There are three distinct types of conflict: relationship, task, and process conflict (see Exhibit 8-1).4

Relationship conflict is personal, defensive, and resentful. Also known as A-type conflict , emotional conflict , or affective conflict , 5 it is rooted in anger, personal friction, personality clashes, ego, and tension. This is the type of conflict that most team leaders and team members try to avoid. Relationship conflict is more depleting and exhausting than other types of conflict.6 For example, relationship conflict was behind the resignation of senior staffers in Newt Gingrich’s 2012 presidential campaign. Angry staffers resigned en masse because they were frustrated with Gingrich’s wife Callista and her prominent role in the campaign.7

Relationship conflict is not always expressed via open shouting matches. In fact, some people go to great lengths to avoid the overt expression of conflict. For example, Argyris describes a case in which lower-level managers identified a number of serious production and marketing problems in their company.8 They told the middle managers, and once the middle managers were convinced that the situation described by the lower managers was actually true, they began to release some of the bad news, but they did so carefully, in measured doses. They managed their communications carefully to make certain they were “covered” if upper management became upset. The result was that top management was never fully apprised of the problems—rather, they received a strangely edited view of the problem. Top management, therefore, continued to speak glowingly about the product, partially to ensure that it would get the financial backing it needed from within the company. Lower-level managers became confused and eventually depressed because they could not understand why top management continued to support the product. Their reaction was to reduce the frequency of their memos and the intensity of the alarm they expressed, while simultaneously turning the problem over to middle management.

Some people are motivated to search for information regarding whether other team members have threatened or harmed them. Persons who are high in motivation to acquire relationship-threatening information, or MARTI , make more sinister attributions about their coworkers and are more likely to exclude prospective group members from joining their group and plan to reject them if they do become members.9 Examples of the types of statements that people high in MARTI endorse include the following: “I like working in groups and have often worked with other people in a group setting. However, I am always interested to know whether others in the group have said unkind or unfair things about me without me knowing about it” and “I want to know whether co-workers have said harmful things about me to other people in or outside the group.”

Task conflict , or cognitive conflict , is largely depersonalized; also known as C-type conflict , it consists of argumentation about the merits of ideas, plans, and projects. People who strongly identify with their group are more likely to speak up and show dissent if and when they perceive harm to the group’s welfare.10 In some situations, task conflict can be effective in stimulating creativity because it encourages people to rethink problems and arrive at outcomes that everyone can live with. For example, when the majority is confronted by the differing opinions of minorities, they are prompted to think about why the minority disagrees and in so doing, generate more novel ideas.11 Further, people who engage in task-related communication cooperate more in mixed-motive situations because talking about the task activates thoughts and norms related to fairness and trust.12

Process conflict centers on disagreements that team members have about how to approach a task and specifically, who should do what. Process conflict often involves disagreements among team members as to how to achieve a goal. At GE, process conflict ran high within the cross-functional team developing the Durathon molten salt battery.13 Six Sigma manufacturing experts repeatedly clashed with team members who wanted to rush out prototypes of batteries for market beta-testing. The team went through some very serious fights, such as when the first battery sent to a customer broke during shipment.

Proportional conflict occurs when team members have different ideas about the amount and type of conflict that exists in their group. In any team, for example, there may be differing actual levels of relationship, task, and process conflict and the relative levels of such conflicts are crucial aspects for team leaders to understand as they affect task performance.14 Proportional conflict composition describes the relationship among the three types of conflict (task, relationship, and process) as the level of each type of conflict proportional to the other two and to the overall level of conflict within the group, rather than as an absolute level or amount of any one type. Consider the following example offered by Jehn and Chatman: A team that experiences a moderate amount of constructive task conflict and no other conflict (no relationship or process conflict) will have a different experience than will members of another group with not only the same amount of task conflict but also a high proportional level of relationship conflict.15 In the former group, members should experience less stress, less distraction, and less anger, which are frequent consequences of relationship conflict16 as compared to members of the group containing more moderate levels of task and relationship conflict. Indeed, teams with a high proportion of task conflict experience a higher level of team member commitment, cohesiveness, individual performance, group performance, and member satisfaction. In contrast, a high proportion of relationship conflict is negatively related to member commitment, cohesiveness, individual performance, group performance, and member satisfaction.

Perceptual Conflict refers to the extent to which there is agreement or a lack thereof, in terms of whether team members perceive conflict. Perceptual conflict composition is the degree to which each person in a team perceives levels of conflict differently compared to other team members.17 Specifically, each member’s perceptions of conflict are compared to all other members’ perceptions of the group. Jehn and Chatman give the following example: Two team members in an eight-person team perceive arguments in the group pertaining to the task while the other six members do not detect such conflict.18 These two members have a larger perceptual conflict composition score than those members who believe that there is no task conflict. A study of 51 workgroups revealed that perceptual conflict (differences in the perceptions of conflict) decreased team performance and creativity in teams.19

Power is not always evenly distributed among teams in organizations. Some teams have more power and influence within the organization than do other teams. Team power refers to the control of resources that enables a team to influence others in the organization. How does power affect conflict? Process conflict is higher in high-power teams, as compared to low-power teams, thus rendering teams higher in power to underperform relative to teams lower in power.30 The type of conflict behavior (constructive vs. destructive) in teams depends on the power of the team as well as the likelihood that power determines victory and defeat. In one investigation, teams who were low in power became more constructive when power would not determine victory and the threat of defeat was low, as compared to high-power teams.31 However, when power determines victory and defeat, powerless groups tend to behave more unconstructively.

Cross-functional teams are composed of people from multiple disciplines, functions, and divisions (e.g., engineers, sales, marketing, and manufacturing) who have relevant but different expertise. Their diversity can be a benefit, as we saw in a discussion of communication and collective intelligence in Chapter 6, but their diversity can also be a source of conflict. The advantages of functional diversity are often not realized because these teams experience conflict.32

One model of cross-functional team conflict focuses on the role of representational gaps , or the way people think about a task in these teams (see Exhibit 8-3). A team that has a large representational gap has inconsistent views about the definition of the team’s problem or task. In this sense, team members have different mental models about the task. In one investigation, a large cross-functional project team at a U.S. automobile manufacturer was studied. The vehicle design team was composed of more than 200 members responsible for all aspects of auto design, engineering, and production of future models. The vehicle team was subdivided into small teams, each responsible for a specific component or system of the car (e.g., body and chassis). Intensive study of these teams and how they worked on a day-to-day basis revealed that task disagreement was a necessary part of team functioning. The greater the representational gap, the more teams disagreed about a task.33

To effectively close representational gaps in cross-functional teams, teams should share some degree of collective understanding about a problem so that they can “translate” their own knowledge bases.34 This may be achieved through education or

experience. Team members who are motivated to learn about others’ perspectives are more successful than those who are less motivated.

Thus far, we have focused on conflict between individual team members. Sometimes, conflicts involve subgroups within a given team, involving a majority and a minority. There are two ways in which majorities and minorities influence their teams. One method is through direct influence , such as when they entice other team members to adopt their position. Another method is via indirect influence , in which people in the majority privately agree with the minority.35 When people change their attitudes and behavior as a result of direct influence or pressure, this is referred to as compliance (early and direct adoption of a position); in contrast, when people change their attitudes and behavior as a result of their own thinking about a subject, this is known as conversion (private acceptance). Conversion can occur at a latent level and have a delayed impact, such as when change occurs later, known as the sleeper effect . 36 Conversion is a more stable form of attitude change because a person changes inwardly, not just outwardly, to please others. Minorities induce conversion, whereas majorities induce compliance.

Minorities who are perceived as experts serve as a catalyst by increasing the quality of majority members’ cognitions and whether the majority makes more accurate private judgments.37 Minorities in groups are beneficial because they stimulate greater thought about issues.38 When minorities in a group express a differing opinion, the general level of cognitive activity in the group increases and group members engage in more message scrutiny.39 Minority opinions do not simply get groups to focus on a given message; they stimulate much broader thinking about the issue in general and open the doors to considering multiple perspectives, perhaps only one of which might represent the minority’s view.40 Indeed, people who have been exposed to minority dissent search for more information on all sides of an issue,41 remember more information,42 deploy more effective performance strategies,43 detect solutions that are elusive to others,44 think in more complex ways,45 and are more creative.46 The authors of U.S. Supreme Court majority opinions tend to concern themselves with specifying all imaginable contingencies under which the law should and should not apply to ensure the longevity of their precedent. In contrast, the authors of minority U.S. Supreme Court opinions often focus on arguments that could eventually facilitate the precedent’s overruling. People who are exposed to members who hold a minority view experience an increase in their own levels of integrative thought; in contrast, people exposed to majority opinions or unanimous groups actually experience a decrease in integrative thinking.47 Teams make better decisions when there is a minority viewpoint present and expressed.48

In addition to instigating greater message scrutiny and cognitive activity, statistical minorities stimulate divergent thinking.49 Whereas majorities induce thoughts that are convergent, in the sense of focusing on one solution to the exclusion of all others, minorities induce divergent thinking, by considering several perspectives.50 In this sense, minorities are more likely than majorities to have more original thoughts. For example, their associations to words under dispute are more original than majority groups.51

Even when a minority is wrong about a given issue, their presence adds value to a group by stimulating divergent thinking, increasing creative ideas, generating more ideas, and arriving at better solutions. However, minorities are certainly not always successful in terms of stimulating conversion. Indeed, people in groups may want to actively dissociate from the minority subgroup so as to avoid ridicule and rejection.52 When group members actively avoid minority members, their attitudes on related topics may change.53 Further, minorities might be harassed or pressured by the majority. In fact, a “harassed” minority is actually more persuasive than a nonharassed minority on both direct and indirect measures of influence.54 The reason why harassed minorities are viewed more positively is rooted in the courage hypothesis—people who persist in the face of hardship and ridicule are viewed as particularly sincere, confident, and courageous, given that they are willing to risk social censure. The braver the minority appears to be, the greater the impact they have. And, if harassed minorities persist in public (rather than in private), they are even more admired and persuasive.55

Differences exist among global cultures about the effects of conflict on team effectiveness. Compared to East Asians, Americans exhibit an optimistic bias about relationship conflict.56 When it comes to task conflict, both Americans and East Asians believe in addressing conflict proactively, but when it comes to relationship conflict, European Americans don’t think it is necessary to address relationship conflict to get good performance. Americans are more likely than East Asians to join a talented group that is known to have high relationship conflict.

Linguistic-related challenges in multicultural teams increase the likelihood of relationship conflict.57 For this reason, talking about the conflict might actually do more harm than good. With regard to cultural beliefs, Americans are considered to be largely individualistic as compared to Asians who are considered to be collectivistic.58 When a norm of collectivism is manipulated (imposed on a group), members with concordant attitudes are evaluated more positively than those with dissenting attitudes; but when a norm of individualism is imposed, dissenters are more highly valued.59

Given differences in cultural styles of expressing conflict, teams are well served to discuss differences and, in some cases, provide training. For example, when Sonu Shivdasani, the CEO of luxury resort chain Soneva, bought a hotel management company in Thailand, he found that the non-Western Thai business culture required some adjustments. The traditional values of Thai people place such importance on respecting authority that Shivdasani’s personal assistant would crouch on her knees when entering his office so that her head would be below his. The CEO offended some of his managers by speaking in a manner perceived as blunt in a culture where raising one’s voice typically leads to greater silence from the listener. So, the company developed its own “Soneva” language of 200–300 words to transcend vast cultural differences. For example, all employees are referred to as “hosts” in order to give them a sense of familial ownership. With the new language, traditionally reluctant employees began to speak out more. “In a discussion, even when they are two or three layers below the most senior person, they will be quite happy to make their points and they’ll feel empowered to make statements that may be in disagreement,” Shivdasani said.60

Some teams struggle because team members experience a conflict between work and team obligations and commitment to their own family. Work–family conflict (WFC) may be expressed at the individual level, such when a person feels stress about their own work-family situation or at the level of the team. WFC is stronger for people who are demographically dissimilar to their team in terms of sex and number of dependents.61 WFC at the work group level leads to WFC at the individual level. However, when team members feel that they have social support from the team, WFC is reduced.

According to Blake and Mouton, people can take at least five courses of action when they find themselves involved in conflict.62 The five choices differ depending upon the extent to which people are concerned for themselves and the other party (see Exhibit 8-4).

Let’s use the model to analyze a conflict that occurred at Columbia Sportswear company (see Exhibit 8-5). Before Neal Boyle (father and husband) passed away, the

mother and son were engaged in a long-standing stalemate in which they did not engage or interact very much. When Neal passed away, Tim and his mother, Gert, competed, each intimidating the other. When they focused on a higher-order goal and cut their salaries and built the company up again, they were engaged in collaboration. When the question of off-shoring came up, Gert capitulated to Tim and accommodated his desires. It is fortunate for the company that Tim and Gert moved from avoidance to collaboration at a critical stage in their company’s life.

De Dreu and Weingart developed a contingency perspective that views team performance as a function of the type of task conflict, the conflict management style, and the nature of the task performed by the group.63 As can be seen in Exhibit 8-6, the amount of conflict is a direct determinant of team performance and individual well-being (i.e., individual satisfaction).

Individual well-being exerts a powerful effect on how people deal with conflict. For example, people who endure levels of high stress activate hormones that result in a number of negative, physiological outcomes including headaches and increased cardiovascular response.64 Several investigations—one involving over 3,000 employees—reveal a positive and significant correlation between conflict at work and physical health problems.65

Another determinant of team performance is the approach that team members use to manage conflict and disputes. According to the interests, rights, and power model, team members tend to use one of the following three methods to resolve disputes: interests-based arguments, rights-based arguments, or power-based arguments. A rights-based argument focuses on applying some standard of fairness, precedent, contract, or law. A power-based approach is characterized by the use of force, intimidation, rank, or power. Avoidance is yet another option for team members. Collaborative styles of conflict management, such as constructive controversy, are more beneficial for team performance.66 An interest-based approach focuses on satisfying both parties’ core interests; when people set aside questions of right and wrong, they can sometimes craft terms that meet their most important interests, but usually not all of them.

As an example of the difference between collaborating (interests) and contending (i.e., rights- or power-based approaches) in teams, consider a team in which there has been a serious, long-standing conflict concerning the nature of the assignments given to team members. Some assignments are clearly regarded as more attractive and career enhancing than others. However, for the organization to be successful, all assignments must be covered by the team. One of the members, Larry, begins a meeting by stating, “I am not at all happy with how the assignments for the project are handled. I consistently have to do the least attractive part of the project and it is a lot of work. I want to be excused from that part of the project in the future.” Three team members might respond in the following ways, depending on which approach they take to the conflict at hand:

1. Collaborative (interests-based) response: “Larry, I’ve sensed that this is of great concern to you. We’d all like to hear more about your own views on this and what your proposals are. I will be honest in saying that I am not sure anything can change, at least for now, but I think that it is important that we all have a chance to understand exactly how each one of us perceives the workload and assignments on the project at this point.”

2. Contending (rights-based) response: “Look, Larry, you agreed to cover that part of the project when we first took on the challenge 4 years ago. As a matter of fact, I believe that I have an e-mail from you indicating that you would agree to do that part of the work. As far as I am concerned, this is strictly a matter of precedent and what people have agreed to do. I am sure that our supervisor would reach the same conclusion as I would if she saw the e-mail I am referring to.”

3. Contending (power-based) response: “I think you are completely out of line, Larry. It is not helping our team effort to have people such as yourself acting like prima donnas and demanding special treatment. We all have important things to do to meet the project goals. I am tired of having to walk on eggshells around this issue and I don’t think that discussing unrealistic and selfish goals is a good use of our team time. We could simply follow a principle of rank in our team, but that would be bad for you. I am ready to continue our democratic process, but only on the condition that you start working with us as a team!”

The power-based team member in this example is using several techniques designed to threaten and intimidate. First, there are numerous unflattering character attacks—Larry is labeled as “out of line,” “demanding,” a “prima donna,” and “unrealistic and selfish.” This comment also contains some thinly disguised threats: If Larry does not shut up, this team member intends to notify a superior. The rights-based team member, by focusing on the past, effectively says, “We cannot have this discussion.” The interests-based team member clearly states that there may not be any room for movement, but she is open to discussion. In this way, the interests-based response models the double-loop style of communication.67 Most people, when faced with sensitive and important issues, find it far easier to launch into rights- or power-based arguments. However, nearly any rights- or power-based argument can be converted into an interests-based response without forcing team members to capitulate to others.

In the model, the type of conflict may be either the content of the task or the process of the task (similar to task conflict and process conflict, described earlier). Task-content conflicts are disagreements among team members’ ideas and opinions about the task being performed, including debates over facts or opinions. In contrast, task-process conflicts are conflicts about logistical and delegation issues, such as how to proceed and allocate work.

When groups perform highly uncertain tasks, they need to integrate large amounts of information, form multiple perspectives, and collaborate closely. In such situations, collaboration is essential.68

Wageman and Donnenfeld distinguish four kinds of interventions that team leaders and managers can use to improve the quality of conflict resolution processes:69

• Team (re)Design: Deliberate changes in the structure (e.g., environment, tasks) in which teams do their work. Interventions might include increasing the amount of task interdependence that a team has in accomplishing a given work product. Team design usually involves very specific, structural changes to a group, which may include how the goal is defined, who is on the team, the nature and amount of resources allocated to the team, team rewards, and norms of conduct.

• Task process coaching: Coaching that helps the team perform better via changes in effort, strategy, and talent. Task process coaching is different from conflict process coaching in that task process coaching is aimed exclusively at improving motivation, strategy, and talent but not conflict per se. Task process coaching might include developing team member’s skills, improving the communication system, and so on.

• Conflict process coaching: Direct intervention in a team to improve the quality of conflict the team is having.70 Interventions might include trust-building exercises, structured debate, and appointing a devil’s advocate.

• Changing the individual: Individual-level training with the goal of making specific team members more tolerant, thoughtful, and capable when they disagree with others.71 This might include behavioral training in negotiation.

Wageman and Donnenfeld propose four guiding principles for enhancing teams with respect to conflict:72

Principle 1: Of all the strategies listed above, Team (re)Design has the largest effects. For this reason Wageman and Donnenfeld suggest starting at this point of intervention.73 An effective team design addresses the root causes of most team conflicts. One important aspect of team design is the stated goal of the team.

Teams that agree on a common goal or shared vision are more successful than those that don’t or can’t. When 33 Chilean miners were trapped one-half mile beneath the ground, they survived by creating a leadership structure focused on one goal: surviving until a rescue attempt could be made. For 69 days the miners maintained a leadership structure where a leader was chosen and tasks were delegated. The miners followed a strict schedule of daily tasks such as exercise and cleaning up the very informal living area. Every decision was voted upon.74

Common goals do not imply homogeneous thinking, but they do require everyone to share a vision. Landing a robot on Mars is no easy task, but when the one-ton Mars Curiosity parachuted down to the surface of the Red Planet in late 2012 on a scientific mission, the landing was the culmination of a shared vision that had consumed more than 8 years, multiple NASA agencies with thousands of employees, launch delays, and a final price tag of $2.6 billion. The project, dubbed the Mars Science Laboratory, was part of “rovers” series designed to map and analyze the surface of Mars, looking for signs that the planet could have once supported life.75

Principle 2: After the team is well designed, the team leader should use the strategy of coaching the team. Coaching the team can work only if the team is well designed. Coaching that focuses on the key performance drivers reinforces the team design. For example, coaching helped well-designed teams at Xerox exploit their talents but did not help poorly designed teams.76

Principle 3: Coaching about conflict might engender resistance relative to discussions about motivation, strategy, or leveraging talent in the team. In some cases, coaching about conflict and relationships may even backfire.77 Yet, if a team proactively develops strategies for dealing with potential future conflict this can often be effective. Indeed, groups who develop norms regarding how they will manage conflict are more effective than those that do not develop norms.78 And, groups that develop collaborative (interest-based) conflict norms make more effective group decisions than do groups who use contending (e.g., rights and power) or avoidance styles. Conflict norms also carry over to affect other team activities, such as decision making that don’t necessarily involve conflict. Furthermore, friends are better at applying effective conflict management strategies to suit the task at hand than are teams of strangers whose conflict management approaches are less sophisticated.79

One type of intervention is structured debate. Most people, even seasoned managers and executives, feel uncomfortable about conflict. However, it is much easier to deal with conflict by creating a time and place for it to occur, rather than expecting it to naturally erupt. Furthermore, discussing the potential for conflict before it erupts is a lot more effective than trying to deal with it after the fact. For example, at the Mayo Clinic, the unique backgrounds and perspectives of the physicians, scientists, and staff create conflict that is critical to tackling problems. Mayo Clinic CEO John Noseworthy believes in surrounding himself with really smart people, listening to them, and encouraging them to act boldly.80

With regard to conflict coaching, it is important to focus on content rather than style. In other words, focus on the substance, not the delivery. The most successful project teams are those that rise above style issues and focus on content.81 The focus on content, rather than style, is similar to the prescriptive advice of “separating the people from the problem.”82

Principle 4: Changing individuals will have its greatest impact only after the team design and team processes are addressed. People have a better chance of changing when the team design is optimal and the core team processes are positive, thereby serving to reinforce individual behavior.

At the root of many conflicts are disagreements about what is fair. One problem with fairness is that there are several different “norms” or “methods” for allocating resources. Consider the following:

• Equity method (or contribution-based distribution) prescribes that benefits (and costs) should be proportional to team members’ contributions.83

• Equality method (or blind justice) prescribes that all team members should suffer or benefit equally, regardless of input.84

• Need method (or welfare-based justice) prescribes that benefits (and costs) should be proportional to members’ needs.85

The equity rules are favored by groups that emphasize productivity, but there is little evidence that equity actually facilitates productivity in groups. Equity facilitates productivity in groups whose members have an independent (i.e., self-interested) self-construal as opposed to an interdependent construal.86

Another problem is people often feel more entitled than others do. For example, team members who contribute less prefer to divide resources equally, whereas those who contribute more prefer the equity rule.87 In groups containing members who have different power or status levels, those with low power want equality, whereas those with high power desire equity.88 In short, most people feel entitled to more resources than others believe they merit. Oftentimes, this is driven by egocentric valuations of one’s own contributions to a joint task. For example, in one investigation, team members were asked to complete several questionnaires.89 These took either 45 or 90 minutes. The questionnaires were constructed such that for each duration some participants completed six questionnaires, whereas others completed only three. When asked to allocate monetary rewards, participants emphasized the dimension that favored them in the allocation procedure (those who worked longer emphasized time; questionnaire completion was emphasized by those who worked on more questionnaires). However, most people are not aware that their own perceptions of fairness are egocentrically biased.

There is no one objectively correct method of justice. In fact, teams often have several different methods in operation at any one time. For example, consider a study group in a semester-long course. They might assign work on a joint project on the basis of equity, such that people with greater experience and skills in a certain subject area are expected to bring more knowledge to the task (e.g., the finance major may be expected to read the financial report individually, perform all the calculations, and develop a spreadsheet by himself or herself). In terms of reserving study group rooms and bringing snacks for group meetings, the group might use an equality method, such that each week a different group member is expected to supply drinks and cookies and reserve a room. This group may occasionally invoke a need-based justice system when, for example, a study group member misses three group meetings in preparation for a wedding. The rest of the group may agree to cover his or her work so that the teammate can prepare for the wedding. The question of how to reduce self-serving, or egoistic, judgments of entitlements in teams is vexing. Whereas it would seem that perspective taking might minimize egocentric judgments, people who are encouraged to consider the perspectives of others increase their egoistic (selfish) behavior, such that they actually take more available resources.90 Perhaps even more surprising is that groups do not like members who are unselfish. When groups perceive members to be contributing too much toward the provision of a good, but then use little of that good, they are targets of expulsion from the group.91 Apparently, such group members are seen as establishing an undesirable behavior standard.

Thus far, we have been referring to the question of how to best allocate rewards in an organization. This is known as distributive justice. However, members of teams may be just as concerned about how they are treated by others, particularly authority figures. This concern is known as procedural justice . People often become so preoccupied with concerns about distributive and procedural fairness that they monitor others and gather and process information in their organization. For example, employees who regard their organization to be market focused tend to gather information about distributive fairness; conversely, employees who regard their organization to be bureaucratic tend to gather information about procedural justice.92