Lack/Fear of conflict really a dysfunction of a team?
In Patrick Lencioni's book, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, lack of conflict was identified as one of the 5 reasons why a team can be/is ineffective. Personally I do not have any issue with healthy conflict, so this was not a difficult concept for me to adopt However, many leaders discourage conflict in their teams, thinking that it will cause animosity between teammates, and that it discourages openness and free expression of thought. What is you opinion on this? Is conflict healthy for a team, or not?
Good Answers (18)
Ashley G.
Primary Goals, Life & Leadership Coaching
Best Answers in: Organizational Development (4), Occupational Training (1), Personnel Policies (1), Change Management (1), Project Management (1)
Conflict means different things to different people and is highly related to context and the parties involved. There can be fierce disagreement about the best course of action going forward, where the parties are highly animated, voices are raised, and ultimately a decision is made and all agree to abide by it. For some, the raised voices signify the conflict is “unhealthy,” while others see it as passionate engagement over the issues. There can also be calm, thoughtful discussion on the same issue where a decision is made, then people undermine each other because there was no buy-in. For some, this latter appears healthier because the parties were calm.
So the definitions for both “conflict” and “health” are up for grabs here, and people are apt to disagree on both. In my role as a manager, I see conflict, disagreement, playing the devil’s advocate, and commitment as essential to arriving at the best decisions. There’s no way I will ever know all that I need to make a completely informed decision. Without opposing ideas, there’s way too much that I’m blind to. What I watch for in conflict situations is that the communication is effective. Are both sides hearing each other, rather than just talking at each other? Is the disagreement because both sides have differing perspectives and values, or because they don’t fully understand each other? Also, is it clear to the participants what decision-making style is going to be used? For example, if people think they are striving for consensus, the conflict may drag on for quite some time. But if they realize that somebody else (a manager, for example) is actually responsible for a decision and the consequences, then the manager can bring the conflict to an end quicker by being clear about HOW the decision will be made in addition to what is being decided.
Lastly, I also monitor the dialog to make sure it is mostly about the content of the disagreement rather than the personalities engaged in the conflict. When conflicts start getting personal, that’s when I think that it becomes unhealthy.
Links:
Tom F.
Editorial Director at Information Security Media Group
Best Answers in: Using LinkedIn (14), Career Management (8), Staffing and Recruiting (7), Writing and Editing (6), Compensation and Benefits (5), Organizational Development (5), Personnel Policies (4), Offshoring and Outsourcing (3), Mentoring (2), Criminal Law (2), Business Development (2), Corporate Governance (2), Change Management (2), Planning (2), Ethics (2), Computers and Software (2), Facilities Management (1), Travel Tools (1), Education and Schools (1), Job Search (1), Accounting (1), Property Law (1), Advertising (1), Events Marketing (1), Public Relations (1), Lead Generation (1), Business Analytics (1), Nonprofit Management (1), Supply Chain Management (1), Professional Organizations (1), Small Business (1), Blogging (1), Information Security (1), Software Development (1)
Aaron:
Conflict is healthy so long as there's an understanding that people can disagree without being disagreeable, and as long as there's a shared mission or set of goals to fall back on.
I've worked in situations where bosses just liked to watch people mix it up for the sake of mixing it up, and that's not healthy for anyone.
best,
Tom
Tom C.
Senior Program Manager at Microsoft
Best Answers in: Advertising (1), Change Management (1), Project Management (1), Individual Insurance (1), Computer Networking (1), Web Development (1)
The second part of the answer is that Group-Think removes any chance of creativity. If the team feels, acts and responds in the same way... there is little chance for the creative process to take hold.
In some team structures it may be OK to be on the same page all of the time, but creativity requires tension, varied perception and free thought. Imagine a team reading a management book and coming away with the exact same perception... where is the chance for growth, exploration and the ability to share new ideas?
Tom
(A different Tom).
Karl G.
Enterprise and Knowledge Architect/Business Strategist
Best Answers in: Using LinkedIn (14), Staffing and Recruiting (7), Organizational Development (7), Career Management (7), Enterprise Software (7), Computers and Software (5), Compensation and Benefits (4), Project Management (4), Business Development (3), Corporate Governance (3), Business Plans (3), Starting Up (3), Software Development (3), Web Development (3), Freelancing and Contracting (2), Mentoring (2), Advertising (2), Professional Networking (2), Education and Schools (1), Certification and Licenses (1), Job Search (1), Occupational Training (1), Government Contracts (1), Government Policy (1), Personnel Policies (1), Offshoring and Outsourcing (1), Treaties, Agreements and Organizations (1), Direct Marketing (1), Events Marketing (1), Viral Marketing (1), Lead Generation (1), Sales Techniques (1), Writing and Editing (1), Change Management (1), Nonprofit Management (1), Supply Chain Management (1), Personal Investing (1), Personal Real Estate (1), Positioning (1), Small Business (1), Biotech (1), Blogging (1), E-Commerce (1), Computer Networking (1), Information Storage (1), Telecommunications (1)
Even beyond individual projects, I've worked with major corporations paralized by fear of conflict where they let serious personnel conflicts fester and have promoted less competant people because they 'wanted' it more (which, BTW, it not entirely unreasonable).
Ultimately this leads to a sharks and minnows culture where you have a few mean, opinionated sharks at the top while the rest of the employees have hide in safe places and not venture into dangerous waters.
It is interesting that avoidance of conflict rarely makes it go away - it largely seems to empower those most willing to express it.
That said, while conflict can be healthy, conflict resolution is really what you're after - and you need an open environment where people feel free to express an opposing viewpoint without getting into a huge arguement.
Andre S.
Technical Director at Silver Solutions B.V.
Best Answers in: Project Management (1), Databases (1), Software Development (1)
Healthy conflicts are indeed good, as long as there is the drive to work together to create something extraordinary.
I sometimes metion this as the "John Lennon & Paul MacCartney" principle. Both of them were good, but had many different views. The best things they ever wrote however was when they were working together. When great minds are open, that's when some beautifull things happen.
Clarification added August 16, 2007:
(so, not a Tom..) ;)
Mark S.
Strategist & Designer of "Brand Experiences" at GSW Worldwide
Best Answers in: Internet Marketing (2), Advertising (1), Business Development (1)
I've seen both. "Can't we all get along" mentality is avoiding reality. But "let's debate everything" is completely unproductive. It helped when I learned the concepts of concurrence vs. consensus. Consensus means we'll discuss until we all agree. While concurrence means we'll agree to support the idea and move ahead -- even if not in full agreement.
Stephanie G.
Consultant at DataWorks MGI, a division of MasterGraphics Inc.
Best Answers in: Manufacturing (1), Project Management (1), Quality Management and Standards (1)
I think "creative conflict" is very necessary to good team functioning. It gets all the possible ideas on the table and allows for critical and objective analysis of those ideas. It helps fuel new thinking and creative competition and pushes team members to actively come up with the best solutions.
Dysfuntional conflict is a different thing all together. The personal and team animosities can be acted out either overtly or through passive agressiveness or outright total disinterest in the team mission. Group-think is one manifestation, as well. Whatever the case, the team ceases to function.
The project manager, team facilitator, or whoever is responsible for the team needs to be very cognizant of the difference between these two and take an active role in either promoting the one or intervening in the other.
The best team I've ever been associated with had a very high level of creative conflict. It took a while to achieve that as the culture of the company was totally opposite. Part of my role as team facilitator was to give them permission to disagree - as long as critical thinking was part of it.
There is no guarantee as to how a team will function. But I strongly believe that if creative conflict is not a part of team dynamics, the team will not fulfill its mission.
Edward B.
Commodity Broker, C-Level Operations Consultant, Postgrad Business and Operations Instructor
Best Answers in: Supply Chain Management (3), Staffing and Recruiting (2), Job Search (1), Change Management (1), Quality Management and Standards (1), Career Management (1), E-Commerce (1)
Aaron - to resent you mind map on conflict - try to find & read "The Finctions of Social Conflict" by Lewis Coser.. It's an old Sociology Text, and you can ingnore the propeller head socithink, but when you understand that underlying conflict is usually something very positive thats trying to get out, you will actually begin to relish and value conflict, not avoid it.. and that will head you to better management of it, & not avoidance of it.
Of course, conflict developing from sociopathic team members isn't part of the above picture, and thats a whole other deal entirely, which tests your management skills ina completely different way.
Regards
ed
Clarification added August 17, 2007:
sorry - typing problems today, I meant "re-set" not resent, and I meant "lead you" not head you..yikes must be all this market meltdown thats diverting my fingers
Jennifer D.
Vice President, Marketing at Planar Systems and Runco International
Best Answers in: Starting Up (3), Business Development (2), Change Management (2), Education and Schools (1), Advertising (1), Direct Marketing (1), Organizational Development (1), Manufacturing (1)
Conflict is great, but it does require training. Everyone has to be asked to participate, rewarded for speaking up, and encouraged to overcome their natural "conflict avoidance" or shyness (or on the flip-side to temper their natural dominance to allow others space to present their opinions or views). Some people may need to some time to process and arrive at their opinions. Others work best in the heat of a discussion. It is extremely healthy to have debate and the organization must value it enough to let it happen.
Of course, once decisions are arrived at the team has to work together to implement the idea as if it was their own, as others have suggested. Intel called it "Debate and Commit." I have heard it called the "debate phase" as opposed to the "implementation phase." Animosity is caused when conflict isn't voiced, projects are subtly sabotaged by those whose voice wasn't heard in the decision-making period, or when people feel undervalued. It is the role of the leader to draw out the best in their people. If you avoid conflict, you are not getting your team's best.
Conflict can be a test of commitment. Do you care enough about our business, this team, and our customers to speak your mind and advocate for change or for what you think is right? Are you willing to sacrifice some personal comfort voicing controversial opinions for the better business outcome? It may sound harsh, but if the answer is "no" you probably don't want them on the team.
That said, people have to treat other people with respect. Some personalities may use "constructive confrontation" or "conflict" as an excuse for bullying people or being rude. Conflict can be based on differing explanations of the same facts. Getting all the views on the table doesn't have to be personal, even if it is passionate.
Tom A.
Contract Recruiter at Complete Genomics
Best Answers in: Staffing and Recruiting (24), Compensation and Benefits (2), Personnel Policies (2), Certification and Licenses (1), Government Policy (1), Organizational Development (1), Planning (1), Using LinkedIn (1)
I think it's important to distinguish "conflict" from "hostility"; unfortunately some people think they are synonymous when they are not. "Conflict" is when 2 or more different views come to the table; "hostility" involves aggression.
Conflict in the truest sense is both necessary and inevitable. If everyone always agrees then you really don't know if you have the right answer. Only by exploring alternatives can some degree of certainty be achieved. When I interview candidates for project manager positions, one question I always ask is "Tell me about a particular disagreement that surfaced in one of your project teams, and how you worked through it". Their answer will tell me a lot about how they both view and manage conflict. (OK, there's a freebie headstart for you should anyone reading this ever interview with me!). I recently interviewed someone for a different position who told me about another company with whom she'd recently interviewed. One of the people there told her "...and we're always on the same page...we never disagree...". My first thought was "If that's true, then they're doing something wrong".
Mike C.
Chief Information Officer at SKYCITY Entertainment Group
Best Answers in: Business Development (3), Computers and Software (3), Commercial Real Estate (1), Customer Service (1), Internationalization and Localization (1), Internet Marketing (1), Change Management (1), Organizational Development (1), Project Management (1), Career Management (1), Ethics (1)
Hi Aaron
If Conflict is defined as disagreement on business issues, then conflict is positive.
A successful team will have a combination of styles and the leader will understand those styles and be able to use them to the benefit of the team. There are several appropriate models, and using Merrill Reid, it would be Amiables who dislike conflict. However, Amiables are important in teams as they are trusted by all parties and can bring people together.
Mike
Links:
Janette C.
Marketing Manager Membership Services
Best Answers in: Staffing and Recruiting (4), Using LinkedIn (4), Change Management (3), Ethics (3), Mentoring (2), Offshoring and Outsourcing (2), Organizational Development (2), Telecommunications (2), Freelancing and Contracting (1), Government Policy (1), Personnel Policies (1), International Law (1), Internationalization and Localization (1), Business Development (1), Lead Generation (1), Search Marketing (1), Corporate Governance (1), Labor Relations (1), Planning (1), Hedge Funds (1), Career Management (1), Professional Networking (1), Business Plans (1)
Aaron,
I haven't read the book but conflict in terms of healthy debate within a team is a good thing a good manager will encourage and facilitate health debate. Without it the team can grow stale and although not necessarily ineffective there is likely to be a lack of innovation within the team.
Conflict if agressive can be extremely unhealthy, team members can feel intimidated by colleagues with 'strong' personalities and withdraw from the team leading to resentment and discontent. This can often lead to divisions within in the team i.e. colleagues taking sides against each other.
In short consensus is healthy but only if reached through open debate.
Susan B.
Global Communications / PR - Corporate Social Media at Dell - 1st "Chief Listener"
Best Answers in: Project Management (1), Ethics (1)
*** Conflict happens when two or more differing opinions collide. ***
High conflict occurs with highly engaged creative and intelligent individuals; also evident therefore with highly functioning teams.
So, expect that when you see higher levels of creativity and diverse concepts produced by your team, you will in turn see more potential for conflict (differing views). This is not only a measure of creativity, but also intelligence. A strong team leader recognizes this, encourages it and wisely manages it to produce the desired outcome needed for the team's collective goals and objectives.
So, the next time your team errupts into a conflict...look for the silver lining... be positive and get the team to synergize around it.
In other words, it's a gauge of the teams' collaboration level and gives you a sense of their combined creativity output potential.
Clarification added August 18, 2007:
Conflict about "things" is normal and good (e.g. differing views on issues, ideas, process, direction, vision, priorities); whereas; conflict about people on the team, i.e. negative statements made by team member(s) that result in judgments about someone else is clearly not good. A conflict that demeans a team member should be quickly shut down and corrected right then.
Be sure to clearly know the difference and quickly manage your team away from this destructive behavior.
Michael M.
Managing Director Abeceder Limited
Best Answers in: Staffing and Recruiting (2), Compensation and Benefits (1), Professional Networking (1)
The best teams are bound to be in conflict.
A team of like minded individuals will be an ineffective, unimaginative team.
Just as Belbin says every team needs different personality types and different skill sets to achieve its optimum level of performance.
Take a look at some of the team building resources on my website
Links:
Christina K.
Owner at People Path, LLC: Anthropologist specializing in qualitative research and high-quality ethnography
Best Answers in: Market Research and Definition (1), Computers and Software (1)
Hi Aaron,
One thing that is important to know is the true culture of the company within which the conflict takes place. I'm not talking about the "official" company culture; I'm talking about the power structure that really exists among employees. The true lines of power and camaraderie can dramatically dictate the direction in which "conflict" flows. For example, in a company whose power structure and levels of camaraderie are more closely aligned across teams as opposed to within teams (i.e. all managers stick together no matter what team they’re on, all directors stick together, etc.), creative conflict is less beneficial because individual team members worry more that any conflict or dissenting opinion will be reported outside of the team. Conflict is riskier to the individual in such cases. In contrast, companies with truly team-based power structures where teams align as a group (all team members stick together no matter the individual’s title) benefit the most from creative conflict because the individual feels less apprehensive about sharing differing thoughts. In short, conflict is most creative and beneficial when the perceived risk for being contrary is deemed low among individual team members.
Christina
Links:
It depends on the type of conflict being discussed.
If your team members are all focused on the ultimate goal -- whatever that is -- and they engage in spirited discussions that involve challenges and disagreements while exploring various options/solutions, then it is certainly healthy. This is creative tension. Such tension usually ends up adding positively to a project in the form of more developed and mature ideas. Sometimes completely novel yet very effective approaches arise from such interactions.
If the team members are not all focused on the same goal, the conflict can tear the team apart. Individuals who make power plays or become passive-aggressive are NOT focused on the project goal, they are focused on their own goals. An excellent example of a dysfunctional team is the one that cannot agree on what the projects top priority is and cannot set their own issues aside long enough to accomplish that goal.
Venkatesh R.
Consultant, independent researcher, blogger (http://ribbonfarm.com), author of "Tempo" (http://tempobook.com)
Best Answers in: Business Analytics (3), Organizational Development (2), Writing and Editing (1), Career Management (1), Enterprise Software (1)
This is one of my favorite topics, and I've thought a great deal about it (my PhD was on teamwork and coordination in robotic systems). The truly high-performance, high-chemistry team is rare (and is excellently described by Jon Katzenbach in "The Wisdom of Teams.") Such teams typically have such a high-level of symphonic magic going on that the distinction between dissent and conflict vanishes in a seamless miracle of effective collaboration. On the other hand, in more day to day team, local culture (often following the cues from leadership) determines whether a take-no-prisoners machismo dominates or one of consensus. Both can work, and an element of each is necessary. It is perhaps easiest to understand the dynamics of conflict and consensus in the context of the primary mechanism groups use to work together: meetings. See my article, "The 15 laws of meeting power" below, which provides, I hope, a good-humored take on conflict vs. consensus in groups. Katzenbach's book, though old, is still the best read on teams. Finally, if you like more mathematics-based explorations, try the books of Robert Axelrod, "The Evolution of Cooperation" and "The Complexity of Cooperation" which employ game theory and related tools to conduct several very subtle explorations of conflict, cooperation and competition.
Links:
More Answers (2)
Patrick,
'Conflict' is a by product of 'Free Expression' when team members have alternate ideas. If everyone on a team agrees all the time you very well might have a PM Team loaded with 'Yes Men'. A successful team of any type needs to be able to embrace constructive criticism, alternate ideas etc.(though not every situation warrants conflict or alternative methods and ideas).
This is not to say that all teams should make decisions by quorum – it depends on the project or issue. They do, however, need to be able to use the ‘Conflict’ to energize the team / project / situation / brainstorming session etc.
So in short - conflict is healthy - just not in excess.
Bruce
Phil S.
Managing Consultant at PA Consulting Group
Best Answers in: Software Development (3), Offshoring and Outsourcing (2), Change Management (2), Organizational Development (2), Project Management (2), Career Management (2), Budgeting (1), Personnel Policies (1), Contracts (1), Public Relations (1), Quality Management and Standards (1)
I wouldn't use the word conflict, but there should be some (hopefully) creative tension. You might find Virginia Satir's models useful here - especially Coping Styles - see the link below. What you've mentioned (discouraging conflict) is probably a form of Placation - which is not healthy!
