6: Collaboration, Cultural Intelligence, and Conflict Resolution
Chapter Objectives
The purpose of this chapter is to:
- Manage workgroup processes effectively
- Develop workgroup cohesiveness
- Understand factors that contribute to workgroup effectiveness
- Understand the differences between a workgroup and a team
- Learn how to assess your group behavior
- Build an effective team
- Understand the benefits of team diversity
- Develop cultural intelligence
- Understand the benefits of conflict
- Recognize and resolve conflict
- Recognize and respond to cultural differences in conflict
The Advantages of Teamwork
Being a part of many teams can help employees with job satisfaction and give them exposure to many leadership opportunities within your organization. It is important to understand the basic dynamics to best approach tasks. Knowing how to work effectively in teams is a highly positive strategy to help bring the best outcome to your workplace.
Teamwork in the Workplace
Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc.
In the modern workplace, it is more common that an employee is not assigned to just one team in their role. More currently, individuals are being tasked with multiple roles that allow them to work within many teams on many projects. Research done estimates that 81 to 95 percent of employees around the world serve on multiple teams simultaneously. In some cases, this alone can have a negative effect on the way that employees are able to focus on the impact on their stress levels. Leadership plays a big role in combating the negative effects of multiple team memberships , or MTM .
Juggling six different projects at one given time can be stressful to any employee but structuring the work within different teams gives employees a sense of autonomy so that they know specifically what piece of the project to focus on and contribute their skills to the overall group. Leaders naturally form within groups and take ownership of different tasks, which also is very helpful to both the overall success of the team and individual satisfaction of the employee. When leaders showcase empowering qualities to their employees, subsequently the employees are more proactive. Despite the fact that these individuals worked on many teams under a variety of leaders, the individuals often carried over the empowerment qualities of one leader to their other team even when the other leader was less empowering.
Managing Work Group Processes
The available research on group dynamics demonstrates that individual behavior is highly influenced by coworkers in a work group. For instance, we see many examples of individuals who, when working in groups, intentionally set limits on their own incomes so they earn no more than the other group members. We see other situations where individuals choose to remain in an undesirable job because of their friends in the plant, even though preferable jobs are available elsewhere. In summarizing much research on the topic, Hackman and Morris (1975) concluded the following:
There is substantial agreement among researchers and observers of small task groups that something important happens in group interaction which can affect performance outcomes. There is little agreement about just what that “something” is—whether it is more likely to enhance or depress group effectiveness, and how it can be monitored, analyzed, and altered.
Although this source was several years ago, the point stands today.
What Is a Group?
The literature of group dynamics is a very rich field of study and includes many definitions of work groups. For example, we might conceive of a group in terms of perceptions ; that is, if individuals see themselves as a group, then a group exists. Or, we can view a group in structural terms. For instance, McDavid and Harari (1968) define a group as “an organized system of two or more individuals who are interrelated so that the system performs some function, has a standard set of role relationships among its members, and has a set of norms that regulate the function of the group and each of its members.” Groups can also be defined in motivational terms as “a collection of individuals whose existence as a collection is rewarding to the individuals.” Finally, a group can be viewed with regard to interpersonal interactions —the degree to which members communicate and interact with one another over time.
By integrating these various approaches to defining groups, we may conclude for our purpose here that a group is a collection of individuals who share a common set of norms, generally have differentiated roles among themselves, and interact with one another toward the joint pursuit of common goals. This definition assumes a dynamic perspective and leads us to focus on two major aspects of groups: group structure and group processes. Later in this chapter we will discuss the intersection of group work with teaming.
Types of Groups
There are two primary types of groups: formal and informal.
Formal Groups. Formal groups are work units that are prescribed by the organization. Examples of formal groups include sections of departments (such as the accounts receivable section of the accounting department), committees, or special project task forces. These groups are set up by management on either a temporary or permanent basis to accomplish prescribed tasks. When the group is permanent, it is usually called a command group or functional group . An example would be the sales department in a company. When the group is less permanent, it is usually referred to as a task group . An example here would be a corporate-sponsored task force on improving affirmative action efforts. In both cases, the groups are formal in that they are both officially established by the company to carry out some aspect of the business.
Informal Groups. In addition to formal groups, all organizations have a myriad of informal groups . These groups evolve naturally out of individual and collective self-interest among the members of an organization and are not the result of deliberate organizational design. People join informal groups because of common interests, social needs, or simply friendship. Informal groups typically develop their own norms and roles and establish unwritten rules for their members. Studies in social psychology have clearly documented the important role of these informal groups in facilitating (or inhibiting) performance and organizational effectiveness. Again, on the basis of their relative degree of permanence, informal groups can be divided into friendship groups (people you like to be around) and interest groups (e.g., a network of working women or minority managers). Friendship groups tend to be long-lasting, whereas interest groups often dissolve as people’s interests change.
One of the more interesting aspects of group processes in organizations is the interaction between informal and formal groups. Both groups establish norms and roles and goals and objectives, and both demand loyalty from their members. When an individual is a member of many groups—both formal and informal—a wide array of potentially conflicting situations emerges that has an impact upon behavior in organizations.
Structure of Work Groups
Work group structure can be characterized in many different ways. We examine several characteristics that are useful in describing and understanding what makes one group different from another. This matrix of variables will, when taken together, paint a portrait of work groups in terms of relatively enduring group properties. The aspects of group structure to be considered are (1) work roles, (2) work group size, (3) work group norms, (4) status relationships, and (5) work group cohesiveness. Each of these factors has been shown to influence group processes. Thus, the material presented here will be important when we focus on group processes later in the text.
Work Roles
In order to accomplish its goals and maintain its norms, a group must differentiate the work activities of its members. One or more members assume leadership positions, others carry out the major work of the group, and still others serve in support roles. This specialization of activities is commonly referred to as role differentiation. More specifically, a work role is an expected behavior pattern assigned or attributed to a particular position in the organization. It defines individual responsibilities on behalf of the group.
As we might expect, individual group members often perform several of these roles simultaneously. A group leader, for example, must focus group attention on task performance while at the same time preserving group harmony and cohesiveness, and contributing to the project work. To see how this functions, consider your own experience. You may be able to recognize the roles you have played in groups you have been a member of. In your experience, have you played multiple roles or single roles?
Perhaps the best way to understand the nature of work roles is to examine a role episode . A role episode is an attempt to explain how a particular role is learned and acted upon.
Stage 1: A role episode begins with members’ expectations about what one person should be doing in a particular position.
Stage 2 : These expectations are then communicated to the individual.
Stage 3: The communication (Stage 2) causes the individual to perceive the expectations about the expected role.
Stage 4: The individual decides to act upon the role in terms of actual role-related behavior.
In other words, Stages 1 and 2 deal with the expected role, whereas Stage 3 focuses on the perceived role and Stage 4 focuses on the enacted role.
Role Episode Example
Consider the following simple example. A group may determine that its newest member is responsible for getting coffee for group members during breaks (Stage 1). This role is then explained to the incoming member (Stage 2), who becomes aware of their expected role (Stage 3). On the basis of these perceptions (and probably reinforced by group norms), the individual then would probably carry out the assigned behavior (Stage 4).
Several aspects of this model of a role episode should be noted. First, Stages 1 and 2 are initiated by the group and directed at the individual. Stages 3 and 4, on the other hand, represent thoughts and actions of the individual receiving the stimuli. In addition, Stages 1 and 3 represent cognitive and perceptual evaluations, whereas Stages 2 and 4 represent actual behaviors. The sum total of all the roles assigned to one individual is called the role set.
Although the role episode presented here seems straightforward, in reality we know that it is far more complicated. For instance, individuals typically receive multiple and sometimes conflicting messages from various groups, all attempting to assign them a particular role. This can easily lead to role conflict . Messages sent to an individual may sometimes be unclear, leading to role ambiguity . Finally, individuals may simply receive too many role-related messages, contributing to role overload . Discussion of these topics is reserved for later study, where examination of several important aspects of psychological adjustment to work.
Workgroup Size
Workgroups can be found in various sizes. Early management theorists spent considerable time and effort to no avail attempting to identify the right size for the various types of workgroups. A number of relevant size-outcome relationships are summarized in the following table:
| Effects of Group Size on Group Dynamics | ||
| Factor | Size of Group | |
| Small (2 – 5) | Large (6 – 15) | |
| Group interaction | Increased | Decreased |
| Group cohesiveness | Increased | Decreased |
| Social loafing | Decreased | Increased |
| Productivity | Relationship is unclear | Relationship is unclear |
Table 6.1: Group Size and Dynamics
Group Interaction Patterns. First, we will consider the effects of variations in group size on group interaction patterns. A series of classic studies by Bales and Borgatta (1965) examined this issue using a technique known as interaction process analysis . This technique records who says what to whom. Through using it, Bales and his colleagues found that smaller groups (2–5 persons) typically exhibited greater tension, agreement, and opinion seeking, whereas larger groups (6–15 persons) showed more tension release and giving of suggestions and information. This suggests that harmony is crucial in smaller groups and that people in them have more time to develop their thoughts and opinions. On the other hand, individuals in larger groups must be more direct because of the increased competition for attention.
Productivity. No clear relationship has been found between group size and productivity. There is probably a good reason for this. Unless we take into consideration the type of task that is being performed, we really cannot expect a clear or direct relationship. Mitchell (1990) explains it as follows:
Think of a task where each new member adds a new independent amount of productivity (certain piece-rate jobs might fit here). If we add more people, we will add more productivity. On the other hand, there are tasks where everyone works together and pools their resources. With each new person, the added increment of new skills or knowledge decreases. After a while increases in size will fail to add much to the group except coordination and motivation problems. Large groups will perform less well than small groups. The relationship between group size and productivity will therefore depend on the type of task that needs to be done.
Social loafing. However, when we look at productivity and group size, it is important to recognize the existence of the unique factor called social loafing . First explained in 1913 by French agricultural engineer Max Ringelmann, social loafing is a tendency for individual group members to reduce their effort on a group task. This phenomenon occurs when (1) people see their task as being unimportant or simple, (2) group members think their individual output is not identifiable, and (3) group members expect their fellow workers to loaf. Social loafing is more prevalent in larger groups than in smaller groups, presumably because the above three factors are accentuated. From a managerial standpoint, this problem can be reduced by providing workers with greater responsibility for task accomplishment and more challenging assignments. (Latane, Williams, & Harkins, 1979).
Workgroup Norms
The concept of workgroup norms represents a complex topic with a history of social psychological research dating back several decades. In this section, we will highlight several of the essential aspects of norms and how they relate to people at work. We will consider the characteristics and functions of work group norms as well as conformity with and deviance from them.
Characteristics of Work Group Norms . A workgroup norm may be defined as a standard that is shared by group members and regulates member behavior within an organization. An example can be seen in a typical classroom situation when students develop a norm against speaking up in class too often. It is believed that students who are highly visible improve their grades at the expense of others. Hence, a norm is created that attempts to govern acceptable classroom behavior. We see similar examples in the workplace. There may be a norm against producing too much or too little, against getting too close to the supervisor, against being late for work, and so forth.
Five Characteristics of Workgroup Norms
Workgroup norms may be characterized by at least five factors:
- Norms summarize and simplify group influence processes. They denote the processes by which groups regulate and regularize member behavior.
- Norms apply only to behavior, not to private thoughts and feelings. Although norms may be based on thoughts and feelings, they cannot govern them. That is, private acceptance of group norms is unnecessary—only public compliance is needed.
- Norms are generally developed only for behaviors that are viewed as important by most group members.
- Norms usually develop gradually, but the process can be quickened if members wish. Norms usually are developed by group members as the need arises, such as when a situation occurs that requires new ground rules for members in order to protect group integrity.
- All norms do not apply to all members. Some norms, for example, apply only to young initiates (such as getting the coffee), whereas others are based on seniority, sex, race, or economic class. Be aware that such norms may be unethical, biased, and exclusionary.
Functions of Work Group Norms. Most all groups have norms, although some may be more extensive than others. To see this, examine the norms that exist in the various groups to which you belong. Which groups have more fully developed norms? Why? What functions do these norms serve? Several efforts have been made to answer this question. In general, workgroup norms serve four functions (Feldman 19840 in organizational settings:
- Norms facilitate group survival . When a group is under threat, norms provide a basis for ensuring goal-directed behavior and rejecting deviant behavior that is not purposeful to the group. This is essentially a “circle the wagons” phenomenon.
- Norms simplify expected behaviors. Norms tell group members what is expected of them—what is acceptable and unacceptable—and allow members to anticipate the behaviors of their fellow group members and to anticipate the positive or negative consequences of their own behavior.
- Norms help avoid embarrassing situations . By identifying acceptable and unacceptable behaviors, norms tell group members when a behavior or topic is damaging to another member. For example, a norm against swearing signals group members that such action would be hurtful to someone in the group and should be avoided.
- Norms help identify the group and express its central values to others. Norms concerning clothes, language, mannerisms, and so forth help tell others who belongs to the group and, in some cases, what the group stands for. Norms often serve as rallying points for group members.
Conformity and Deviance. Managers often wonder why employees comply with the norms and dictates of their workgroup even when they seemingly work against their best interests. This concern is particularly strong when workers intentionally withhold productivity that could lead to higher incomes. The answer to this question lies in the concept of conformity to group norms. Situations arise when the individual is swept along by the group and acts in ways that he would prefer not to.
To see how this works, consider the results of a classic study of individual conformity to group pressures that was carried out by Solomon Asch. Asch conducted a laboratory experiment in which a native subject was placed in a room with several confederates. Each person in the room was asked to match the length of a given line ( X ) with that of one of three unequal lines ( A, B, and C ). All the subjects who spoke first had been instructed prior to the experiment to identify line C as the line most like X, even though A was clearly the answer. The results were startling. In over one-third of the trials in the experiment, the naive subject denied the evidence of his own senses and agreed with the answers given by the unknown confederates. In other words, when confronted by a unanimous answer from others in the group, a large percentage of individuals chose to go along with the group rather than express a conflicting opinion, even though these individuals were confident their own answers were correct.
To view details from the Asch conformity study, visit https://www.youtube.com/embed/NyDDyT1lDhA . This version includes definitions of normative and informational conformity and the powerful effect of having an ally.
What causes such conformity to group norms? And, under what conditions will an individual deviate from these norms? Conformity to group norms is believed to be caused by at least three factors. Personality, Initial Stimulus, and Group Characteristics.
Conformity to Group Norms
Personality : Personality plays a major role. For instance, negative correlations have been found between conformity and intelligence, tolerance, and ego strength, whereas authoritarianism was found to be positively related. Essentially, people who have a strong self-identity are more likely to stick to their own norms and deviate from those of the group when a conflict between the two exists.
Initial Stimulus: The initial stimulus that evokes responses can influence conformity. The more ambiguous the stimulus (e.g., a new and confusing order from top management), the greater the propensity to conform to group norms (“I’m not sure what the new order from management really means, so I’ll just go along with what others think it means”). In this sense, conformity provides a sense of protection and security in a new and perhaps threatening situation.
Group Characteristics: Finally, group characteristics themselves can influence conformity to group norms. Factors such as the extent of pressure exerted on group members to conform, the extent to which a member identifies with the group, and the extent to which the group has been successful in achieving previous goals can influence conformity.
Group Cohesiveness. A fourth characteristic of workgroups is group cohesiveness. We have all come in contact with groups whose members feel a high degree of camaraderie, group spirit, and unity. In these groups, individuals seem to be concerned about the welfare of other group members as well as that of the group as a whole. There is a feeling of “us against them” that creates a closeness among them. This phenomenon is called group cohesiveness. More specifically, group cohesiveness may be defined as the extent to which individual members of a group are motivated to remain in the group. According to Shaw, “Members of highly cohesive groups are more energetic in group activities, they are less likely to be absent from group meetings, they are happy when the group succeeds and sad when it fails, etc., whereas members of less cohesive groups are less concerned about the group’s activities" (Shaw, M. 1991)
We shall consider two primary aspects of workgroup cohesiveness. First, we look at the major causes of cohesiveness. Following this, we examine its consequences.
Determinants of Group Cohesiveness. Why do some workgroups develop a high degree of group cohesiveness while others do not? To answer this question, we have to examine both the composition of the group and several variables that play a role in determining the extent of cohesiveness. These include the following:
- Group homogeneity . The more homogeneous the group—that is, the more members share similar characteristics and backgrounds—the greater the cohesiveness.
- Group maturity . Groups tend to become more cohesive simply as a result of the passage of time. Continued interaction over long periods of time helps members develop a closeness born of shared experiences.
- Group size . Smaller groups have an easier time developing cohesiveness, possibly because of the less complex interpersonal interaction patterns.
- Frequency of interaction . Groups that have greater opportunities to interact on a regular or frequent basis tend to become more cohesive than groups that meet less frequently or whose members are more isolated.
- Clear group goals . Groups that know exactly what they are trying to accomplish develop greater cohesiveness, in part because of a shared sense of mission and the absence of conflict over mission.
- Competition or external threat . When groups sense external threat or hostility, they tend to band together more closely. There is, indeed, “safety in numbers.”
- Success . Group success on a previous task often facilitates increased cohesiveness and a sense of “we did it together.”
In other words, a wide variety of factors can influence work group cohesiveness. The precise manner in which these processes occur is not known. Even so, managers must recognize the existence of certain forces of group cohesiveness if they are to understand the nature of group dynamics in organizations. The second aspect of group cohesiveness that must be understood by managers relates to their consequences.
Consequences of Group Cohesiveness. As shown in the figure below, several consequences of group cohesiveness can also be identified.
1. The most obvious consequence is the maintenance of membership . If the attractiveness of the group is sufficiently stronger than the attractiveness of alternative groups, then we would expect the individual to remain in the group.
Figure 6.1: Consequences of Group Cohesiveness
2. High group cohesiveness typically provides the group with considerable power over group members . The power of a group over members depends upon the level of outcomes members expect to receive from the group compared to what they could receive through alternate means. When the group is seen as being highly instrumental to achieving personal goals, individuals will typically submit to the will of the group.
3. Members of highly cohesive groups tend to exhibit greater participation and loyalty . Several studies have shown that as cohesiveness increases, there is more frequent communication among members, a greater degree of participation in group activities, and less absenteeism. Moreover, members of highly cohesive groups tend to be more cooperative and friendly and generally behave in ways designed to promote integration among members.
4. Members of highly cohesive groups generally report high levels of satisfaction . In fact, the concept of group cohesiveness almost demands all this be the case, because it is unlikely that members will feel like remaining with a group with which they are dissatisfied.
Finally, what is the effect of group cohesiveness on productivity ? Research shows that the extent to which cohesiveness and productivity are related is moderated by the extent to which group members accept organizational goals., when cohesiveness and acceptance of organizational goals are high, performance will probably be high. When acceptance is high but cohesiveness is low, group performance will typically be moderate. Finally, performance will generally be low when goal acceptance is low regardless of the extent of group cohesiveness. In other words, high performance is most likely to result when highly cohesive teams accept the goals of the organization. At this time, both forces for performance are congruent.
Maintaining Cohesiveness During Change
In the fast-moving innovative car industry, it is always important to be thinking about improving and staying ahead of the competition. For Ford and Chevrolet however, they have such popular vehicles—the F-150 and the hybrid Volt, respectively—that finding ways to improve them without taking away the qualities that make them popular is key.
With the F-150, Ford had one of the best-selling vehicles for more than 30 years, but improving upon their most popular vehicle came with its challenges. In 2015, the team wanted to introduce an economically six-cylinder EcoBoost engine, and an all-aluminum body. The team was worried about the marketplace and hoped that the customers would accept the change to their beloved truck.
The planning started 18 months before, working in parallel work teams on various parts of the project. Each team was responsible for a piece of the overall project, and they frequently came together to make sure that they were working cohesively to create a viable vehicle. The most successful piece of the dynamic for Ford was teams’ ability to share feedback. Pete Reyes expresses the teamwork mentality: “Everybody crosses boundaries, and they came back with all of the feedback that shaped what we are going to do.”
Having team cohesiveness was ultimately what brought Ford to the finish line. With over 1,000 members of the overall team, employees were able to accomplish a truly viable vehicle that weighed 700 pounds less, as well as countless other innovations that gave the truck 29 percent more fuel economy.
“We stuck to common goals . . . I don’t think I’ll ever work on a team that tight again,” stated Reyes about his team of developmental managers. As a result of their close teamwork, Ford announced third-quarter earnings of 1.9 billion, an increase of 1.1 billion from 2014.
Sources: J. Motivalli, “ 5 Inspiring Companies That Rely on Teamwork to Be Successful,” Success , February 16, 2016, https://www.success.com/5-inspiring-...be-successful/ ; “All-New 2015 F-150 Most Patented Truck in Ford History – New Innovations Bolster Next-Generation Light-Duty Pickup,” Ford Media Center , May 23, 2014, https://media.ford.com/content/fordm...-new-inno.html ; P. Friedman, “Body of Work,” Ford Corporate Website, accessed, December 13, 2018, https://corporate.ford.com/innovatio...y-of-work.html .
What Is Work Group Effectiveness?
The first question to raise concerning workgroup effectiveness is what we mean by the concept itself. According to Hackman’s model, effectiveness is defined in terms of three criteria:
- Productive output . The productive output of the group must meet or exceed the quantitative and qualitative standards defined by the organization.
- Personal need satisfaction . Groups are effective if membership facilitates employee need satisfaction.
-
Capacity for future cooperation
. Effective groups employ social processes that maintain or enhance the capacity of their members to work together on subsequent tasks. Destructive social processes are avoided so members can develop long-term cohesiveness and effectiveness.
Determinants of Workgroup Effectiveness
Group effectiveness is largely determined by three factors that have been called intermediate criteria . These factors are as follows:
- Group effort . The amount of effort group members exert toward task accomplishment.
- Group knowledge and skill . The amount of knowledge and skills possessed by group members that are available for group effort and performance.
- Task performance strategies . The extent to which the group’s strategies for task performance (that is, how it analyzes and attempts to solve problems) are appropriate.
Although the relative importance of each of these three intermediate factors may vary, all three are important. Without considerable group effort, appropriate skills and knowledge, and a clear strategy for task completion, groups are unlikely to be effective.
An important influence on the relative importance of these three variables is the nature of work technology . This includes the equipment and materials used in manufacture, the prescribed work procedures, and the physical layout of the work site. For example, if jobs are highly routinized, individual skills and knowledge may be somewhat less important than simple effort. On more complex tasks, however, such as research and development, effort alone will be of little help without concomitant skills and knowledge. Hence, although the relative importance of these three variables may vary with the job technology, all should be considered in any effort to understand determinants of work group effectiveness in a particular situation.
These determinants of effectiveness are themselves influenced by three sets of factors. First, we must recognize a series of environmental context factors , such as the company’s reward system, training programs, job descriptions, and so forth. Second are several design factors, including group structure, member composition, and performance norms. Finally, the role of interpersonal processes —such as efforts among group members and management to reduce conflict, foster commitment, and share knowledge—must be recognized. These three sets of factors, then, are largely responsible for determining the so-called intermediate criteria that, in turn, combine with appropriate job technologies to determine workgroup effectiveness.
Assessment: How do you behave in a group?
Instructions: Think of a typical group situation in which you often find yourself (e.g., a club, study group, small workgroup), and answer the following items as accurately as possible. Assign yourself points for each answer: Never = 1 pt.; Seldom = 2 pts.; Fairly Often = 3 pts.; Frequently = 4 pts.
| In a group, how often do you: | Never | Seldom | Fairly Often | Frequently |
| Keep the group focused on the task at hand? | ||||
| Help the group clarify the issues? | ||||
| Pull various ideas together? | ||||
| Push the group to make a decision or complete a task? | ||||
| Support and encourage other group members? | ||||
| Try to reduce interpersonal conflicts? | ||||
| Help the group reach a compromise? | ||||
| Assist in maintaining group harmony? | ||||
| Seek personal recognition from other group members? | ||||
| Try to dominate group activities? | ||||
| Avoid unpleasant or undesirable group activities? | ||||
| Express your impatience or hostility with the group? |
Scoring the Group Behavior instrument: Add up your scores as follows for the three categories of behavior:
Task-oriented behavior: Add up items 1-4
Relations-oriented behavior: Add up items 5-6
Self-Oriented behavior: Add up items 9-12
Examine the resulting pattern in your answers. There are no correct or incorrect answers. Instead, this is an opportunity to view how you describe your own role-related activities in a group. What did you learn about yourself? How does your role in a group differ from those of other individuals?
Assessment: How Effective Is Your Work Group?
Instructions : Select a group to which you belong, and use this group to answer the following questions. Check “mostly yes” or “mostly no” to answer each question.
|
Work Group Effectiveness Assessment |
Mostly Yes |
Mostly No |
|
1. The atmosphere is relaxed and comfortable. |
||
|
2. Group discussion is frequent, and it is usually pertinent to the task at hand. |
||
|
3. Group members understand what they are trying to accomplish. |
||
|
4. People listen to each other’s suggestions and ideas. |
||
|
5. Disagreements are tolerated, and an attempt is made to resolve them. |
||
|
6. There is general agreement on most courses of action taken. |
||
|
7. The group welcomes frank criticism from inside and outside sources. |
||
|
8. When the group takes action, clear assignments are made and accepted. |
||
|
9. There is a well-established, relaxed working relationship among the members. |
||
|
10. There is a high degree of trust and confidence among the leader and subordinates. |
||
|
11. The group members strive hard to help the group achieve its goal. |
||
|
12. Suggestions and criticisms are offered and received with a helpful spirit. |
||
|
13. There is a cooperative rather than a competitive relationship among group members. |
||
|
14. The group goals are set high but not so high as to create anxieties or fear of failure. |
||
|
15. The leaders and members hold a high opinion of the group’s capabilities. |
||
|
16. Creativity is stimulated within the group. |
||
|
17. There is ample communication within the group of topics relevant to getting the work accomplished. |
||
|
18. Group members feel confident in making decisions. |
||
|
19. People are kept busy but not overloaded. |
||
|
Source: Adapted from A. J. DuBrin from The Human Side of Enterprise (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960).
Scoring the Workgroup Effectiveness instrument: The Workgroup Effectiveness instrument measures the relative effectiveness of a group to which you belong. Count the number of times you answered “mostly yes.” The larger the number, the more productive and satisfied the group members should be. There are no norms for this exercise, so you might wish to create your own norms by comparing scores among others in your class who have completed this instrument for the teams to which they belong. Look at the range of scores, and then describe the characteristics of each group. Are there any common characteristics that distinguish the groups with the highest scores? The lowest scores? Why do these differences occur?
You could also use this questionnaire to compare groups to which you belong. If you were the leader of one of these groups, what would you do to make the group more effective? Why hasn’t this been done already?
Team Function and Effectiveness
Teamwork has never been more important in organizations than it is today. Whether you work in a manufacturing environment and utilize self-directed work teams, or if you work in the “ knowledge economy ” and derive benefits from collaboration within a team structure, you are harnessing the power of a team.
Is a team different than a group?
In their Harvard Business Review (HBR) article “The Discipline of Teams,” Katzenbach & Smith (2005)s defined a team as “people organized to function cooperatively as a group”. The five elements that make teams function effectively are:
- Common commitment and purpose
- Specific performance goals
- Complementary skills
- Commitment to how the work gets done
- Mutual accountability
At the beginning of this chapter, you learned that a group is a collection of individuals who share a common set of norms, generally have differentiated roles among themselves, and interact with one another toward the joint pursuit of common goals. There are two types of formal groups: A Command group and a Task Group. Teams fall under the definition of a Task Group. The difference however is this: The status of the members of a Workgroup are typically determined by each member’s company title. For example, a manager in the company will always be the manager of a Task Group. In teams, however, status should not play a role; the members of teams are equal in status.
A team has a specific purpose that it delivers on, has shared leadership roles, and has both individual and mutual accountabilities. Teams discuss, make decisions, and perform real work together, and they measure their performance by assessing their collective work products. Wisdom of Teams reference.
What Makes a Team Truly Effective?
According to Katzenbach and Smith (Discipline of Teams), there are several practices that the authors have observed in successful teams: Establish urgency, demanding performance standards, and direction.
Practices of Successful Teams
Establish urgency
Teams work best when they have a compelling reason for being, and it is thus more likely that the teams will be successful and live up to performance expectations. We’ve all seen the teams that are brought together to address an “important initiative” for the company, but without clear direction and a truly compelling reason to exist, the team will lose momentum and wither.
Demanding performance standards
Select members for their skill and skill potential, not for their personality . This is not always as easy as it sounds for several reasons. First, most people would prefer to have those with good personalities and positive attitudes on their team in order to promote a pleasant work environment. This is fine, but make sure that those individuals have the skill sets needed (or the potential to acquire/learn) for their piece of the project. The second caveat here is that you don’t always know what skills you need on a project until you really dig in and see what’s going on. Spend some time up front thinking about the purpose of the project and the anticipated deliverables you will be producing and think through the specific types of skills you’ll need on the team.
Pay particular attention to first meetings and actions . This is one way of saying that first impressions mean a lot—and it is just as important for teams as for individuals. Teams will interact with everyone from functional subject-matter experts all the way to senior leadership, and the team must look competent and be perceived as competent. Keeping an eye on your team’s level of emotional intelligence is very important and will enhance your team’s reputation and ability to navigate stakeholders within the organization.
Create a team charter . It is so critical that the team takes the time up front to capture their own rules in order to keep the team in check. Rules that address areas such as attendance, discussion, confidentiality, project approach, quality of work expectations, and conflict are key to keeping team members aligned and engaged appropriately.
To view details from D. Barrett (2016) regarding developing a team charter, visit "Barrett on the Team" at https://youtu.be/3cGSo0OOvzA
Direction
Set and seize upon a few immediate performance-oriented tasks and goals . What does this mean? Have some quick wins that make the team feel that they’re really accomplishing something and working together well. This is very important to the team’s confidence, as well as just getting into the practices of working as a team. Success in the larger tasks will come soon enough, as the larger tasks are really just a group of smaller tasks that fit together to produce a larger deliverable.
Challenge the group regularly with fresh facts and information . That is, continue to research and gather information to confirm or challenge what you know about your project. Don’t assume that all the facts are static and that you received them at the beginning of the project. Often, you don’t know what you don’t know until you dig in. I think that the pace of change is so great in the world today that new information is always presenting itself and must be considered in the overall context of the project.
Spend lots of time together . Here’s an obvious one that is often overlooked. People are so busy that they forget that an important part of the team process is to spend time together, think together, and bond. Time in person, time on the phone, time in meetings—all of it counts and helps to build camaraderie and trust.
Exploit the power of positive feedback, recognition, and reward . Positive reinforcement is a motivator that will help the members of the team feel more comfortable contributing. It will also reinforce the behaviors and expectations that you are driving within the team. Although there are many extrinsic rewards that can serve as motivators, a successful team begins to feel that its own success and performance is the most rewarding.
Collaboration is another key concept and method by which teams can work together very successfully. Bringing together a team of experts from across the business would seem to be a best practice in any situation. However, Gratton & Erickson, in their article "Eight Ways to Build Collaborative Teams," found that collaboration seems to decrease sharply when a team is working on complex project initiatives. In their study, they examined 55 larger teams and identified those with strong collaboration skills, despite the level of complexity. There were eight success factors for having strong collaboration skills:
- “Signature” relationship practices
- Role models of collaboration among executives
- Establishment of “gift” culture, in which managers mentor employees
- Training in relationship skills
- A sense of community
- Ambidextrous leaders—good at task and people leadership
- Good use of heritage relationships
- Role clarity and task ambiguity 2
Stages of Team Growth
If you have been a part of a team—as most of us have—then you intuitively have felt that there are different “stages” of team development. Teams and team members often start from a position of friendliness and excitement about a project or endeavor, but the mood can sour and the team dynamics can deteriorate very quickly once the real work begins. In 1965, educational psychologist Bruce Tuckman at Ohio State University developed a four-stage model to explain the complexities of team development. The original model was called Tuckman’s Stages of Group Development , and he added the fifth stage of “Adjourning” in 1977 to explain the disbanding of a team at the end of a project. The four development stages of the Tuckman model are: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing.
Tuckman's 4 Stages of Team Development
- The Forming stage begins with the introduction of team members. This is known as the “polite stage” in which the team is mainly focused on similarities and the group looks to the leader for structure and direction. The team members at this point are enthusiastic, and issues are still being discussed on a global, ambiguous level. This is when the informal pecking order begins to develop, but the team is still friendly.
- The Storming stage begins as team members begin vying for leadership and testing the group processes. This is known as the “win-lose” stage, as members clash for control of the group and people begin to choose sides. The attitude about the team and the project begins to shift to negative, and there is frustration around goals, tasks, and progress. As shown in Figure 4.3, the team begins struggle and usually experiences a brief period of downward movement.
- After what can be a very long and painful Storming process for the team, slowly the Norming stage may start to take root. During Norming, the team is starting to work well together, and buy-in to group goals occurs. The team is establishing and maintaining ground rules and boundaries, and there is willingness to share responsibility and control. At this point in the team formation, members begin to value and respect each other and their contributions.
- Finally, as the team builds momentum and starts to get results, it is entering the Performing stage. The team is completely self-directed and requires little management direction. The team has confidence, pride, and enthusiasm, and there is a congruence of vision, team, and self. As the team continues to perform, it may even succeed in becoming a high-performing team. High-performing teams have optimized both task and people relationships—they are maximizing performance and team effectiveness. Katzenberg and Smith, in their study of teams, have created a “team performance curve” that graphs the journey of a team from a working group to a high-performing team.
Figure 6.2: Team Performance Curve. A graphical representation plots the performance curve of a team during their transition from a working group to a high-performing team. (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC-BY 4.0 license)
The process of becoming a high-performance team is not a linear process. Similarly, the four stages of team development in the Tuckman model are not linear, and there are also factors that may cause the team to regress to an earlier stage of development. When a team member is added to the group, this may change the dynamic enough and be disruptive enough to cause a backward slide to an earlier stage. Similarly, if a new project task is introduced that causes confusion or anxiety for the group, then this may also cause a backward slide to an earlier stage of development. Think of your own experiences with project teams and the backslide that the group may have taken when another team member was introduced. You may have personally found the same to be true when a leader or project sponsor changes the scope or adds a new project task. The team has to re-group and will likely re-Storm and re-Form before getting back to Performing as a team.
How Team Diversity Enhances Decision-Making and Problem-Solving
Decision-making and problem-solving can be much more dynamic and successful when performed in a diverse team environment. The multiple diverse perspectives can enhance both the understanding of the problem and the quality of the solution. Diverse leaders from a variety of functions, from across the globe, at varying stages of their careers and experiences with and outside of the company had the most robust discussions and perspectives. Diversity recognizes individual differences and lived experiences. The importance of diversity and building diverse teams can sometimes get lost in the normal processes of doing business. We need to keep the importance of a diverse teams in front of mind. In the Harvard Business Review article “Why Diverse Teams are Smarter” (Nov. 2016), David Rock and Heidi Grant research supports this initiative.
Source: WOCin Tech Chat/ flickr/ Attribution 2.0 Generic CC BY 2.0
Additional research on diversity has shown that diverse teams are better at decision-making and problem-solving because they tend to focus more on facts, per the Rock and Grant (2016) article. A study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology showed that people from diverse backgrounds “might actually alter the behavior of a group’s social majority in ways that lead to improved and more accurate group thinking.” It turned out that in the study, the diverse panels raised more facts related to the case than homogenous panels and made fewer factual errors while discussing available evidence. Another study noted in the article showed that diverse teams are “more likely to constantly reexamine facts and remain objective. They may also encourage greater scrutiny of each member’s actions, keeping their joint cognitive resources sharp and vigilant. By breaking up workforce homogeneity, you can allow your employees to become more aware of their own potential biases—entrenched ways of thinking that can otherwise blind them to key information and even lead them to make errors in decision-making processes.” In other words, when people are among homogeneous and like-minded (nondiverse) teammates, the team is susceptible to groupthink and may be reticent to think about opposing viewpoints since all team members are in alignment. In a more diverse team with a variety of backgrounds and experiences, the opposing viewpoints are more likely to come out and the team members feel obligated to research and address the questions that have been raised. Again, this enables a richer discussion and a more in-depth fact-finding and exploration of opposing ideas and viewpoints in order to solve problems.
Diversity in teams also leads to greater innovation. A Boston Consulting Group (Lorenzo, R. Yoigt, N., Schetelig, K., Zawadzki, A., Welpe, I., & Brosi, P., 2016) article entitled “The Mix that Matters: Innovation through Diversity” explains a study in which BCG and the Technical University of Munich conducted an empirical analysis to understand the relationship between diversity in managers (all management levels) and innovation. The key findings of this study show that:
- The positive relationship between management diversity and innovation is statistically significant—and thus companies with higher levels of diversity derive more revenue from new products and services.
- The innovation boost isn’t limited to a single type of diversity. The presence of managers who are either female or are from other countries, industries, or companies can cause an increase in innovation.
- Management diversity seems to have a particularly positive effect on innovation at complex companies—those that have multiple product lines or that operate in multiple industry segments.
- To reach its potential, gender diversity needs to go beyond tokenism. In the study, innovation performance only increased significantly when the workforce included more than 20% women in management positions. Having a high percentage of female employees doesn’t increase innovation if only a small number of women are managers.
- At companies with diverse management teams, openness to contributions from lower-level workers and an environment in which employees feel free to speak their minds are crucial for fostering innovation.
When you consider the impact that diverse teams have on decision-making and problem-solving—through the discussion and incorporation of new perspectives, ideas, and data—the BCG study shows greater innovation. Team leaders need to reflect upon these findings during the early stages of team selection so that they can reap the benefits of having diverse voices and backgrounds.
Best Practices for Working in a Multicultural Team
As globalization has increased over the last decades, workplaces have felt the impact of working within multicultural teams. The earlier section on team diversity outlined some of the highlights and benefits of working on diverse teams, and a multicultural group certainly qualifies as diverse. However, there are some key practices that are recommended to those who are leading multicultural teams so that they can parlay the diversity into an advantage and not be derailed by it.
People may assume that communication is the key factor that can derail multicultural teams, as participants may have different languages and communication styles. In the Harvard Business Review article “Managing Multicultural Teams,” the authors point out four key cultural differences that can cause destructive conflicts in a team (Brett, Behfar, Kern, 2007).
Key Cultural Differences in a Team
Direct versus indirect communication . Some cultures are very direct and explicit in their communication, while others are more indirect and ask questions rather than pointing out problems. This difference can cause conflict because, at the extreme, the direct style may be considered offensive by some, while the indirect style may be perceived as unproductive and passive-aggressive in team interactions.
Accents and fluency . When team members don’t speak the same language, there may be one language that dominates the group interaction—and those who don’t speak it may feel left out. The speakers of the primary language may feel that those members don’t contribute as much or are less informed.
Differing attitudes toward hierarchy. Some cultures are very respectful of the hierarchy and will treat team members based on that hierarchy. Other cultures are more egalitarian and don’t observe hierarchical differences to the same degree. This may lead to clashes if some people feel that they are being disrespected and not treated according to their status.
Conflicting decision-making norms . Different cultures make decisions differently, and some will apply a great deal of analysis and preparation beforehand. Those cultures that make decisions more quickly (and need just enough information to make a decision) may be frustrated with the slow response and relatively longer thought process.
These cultural differences are good examples of how everyday team activities (decision-making, communication, interaction among team members) may become points of contention for a multicultural team if there isn’t adequate understanding of everyone’s culture.
Interventions for Conflict
Brett, Behfar, and Kern (2007), propose that there are several potential interventions to try if these conflicts arise.
- One simple intervention is adaptation , which is working with or around differences. This is best used when team members are willing to acknowledge the cultural differences and learn how to work with them.
- The next intervention technique is structural intervention , or reorganizing to reduce friction on the team. This technique is best used if there are unproductive subgroups or cliques within the team that need to be moved around.
- Managerial intervention is the technique of making decisions by management and without team involvement. This technique is one that should be used sparingly, as it essentially shows that the team needs guidance and can’t move forward without management getting involved.
- Finally, exit is an intervention of last resort, and is the voluntary or involuntary removal of a team member. If the differences and challenges have proven to be so great that an individual on the team can no longer work with the team productively, then it may be necessary to remove the team member in question.
There are some people who seem to be innately aware of and able to work with cultural differences on teams and in their organizations. These individuals might be said to have cultural intelligence . Cultural intelligence is a competency and a skill that enables individuals to function effectively in cross-cultural environments. It develops as people become more aware of the influence of culture and more capable of adapting their behavior to the norms of other cultures. In the IESE Insight article entitled “Cultural Competence: Why It Matters and How You Can Acquire It” (Lee and Liao, 2015), the authors assert that “multicultural leaders may relate better to team members from different cultures and resolve conflicts more easily. Their multiple talents can also be put to good use in international negotiations.” Multicultural leaders don’t have a lot of “baggage” from any one culture, and so are sometimes perceived as being culturally neutral. They are very good at handling diversity, which gives them a great advantage in their relationships with teammates.
In order to help employees become better team members in a world that is increasingly multicultural, there are a few best practices that the authors recommend for honing cross-cultural skills. The first is to “broaden your mind”—expand your own cultural channels (travel, movies, books) and surround yourself with people from other cultures. This helps to raise your own awareness of the cultural differences and norms that you may encounter. Another best practice is to “develop your cross-cultural skills through practice” and experiential learning. You may have the opportunity to work or travel abroad—but if you don’t, then getting to know some of your company’s cross-cultural colleagues or foreign visitors will help you to practice your skills. Serving on a cross-cultural project team and taking the time to get to know and bond with your global colleagues is an excellent way to develop skills.
Understanding Conflict
The following sections consider several aspects of conflict in organizations. First, conflict is defined, and variations of conflict are considered by type and by level. Next, we will discuss the constructive and destructive aspects of conflict. A basic model of the conflict process is then examined, followed by a look at several of the more prominent antecedents of conflict. Finally, effective and ineffective strategies for conflict resolution are contrasted. Throughout, emphasis is placed on problem identification and problem resolution.
By any standard of comparison, conflict in organizations represents an important topic for managers. Just how important it is can be seen in the results of a study of how managers spend their time. It was found that approximately 20 percent of top and middle managers’ time was spent dealing with some form of conflict (K. Thomas & W. Schmidt, 1976). Another study found that managerial skill in handling conflict was a major predictor of managerial success and effectiveness (J. Graves, 1983).
There are many ways to determine conflict as it relates to the workplace. C onflict is the process by which individuals or groups react to other entities that have frustrated, or are about to frustrate, their plans, goals, beliefs, or activities. In other words, conflict involves situations in which the expectations or actual goal-directed behaviors of one person or group are blocked—or about to be blocked—by another person or group. Hence, if a sales representative cannot secure enough funds to mount what she considers to be an effective sales campaign, conflict can ensue. Similarly, if one sales associate gets promoted and another does not , conflict can emerge. Finally, if a company finds it necessary to lay off valued employees because of difficult financial conditions, conflict can occur. Many such examples can be identified; in each, a situation emerges in which someone or some group cannot do what it wants to do (for whatever reason) and responds by experiencing an inner frustration.
Exploring Conflict in the Workplace
Over the past several years at Google, 48 people have been terminated for sexual harassment. There is a firm policy at Google pertaining to this type of misconduct, but when the effects of these types of events cause an uproar based on reports that a former top executive was paid millions of dollars after leaving Google despite misconduct and harassment allegations, it’s important to get to the point of conflict and face it head-on.
That’s exactly why Chief Executive Officer Sundar Pichai did just that. In an attempt to get ahead of the storm, Pichai wrote an email explaining that none of the individuals that were asked to leave were given severance packages. Despite this, employees are still feeling upset over such claims.
“The culture of stigmatization and silence *enables* the abuse by making it harder to speak up and harder to be believed,” Liz Fong-Jones, who is quoted in the Times ’s story, wrote on Twitter. “It’s the abuse of power relationships in situations where there was no consent or consent was impossible.”
After the article came out in the New York Times reporting that Google gave Andy Rubin, former Android chief, a $90 million exit package, it was not just employees that were upset; there was external conflict between the company and Rubin. The media was heavily involved, including Bloomberg, and Rubin used social channels as well, making it even more complicated to counteract the negative comments or come to a resolution. Since the reports of Rubin’s actions as well as additional reports regarding Google’s permissive culture became public, Google has taken actions to update its policy on relationship disclosure.
This stance from the Google executive team is just one step in the right direction to address a culture that suggests a high level of conflict due to the protection of executives over the safety and well-being of the employees, who may be less likely to report incidents of abuse of power.
Sources: A. Barr, “Google CEO Tries to Calm Staff After Executive Misconduct Report,” Bloomberg , October 25, 2018, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...conduct-report ; D. Wakabayashi and K. Benner, “How Google Protected Andy Rubin, the ‘Father of Android’,” New York Times , October 25, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/t...ndy-rubin.html ; A. Panchadar, “Alphabet Harassment,” New York Times, October 25, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018...arassment.html .
In all organizations, including Google, some conflict is inevitable. Simply making a decision to do A instead of B often alienates the supporters of B , despite the soundness of the reasons behind the decision. Moreover, the consequences of conflict (and failed negotiations) can be costly to an organization, whether the conflict is between labor and management, groups, individuals, or nations. In an era of increasing business competition both from abroad and at home, reducing conflict is important. For these reasons, contemporary managers need a firm grasp of the dynamics of conflict and negotiation processes.
Benefits of Team Conflict
There are many sources of conflict for a team, whether it is due to a communication breakdown, competing views or goals, power struggles, or conflicts between different personalities. The perception is that conflict is generally bad for a team and that it will inevitably bring the team down and cause them to spiral out of control and off track. Conflict does have some potential costs. If handled poorly, it can create distrust within a group, it can be disruptive to group progress and morale, and it could be detrimental to building lasting relationships. It is generally seen as a negative, even though constructive conflicts and constructive responses to conflicts can be an important developmental milestone for a team. Some potential benefits of conflict are that it encourages a greater diversity of ideas and perspectives and helps people to better understand opposing points of view. It can also enhance a team’s problem-solving capability and can highlight critical points of discussion and contention that need to be given more thought.
Another key benefit or outcome of conflict is that a team that trusts each other—its members and members’ intentions—will arise from conflict being a stronger and higher-performing team. Patrick Lencioni, in his bestselling book The Five Dysfunctions of a Team (2002, p. 188), writes:
“The first dysfunction is an absence of trust among team members. Essentially, this stems from their unwillingness to be vulnerable within the group. Team members who are not genuinely open with one another about their mistakes and weaknesses make it impossible to build a foundation for trust. This failure to build trust is damaging because it sets the tone for the second dysfunction: fear of conflict. Teams that lack trust are incapable of engaging in unfiltered and passionate debate of ideas. Instead, they resort to veiled discussions and guarded comments.”
Lencioni also asserts that if a team doesn’t work through its conflict and air its opinions through debate, team members will never really be able to buy in and commit to decisions. (This lack of commitment is Lencioni’s third dysfunction.) Teams often have a fear of conflict so as not to hurt any team members’ feelings. The downside of this avoidance is that conflicts still exist under the surface and may resurface in more insidious and back-channel ways that can derail a team. How can a team overcome its fear of conflict and move the team forward?
The Five Dysfunctions of Team is a team development model that explores the fundamental causes of organizational politics and team failure. Initially applied in business and corporate settings, it is now increasingly popular in the context of Sport. To learn more about this model visit Lencioni's video at https://youtu.be/GCxct4CR-To
Lencioni names a few strategies that teams can use to make conflict more common and productive. Mining is a technique that can be used in teams that tend to avoid conflict. This technique requires that one team member to discover disagreements that not obvious. Real-time permission is a technique that can help the group to focus on the points of conflict by coaching the team not to ignore uncomfortable situations.
The team leader plays a very important role in the team’s ability to address and navigate successfully through conflicts. Sometimes a leader will have the attitude that conflict is a derailer and will try to stymie it at any cost. This ultimately leads to a team culture in which conflict is avoided and the underlying feelings are allowed to accumulate below the surface of the discussion. The leader should, by contrast, model the appropriate behavior by constructively addressing conflict and bringing issues to the surface to be addressed and resolved by the team. This is key to building a successful and effective team.
There are a variety of individual responses to conflict that you may see as a team member. Some people take the constructive and thoughtful path when conflicts arise, while others may jump immediately to destructive behaviors. In Managing Conflict Dynamics: A Practical Approach , Capobianco, Davis, and Kraus (2005) recognized that there are both constructive and destructive responses to conflict, as well as active and passive responses that we need to recognize. They believe that in the event of team conflict, the goal is to have a constructive response in order to encourage dialogue, learning, and resolution. Responses such as perspective-taking, creating solutions, expressing emotions, and reaching out are considered active and constructive responses to conflict. Reflective thinking, delay responding, and adapting are considered passive and constructive responses to conflict. See the chart below for a visual of the constructive responses, as well as the destructive responses, to conflict.
Figure 6.3: Responses to Conflict (Attribution: Copyright Rice University, OpenStax, under CC-BY 4.0 license)
Conflict is never easy for an individual or a team to navigate through, but it can and should be done. Illuminating the team about areas of conflict and differing perspectives can have a very positive impact on the growth and future performance of the team, and it should be managed constructively.
Types of Conflict
If we are to try to understand the roots of conflict, we need to know what type of conflict is present. At least four types of conflict can be identified:
- Goal conflict occurs when one person or group desires a different outcome than others do. This is simply a clash over whose goals are going to be pursued.
- Cognitive conflict results when one person or group holds ideas or opinions that are inconsistent with those of others. This type of conflict is evident in political debates.
- Affective conflict emerges when one person’s or group’s feelings or emotions (attitudes) are incompatible with those of others. Affective conflict is seen in situations where two individuals simply don’t get along with each other.
- Behavioral conflict exists when one person or group does something (i.e., behaves in a certain way) that is unacceptable to others. Dressing for work in a way that “offends” others and using profane language are examples of behavioral conflict.
Each of these types of conflict is usually triggered by different factors, and each can lead to very different responses by the individual or group.
Levels of Conflict
In addition to different types of conflict, there exist several different levels of conflict. Level refers to the number of individuals involved in the conflict. That is, is the conflict within just one person, between two people, or between two or more groups. Both the causes of a conflict and the most effective means to resolve it can be affected by level.
- Intrapersonal conflict is conflict within one person. We often hear about someone who has an approach-avoidance conflict; that is, she is both attracted to and repelled by the same object. Similarly, a person can be attracted to two equally appealing alternatives, such as two good job offers (approach-approach conflict) or repelled by two equally unpleasant alternatives, such as the threat of being fired if one fails to identify a coworker guilty of breaking plant rules (avoidance-avoidance conflict). In any case, the conflict is within the individual.
- Interpersonal conflict. Conflict can also take form in an interpersonal conflict, where two individuals disagree on some matter. For example, you can have an argument with a coworker over an issue of mutual concern. Such conflicts often tend to get highly personal because only two parties are involved and each person embodies the opposing position in the conflict. Hence, it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between the opponent’s position and her person.
-
Intergroup conflict
usually involves disagreements between two opposing forces over goals or the sharing of resources. For example, we often see conflict between the marketing and production units within a corporation as each vies for more resources to accomplish its subgoals. Intergroup conflict is typically the most complicated form of conflict because of the number of individuals involved. Coalitions form within and between groups, and an “us-against-them” mentality develops. Here, too, is an opportunity for groupthink to develop and thrive.
The Positive and Negative Sides of Conflict
People often assume that all conflict is necessarily bad and should be eliminated. On the contrary, there are some circumstances in which a moderate amount of conflict can be helpful. For instance, conflict can lead to the search for new ideas and new mechanisms as solutions to organizational problems. Conflict can stimulate innovation and change. It can also facilitate employee motivation in cases where employees feel a need to excel and, as a result, push themselves in order to meet performance objectives.
Conflict can at times help individuals and group members grow and develop self-identities. As noted by Coser (1956):
Conflict, which aims at a resolution of tension between antagonists, is likely to have stabilizing and integrative functions for the relationship. By permitting immediate and direct expression of rival claims, such social systems are able to readjust their structures by eliminating their sources of dissatisfaction. The multiple conflicts which they experience may serve to eliminate the causes for dissociation and to reestablish unity. These systems avail themselves, through the toleration and institutionalization of conflict, of an important stabilizing mechanism.
Conflict can, on the other hand, have negative consequences for both individuals and organizations when people divert energies away from performance and goal attainment and direct them toward resolving the conflict. Continued conflict can take a heavy toll in terms of psychological well-being. As we will see in the next chapter, conflict has a major influence on stress and the psychophysical consequences of stress. Finally, continued conflict can also affect the social climate of the group and inhibit group cohesiveness.
Thus, conflict can be either functional or dysfunctional in work situations depending upon the nature of the conflict, its intensity, and its duration. Indeed, both too much and too little conflict can lead to a variety of negative outcomes, as discussed above. In such circumstances, a moderate amount of conflict may be the best course of action. The issue for management, therefore, is not how to eliminate conflict but rather how to manage and resolve it when it occurs.
Causes of Conflict
A number of factors are known to facilitate organizational conflict under certain circumstances. In summarizing the literature, Robert Miles (1980) points to several specific examples. These are as follows:
Task Interdependencies. In essence, the greater the extent of task interdependence among individuals or groups (that is, the more they have to work together or collaborate to accomplish a goal), the greater the likelihood of conflict if different expectations or goals exist among entities, in part because the interdependence makes avoiding the conflict more difficult. This occurs in part because high task interdependency heightens the intensity of relationships. Hence, a small disagreement can very quickly get blown up into a major issue.
Status Inconsistencies. For example, managers in many organizations have the prerogative to take personal time off during workdays to run errands, and so forth, whereas nonmanagerial personnel do not. Consider the effects this can have on the nonmanagers’ view of organizational policies and fairness. Likewise, a student team in a course may have one member who uses their job or other course work as a reason to miss deadlines or meetings. By not respecting that their teammates also have other responsibilities, this member creates a higher status for themselves and rightly so, this often leads to conflict among the teammates who are left to do more than their share of the work.
Jurisdictional Ambiguities are situations where it is unclear exactly where responsibility for something lies. For example, many organizations use an employee selection procedure in which applicants are evaluated both by the personnel department and by the department in which the applicant would actually work. Because both departments are involved in the hiring process, what happens when one department wants to hire an individual, but the other department does not?
Communication Problems. When one person misunderstands a message or when information is withheld, the person often responds with frustration and anger.
Dependence on Common Resource Pool. Whenever several departments must compete for scarce resources, conflict is almost inevitable. When resources are limited, a situation can exist in which someone wins and, invariably, someone loses.
Lack of Common Performance Standards. Differences in performance criteria and reward systems provide more potential for organizational conflict. This often occurs because of a lack of common performance standards among different groups within the same organization. For example, production personnel are often rewarded for their efficiency, and this efficiency is facilitated by the long-term production of a few products. Sales departments, on the other hand, are rewarded for their short-term response to market changes—often at the expense of long-term production efficiency. In such situations, conflict arises as each unit attempts to meet its own performance criteria.
Individual Differences. Finally, a variety of individual differences, such as personal abilities, traits, and skills, can influence in no small way the nature of interpersonal relations. Individual dominance, aggressiveness, authoritarianism, and tolerance for ambiguity all seem to influence how an individual deals with potential conflict. Indeed, such characteristics may determine whether or not conflict is created at all.
A Model of the Conflict Process
Having examined specific factors that are known to facilitate conflict, we can ask how conflict comes about in organizations. The most commonly accepted model of the conflict process was developed by Kenneth Thomas (1967). This model consists of four stages: (1) frustration, (2) conceptualization, (3) behavior, and (4) outcome.
Stage 1: Frustration. As we have seen, conflict situations originate when an individual or group feels frustration in the pursuit of important goals. This frustration may be caused by a wide variety of factors, including disagreement over performance goals, failure to get a promotion or pay raise, a fight over scarce economic resources, new rules or policies, and so forth. In fact, conflict can be traced to frustration over almost anything a group or individual cares about.
Stage 2: Conceptualization. In stage 2, the conceptualization stage of the model, parties to the conflict attempt to understand the nature of the problem, what they themselves want as a resolution, what they think their opponents want as a resolution, and various strategies they feel each side may employ in resolving the conflict. This stage is really the problem-solving and strategy phase. For instance, when management and union negotiate a labor contract, both sides attempt to decide what is most important and what can be bargained away in exchange for these priority needs.
Stage 3: Behavior. The third stage in Thomas’s model is actual behavior . As a result of the conceptualization process, parties to a conflict attempt to implement their resolution mode by competing or accommodating in the hope of resolving problems. A major task here is determining how best to proceed strategically. That is, what tactics will the party use to attempt to resolve the conflict? Thomas has identified five modes for conflict resolution. These are (1) competing, (2) collaborating, (3) compromising, (4) avoiding, and (5) accommodating.
The choice of an appropriate conflict resolution mode depends to a great extent on the situation and the goals of the party. Each party must decide the extent to which it is interested in satisfying its own concerns—called assertiveness —and the extent to which it is interested in helping satisfy the opponent’s concerns—called cooperativeness . Assertiveness can range from assertive to unassertive on one continuum, and cooperativeness can range from uncooperative to cooperative on the other continuum.
Once the parties have determined their desired balance between the two competing concerns—either consciously or unconsciously—the resolution strategy emerges. For example, if a union negotiator feels confident she can win on an issue that is of primary concern to union members (e.g., wages), a direct competition mode may be chosen. On the other hand, when the union is indifferent to an issue or when it actually supports management’s concerns (e.g., plant safety), we would expect an accommodating or collaborating mode (on the right-hand side of the Five Modes of Resolving Conflict table).
Stage 4: Outcome. Finally, as a result of efforts to resolve the conflict, both sides determine the extent to which a satisfactory resolution or outcome has been achieved. Where one party to the conflict does not feel satisfied or feels only partially satisfied, the seeds of discontent are sown for a later conflict. One unresolved conflict episode can easily set the stage for a second episode. Managerial action aimed at achieving quick and satisfactory resolution is vital; failure to initiate such action leaves the possibility (more accurately, the probability) that new conflicts will soon emerge.
Five Modes of Resolving Conflict
| Modes | Situation |
| Competing |
|
| Collaborating |
|
| Compromising |
|
| Avoiding |
|
| Accommodating |
|
Table 6.2: Adapted from K. W. Thomas, “Toward Multidimensional Values in Teaching: The Example of Conflict Behaviors,” Academy of Management Review 2 (1977), Table 1, p. 487
How to Achieve Conflict Negotiation Through a Mutually Advantageous Agreement
We have discovered that conflict is pervasive throughout organizations and that some conflict can be good for organizations. People often grow and learn from conflict, as long as the conflict is not dysfunctional. The challenge for managers is to select a resolution strategy appropriate to the situation and individuals involved. A review of past management practice in this regard reveals that managers often make poor strategy choices. As often as not, managers select repressive or ineffective conflict resolution strategies.
Common Strategies that Seldom Work
These five ineffective strategies are often associated with an avoidance approach and are described below.
Nonaction. Perhaps the most common managerial response when conflict emerges is nonaction —doing nothing and ignoring the problem. It may be felt that if the problem is ignored, it will go away. Unfortunately, that is not often the case. In fact, ignoring the problem may serve only to increase the frustration and anger of the parties involved.
Administrative Orbiting. In some cases, managers will acknowledge that a problem exists but then take little serious action. Instead, they continually report that a problem is “under study” or that “more information is needed.” Telling a person who is experiencing a serious conflict that “these things take time” hardly relieves anyone’s anxiety or solves any problems. This ineffective strategy for resolving conflict is aptly named administrative orbiting .
Due Process Nonaction. A third ineffective approach to resolving conflict is to set up a recognized procedure for redressing grievances but at the same time to ensure that the procedure is long, complicated, costly, and perhaps even risky. The due process nonaction strategy is to wear down the dissatisfied employee while at the same time claiming that resolution procedures are open and available. This technique has been used repeatedly in conflicts involving race and sex discrimination.
Secrecy. Oftentimes, managers will attempt to reduce conflict through secrecy . Some feel that by taking secretive actions, controversial decisions can be carried out with a minimum of resistance. One argument for pay secrecy (keeping employee salaries secret) is that such a policy makes it more difficult for employees to feel inequitably treated. Essentially, this is a “what they don’t know won’t hurt them” strategy. A major problem of this approach is that it leads to distrust of management. When managerial credibility is needed for other issues, it may be found lacking.
Character Assassination. The final ineffective resolution technique to be discussed here is character assassination . The person with a conflict, perhaps a woman claiming sex discrimination, is labeled a “troublemaker.” Attempts are made to discredit her and distance her from the others in the group. The implicit strategy here is that if the person can be isolated and stigmatized, she will either be silenced by negative group pressures or she will leave. In either case, the problem is “solved.”
Strategies for Preventing Conflict
On the more positive side, there are many things managers can do to reduce or actually solve dysfunctional conflict when it occurs. These fall into two categories: actions directed at conflict prevention and actions directed at conflict reduction . We shall start by examining conflict prevention techniques, because preventing conflict is often easier than reducing it once it begins. These include:
- Emphasizing organization-wide goals and effectiveness. Focusing on organization-wide goals and objectives should prevent goal conflict. If larger goals are emphasized, employees are more likely to see the big picture and work together to achieve corporate goals.
- Providing stable, well-structured tasks. When work activities are clearly defined, understood, and accepted by employees, conflict should be less likely to occur. Conflict is most likely to occur when task uncertainty is high; specifying or structuring jobs minimizes ambiguity.
- Facilitating intergroup communication. Misperception of the abilities, goals, and motivations of others often leads to conflict, so efforts to increase the dialogue among groups and to share information should help eliminate conflict. As groups come to know more about one another, suspicions often diminish, and greater intergroup teamwork becomes possible.
- Avoiding win-lose situations. If win-lose situations are avoided, less potential for conflict exists. When resources are scarce, management can seek some form of resource sharing to achieve organizational effectiveness. Moreover, rewards can be given for contributions to overall corporate objectives; this will foster a climate in which groups seek solutions acceptable to all.
These points bear a close resemblance to descriptions of the so-called Japanese management style. In Japanese firms, considerable effort is invested in preventing conflict. In this way, more energy is available for constructive efforts toward task accomplishment and competition in the marketplace. Strategies for Reducing Conflict
Where dysfunctional conflict already exists, something must be done, and managers may pursue one of at least two general approaches: they can try to change employee attitudes, or they can try to change employee behaviors . If they change behavior, open conflict is often reduced, but team members may still dislike one another; the conflict simply becomes less visible. Changing attitudes, on the other hand, often leads to fundamental changes in the ways that team members get along. However, it also takes considerably longer to accomplish than behavior change because it requires a fundamental change in social perceptions.
- Physical separation . The quickest and easiest solution to conflict is physical separation. Separation is useful when conflicting team members are not working on a joint task or do not need a high degree of interaction. Though this approach does not encourage members to change their attitudes, it does provide time to seek a better accommodation.
- Use of rules and regulations. Conflict can also be reduced through the increasing specification of rules, regulations, and procedures. This approach, also known as the bureaucratic method, imposes solutions on teams from above. Again, however, basic attitudes are not modified.
- Confrontation and negotiation. In this approach, competing parties are brought together face-to-face to discuss their basic areas of disagreement. The hope is that through open discussion and negotiation , means can be found to work out problems. Contract negotiations between union and management represent one such example. If a “win-win” solution can be identified through these negotiations, the chances of an acceptable resolution of the conflict increase.
- Third-party consultation . In some cases, it is helpful to bring in outside consultants for third-party consultation who understand human behavior and can facilitate a resolution. A third-party consultant not only serves as a go-between but can speak more directly to the issues, because she is not a member of either group.
- Rotation of members. By rotating from one group to another, individuals come to understand the frames of reference, values, and attitudes of other members; communication is thus increased. When those rotated are accepted by the receiving groups, change in attitudes as well as behavior becomes possible. This is clearly a long-term technique, as it takes time to develop good interpersonal relations and understanding among group members.
-
Use of training.
The final technique on the continuum is team training. Training experts are retained on a long-term basis to help teams develop relatively permanent mechanisms for working together. Structured workshops and training programs can help forge more favorable attitudes and, as a result, more constructive behavior.
Recognize and Respond to Cultural Differences in Negotiation and Bargaining Strategies
We have seen the central role conflict plays in organizational processes. Clearly, there are some areas where managers would prefer to solve a problem between two parties before it results in high levels of conflict. This is usually accomplished through negotiation. Negotiation is the process by which individuals or groups attempt to realize their goals by bargaining with another party who has at least some control over goal attainment. Throughout the negotiation process, considerable skill in communication, decision-making, and the use of power and politics is required in order to succeed.
In general, negotiation and bargaining are likely to have four stages: Non-task time, information exchange, include and persuasion, and closing.
- Non-task time. During the first stage, the participants focus on getting to know and become comfortable with each other and do not focus directly on the task or issue of the negotiation. In cultures such as ours, this stage is often filled with small talk. However, it is usually not very long and is not seen as important as other stages. North Americans use phrases such as “Let’s get down to business,” “I know you’re busy, so let’s get right to it,” and “Let’s not beat around the bush.” However, in other cultures such as Mexico or South Korea, the non-task stage is often longer and of more importance, because it is during this stage the relationship is established. In these cultures, it is the relationship more than the contract that determines the extent to which each party can trust the other to fulfill its obligations.
- Information exchange. The second stage of negotiations involves the exchange of background and general information. During this stage, participants may, for example, provide overviews of their company and its history. In Japan, this is an important stage because specific proposals or agreements must be considered and decided in the larger context. The information exchanged during the second stage provides this larger context.
- Influence and persuasion . The third stage involves efforts to influence and persuade the other side. Generally, these efforts are designed to get the other party to reduce its demands or desires and to increase its acceptance of your demands or desires. There are a wide variety of influence tactics, including promises, threats, questions, and so on. The use of these tactics as well as their effectiveness is a function of several factors. First, the perceived or real power of one party relative to another is an important factor. For example, if one party is the only available supplier of a critical component, then threatening to go to a new supplier of that component unless the price is reduced is unlikely to be an effective influence tactic. Second, the effectiveness of a particular influence tactic is also a function of accepted industry and cultural norms. For example, if threats are an unacceptable form of influence, then their use could lead to consequences opposite from what is desired by the initiator of such tactics.
- Closing . The final stage of any negotiation is the closing. The closing may result in an acceptable agreement between the parties involved or it may result in failure to reach an agreement. The symbols that represent the close of a negotiation vary across cultures. For example, in the United States, a signed contract is the symbol of a closed negotiation. At that point, “a deal is a deal” and failure to abide by the contents of the document is considered a breach of contract. In China, however, there is not the strong legal history or perspective that exists in the United States, and a signed document is not necessarily a symbol of the close of the negotiations. In fact, to some extent it symbolizes the beginning of the final points of negotiation. The signed document identifies the key issues that still need to be negotiated despite the fact that it may contain specific obligations for the involved parties concerning these issues. Quite simply, even though the document may obligate one party to deliver a product on a certain day and obligate the other party to pay a certain price for delivery, the document itself does not symbolize that the negotiation concerning these specifics is closed.
Each of these four stages and the sequence described above are common across most situations and cultures. However, the length of time devoted to each stage, the importance of each stage, and the specific behaviors associated with each stage can vary by situation and certainly do vary by culture.
Bargaining Strategies
Within the context of these four stages, both parties must select an appropriate strategy that they believe will assist them in the attainment of their objectives. In general, two rather distinct approaches to negotiation can be identified. These are distributive bargaining and integrative bargaining .
Distributive Bargaining. In essence, distributive bargaining is “win-lose” bargaining. That is, the goals of one party are in fundamental and direct conflict with those of the other party. Resources are fixed and limited, and each party wants to maximize her share of these resources. Finally, in most cases, this situation represents a short-term relationship between the two parties. In fact, such parties may not see each other ever again.
A good example of this can be seen in the relationship between the buyer and seller of a house. If the buyer gets the house for less money (that is, she “wins”), the seller also gets less (that is, she “loses”). This win-lose situation can also be seen in classes where the professor insists on grading on a specified curve. If your friends get an A, there are fewer As to go around, and your chances are diminished.
Integrative Bargaining. Integrative bargaining is often described as the “win-win” approach. That is, with this technique, both parties try to reach a settlement that benefits both parties. Such an approach is often predicated on the belief that if people mutually try to solve the problem, they can identify some creative solutions that help everyone.
This approach is characterized by the existence of variable resources to be divided, efforts to maximize joint outcomes, and the desire to establish or maintain a long-term relationship. The interests of the two parties may be convergent (noncompetitive, such as preventing a trade war between two countries) or congruent (mutually supportive, as when two countries reach a mutual defense pact).
In both cases, bargaining tactics are quite different from those typically found in distributive bargaining. Here, both sides must be able and willing to understand the viewpoints of the other party. Otherwise, they will not know where possible consensus lies. Moreover, the free flow of information is required. Obviously, some degree of trust is required here too. In discussions, emphasis is placed on identifying communalities between the two parties; the differences are played down. And, finally, the search for a solution focuses on selecting those courses of action that meet the goals and objectives of both sides. This approach requires considerably more time and energy than distributive bargaining, yet, under certain circumstances, it has the potential to lead to far more creative and long-lasting solutions.
The Negotiation Process
The negotiation process consists of identifying one’s desired goals—that is, what you are trying to get out of the exchange—and then developing suitable strategies aimed at reaching those goals. A key feature of one’s strategy is knowing one’s relative position in the bargaining process. That is, depending upon your relative position or strength, you may want to negotiate seriously or you may want to tell your opponent to “take it or leave it.” The dynamics of bargaining power can be extrapolated directly from power and indicate several conditions affecting this choice. For example, you may wish to negotiate when you value the exchange, when you value the relationship, and when commitment to the issue is high. In the opposite situation, you may be indifferent to serious bargaining.
Once goals and objectives have been clearly established and the bargaining strategy is set, time is required to develop a suitable plan of action. Research indicates that planning ahead and following such procedures does, in fact, lead to more successful bargaining. Planning for negotiation requires a clear assessment of your own strengths and weaknesses as well as those of your opponents. Roy Lewicki and Joseph Litterer have suggested a format for preparation for negotiation. According to this format, planning for negotiation should proceed through the following phases:
- Understand the basic nature of the conflict. What are the primary areas of agreement and disagreement?
- What exactly do you want out of this negotiation? What are your goals?
-
How will you manage the negotiation process? Here, several issues should be recognized:
- Identify the primary issues to negotiate.
- Prioritize these issues.
- Develop a desirable package including these important issues.
- Establish an agenda.
-
Do you understand your opponent?
- What are your opponent’s current resources and needs?
- What is the history of your opponent’s bargaining behavior? What patterns can you see that can help you predict her moves?
Sources: Ibid.; R. J. Lewicki, B. Barry, and D. M. Saunders, Essentials of Negotiation , (New York, N.Y., McGraw Hill, 2016), M. Baserman, “Why Negotiations Go Wrong,” Psychology Today, June 1986, pp. 54–58; J. Graham and Y. Sano, Smart Bargaining (New York: Harper & Row, 1989).
Salary Negotiation Exercise
Janice just graduated college, she’s ready to head out on her own and get that first job, and she’s through her first interviews. She receives an offer of a $28,000 salary, including benefits from COLLEGE CORP, from an entry-level marketing position that seems like a perfect fit. She is thrown off by the salary they are offering and knows that it is lower than what she was hoping for. Instead of panicking, she takes the advice of her mentor and does a little research to know what the market range for the salary is for her area. She feels better after doing this, knowing that she was correct and the offer is low compared to the market rate. After understanding more about the offer and the rates, she goes back to the HR representative and asks for her preferred rate of $32,500, knowing the minimum that she would accept is $30,000. Instead of going in for her lowest amount, she started higher to be open to negotiations with the company. She also sent a note regarding her expertise that warranted why she asked for that salary. To her happy surprise, the company counter-offered at $31,000—and she accepted.
What do you think?
- What key points of Janice’s negotiation led to her success?
- What could have Janice done better to get a better outcome for her salary?
Sources: “Good & Bad Salary Negotiations,” Salary.com , April 19, 2018, https://www.salary.com/articles/good...-negotiations/ ; M. Herner, “5 Things HR Wishes You Knew About Salary Negotiation,” Payscale.com , accessed October 21, 2018, https://www.payscale.com/salary-nego...n-tips-from-hr .
General Group Work, Team Work, Cultural Intelligence, and Conflict Resolution Tips
Writing plays an important role in the function of any organization. In some organizations, it becomes more important than in others. At Procter & Gamble, for example, brand managers cannot raise a work-related issue in a team meeting unless the ideas are first circulated in writing. For P&G managers, this approach means explaining their ideas in explicit detail in a standard one-to-three-page memo, complete with background, financial discussion, implementation details, and justification for the ideas proposed.
Other organizations are more oral in their traditions—3M Canada is a “spoken” organization—but the fact remains: the most important projects, decisions, and ideas end up in writing. Writing also provides analysis, justification, documentation, and analytic discipline, particularly as managers approach important decisions that will affect the profitability and strategic direction of the company.
To be an effective member of a team:
- Define your interests and strengths as related to the task
- Participate in the process
- Gather information, conduct research, and bring ideas to all group meetings
- Approve deadlines for each task
- Complete all assigned tasks
- Approve or provide input of the final outcome
- Have an open mind
- Be encouraging and helpful
- Be an active listener
All links live as of July 2021.
References
Baserman, M. (June 1986) “Why Negotiations Go Wrong,” Psychology Today, 54–58.
Brett, J., Behfar, K., Kern, M. (2007) “ Managing Multicultural Teams ”, Harvard Business Review .
Capobianco, S., Davis, M. & Kraus, L., (2003) Managing Conflict Dynamics: A Practical Approach. Eckerd College.
Coser, L. (1956). The Functions of Social Conflict New York: Free Press, 154.
Earley, P.C. & Mosakowski, E. (2004) "Cultural Intelligence," Harvard Business Review .
Feldman, D. (Jan 1984). “The Development and Enforcement of Group Norms,” Academy of Management Review, 47–53.
Graves, J. (1978) “Successful Management and Organizational Mugging,” in J. Paap ed., New Directions in Human Resource Management. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Hackman, J. and C. Morris, (1975). "Group Tasks, Group Interaction Process, and Group Performance Effectiveness: A Review and Proposed Integration." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 8 , 45-99.
Hare, A. P., Borgatta, E. F., & Bales, R. F. (1965). Small groups: Studies in social interaction. Alfred A. Knopf.
Jackson, J. & Harkins, S. (Nov. 1985). “Equity in Effort: An Explanation of the Social Loafing Effect,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1199–1206.
Katzenbach, J. & Smith, D. (2005) “ The Discipline of Teams”, Harvard Business Review
Latane, B., Williams, K. & S. Harkins, S. (June 1979). “Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 822–832;
Lewicki, R., Barry, B. & Saunders, D. (2016) Essentials of Negotiation , New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Lencioni, P. (2002) Five Dysfunctions of a Team , New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Lee, Y. & Liao, Y. (2015). “Cultural Competence: Why It Matters and How You Can Acquire It," IESE Insight, 8 pp.
Lorenzo, R., Yoigt, N., Schetelig, K., Zawadzki, A., Welpe, I, Brosi, P. (April 2017).“The Mix that Matters: Innovation Through Diversity”, Boston Consulting Group .
McDavid, J. W. & Harari, H. (1968). Social Psychology: Individuals, Groups, and Societies. New York: Harper & Row, 478.
Miles, R. (1980). Macro Organizational Behavior. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman
Mitchell, T. R., & Silver, W. S. (1990). Individual and group goals when workers are interdependent: Effects on task strategies and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75 (2), 185–193.
Neeley, T. (2014) "Getting Cross-Cultural Teams Right," Harvard Business Review .
Rahim, M. (1983). “A Measure of Styles of Handling Interpersonal Conflict,” Academy of Management Journal, 368–376.
Rock, D & Grant, H. (2016) “ Why Diverse Teams are Smarter ”, Harvard Business Review .
Sh
aw, M. (1991) Group Dynamics, New York: McGraw-Hill, 97.Thomas, K. & Pondy, L. (1967).“Toward and Intent Model of Conflict Management Among Principal Parties,” Human Relations, 1967, 30, 1089–1102.
Thomas, K. & Schmidt, W. (1976).“A Survey of Managerial Interests with Respect to Conflict,” Academy of Management Journal, 315–318.
Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63 (6), 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100
This work "Collaboration, Cultural Intelligence, and Conflict Resolution" is a derivative of " Organizational Behavior " by J. Stewart Black & David S. Bright for OpenStax licensed under CC BY 4.0 and a derivative of "Groupwork, Team Work, Cultural Intelligence, and Conflict Resolution" by Mary Richards for Libretext licensed under CC BY 4.0 . “Collaboration, Cultural Intelligence, and Conflict Resolution” is licensed under CC BY by Valerie A. Gray .