RAI BUSINESS SCHOOL

PROJECT ON

Linking Goals to Avoidance in Interpersonal Conflict Situations:

A Cognitive Approach

In partial fulfillment of

POST GRADUATE PROGRAM IN PLANNING AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP

SUBMITTED To SUBMITTED BY

Mrs. Anupma Sharma SANJEET KUMAR SINGH

SR. LECTURER 22/PGPPE/08E/168

RBS, Delhi Sem- IV, RBS, New Delhi

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am grateful to those who have helped me in compiling the
matter for this project. While I take this opportunity to thank all
of them-they are too numerous to be mentioned in this brief
preface.
I would like to acknowledge my deep sense of gratitude to
Mrs. Anupma Sharma (Faculty of Life Skills, RBS Delhi) for
her valuable help at all stage.
Lastly no words can adequately express my dept e.g. gratitude to
my all faculty members of RBS DELHI and I also thanks my
friends for their support.

TO WHOM SO EVER IT MAY CONCERN

This is to certify that Sanjeet Kumar Singh as a student of Rai Business
School, Delhi, Batch (2008-2010) PTU University Enrollment number
22/PGPPE/08E/168 has completed Project study of Life Skills in
completed under Guidance.

Mrs. Anupma Sharma

(LECTURER, R.B.S. Delhi)

Abstract
When an argument becomes overheated, is it better to insist on arguments until the other submits,
or is it better to withdraw until both parties cool off? When a work team makes a decision, are
the ideas offered always better than the ideas held back? Just as "the squeaky wheels get oiled,"
conflict communication research has focused on communicative strategies in dealing with
conflict, and the non-communicative strategy of avoidance has rarely been examined. Avoidance
has been largely viewed as a passive and ineffective conflict strategy. The goal of this
dissertation is to develop and assess a cognitive model of conflict avoidance. A typology of
conflict avoidance and a typology of goals in conflict situations are developed. Twelve
hypotheses about how conflict goals determine individuals' likelihood of using specific
avoidance strategies are proposed. In an experiment, the importance of a goal or a combination
of goals was manipulated, and the likelihood of using specific avoidance strategies was
measured. Twelve goals or combinations of goals were induced in a role-playing situation. Each
goal induction was placed in one of two hypothetical scenarios (an interpersonal conflict in a
group project in school and a similar conflict at work). With two scenarios and 12 goal
inductions, 24 experimental conditions were created. A total of 352 student participants were
randomly assigned to the 24 conditions. Participants imagined interacting in the hypothetical
conflict scenario, which was presented in writing; they then provided their responses on a
questionnaire. Results indicated that avoidance has various forms, some of which were caused by
different levels of importance placed on different goals. Avoidance strategies were shown to
have two components: communication avoidant strategies (withdrawal, passive competition, exit,
and outflanking) and issue avoidant strategies (pretending and yielding). The former strategies
were predicted by competitive goals, whereas the latter were predicted by cooperative goals.
Interpretations and implications of the results, the limitations of the study, and future directions
were discussed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 Topic
S.No.

1
. Introduction.

Conflict
2.

3. Link to conflict management style assessment

4. Conflict in Groups and Teams

5. Reason for conflict

6. Solution for conflict

7. Conclusion.

8. Bibliography.

Introduction
“Hi, Shyam, why did Ram get the promotion and not you? Everyone knows you
-are more qualified.”
“Well, what can I do about it? Ram and our boss graduated from the same
college, and they are good friends.”
“Why don’t you argue about it? It’s unfair!”
“I don’t want to offend him; I want to keep my job, Balram.”
“If I were you, I would definitely talk to him.”
Conflict is inevitable in interpersonal
relationships. In the above situation, Shyam has chosen to avoid talking to his boss
about the perceived unfairness of a promotion because he fears he may lose his job,
whereas Balram advises confrontation. Which method is better? Is avoidance or
confrontation more beneficial to the employee’s job security? And which is more
beneficial to the employee’s relationship with his boss? Under what circumstances do
people choose avoidance over other ways of resolving conflict? In a society that
stresses verbalization and directness such as the United States (Hall, 1959; Kim, Shin,
& Cai, 1998), the answers to these questions likely would be biased against
avoidance. Roloff and Ifert (2000) criticized research in interpersonal conflict for its
failure to explain avoidance. Kim (2002), in discussing non-Western perspectives on
communication, stated that avoidance had been largely overlooked by the mainstream
research on conflict management strategies in the past four decades. Early research in
conflict management such as by Blake and Mouton (1964) and by Filley and House
2
In some situations, avoidance may be an effective or desirable strategy, such
as when the cost of confrontation is too great or when there is insufficient justification
to take action. In their situational theory of non-apologies,
argued that when all potential actions seem to bring negative consequences,
individuals are likely to avoid the situation. Guerrero (1992) and Tavris (1982) found
that individuals reported a tendency to use non-communicative acts such as holding
grudges or trying to ignore angry feelings to prevent their partners’ aggressive or
violent behaviors in interpersonal relationships. Lewin (1935) compared a person’s
approaching or avoiding actions to an object experiencing attraction or repelling
forces in a physical field. He argued that a positive stimulus pulls the person in (i.e.,
the person approaches the stimulus), whereas a negative stimulus repels the person
(i.e., the person avoids the stimulus). When faced with two equally undesirable
stimuli, the person is likely to take an avoidant action from both stimuli. The avoidant
action may be leaving the field or doing something unrelated to the two negative
options .
Studies of interpersonal avoidance have begun to increase recently. Most of
these studies focused on topic avoidance . In examining conflict
management through topic avoidance in close relationships, Roloff and Ifert (2000)
stated that, “conflict avoidance deserves more attention than it has been afforded.
Perhaps achieving successful relationships requires a balance between confrontation
and avoidance”. Afifi and Guerrero (2000) advocated the explorations of
relationship-based, individual-based, and information-based motivations to
understand people’s topic avoidance in close relationships. Research in topic
avoidance has provided a good starting point to a systematic investigation of conflict
avoidance.
Increased discussion of avoidance is also found in the research in crosscultural
comparisons on conflict styles.
Although mixed results have been found regarding cultural differences on preferred
use of avoidance, Cai and Fink indicated that an overall generalization is that
“collectivists are more likely to be non-confrontational whereas individualists are
more likely to be confrontational” (p. 71). Using a multidimensional scaling analysis,
Cai and Fink demonstrated that this generalization is untrue: Individualists avoid
more than collectivists do. Others have found that avoidance is a common strategy
used in certain situations, about certain issues, and with people in certain relationships.

cognitive factors on conflict behavior. For instance, the impact of cognitive biases on
conflict processing has been widely documented .
The research on avoidance about topic disclosure and cross-cultural
comparisons on conflict styles suggested examining the cognitive processes of
conflict avoidance in understanding people’s conflict behaviors. People use avoidance
to achieve multiple goals .
The major purpose of this dissertation is to examine the links between goals
and avoidance strategies in interpersonal conflict situations through a cognitive
model. Before the links are examined, a typology of avoidance strategies and a
typology of goals are developed. Because the study investigates the likelihood of
using avoidance strategies through a goals approach, which is one of the ways to
study cognitive processes, the assumptions for
cognitive research apply to this study.
Wilson (2005) summarized four assumptions that cognitive theorists usually
make. First, the individual is the unit of analysis. This study examines the goals that
an individual uses for avoidance in an interpersonal conflict situation; the focus is
placed on the actor's goals and strategies, not the other party’s. Second, individuals
interpret the environment and respond to it actively .This study
examines interpersonal conflict, and thus the goals activated by characteristics of
interpersonal conflict situations are the foci. Personality or dispositional variables are
not discussed. The active response to the environment also implies that conflict
strategies to pursue the goals are more relevant in this study than are conflict styles,
which are more appropriate to be discussed when the focus is to understand
dispositions .
Wilson (2005) defined a strategy as "an abstract category of behaviors that
share a common feature or quality and that appear to pursue a goal". A
conflict strategy is used to pursue goals arising from a conflict situation. A conflict
style refers to the recurrent approaches to managing conflict across situations and is a
socialization product, or in other words, a learned behavior for managing conflict
(Ting-Toomey, 1994). Roloff and Ifert (2000) argued that avoidance can be an
effective communicative choice and that the strategic use of avoidance does not make
a person an avoider. Wang and Chen (2004) found that conflict strategies varied
across situations and were not always consistent with conflict styles. Because the
main purpose of this dissertation is to identify the goals that predict avoidance in a
conflict situation, the dissertation examines avoidance as a strategy rather than a style.
The third assumption that cognitive researchers have made is about limited
cognitive capacity for understanding and responding to the environment (Wilson,
2005). This assumption applies to this study. The focus of the dissertation will be on
the goals most relevant to interpersonal conflict. The goals that the actor may not be
conscious of are not discussed. In other words, this study tests avoidance strategies as
a means to achieve the ends that the actor has planned consciously.
Finally, the dissertation builds a cognitive model that may apply to various
interpersonal conflict situations (Wilson, 2005). The dissertation does not examine
the prior relationship between the actor and the other party or prior conversational
episodes between the two. Attention is directed to goals that motivate avoidance
strategies (i.e., the link between goals and avoidance strategies). Any variables that
may influence the formation of goals or that may be affected by avoidance strategies
are beyond the scope of this study. The link between goals and avoidance strategies
should be found in various interpersonal conflict situations.
The following chapter reviews the literature on avoidance and goals. A
rationale is provided to link goals to avoidance strategies in a cognitive model.
Chapter 3 describes the pilot studies and the method used to test the model. Chapter 4
provides the results. Chapter 5 summarizes the study, interprets the results, and
discusses the limitations of the study, directions to future research, and the
significance of the study.

Conflict

The Experience of Conflict

 • everyday experience suggests conflict can not be avoided in interaction with
others

The Nature Of Conflict

• conflict is difficult to define: a struggle for mastery, a combat to overcome,

active opposition, strife
• conflict involves opposing forces and differing objectives

Types of Conflict

Social Conflict

• interpersonal conflict- two individuals me against you; intergoup struggles

-us against them;individual opposing a group- me against them, them
against me; intragroup conflict- members of group all against each other on
a task

Psychological Conflict (internal conflict)

• this type of conflict could be going on inside the person and no one would
know ( instinct may be at odds with values)
• Freud would say unconscious id battling superego, according to Freud our
personalities are always in conflict

Approach-Avoidance

• conflict can be describe as having features of approach and avoidance:

approach-approach conflict; avoidance-avoidance conflict; approach-
avoidance conflict

Approach-Approach Conflict

two desirable things are wanted, but only one option can be chosen
( example: desirable date Or ski trip)"I want this but I also want that."

Avoidance- avoidance Conflict

two unattractive alternatives ( example: study or do the dishes "I don't

want his and I don't want that

Approach- Avoidance Conflict

 attractive and unattractive parts to both sides "I want this but I don't
want what this entails"

Functional vs Dysfunctional Conflict

Dysfunctional Conflict: when conflict disrupts, hinders job performance, and

upsets personal psychological functioning

Functional Conflict: from an interactionist perspective conflict can be

responsive and innovative aiding in creativity and viability. Determine if
conflict achieves goals or undermines them

Benefits of Conflict- Opportunity not obstacle by David Johnson

• enables a person to become aware of problems in a relationship

• serves as catalyst for positive change
• energizes and motivates to deal with immediate problems
• stimulates interest and curiosity
• relieves minor tensions -cathartic
• causes decision to be made more carefully
• promotes self-knowledge
• clears the air of unexpressed resentments

Psychological Orientations to Conflict

Conflict orientation: we all display predispositions when faced with conflict;

some approach, some withdraw;orientation involves beliefs and perceptions.
(some see opportunity in conflict, some destruction; some want to face and
resolve; some want to win )Our orientations change from situation to
situation

Clayton Lafferty/Ronald Phillips 12 Individual Styles in 3 basic

Orientations (1990)

Constructive Orientation to Conflict (Conciliatory,Pragmatic,Self-

empowered, Relationship Building)
* conflict viewed as normal to achieve longer term
* those with constructive orientation are realistic
* pragmatic approach means feelings are expressed honestly and directly
* self worth is not associated with results of dispute
* those with this approach are self-empowered and internally centred
(address difference with sensitivity and patience)
* they are conciliatory, well intentioned, work fairly and reasonably; looking
for underlying needs and motivations, maintaining an objective perspective;
diffusing and facilitating; value loyalty to relationship; few issues break bond
of friendship

Passive-Defensive Orientation to Conflict (Accommodating, Avoiding,

Insulating, Regulating)
* conflict not seen as normal and possibility generating but seen as a threat;
they avoid getting involved by calming waters; belief is conflict is
unnecessary and destructive
* they are accommodating giving in and doing as others ask; self-worth is
measured by others acceptance and approval
*they try to insulate themselves from controversy feeling powerless in
struggle; labeled as avoider denying conflict letting others resolve; appear
loyal seeking dependent relationship with those more powerful
To improve they should: recognize value of conflict; state their interests;
stand up for self; accept conflict exists

Aggressive- Defensive Orientation to Conflict (Perfectionistic,

Competitive, Dominating, Escalating)
* this orientation escalates conflict; belief is that competence is key; a desire
to put themselves above opponent to hide own inadequacies
*dominators seek high ground of power and authority "Might makes Right"
* conflict as a competition to gain or lose status -winning linked to self-worth
* perfectionism-setting unrealistic standards impossible for others
To improve: don't confuse force with power; separate self-worth from
outcome; be fair; explore difference; accept less than perfect; respect
others; accept feelings as facts

Conflict Management Styles

• the particular conflict strategy you use in any situation depends

on how important goals and relationships are to you
• to be skilled in conflict management you should be skilled in all
five strategies
• you have choice; styles are learned.

LINK TO CONFLICT MANAGEMENT STYLE ASSESSMENT

The Competing Shark

• Sharks use a forcing or competing conflict management style

• sharks are highly goal-oriented
• Relationships take on a lower priority
• Sharks do not hesitate to use aggressive behaviour to resolve conflicts
• Sharks can be autocratic, authoritative, and uncooperative; threatening and
intimidating
• Sharks have a need to win; therefore others must lose, creating win-lose
situations
• Advantage: If the shark's decision is correct, a better decision without
compromise can result
• Disadvantage: May breed hostility and resentment toward the person using it
• Appropriate times to use a Shark style
o when conflict involves personal differences that are difficult to change
o when fostering intimate or supportive relationships is not critical
o when others are likely to take advantage of noncompetitive behaviour
o when conflict resolution is urgent; when decision is vital in crisis
o when unpopular decisions need to be implemented

The Avoiding Turtle

• Turtles adopt an avoiding or withdrawing conflict management style

• Turtles would rather hide and ignore conflict than resolve it; this leads them
uncooperative and unassertive
• Turtles tend to give up personal goals and display passive behaviour creating
lose-lose situations
• Advantage: may help to maintain relationships that would be hurt by conflict
resolution
• Disadvantage: Conflicts remain unresolved, overuse of the style leads to
others walking over them
• Appropriate times to use a Turtle Style:
o when the stakes are not high or issue is trivial
o when confrontation will hurt a working relationship
o when there is little chance of satisfying your wants
o when disruption outweighs benefit of conflict resolution
o when gathering information is more important than an immediate
decision
o when others can more effectively resolve the conflict
o when time constraints demand a delay\
The Accommodating Teddy Bear

• Teddy bears use a smoothing or accommodating conflict management style

with emphasis on human relationships
• Teddy bears ignore their own goals and resolve conflict by giving into others;
unassertive and cooperative creating a win-lose (bear is loser) situation
• Advantage: Accommodating maintains relationships
• Disadvantage: Giving in may not be productive, bear may be taken
advantage of
• Appropriate times to use a Teddy Bear Style
o when maintaining the relationship outweighs other considerations
o when suggestions/changes are not important to the accommodator
o when minimizing losses in situations where outmatched or losing
o when time is limited or when harmony and stability are valued

The Compromising Fox

• Foxes use a compromising conflict management style; concern is for goals

and relationships
• Foxes are willing to sacrifice some of their goals while persuading others to
give up part of theirs
• Compromise is assertive and cooperative-result is either win-lose or lose-lose
• Advantage: relationships are maintained and conflicts are removed
• Disadvantage: compromise may create less than ideal outcome and game
playing can result
• Appropriate times to use a Fox Style
o when important/complex issues leave no clear or simple solutions
o when all conflicting people are equal in power and have strong
interests in different solutions
o when their are no time restraints

The Collaborating Owl

• Owls use a collaborating or problem confronting conflict management style

valuing their goals and relationships
• Owls view conflicts as problems to be solved finding solutions agreeable to all
sides (win-win)
• Advantage: both sides get what they want and negative feelings eliminated
• Disadvantage: takes a great deal of time and effort
• Appropriate times to use an Owl Style
o when maintaining relationships is important
o when time is not a concern
o when peer conflict is involved
o when trying to gain commitment through consensus building
o when learning and trying to merge differing perspectives
Seven Steps to Constructive Conflict Resolution Using the
Collaborative Style (Johnson)

1. Confront the Opposing Party

• let other party know of conflict by expressing your view and feelings and
invite other party to do same
• the stronger or more solid the relationship the more forceful the
confrontation may be
• if other party displays high anxiety and low motivation them avoid conflict

2. Define the Conflict Together

• define conflict in agreeable way, fairly, objectively to avoid defensiveness

• arrive at common definition of problem avoiding insults and negative value;
be clear and specific; describe feelings; reflect back; control passions

3. Communicate Personal Positions and Feelings

• keep lines open; know the other's position; understand their point
• seek to uncover what differences are
• look for common ground
• what does each have to do to resolve conflict

4. Express Your Cooperative Intentions

• make it clear that you don't want to undermine relationship

• state desire to work together for a mutually agreeable solution
• show optimism-the net effect will be stronger bond

5. Understand the Conflict from the Other Party's Viewpoint

• do not ignore or fail to recognize perspective of others

• see the situation fro their view

6. Be Motivated to Negotiate in Good Faith

• be motivated by good intentions

7. Reach an Agreement

win-win means everybody satisfied.

Conflict in Groups and Teams

Conflict inevitably arises in one form or another in varying degrees due to the mere group and/or
team dynamics of having people with differing backgrounds, ideas, and potential agendas
coming together in an effort to accomplish a common goal. Conflict is generally considered to be
negative and something to be avoided. Numerous frameworks such as LaFasto and Larson's
CONNECT model have been developed to help rid groups of negative conflict. However,
conflict isn’t always negative and there are circumstances in which positive conflict is necessary
in order to prevent compliance tendencies and the potentially disastrous effects of groupthink.

In the following sections, the positive and negative realms of conflict will be outlined and further
detailed in an effort to narrow the scope of conflict while helping to navigate some of the more
negative connotations that easily come to mind when thinking about conflict.

Why is Conflict Resolution Important in a Team Setting?

Whether we embrace it or avoid it, conflict is an inherent part of the human condition. Unlike
certain tasks or responsibilities, conflict is not isolated to one or another aspect of life. With
conflict looming all about us, why should we even bother trying to resolve it? Or, if conflict is
inherent to being human, is it then presumptuous to even attempt its resolution? We propose that,
in the vast majority of instances of team conflict, avoidance is a worse solution than engagement
with the conflicting situation. Moreover, avoided conflict will lead to less optimal solutions and
may even prevent the team from finishing a project. Thus, from a manager’s perspective, it is a
simple equation of a cost/benefits analysis in that the cost to the organization is greater when
teams avoid conflict than when they engage it. In this chapter we will discuss the symptoms of
conflict and recommend solutions for their resolution.

Conflict absorbs team resources that could be better utilized working towards the team’s goals.
As discussed, managers should manage conflict in a way that leads the team towards completion
of team goals.

What are the Symptoms of Team Conflict?

Almost everyone has endured the experience of being part of a team that was plagued with
conflict. Whether in a large group that erupts in anger and can’t finish a meeting, or a small
group of two or three individuals that resort to backbiting and gossiping to vent frustration over a
conflict, everyone has been a part of a team where conflict has gotten out of control. With this in
mind, there are several symptoms of conflict that can be identified in groups which can help
groups to recognize and manage conflict before it tears them apart. By identifying the following
symptoms related to communication, trust, and opposing agendas, the team leader can identify
conflict before it erupts. As you read through these symptoms, think of the teams that you are a
part of and look for symptoms that exist in your team.

One common symptom of conflict is a lack of communication or a lack of respectful

communication. This is most often seen when teams fail to have meaningful meetings. Most
often, non-communicating meetings are characterized by team members sitting and listening to
what the boss has to say. Often chatter or silence prevails in teams. A lack of communication can
also be noted when team members don’t get along, and so refuse to talk to each other. These
feuds create barriers within teams and prevent communication in the team. A lack of
communication or disrespectful communication leads to a lack of trust, which is another
symptom of team conflict. Teams that fail to produce desired results often lack the trust in one
another as team members necessary to succeed. Without trust in a team, verbal or non-verbal
conflict becomes the norm of the team. Team members spend more energy protecting their own
positions and jobs then they do producing what is required for the team’s success. When trust
erodes in a team, the habit of blaming others becomes the norm as individuals try to protect
themselves. Team members become enemies that compete against each other rather than allies
that build and help one another to achieve a common goal. Teams that lack trust often gossip
about other members or have frequent side conversations after meetings to discuss opposing
opinions. Such activity sucks strength out of the team and its purpose.

Another symptom of team conflict can be seen when team members have opposing agendas. This
is not to be confused with members who have different opinions. Having different opinions in a
group can be very healthy if managed correctly because it can create better ideas and ways of
getting the job done. However, when team members have opposing agendas, more is at stake
than differing opinions; it is two individuals fiercely committed to the exact opposite approach.
Opposing agendas can create confusion in team members and can cause them to lose sight of
their role in the team and the team’s final goal. Teams must work toward a common goal in order
to be successful. Extreme effort must be made to reconcile differences, or such a team can look
forward to failure.

What are Appropriate Solutions to Conflict?

As mentioned above, conflict is a natural and necessary element of a healthy team experience. If
a team never experiences conflict, it is less likely to be as productive as a team that does
experience conflict. This is especially true if the task that a team is attempting to complete is
complex in nature or highly detailed. Without having members question specific actions,
decisions, or the specifics of the proposed solution, it may appear to the team that there is only
one way in which to solve the problem or complete the task.

One way in which a team can avoid being unproductive is by selecting members with different
backgrounds. This can be difficult because people often assume that individuals who think
similarly and get along with one another will be more productive when working together. But
this is not necessarily true. In many cases having groups of people who think alike and are not
willing to voice their disagreement can be detrimental, or even dangerous. Popular examples of
this group think phenomenon are noted in the Kennedy Administration’s disaster with regards to
the Bay of Pigs, or those involved with the Challenger shuttle launch. Differences among team
members should however, be task orientated and not personal or relationship oriented.
Relationship conflicts are rarely productive. If potential members of a team have a history of
conflict due to relationships and not in relation to tasks, one or both should probably not be
chosen as a team member. Additionally, peacekeepers should also be avoided, unless the team
environment fosters a very safe atmosphere where the peacekeeper will feel comfortable enough
to speak out in the team setting. In this case, a difference in opinion could be beneficial, but it
might not be presented due to the member’s disproportionate desire to avoid conflict.

Avoiding the potential for group think, relationship conflicts, and peacekeepers in choosing team
members will help to promote healthy conflict. But commitment is equally important. If team
members are individually or collectively indifferent toward the overall goal, they probably will
not perform well. A lack of commitment can also lead to a lack of conflict. If the team is
committed to the overall goal and members are well chosen, there can be a healthy dose of
conflict in the process to complete the task.

When conflict does occur, it is important to address it immediately. Although developing a

solution to the conflict may take time, acknowledging it will help to ensure that it can become
productive to the team. “Whatever the problem, effective teams identify, raise, and resolve it. If
it’s keeping them from reaching their goal, effective teams try to do something about it. They
don’t ignore it and hope it goes away.” By not addressing conflict, the leader risks sending the
message that conflict is unmanageable and cause vested members to become complacent or feel
their input is not valued. In the worst scenario, a conflict that is not resolved could go from being
task orientated to personal.

How Can a Team Prevent Negative Conflict?

Conflict may be inevitable on a team and may even have a positive effect, “the absence of
conflict is not harmony, it’s apathy.” However, most of us have had experience with the crippling
side of conflict. In this section we offer insight into how other teams have successfully managed
conflict and make recommendations for mechanisms to put into place in order to prevent harmful
conflict. How do successful teams manage conflict?

Three business professors, who studied teams which had learned how to successfully “fight” in a
team without allowing the conflict to become destructive, found some common themes as to how
such teams function. First, successful teams worked with more, rather than less information and
debated on the basis of facts. Second, teams developed multiple alternatives to enrich the level of
debate. Third, productive teams shared commonly agreed upon goals and objectives. Fourth,
teams injected humor into the decision-making process. Fifth, teams maintained a balanced
power structure. And sixth, teams resolved issues without forcing consensus.

In another study, which surveyed 15,000 team members and their assessments of their team
mates, two professors found that the most important behaviors in team relationships are openness
and supportiveness, “Regardless of whether it was a working relationship with a peer, a superior,
or a direct report, the result was the same. The two factors identified as most important were
openness and supportiveness.” Moreover, the authors identify specifically what is meant by these
two adjectives within a team context: openness “refers to the ability to surface and deal with
issues objectively,” while supportiveness “refers to bringing out the best thinking and attitude in
the other person.”

From the above insights into successful teams, we start to see that such teams put a high value on
fact-based decisions and are able to set up mechanisms that bring out the best in each team
member and facilitate information sharing. Drawing from these insights, then, what specific
measures, should a new leader or newly formed team put into place to ensure the team can
withstand conflict and even gain the benefits of creativity that comes out of conflict?

How Do Teams Prevent Damaging Conflict?

In order to prevent damaging conflict, the team leader must lay a conflict-friendly foundation for
the team. The following approach will help the team leader to set the stage for conflict that is
creative and productive:

1. Set a clear goal for the team.

2. Make expectations for team members explicit.
3. Assemble a heterogeneous team, including diverse ages, genders, functional
backgrounds, and industry experience.
4. Meet together as a team regularly and often. Team members that don’t know one another
well doesn’t know positions on the issues, impairing their ability to argue effectively.
Frequent interaction builds the mutual confidence and familiarity team members require
expressing dissent.
5. Assign roles such as devil’s advocate and sky-gazing visionary and change these roles up
from meeting to meeting. This is important to ensure all sides of an issue have been
considered.
6. Use techniques such as role-playing, putting oneself in the competitor’s shoes, or
conducting war games. Such techniques create fresh perspectives and engage team
members.
7. Actively manage conflict. Don’t let the team acquiesce too soon or too easily. Identify
and treat apathy early, and don’t confuse a lack of conflict with agreement.

Resolving Conflict
Interpersonal conflict should be managed and resolved before it degenerates into verbal assault
and irreparable damage to a team. Dealing with interpersonal conflict can be a difficult and
uncomfortable process. Usually, as team members, we use carefully worded statements to avoid
frictions when confronting conflict.

The first step to resolving interpersonal conflict is in acknowledging the existence of the
interpersonal conflict. Recognizing the conflict allows team members to build common ground
by putting the conflict within the context of the larger goal of the team and the organization.
Moreover, the larger goal can help by giving team members a motive for resolving the conflict.

The Rosetta Stone for dealing with conflict is communication. As team members we all
understand the inevitability of interpersonal conflicts. Moreover, as we have established above,
open and supportive communication is vital to a high performing team. One way to achieve this
is by separating the problem from the person. Problems can be debated without damaging
working relationships. When interpersonal conflict occurs, all sides of the issue should be
recognized without finger-pointing or blaming. Above all, when team member gets yelled at or
blamed for something, it has the effect of silencing the whole team. It gives the signal to
everyone that dissent is not allowed, and, as we know, dissent is one of the most fertile resources
for new ideas.

When faced with conflict, it is natural for team members to become defensive. However
defensiveness usually makes it more difficult to resolve a conflict. A conflict-friendly team
environment must encourage effective listening. Effective listening includes listening to one
another attentively, without interruption (this includes not having side conversations, doodling,
or vacant stares). The fundamentals to resolving team conflict include the following elements:

1. Prior to stating one’s view, a speaker should seek to understand what others have said.
This can be done in a few clarifying sentences,
2. Seek to make explicit what the opposing sides have in common. This helps to reinforce
what is shared between the disputants,
3. Whether or not an agreement is reached, team members should thank the other for having
expressed his view and feelings. Thanking the other recognizes the personal risk the
individual took in breaking from group think and should be viewed as an expression of
trust and commitment toward the team.

How Can Teams Resolve Conflict Between Factions?

In resolving conflict between factions, the team leader should start by bringing the groups
together and acknowledging there is a conflict. The team leader should make sure all group
members are clear about the group goal. Not only should each group member understand what
the goal is, they each need to be willing to work toward achieving it.

Set ground rules for the group if this has not been done. An important rule to include is to
eliminate outside politicking. When disagreements or issues arise, they should be discussed
within the group. Factions should not have separate discussions about the problem. If ground
rules have already been established, discuss whether all agree with them and are willing to follow
them. Discuss the methods and processes that will be used to reach the team goal. Again, it is
important to get all team members working together towards the common goal.

The team leader should stay alert to one faction forcing a particular solution. If such an instance
arises, those forcing a solution should be asked to articulate the reason behind their thinking.
Once the thinking has been articulated, there can be open discussion as to the merits and
drawbacks to the proposed solution.

What Should a Team Leader Do To Resolve Conflict and Promote Team

Performance?

Team leaders have the responsibility of resolving conflict within their teams. There are things
that team leaders can do to make a team where conflict resolution occurs naturally. One thing
that team leaders can do in their groups to resolve conflict is to set up team rules from the outset.
As discussed earlier, such team rules can guide team members to resolve conflict between
themselves, rather than going to the leader to resolve all conflict. Team leaders should foster an
environment in their teams that is safe and positive. Such an environment will help foster
communication and will help team members to resolve conflicts. Team leaders can also provide
retreats and other activities away from the office that will help to build team unity and trust.
These factors will also strengthen a team and help to avoid negative conflict before it begins.

Team leaders can also strictly monitor performance issues in their group. Performance issues that
go unresolved create relationship conflict and a lack of motivation and morale. Performance
issues in individual team members must be addressed immediately in order to avoid issues in the
group. This doesn’t mean that team leaders always need to eliminate poor performing team
members immediately. Sometimes it is the responsibility of the team leader to provide extra
training to team members when they’re struggling, to help them meet expectations. When
attitudes need to be changed, awareness can be brought to how a team member’s attitude
negatively affects the team and invitations can be given for attitudes to improve.

In this process it is vital for the team leader to remember that accountability must be held with
team members. Without accountability in a team, focus on the goal will not occur and teams
won’t produce desired outcomes. Accountability promotes achievement and helps team members
to reach their potential. A lack of accountability can produce great task conflict and relationship
conflict. Full accountability can help produce a feeling of fulfillment and achievement and teams
will achieve their optimal performance.

How Can a Team Member Resolve a Conflict with the Team Leader?

If a team member has a conflict with the team leader, the first step is to identify the type of
conflict. If the conflict relates to the goal of the team, then it would appear that the goal is not
clear. The conflict can also relate to the processes being used by the team. In either situation, the
team member can bring up the issue in a group meeting. Ask that the goal be clarified so that all
team members understand what it is. If processes were never discussed and decided on by the
team, now would be an appropriate time to do so. If the team leader does not want to discuss
these issues in a team meeting, the team member should approach the leader separately to
discuss. The team member should explain the issue and why the current situation is not working.
Again, ask that the team be allowed to discuss these issues.

If the conflict is interpersonal between the team leader and a team member, the issue should be
discussed privately between the two. The team member should go to the leader and explain that
there appears to be conflict and that he or she would like to resolve it. LaFasto and Larson
outline an approach that can be used to resolve conflict called the Connect Model. The steps
involved in the model are as follows:

1. Commit to the relationship.

2. Optimize safety.
3. Narrow to one issue.
4. Neutralize defensiveness.
5. Explain and echo.
6. Change one behavior each.
7. Track it!
These steps provide a great review of what has been discussed throughout this chapter and will
help to resolve the issue between a team leader and team member.

In summary, team conflict is an important and integral part of any team that exists. As we have
outlined it in this chapter, conflict, if approached effectively and managed appropriately, can
exponentially work in the favor of any team. Appropriate management of the relative type of
team conflict at hand is critical for teams to be successful. This chapter has discussed several of
the aspects of team conflict and how they can be best managed and potentially resolved. These
concepts will help teams improve their functionality and dynamic effectiveness in an effort to
reach their ultimate goals in reaching to be a high performing team.

Conclusion
The present research provided support for the importance of the approach–avoidance distinction
in social motivation and goals. The outcomes assessed were limited to general social outcomes,
such as anxiety, loneliness, attitudes, and satisfaction about one’s social life in general. These
measures did not separately assess specific relationships, and future studies might extend the
model to specific relationships.

For example, goals at the beginning of a dating relationship could be assessed and then the
relationship followed over time. Gable and Reis (2001) suggested that close-relationship

as measured in narrative responses to picture cues predict a different class of outcomes (e.g.,
spontaneous behavior) than explicit motives and are derived from affective experience rather
than cognitive constructs. The distinction between approach and avoidance motives and goals
and the model described earlier should also be relevant to implicit motives and goals. Future
research is needed to test this assumption. The studies presented here suggest that approach
motives and goals and their corresponding processes organize behavior and affect

regarding positive and otherwise rewarding stimuli in relationships, whereas avoidance motives
and goals and their corresponding processes organize behavior and affect regarding negative and
otherwise punishing stimuli. Thus, the existence of positive features in a relationship

does not necessarily imply the absence of negative features, and vice versa. More importantly,
the motivation to obtain the positive benefits of social bonds in relationships differs in important
ways from the motivation to avoid the negative aspects of relationships. Moreover, there is
myriad evidence that social relationships are potent sources of both physical and emotional
pleasure and of physical and emotional pain. Berscheid and Reis (1998) noted that ‘‘despite

the wealth of evidence that relationships are people’s most frequent source of both happiness and
distress, there is inadequate evidence of the causal mechanisms responsible and of the types of

relationships that are most beneficial or harmful, even though these issues form the course of
much theorizing and research’’ .

The outcomes sought by approach motives and goals include intimacy, fun, validation, and
companionship. The outcomes that avoidance motives and goals attempt to evade include
rejection, betrayal, manipulation, and loss of control. It seems that pleasure in

social bonds stems from the presence of the positive features and the absence of the negative
ones, whereas pain in social bonds stems from the presence of the negative features and the
absence of the Social Motives and Goals 215 positive ones. Future research on close
relationships and interpersonal processes may benefit from this distinction. In conclusion, the
present work was an attempt to synthesize research from the divergent fields of personal
relationships and approach and avoidance motivation. It is clear that more work is
needed to understand how approach and avoidance motives, goals, processes, and outcomes
operate in close relationships. The present results do, however, show that investigation of
interpersonal relationships from this framework is likely to inform us about both motivation

and relationships.

Bibliography

 http://drum.lib.umd.edu/handle/

 http://books.google.com/books

 http://en.scientificcommons.org/
 http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Managing_Groups_and_Teams/

 http://www.riverhouseepress.com/

 http://www.coachingtowardhappiness.com/