Mining Conflict for Growth and Profit

"They say they favour a 'team ' that lives and works in 'harmony. ' I say, 'Give me a raucous brawl among the greatest in quantity creative people imaginable.'" -Tom Peter business and management thinker1

In conflict, communication wears sum of two units faces: It can create discord and lead to time-wasting arguments, or it can catalyze peaceful resolution and spark creative diversions.

When we inadvertently or stubbornly misinterpret another's words and attribute unworthy motivations to their behaviour, poor communication skills are at work. by conversion when we stop seeking personal implications and instead search for to find common ground and deeper intentions, the spring can be a surprisingly rich dialogue that bring outs innovative solutions.

Working in teams

The best teams contain cross-sections of personality impressed signs skills, and experiences. When bourn together by a powerful vision, these teams become greater than the totality of their parts. That's on what account it's so important for workplace groups-teams-to understand the dynamics of conflict and in what manner to communicate effectively.

Obviously the alternative is not desirable. Poorly handled conflict saps everyone's power interferes with interpersonal relationships, and obviates groups from reaching their goals. individual early sign of inadequately handled conflict is a lack of discussion about contentious topics. In this kind of situation, touchy subdues are skirted and cones of silence come down If the manager (team or cast leader) imposes a solution or mollifies the clump superficially, the real needs of participants are not addressed-leading to gall and a weakening of team performance.

Handled correctly, however, conflict can yield positive results as substantiated by a summary of research be the effects from the Center for Collaborative Organizations (formerly the Center for the investigation of Work Teams) at the University of North Texas. Citing research from 1996r 1997' and 1998' writer Michael Kennedy says, "When managed correctly, conflict exhibits the following results: new ideas for changing organizational processe solving of continuous vexed questions a chance for workers to expand their capabilities, and the introduction of creativity into notions about organizational problems."5

Kennedy's work recaps more [i]or[/i] less of the classic literature about collection behaviour, from a time before the advent of team-based work mode of buildings Even then-he points out-the importance of conflict to positive issues was already being recognized. Referring to the 1956 volume The Functions of Social Conflict,6' Kennedy says: "A collection that is devoid of conflict is a cluster without process or structure. The life of a work clump is dependent on this ne for conflict for the clump to thrive and prosper, just as abundant as the group relies upon the need for cooperation."

That said, by what mode is it possible for co-workers to challenge each other's ideas and opinions without being confrontational, and without damaging the interpersonal relationships that are crucial to productive outcomes?

Learning to disagree reasonably

Again, conflict alone becomes fruitful dissent when handled well. To realize richer, fuller results, many adroits advise engaging in "reasonable" disagreement. For instance, several years ago the Harvard Business Review published the arises of a study by Dr Kathleen Eisenhardt that examined the accrues of conflict among corporate managers. According to her research, the companies that thrive-despite employee disagreements upon many issues-are able to harness the might of a debate to make it be subservient to their best interests.

Moreover, those organizations overlooked by Eisenhardt that created ways to benefit from conflict shared more [i]or[/i] less essential characteristicsfor instance, all used a certain number of version of a twostep proces she calls "consensus with qualification." The first pace comprises open information and opinion-sharing in which the managers greatest in quantity appropriate to a given situation prove to develop a decision based upon group consensus. If consensus is not reached in a reasonable amount of time, the next to the first step comprises "...the most relevant senior manager mak[ing] the decision, guided by the agency of input from the rest of the group"8

Step sum of two units works because everyone has had a chance to have their say by dint of the time step two is holded necessary. In fact, in line with issues of procedural justice,9 race seem more strongly motivated to accept decisions if there is transparency in decision-making and an opportunity for input, than if they actually make the final decision themselves.

In addition to meeting the ne foi fairness, consensus with qualification also helps mitigate the potential for interpersonal conflict because it normalizes the affair of conflict and is a relatively rapid process

Conflict is best resolv expeditiously-when race need to achieve consensus on the other hand are trapped in a moderate grinding process, frustration can easily lead to finger-pointing. Based upon her research, Eisenhardt offers the following three strategies and tactics as a way to argue constructively:

* Strategy 1: Focus upon issues, not personalities Tactics: Base discussion upon current, factual information. Develop multiple alternatives to enrich the debate.