Question

Workplace Conflict

There is a big difference between arguing over ideas and arguing with each other. The former type can potentially improve decisions and increase employee performance. The latter type is likely to harm relationships and create stress and dissatisfaction. This exercise will help you to distinguish between the two types of conflict: task conflict and relationship conflict. It will also ask you to consider structural sources of conflict in organizations as well as different styles we use when faced with conflict.

Past perspectives on conflict assumed it was bad because of its potential negative consequences, such as higher stress, higher job dissatisfaction, and increased organizational politics. More recent views recognize that moderate levels of conflict can have positive outcomes such as better decision making, quicker responses to environmental change, and stronger team cohesion. Task conflict, also called constructive conflict, focuses on issues while maintaining respect for others' points of view. Relationship conflict focuses on interpersonal differences rather than legitimate differences of opinion, and generally has numerous undesirable outcomes. There are several structural sources of organizational conflict, including differentiation, task interdependence, and scarce resources. Research also shows that individuals tend to have a personal preferred conflict handling style they use when faced with conflict episodes.

Read the case below and answer the questions that follow.

Pete was a young and ambitious employee who had been with the organization for two years. He had built a reputation as a hard worker and a solid performer and had participated as a junior member of an extremely successful consulting team. Pete was well liked by older employees for his willingness to put in what it took to get the job done, but he was also admired by newer employees for his apparent ability to balance work demands with an active personal life.

In his third year at the organization, Pete's job responsibilities changed to focus on a long-term project that would last for the next two years. In making the shift to the new responsibilities, Pete was advised by a senior manager to solicit the help of Claire, a new employee who had been hired because of her expertise on projects like the one Pete was starting. Although Claire was just starting with the organization, because of her experience at other similar organizations she had been brought on as a middle manager. Although Claire wouldn't be Pete's primary supervisor, involving her would mean that Pete would need to keep her appraised of his progress and follow her suggestions. Pete had heard very positive things about Claire and was excited to benefit from her knowledge and skills.

As Pete and Claire began the project, they seemed to work well together. Their early discussions focused on the work to be completed and each expressed opinions and suggestions for how to proceed. These discussions vastly improved the plan for completing Pete's project. Pete mostly worked autonomously, but reported periodically to Claire to ask for advice and to report on his progress. After a while, Pete realized that the more he talked with Claire, the larger his project grew. Each time they would meet, she would add an idea or two that would increase his workload. Not wanting to offend her, and trusting in her experience, Pete simply agreed to the extra work. Over the next few months his discussions with Claire became less frequent, partly because of the time it took to complete the extra work she had given him, and partly because he wanted to avoid adding any more work. The early steps of the project were very flexible in terms of their timeline and tangible output, so the frequency of meetings was not a critical issue.

About six months later, Claire asked Pete if he would like to join her on a similar project that she was leading. In fact, Claire proposed that Pete extend his project to include her client and run his project concurrently with hers. This meant Claire and Pete would meet more often and work more closely. Since Claire was the lead consultant on her project, she would be Pete's direct supervisor with regard to his work on her project. Not wanting to pass up an opportunity with a skilled consultant, Pete agreed to join Claire's project.

Pete continued his practice of working on his own and reporting periodically to Claire. The later steps of his project took more time and lent themselves to less frequent reports. In the meantime, Pete had been busy working on Claire's project, including traveling several times to the client's location for two-day meetings. Progress on both projects occasionally stalled as problems arose but were quickly resolved. Pete took these delays in stride, but Claire reacted negatively towards any holdup and began expressing her displeasure in cutting remarks and critical comments. Her discontent reached a peak one day when she summoned Pete to her office for a talk. She began by outlining the failures on her project, but then proceeded to criticize Pete for the failures on his. Pete admitted he could do better, but Claire's next series of comments took him completely by surprise. She told him that he had better shape up and start working harder or he would never get anywhere in their profession. Claire made it clear that she thought Pete was the source of the problems, both on her project and on his.

Pete walked away from this meeting stinging from the unexpected reprimand. Pete knew better than to fire back at Claire, so once she had finished her comments he simply thanked her and left the room. However, the rebuke seemed to linger in the air for weeks. Over the next several months, Pete found himself less and less eager to see Claire. His communications with her became briefer and more task oriented. Unfortunately, the less he interacted with her, the more she seemed to disapprove of him personally. At the end of the projects, Pete was relieved to finally be free of his ties to Claire. The two never worked together again.

1.) Pete and Claire's early discussions focused on the work and how it would be completed. If there was conflict in these discussions, it would likely have been _____ conflict.

Multiple Choice

• interpersonal

• relationship

• nominal

• major

• task

2.) When he initially began to minimize his interactions with Claire, Pete was using which conflict resolution style?

Multiple Choice

• yielding

• compromising

• problem solving

• forcing

• avoiding

3.) When Pete agreed to take on Claire's client, he had to work more closely with her and directly report to her. This would increase which structural source of conflict?

Multiple Choice

• scarce resources

• interdependence

• incompatible goals

• ambiguous rules

• differentiation

4.) When Claire began criticizing Pete and making cutting remarks towards him, it represented which form of conflict?

Multiple Choice

• project

• differentiated

• relationship

• task

• episodic

5.) It is common for the parties to communicate less when relationship conflict is present. However, this lack of communication often ______ the conflict.

Multiple Choice

• decreases

• alleviates

• escalates

• solves

• removes

6.) Claire and Pete were unable to engage in _____, that is, to work together to find a mutually beneficial resolution to their issues.

Multiple Choice

• forcing

• avoiding

• yielding

• compromising

• problem solving

Answer 1

Answer 1: “task”

Explanation: Initially the conflict was due to differences of opinion or exchange of ideas on work-related issues. It was minor and resolved by consensus. Refer to the definition above “Task conflict, also called constructive conflict, focuses on issues while maintaining respect for others' points of view. “

Answer 2: Avoiding

Explanation: avoiding style of conflict resolution is to simply dodge the conflicting issues. Pete implemented the suggestions and avoided interacting with Claire regularly as he felt her suggestions added to his workload.

Answer 3: Ambiguous rules

Explanation: Structural conflict is caused by forces that are external to the people in the conflict. There are eight structural aspects of the organization which causes conflict. "These are specialization, common resources, goal differences, interdependence, authority relationships, status differences, jurisdictional ambiguities, and role and expectations". Pete is now reporting to Claire. Therefore, he is a colleague on one project and a subordinate on another project. The organization has a fluid organizational structure. In one project Claire is Pete’s supervisor and in other, she is his colleague. She tends to pass unwanted tasks on to Pete. The lines of responsibility are not clear in the organization.

Answer 4: Relationship

Explanation: Claire's continuous critique of Pete seemed more her attitude and an interpersonal problem rather than a work-related issue. As defined above “Relationship conflict focuses on interpersonal differences rather than legitimate differences of opinion, and generally has numerous undesirable outcomes”.

Answer 5: escalates

Explanation: Lack of communication results in increasing problems. It is because both parties aggravate the problem in their thoughts and avoid discussing the core issues. This results in escalating the conflict.

Answer 6: Problem-solving

Explanation: Problem-solving attempts to find a solution that is mutually acceptable to both parties. It is a winning situation for all the concerned parties. Collaborating/problem solving or finding a solution, which meets the needs of all parties. It helps to resolve the problem by understanding each party's viewpoints and then finding the ideal solution which is mutually beneficial. Pete and Claire do not try to find common ground and problem solve the issues they are facing.