Upload
piyush-shah
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/3/2019 How Management Teams Can Fight
1/5
How Management
Teams Can have a Good
Fight (Group 7)
Ruchi Goel, Devang Madhani, Tejashree Rane, Piyush Shah,
Nayan Jain & Utsav Thakkar
20/11/2011
8/3/2019 How Management Teams Can Fight
2/5
op-level managers know that conflict over issues is natural and even
necessary. Management teams that challenge one another's thinking
develop a more complete understanding of their choices, create a richer
range of options, and make better decisions. But the challenge--familiar to anyonewho has ever been part of a management team--is to keep constructive conflict over
issues from degenerating into interpersonal conflict. From their research on the
interplay of conflict, politics, and speed in the decision--making process of
management teams, the authors have distilled a set of six tactics characteristic of
high-performing teams:
They work with more, rather than less, information. They develop multiple alternatives to enrich debate. They establish common goals. They make an effort to inject humor into the workplace. They maintain a balanced corporate power structure. They resolve issues without forcing a consensus.
These tactics work because they keep conflict focused on issues; foster
collaborative, rather than competitive, relations among team members; and create a
sense of fairness in the decision-making process. Without conflict, groups lose their
effectiveness. Managers often become withdrawn and only superficially
harmonious. The alternative to conflict is not usually agreement but rather apathy
and disengagement, which open the doors to a primary cause of major corporate
debacles.
Focus on the facts
Some managers believe that focusing on the facts reduces the number of inter-
personal conflicts. When you have strong on facts and are well informed of the
T
8/3/2019 How Management Teams Can Fight
3/5
subject at hand, the team tends to focus more on the issue at hand rather than
personalities or debate on hunches and guesses which may or may not be true.
Multiply the AlternativesHaving multiple choices reduces inter-personal conflicts. Multiple alternatives allow
teams to discuss on a wider range of options, and managers can change positions
without having to lose face. Also when there are more options the team focuses on
the problem and the debate does not get personal and increases the likelihood of
obtaining integrative solutions.
Create Common Goals
When teams lack common goal, they tend to perceive themselves to be in
competition with one another, which arises the number of conflicts. Common goals
help teams to focus on important aspects which build on their cohesiveness. They
are less likely to look at themselves as individual winners or losers, rather they
learn from each other.
Humour
It is a powerful tool which can be used by teams to relieve some stress in todays
highly competitive environments. It is noticed that humour is absent in teams
marked with high interpersonal conflicts. It helps change the mood of the employees
as well, making the people in a more collaborative than competitive frame of mind.
Balance the Power StructureMost people will accept decisions they disagree with if they feel the process was fair.
For senior executives fairness is seen as an opportunity to have input that is
seriously considered. Another aspect of fairness is a belief that the ultimate decision
is driven by facts and good analysis, not by personality and politicking.
8/3/2019 How Management Teams Can Fight
4/5
A balanced power structure is one in which all members of the team wield
substantial power. The CEO is usually the most powerful member of the team, but is
not an autocrat who centralizes power into his own hands. High levels ofinterpersonal conflict are found on teams with autocratic leaders as well as on
teams with very weak leaders. The teams with the lowest levels of interpersonal
conflict were the ones in which all members participated in the important decisions.
Members of those teams often described the CEO as a team player.
Seek Consensus with Qualification
All of the teams that were effective at handling conflict put significant effort into
reaching consensus, butdid not force consensus. If the full group couldnt come to
agreement, the CEO or the most relevant executive would make the decision with
input from the group. This approach meets the goal of perceived fairness described
above, without needlessly delaying decisions.
All of these tactics help shift the focus toward business goals and away from
personalities. They create an atmosphere of openness where people can hear
differing views and change their minds without losing face.
My one quibble with this article is that it seems to imply that interpersonal conflict
is just a by-product of poor problem solving processes rather than a legitimate
source of contention. As useful as the 6 tactics may be, they wont help when people
have clashing work styles.
Linking conflict, speed, and performance
It is essential for teams to have some conflict among themselves as this would create
an environment where people get a deeper understanding of the issue and come up
8/3/2019 How Management Teams Can Fight
5/5
with a richer set of problem solutions. It is very important to mitigate interpersonal
conflict.