How Management Teams Can Have a Good Fight - Article Example

In particular, they studied the interplay of conflict, politics, and pace of strategic decision making by top-management teams (273-274). According to Kathleen, Jean, and Bourgeois, top executives are aware that conflict over issues is natural and honest disagreement lead the company towards best decision. Team members who challenge each other's ideas have more understanding of the issue at hand; they have more alternatives that clear the path towards effective decision. On the other hand, an honest disagreement can turn to be unproductive or even more conflicting.

Here, the challenge is to keep the conflict constructive. Kathleen, Jean, and Bourgeois studied 12 companies for their research project. Four of these companies were suffering due to top executives' intense animosity. Top management was failed to cooperate with each other, and they rarely had conversation with each other. They socialize in specific cliques rather than having good relation with most of the individuals. Moreover, they only displayed frustration and anger about their competing executive.

These companies failed to avoid interpersonal conflicts. On the other hand, companies with minimal interpersonal conflict not only managed a healthy conflict but also kept it professional (274). Kathleen, Jean, and Bourgeois observed that these companies maintained constructive conflict by six tactics which include: focus on facts; multiple alternatives; common goals; enlightened environment by using humor; balance in power structure; and to seek consensus by qualification. First tactic, focus on fact refers to maximum data collection in order to make informed decision.

When executives are equipped with more facts and figures, the decisions will be based on facts rather than opinions. Extensive knowledge of happenings in the corporation, such as, in Star Electronics, gives strong controls. It is evident that there is a direct relation between reliance on updated facts and lesser interpersonal conflicts. Facts let the management to reach the core issues rather than arguing and guessing the facts (Kathleen, Jean, and Bourgeois 275). Contrary to common belief, companies with less interpersonal conflicts deliberately generate multiple alternatives.

Research evidence proves that multiple alternatives lower the probability of interpersonal conflict. It is because ambiguity of multiple options divides the conflict and its solution into more than just black and white. This approach provides people with varying options and avoids rival group formation. In the process of generating alternatives, managers involve in a shared and stimulating task. Managers don't stop on just one solution; rather they keep on finding more creative and original options.

The benefit is twofold: the process creates an overall substantive instead of conflicting tone, and company gets the original solution (Kathleen, Jean, and Bourgeois 275-276). Third tactic is to create strategic alternatives in an environment that fosters collaborative rather than competitive spirit in the team. It leads to the best possible solution for collective gain, rather than anyone's personal ambitions. Research on group decision making and intergroup conflict reveals that common goals foster coherence by emphasizing common interests.

In the absence of common goals, executives didn't share a vision. They were