. 239-253; F.Gaenslen, Democracy vs. Efficiency: SomeArguments from the Small Group, Politica lPsychology, Spring 1980, pp. 15-29; and V.D.Wall and L.L. Nolan, Small Group Conflict, aLook at Equity, Satisfaction, and Styles ofConflic t Management, Sma ll Group Behavior,Vol. 18,1987, pp. 188-211.The effects of confl ict, or the absence ofthose effects, can also be seen clearly in somefine qualitative studies that have been writtenon team decision making. Particularly inter-esting among these are G.T. Allison, TheEssenceof Decision: Explaining the Cuban Miss ileCris is (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1971); I.L.Janis, Groupthink: Psycho logical Studies of PolicyDecisions and Fiascos, 2nd ed. (Boston:Houghton-Mifflin, 1982); K.M. Eisenhardt,Making Fast Strategic Decisions in High Ve-locity Environments, Academy of Management


16/16

Journal, Vol. 32, 1989, pp. 543-576; and D.J.Hickson, R.J. Butler, C. Gray, G.R. Mallory,and D.C. Wilson, Top Decisions: Strategic Deci-sion Making in Organizations (San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, 1986).For further reading on team interactionnorms and their effect on conf lict in team de-cision making, see M. Deutsch, The E ffects ofCooperation and Competition upon GroupProcesses , in D. Carwright and A. Zander(eds.), Group Dynamics (New York: Harper &Row, 1968); D. Tjosvold and D.K. Deemer,

Effects of Controversy Within a Cooperativeor Competitive Context on OrganizationalDecision Making, Journal of Applied Psycholo-gy, Vol. 65,1983, pp. 590-595; M. Pin to, J. Pin-to, and J. Prescott, Antecedents and Conse-quences of Project Team Cross-functionalCooperation, Management Science, Vol. 39,1993, pp. 111-121; and K.L. Bettenhausen andJ.K. Murnighan, The Emergence of Norms inCompetitive Decision Making Groups, Ad-ministrative ScienceQuarterly, Vol. 30,1985, pp.350-372.

THE MANAGEMENT COMPASS:STEERING THE CORPORATION USING HOSHIN PLANNINGAMAs latest ManagementBriefing examines the fundamen-tals of hoshin planning, a strateg icmanagement methodology that isgaining rapid acceptance withU.S. companies. It is a system forsetting and achieving break-through objectives--toward long-term goals--through the use ofhighly-structured tools for analyz-ing data. Employees at every levelof the organization participate inthe planning process.

BIi ) Discover how major propo-nents of hoshin planningHewlett-Packard, Procter &Gamble, Intel, Texas Instru-ments, Zytec, and Florida

Power & Light-have used thismethodology to beat theircompetitors.

\

) Find out how hoshin planningcan give new meaning to yourtotal quality managementprogram.) Learn how hoshin planning The ptke is only 119.95/517.95tools-a ffinity and radar charts, interrelation- AMA Members plus shipping and handling.ships, arrow and contingency diagrams, Call AMA s Hotline at (800) 262-9699priority matrices, and more-help in for- (Stock 2358XODY) to order and formulating a reliable execution plan. multiple copy discount information.

Outside the U.S., call 518) 891-l 500. Or, FAX orders to 518) 891-0368.

35

amason conflict

Documents