Chapter Overview

Your personal definition of conflict can influence the way in which you approach it. If you think of conflict as evil, then you are likely to try to avoid it. If you think of it as good, then you may approach it directly and attempt to manage it skillfully. Conflict has potential for being beneficial to groups if you understand it and are able to manage it well.

Conflict can be defined as a struggle involving opposing ideas, values, and/or scarce resources. This definition implies (1) the incompatibility of opposing ideas or values; (2) the struggle over perceived scarce status, scarce power, and/or scarce resources; and (3) the goal of preventing, obstructing, interfering, injuring, or in some way making it less likely that the opposing goal will be achieved.

Conflict can be functional or dysfunctional, depending on how skillfully it is managed and its outcome. Conflict is more likely to be functional if group members value each other and the group's goals. Conflict also tends to be functional when the group is searching for and evaluating information. It tends to be dysfunctional when a group is in the process of generating information and selecting outcomes.

Conflict can serve many useful functions for a group. When managed skillfully it (1) increases member involvement, (2) provides an outlet for hostility, (3) promotes cohesiveness, (4) increases group productivity, and (5) increases the chance for genuine commitment to the decision.

There are four sources of conflict: ideas, personality, status, and power. Understanding the source of conflict is the first step in managing it. These four fall into two basic categories: ideational and interpersonal conflict.

Sometimes those who suggest how to manage conflict give bad advice. It is not helpful to suggest communicating more, cooperating more, blaming the other person, attacking the other person, keeping the talk general, or trying to keep others talking long enough that they give up. Other strategies that are often not productive include withdrawal, smoothing, compromise, and forcing. The strategy that is most promising is confrontation-problem solving.

Interpersonal conflict is usually best handled by confrontation. There are several things you ought to do if you decide to engage in confrontation: (1) talk with other members of the group to confirm your perception and conclusions, (2) make a list of the specific behaviors you have observed as disruptive, (3) have some tentative suggestions in mind to present, (4) be prepared to listen carefully, and (5) be prepared to utilize supportive communication behaviors. In addition, you need to decide whether to confront the person in your group meeting or privately. A private confrontation may be successful if the person doing the confronting is a respected and skillful communicator. A confrontation checklist can help you manage interpersonal confrontation.

As an alternative, you might consider bringing up the behavior in the group. One creative technique is to role-play the disruptive behavior of the other person. The person may realize that he or she is creating a problem and may be able to correct the situation.

There is a sequence of strategies that you might follow when your group experiences ideational conflict. First, try confrontation, problem solving. You can use the "cone of consensus seeking" as a model for confrontation, problem solving. Move from the assertion level to the reasons behind the assertions to the evidence and finally to the underlying values. Then move to compromise if your group cannot achieve consensus. If compromise doesn't work, your group may need to take a vote and go with the majority opinion. If a vote seems unwise, you might submit the data to a neutral third party for arbitration.

Compromise can result in pseudoconsensus. It is therefore a second-best method. It is appropriate if members cannot achieve consensus and are willing to give and take. Majority vote forces the minority to accept the dominant view. You might resort to this if the good of the group is likely to be achieved and the minority has had sufficient opportunity to present its view. Arbitration might be the answer when members believe they are sufficiently biased that they may not make a decision that is for the good of the group. Arbitration also may be wise when members know that strong feelings may keep the minority from supporting the decision of the group. Both the minority and majority may be able to agree to support the decision of a neutral third party.

Finally, confrontation can be facilitated by creating a norm and a time for the group to discuss the group's progress and problems. This provides a forum for interpersonal conflict. If you decide that the conflict is ideational, you will want to move the group through the cone of consensus seeking. This involves the relative attractiveness of the options in relation to each other and the mixture of positive and negative outcomes related to the options.