As executives, one of our principal roles is that of integrator and, as such, preventing and resolving conflict is our responsibility. People tend to ignore the differences and conflicts that arise in a team, because no one wants to rock the boat: “If we pretend it doesn't exist, maybe it will go away.” Unfortunately, this approach only exacerbates the potential for heated, unproductive conflict. Remember: a team without differences is normally mediocre. Conflict, if addressed proactively, often contributes to problem-solving, innovative decision-making processes, and commitment to objectives. As executives, we must not deny that conflict exists, we must accept that it occurs naturally and we must try to resolve conflict so that everybody wins.
Our author for this article is Jodi Grossman, who has extensive experience managing training and organizational development projects, as well as facilitating project planning and review meetings, focus groups, and group problem-solving sessions. She addresses the first inklings of project conflict, how it can manifest itself in your team, and what you, as an executive, can do to resolve it so that everybody maintains a mutually beneficial relationship.
Joan Knutson, Feature Editor
Projects and conflicts are intertwined. Project managers and team members usually experience the project environment as one riddled with conflicts. The manner by which project personnel resolve these conflicts has major implications for the quality of ongoing working relationships, and ultimately the success of the project. In this article, I examine some of the causes of project conflicts, and how to resolve them so that all parties are mutually satisfied.
All projects have some degree of constraint on time and resources. Within these constraints, senior management expects project managers to perform the miracle of achieving all project requirements. This environment creates many obstacles and challenges in the form of potential conflicts, which can stem from:
- Priorities – differences over the sequencing of project task activities
- Administration – disagreements over project reporting relationships and performance appraisal methods, status reporting processes roles and accountabilities
- Cost – problems with cost estimates obtained from project contributors
- Resources – disagreements over the availability, need and quality of project staff; these intensify in the multiple-project environment
- Schedule – issues over scheduling and time frames for milestone dates and overall project completion time
- Technical – problems caused by different perceptions of technical performance, tradeoffs, and specifications
- Personality – misunderstandings related to work style preferences, different values and beliefs, and interpersonal communication styles
- Organization – issues related to the rapid rate of organizational change and frequent reorganizations
- Objectives – different viewpoints of the project purpose and scope
- Tradition – the perceived threat to traditional roles of functional managers.
These sources of conflict are present to varying degrees throughout the project life cycle. When a project begins, the most common cause of conflict is priorities. Schedule and resources often take over as the major conflict source during the main phase of the project. Thus, the nature of project conflict is dynamic.
Different project team members will use different approaches to resolving their conflicts. These approaches are based on the degree to which one has concern for their own interests in the conflict (i.e., level of assertiveness), and the degree to which one has concern for the other party's interests (i.e., level of cooperation). The variations of these two dimensions create five distinct conflict approaches as defined by Kilmann and Thomas (“Interpersonal Conflict – Handling Behavior as a Reflection of Jungian Personality Dimensions,” Psychological Reports, 3, pp. 971–980, 1975):
- Accommodating – low assertiveness, high cooperation
- Avoiding – low assertiveness, low cooperation
- Competing – high assertiveness, low cooperation
- Compromising – medium assertive-ness, medium cooperation
- Collaborating – high assertiveness, high cooperation.
Discussion about which is the best of these approaches could last for days. Certainly there are advantages and disadvantages to each. For example, accommodating is sometimes appropriate if you think that the person in the current situation will be motivated to accommodate you in the future. Avoiding might be effective if the conflict is minor and not of much consequence to either party, but would be inappropriate to resolve a major problem such as continual poor task performance. With compromising, each party may gain something, but they are both only partially satisfied. Competing may be a rapid method for resolving a conflict—it doesn't take much time to flatten the other side—but the price could be an irreparably damaged relationship. If one needs to work with the damaged party again on another project, the likelihood of a fruitful working relationship is not very high.
I recommend the collaborating approach for resolving project conflicts. Collaborating allows one to build constructive working relationships, because both parties resolve the conflict to a mutually beneficial outcome. This is important in the project world, where building and maintaining positive relationships can determine quality task output. Additionally, the decisions that conflicting parties make when using a collaborative approach are often far superior to resolutions they might have made using any of the other styles. When both parties work together to understand each other's concerns and needs, they can almost always create a high-quality solution.
|
|
I Try the collaborative or “win/win” approach. When both parties work together to understand each other's concerns and needs, they can almost always create a high-quality solution. |
The collaborating method of conflict resolution is also called “principled conflict management,” or “win/win.” Roger Fisher and William Ury describe this approach in their book, Getting To Yes. They've tested their method on disputes ranging from landlord-tenant issues to major international treaty negotiations. I‘ve used it successfully in resolving technical conflicts, managing interpersonal differences, and in negotiating for resources.
There are several major aspects of win/win conflict resolution:
Separate the people from the problem. This means to acknowledge the emotional aspect of the conflict and deal with it separately from the conflict itself. Diffuse the emotional content of the conflict through active listening; this frees the parties to isolate the problem causing the conflict and to deal with it directly. Essentially, the way to achieve this is to understand the other person's perspective by putting yourself in their shoes.
Focus on interests and principles, not positions. Unfortunately, people resolve most conflicts based on their positions, not their underlying needs and concerns. Positional conflict management results in a bargaining session that wears down both sides and causes each to give up more than they gain. Instead, one should focus on her or his true interests, and seek to understand the other's side. Interests are the underlying needs that have caused you to decide what you want; in contrast, a position is that stand that you have decided upon.
Brainstorm possible solutions in your attempt to reach a solution. Generating multiple options before deciding upon any one solution can yield highly creative possibilities for resolving the conflict. Often it is possible to identify interests that both parties share and to devise solutions that work well for both.
Develop a BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement). A BATNA is a fallback option if you are unable to reach a negotiated agreement. The goal in collaborating is to reach a solution that is better than a non-negotiated decision, but sometimes this isn't possible. Therefore, it's important to identify your BATNA before beginning the collaborative effort, so you know what your options are if it appears you won't be able to reach a satisfying outcome. Your BATNA gives you strength to not accept a suboptimal outcome. A BATNA is not your bottom-line (the competing approach uses bottom-lines); it's what you will do if you have exhausted all possibilities of reaching a collaborative solution.
Try the win/win approach in resolving your project conflicts. The benefit of excellent solutions and enhanced working relationships is worth the effort. ∎