Team conflict

Conflict has usually been around for a while before it becomes apparent to all team members.  It may appear in the form of breakdowns of procedure, productivity, communication or relationship, etc.  It can come at any time and any place; it can be explained in numerous different ways and the underlying causes are usually far from clear.  It is seen as dysfunctional, generally painful and to be avoided.  Invariably it gets personalised into blame, accusations, heated arguments, attacks and retaliation that can be deeply damaging to the team and difficult to recover from.  No wonder teams tend to avoid, control or suppress it.  Just talking about it can cause even more conflict!

Generators of team conflict may include informal, changing or unclear roles, poor or inappropriate leadership, competing priorities; work-load or contribution imbalances, personality differences, different values or ways of thinking, bullying, work-overload and failure to maintain boundaries and protect team; imbalance in skill mix or shortfall in competence, status and recognition barriers, failing business strategy, insufficient resources, to mention but a few. So why bother calling it conflict? 

Dissonance and conflict are a universal sign of the need for change - that some thing is not right, that something new is about to emerge, that growth and learning is needed for survival, adaptation to changing circumstances or to meet higher performance requirements. Conflict and contention therefore are gate openers indicating a need for inquiry that can lead us to discovery of diverse generators.

Whenever a team takes on stretching goals, then breakdowns, mistakes, unmet expectations, etc., which generate conflict are inevitable. The key is to recognise them as quickly as possible, accept them as a necessary part of the stretch for growth or excellence and quickly recover the balance needed to adapt and learn.  Few of the generators mentioned above are recognised or clear to the protagonists in the midst of conflict. There is even less likelihood that there will be a shared interpretation among all team members.  When they are recognised, team members often feel powerless and may not feel responsibility for, or have the capability to do anything about them. 

What the team can agree upon is that there is conflict. They can have a shared understanding, which needs to be established in advance, as to what being in conflict means to the team and how they will go about benefiting from the experience rather than being damaged or undermined by it. This advance understanding of the nature, necessity and function of conflict is crucial so the team does not get taken unawares and thrown into disarray or meaningless chaos that can damage team spirit and cohesiveness.

As with individuals, team maturity is reflected in its ability to contain conflict within itself rather than acting it out or projecting it on to others. The ability to become conscious of internal conflict, its meaning and implications; to be able to contain and harness its energy and focus it constructively is indicative of a state of team development necessary for successful adaptation and high performance.

This means being able to recognise early that the team is in conflict; surface the conflict into shared awareness; raise awareness from a non-aligned or objective viewpoint - a place of observation and witness; be able to identify with and value all aspects or parties to the conflict without marginalizing any party; be aware of the hierarchies of value and power operating among the parties and the impact of such rank and privilege on the cohesion and dynamic of the team as a whole; find a place which does not separate the team into the judges and the judged, but all partake in the judging while, at one and the same time, being the object of the judgement; be able to treat the team as object  - to work on the conflict rather than in it, so to speak; look at "what is in conflict", not just "who";  be able to harness, balance and move beyond inequalities in favour of the whole and of the team mission and vision; discover meaning in, learn and grow through the conflict. This is no small challenge and it does not happen without preparation and skills building in advance of a conflict.

Teams often overlook the importance of advance preparedness in recognising and dealing with conflict.  The realisation that it is needed may only be appreciated in the midst of or in the aftermath of the conflict when the damage has been done, recovery more difficult and costly, opportunity and advantage lost.  In the heat of the moment it is usually too difficult to learn more creative ways of dealing with conflict. In the aftermath it is often too late.

The importance of team preparation for dealing with conflict where high performance is going to be required cannot be overemphasised. Regrettably, teams often have to experience the high costs of breakdown before they realise the importance of advance preparation and, more critically, are motivated to undertake it.  Advance preparedness shortens recognition and recovery time, focuses energy and effort on growth, learning and improved performance and avoids costly relationship damage, lost opportunity or operational breakdown. 

Spending the time and effort may seem like an unnecessary luxury or a low priority before the team encounters conflict or when the team seems to be working well enough. A wise team-leader, however, will know that you cannot have high performance without conflict or without building the capability to deal with it in advance and will insist on devoting time and resource to such advance preparation. And, it is important that all members lead, not just follow, when dealing with conflict.

The entropic, fragmentary effect of conflict on a team runs counter to the cohesion and alignment needed to maintain team shape, connectedness and high performance. Teams, in order to function effectively need clear functional and role differentiation so the whole adds up to more then the parts. The very effectiveness of the team comes from its diversity and specialisation of roles and responsibilities. This is not to say that team members have to be role-bound - far from it, it is best if individuals can cover for each other in a number of roles but this requires both role consciousness and clarity of how they contribute to the mission of the team. While ability to function in a number of roles is desirable if not essential, it is also true that some are more suited than others to particular roles.

The whole issue of responsibility is central to how effectively a team deals with conflict. "If you are not a protagonist than don't get involved" is not an untypical team member stance.  However, the essence of high performing teams is collective awareness, care and responsibility for the well-being and performance of the whole team.  If a sense of team-ness has not been cultivated and established in advance, then it is unlikely that when it comes to conflict there will be any sense of shared responsibility for what is going on in the team.  Member's response is more likely to be "you are the team leader, it is your responsibility - you sort it!"

A more traditional approach to leading teams is for the mission, vision, reward and sanction power and decision-making authority to be vested in the leader who then controls and aligns the team and sorts out conflict through unilateral use of these powers.  In recent years, the building of shared vision, team norms and values, joint responsibility, facilitative leadership, joint or consultative decision making, etc. has encouraged a less hierarchical approach to leadership and less dependence on the coercive or forceful leader for achieving team goals. 

Leadership of the team now tends to be more distributed and responsibility does not rest solely with the positional or appointed leader.  Leading is a shared responsibility.  So too is the responsibility for the resolving and transforming conflict and this demands a more complex capability that all team members, not just the appointed leader, need to develop in advance. It is upon the establishment of shared awareness and commitment to joint responsibility that the success of the team in dealing constructively and creatively with conflict is built.  The team's effectiveness and value depend on it.