The causes of conflict in project work appear to be the very things that set them off. Things like schedule, cost, and performance requirements tend to be focal points of conflictive situations. Yet conflicts may arise from underlying causes that are only indirectly related to those areas of conflict. What then really causes conflict in project management environments?
Here are three views of what instigates conflict on projects:
ON THE SURFACE
Research indicates that the principal focal points of conflict in project work are:
- Schedules - disagreements related to timing, sequencing, and programming of project-related tasks
- Project priorities - differing views over activity sequences for accomplishing project goals
- Manpower resources-differing viewpoints on staffing and personnel utilization
- Technical opinions and performance trade-offs - disagreements over technical issues, performance specifications, technical trade-offs, and performance issues
- Cost objectives-disagreements over cost estimates from support areas
- Administrative procedures - differences regarding how the project will be managed including reporting and interface relationships, definition of responsibilities, and procedures for administrative support
- Personality-interpersonal differences as opposed to technical issues; these conflicts are often ego-related
Except for personality conflicts, all other sources cited in the findings constitute technical and administrative criteria for managing projects. All are related to achieving the project's objectives of quality, time and cost. The survey results, thus, show that the project's objectives themselves are at the root of most conflicts.
BELOW THE SURFACE
While conflict can be correlated with hard, measurable sources such as schedule, cost, and quality, there are softer, less tangible reasons for discord. Human comportment and behavioral characteristics can cause dissidence. Participants in a series of seminars I have conducted, in which conflict cause was discussed, have indicated that the stage for conflict is set by the following factors:
- Communication breakdowns caused by poor transmission, lack of listening skills, noise, cultural differences, improper assumptions.
- Differing opinions on questions of who, where, what, when, why and how.
- Conflicting interests of any nature including economic, political, power, and status.
- Pressure caused by time, happenings and circumstance.
- Differing expectations related to personal preferences, cultural backgrounds or prior experience.
- Personality conflicts due to “bad chemistry,” previous negative experiences or poor atmosphere.
- Personal problems of family, professional or psychological origin.
Conflicts on projects may originate from one or more of these very basic sources. The above listing suggests that causes of conflict are of a soft nature. They may, of course, snowball into other forms and be perceived in different lights. As they move to the surface, they tend to be identified in more tangible forms such as schedule problems, cost overruns or procurement delays.
BOTTOMING OUT
A still deeper view comes from psychology which indicates that conflicts stem from the inner self. According to Freudian Theory, internal conflicts are set off by the inherent battle between the id (the instinctive animal part of ourselves), the ego (the socially aware and conscious aspect), and the superego (the moralistic portion of ourselves that forbids and prohibits). These inner conflicts spill over into daily interactions, often provoking conflict with other people, who in turn wage their own inner battles with their respective ids, egos and super-egos.
Conflicts are, therefore, set off by the mirror effect. To the extent that what we see in others coincides with how we see ourselves, then conflicts will be diminished or increased. Our perception is what accepts or rejects what we see as measured against our own inner standard. That perception in turn dictates our behavior and determines what we say and do. In most people, this process takes place at a subconscious level and is not influenced by conscious logic.
SO WHAT?
No matter how viewed, conflict is always present in some form or another on projects. It may be perceived in terms of hard, tangible topics like schedule, cost and manpower. A softer view may pinpoint such items as communications breakdowns and conflicts of opinions and interests, and finally at the root of all human conflict is the on-going battle within the inner self. Thus, managing conflict is no simple matter. So what is to be done?
“If it's not broken, don't fix it,” according to a managerial adage. If the project is moving along nicely, without special conflict management efforts, then you should do more of what you are already doing. Since the objective is to complete the project on time, within budget and to meet the performance specifications --- not to create a chummy group whose main objective is harmony --- then fixing a project that has no major troubles would be a wasted effort.
On the other hand, “if it needs fixing, fix it. “(That means if it's broken, or is about to break). Fixing things requires action. If it's a chair that's broken, a saw, hammer, nails, and glue may be needed. Fixing a broken team (or one that is about to fall apart) also calls for action: things like searching for the causes, applying conflict resolution techniques, bringing in “new blood”, promoting training programs, and organizational reviews. Fixing conflictive atmospheres requires scheduling specific action that will reverse the prevailing negative ambience.
Yet the question remains: at what level do you want to take on the conflict? On the surface, based on hard facts? At a lower level, based on behavioral considerations? Or at an even more basic personal psychological level?
If conflict is dealt with on the surface, then standard conflict resolution techniques such as withdrawal, smoothing, negotiation, collaboration, or forcing, should handle the need.
If, however, a softer behavioral approach is used, then teambuilding, participative planning, and training in interpersonal skills are called for.
Conflict at its psychological origins can also be dealt with, but only on a personal level (when the individual chooses to search for additional self-perception) or if the group's members become inspired to participate in teambuilding programs with a heavy psychological content.
PROJECT MANAGERS
WHAT WORKS BEST?
“Nothing succeeds like success.” Whatever does the job, then, is what needs to be done. A top-down approach would seem to make sense. In other words, first make sure that the project team members know the ABC's of conflict management (including withdrawing, smoothing, negotiating, collaborating, and forcing). Then, if the need continues, move on to behavioral training programs such as teambuilding, consensus decision making and interpersonal communications. If a deeper need presents itself, and there is sufficient interest on the part of the group's members, then move carefully to the personal psychological arena, using approaches with a proven track record in business and managerial settings, such as Managerial Grid, Situational Leadership, or Transactional Analysis.
Since conflict in project work may be present at various levels, all the levels need to be examined to see if remedial action is required. Conflict therefore needs to be analyzed on the surface (how it appears), below the surface (the softer causes), and at the bottom (deeper psychological sources). By diving deeper into the underlying causes of conflict on projects, the probability for finding more effective solutions and meeting project goals will be boosted.