Group Dynamics and Conflict Management - Essay Example

Group Dynamics and Conflict Management Introduction The group seemed to follow the standard group evolution process albeit not following it in a complete way. For instance, at the beginning, the members were not very eager to know each other but with time it became easier for the members to start interacting freely. Initially, there were no clear leaders. The leaders of the group were elected to hold the position as interim leaders to be replaced later when the group has settled. However, with time, new leadership sources came up and it became clear who the natural leaders in the group were. With time, the relationships between the group members were clear. Some of the group members were interacting more among themselves than with other members of the group. Personality diversity It became very clear about the diversity of the different personalities. The various personality types were represented in the team. For instance, while some of the members showed more signs of being outgoing, energetic people, some showed the less outgoing side of their personalities. This could be clearly seen when there were some functions that required the group members to be involved in public places. In such cases, those who were not outgoing would refuse to go or be reluctant. The more outgoing ones were the leaders of the group who showed signs of enthusiasm and energy as well as charisma. They were the ones who everybody felt comfortable working with and as time went on, they took over leadership positions both formally and informally. Personalities in the group Aggressors There was at least one obvious aggressor. He mostly had too much to say and sometimes upset the other members who started finding it hard to contribute to the group discussions. The behavior of this person was counterproductive in the team. No one was able to tell him off for some time and this allowed his to continue with his behavior. The leaders were also not able to stop his behavior and this affected the rest of the team. This is explained by group dynamic theories where such individuals are said t have their ways because the less assertive guys are afraid to tell such an individual off because they are afraid of controversy and conflict. The other team members may also be afraid of being singled out or to appear the odd ones out and so they accommodate this individual because he seems to have the support of the rest the team. Negators According to social dynamics theory, the negator is a person in a group who is always critical of other peoples decision, ideas and opinions (Ayub & Jehn, 2014 ). The negator seeks to always prove the other person wrong and that he or she is right. There was at least one negator in the my team. The actions of the person may have come from the fact that he believes he is better than everyone else. He wants to always emerge the winner in any argument so that he never loses. This type of person, according to group dynamics, is a person who can make the group to be dysfunctional and fail to deliver. A negator intimidates people so that they are not able to do what they intend. People in the group felt that their contribution will only lead to criticism against them, and so shied away. It is necessary to deal with such people in the group in order to help the group or team to be productive. Withdrawer Some of the group members showed this kind of group dynamics. According to group dynamics theory, almost any group will have a withdrawer. This is a person who rarely participates especially in cases where open contribution of ideas or solutions is required in the group. In the case of our team, there were a number of people who showed these sings. They seemed to be scared of the negators and the aggressors in the team. They would not participate in discussion unless they were really pushed to the limit to do so. In this regard the aggressor and the recognition seekers in the group would take over the team while failing deliver good results. The formal leaders eventually showed the signs of being withdrawers and in this case they allowed the aggressor and recognition seekers to take over the group. Team development process Forming According to group dynamics theory, at this stage, the group members are relaxed and polite towards each other (Vukovic, 2014). The task of the team is not well understood by the members and most of the members are not sure what roles to play in the group. During this stage in our team, the members seemed to be less concerned with what the other members were doing in the team. They were also not concerned about what the other team members thought about their contribution. There were no infightings or useless disagreements in the group. This coincides with the theories in the books about how the group is likely to act in the early days of the team. Storming stage According to group dynamics theory, the storming stage is when the group is starting to rebuild the boundaries. The purpose of the group is well understood at this time and it becomes very clear that the team members have started to interact. By such a time, the team members may start to have conflicts. In my team, this was not seen, which is as a result of members been close friends even before the group was formed. However, there were some aspects of the group at this stage that showed very clearly that the group had moved to the storming stage and was not settling down. For instance, the interaction within the group increased and people started to have meaningful contribution. Norming stage The norming stage is where the group members are now becoming more cohesive towards each other. Disagreements in the group are then settled and the roles of the group members are well understood by each and everyone. The group now is better and more meaningful and the members can be able to interact with the group. The storming and the norming stages seem to have been fused together into one. Performing stage The performing stage is when the group has matured and the group is now able to start doing tangible work and deliver the results it was formed to deliver. I think my group is at the early stages of this performing stage and will continue t be better. Conflict resolution in the group According to conflict resolution theory, there are some strategies that should be used to resolve a conflict in order to help the group come out of a destructive conflict. The most common process has the following steps. Stage 1: Prepare for Resolution This stage seeks to clarify the issue of conflict and who are in conflict. In this stage, the leader of the conflict manager (mediator) is supposed to do the following; Conflict acknowledgement Acknowledging the conflict by looking at the bone of contention and then analyzing how it has led to conflict is a major success factor at this stage. To bring to the attention of the conflict to those involved, the leaders or the person trying to solve the conflict must be able to address this part with care (Wilson, 2012). Many conflicts are born of ignorance where the conflict is ignored due to it being regarded as trivial or insignificant. Once the members who are in conflict can now clearly see the conflict and how it is affecting the group, it is time to go to the second part of the preparation for conflict. Although this is well explained in theory, this has not been used in the many conflict resolution processes in the team. However, this may be as a result of the team being not only smaller than the average team but also because it is made of people who well understand each other. The nature of the task of the team may also be helping in reducing the amount and severity of the conflicts and therefore no need to implement a complete conflict resolution process. Discussion of the impact of the conflict Discussion of the impact of ht conflict on team is necessary. This will be done together with the team members in a hope to assist them realize that their disagreement is hurting the rest of the team and that there is a need for this conflict to be resolved. Agree to a cooperative process Once the conflict has been identified and the members are aware of how their conflict and disagreement is affecting the performance of the team, the team can reach a resolution. They will also have to agree to communicate and be willing to make sure that their communication is going to lead to positive outcome. At this stage, the conflict resolution process can now go to the next stage of conflict resolution in a group Stage 2: Understand the Situation It is necessary to remember that just because the members have agreed to resolve the issue does not mean that they have agreed with each other (Sandole, 1993). The agreement to resolve the issue is only an agreement to disagree. From there, it is necessary to ensure the situation is well understood, both by the conciliators and the parties in conflict. At this stage, the journey to helping the conflicting parties to reach a common ground has only began and it does not mean that they have already reached a common ground. The following is supposed to be done; Clarify positions Each member of the conflict should be given a time to explain his stand and position on the issue of conflict. This must be well understood by everybody. Identify issues This will include the individual issues and how they are supposed to be resolved. Listing them makes it easier for the process of conflict resolution not to lose focus and to deliver the right solution. The beliefs, assumptions and positions of each of the conflicting members must be listed and understood. If the team is too big, that is, made of more than ten people, it may be necessary to split the team into smaller groups and then allow them look at the issues individually. Stage 3: Reach Agreement By this time, it is now possible to have a common resolution. However, it is not easy to reach common ground especially where each member of the conflict may be feeling that they were right and the others were wrong. To help in finalizing the process, the following must be addressed; Identify how each member’s issues were discussed. As Gross, Hoger and Henl (2013) argue, this is necessary because each of the members of the conflict want to know that their issues were not discarded off to the dust bin. For instance, if the conflict was about reaching a certain solution and the conflicting members had different solutions which they thought were the best, it might be necessary for the end solution to identify why one solution was picked over the other and how the other member’s opinions and thoughts were considered. When this was used in the team conflict resolution, it seemed to provide satisfaction to everyone even to those who had to compromise their situations and accept others positions. This indicated that conflict is always a matter of emotional issues and solving them is not necessarily about giving everyone what they want but actually being careful to know that everyone feels valued and considered (Griffith, Connelly & Thiel, 2014). In the conflict resolution, it is necessary to know that implementing the above conflict resolution process will not succeed unless those who are the mediators are able to understand the different types of people with regard to conflict resolution (Vollmer, 2013). People have different coping mechanism and in the case of conflict, people react differently to it. The various types of people with regard to conflict are as follows; Competitive individuals These are strong minded people who are looking to stand firm to ensure that they win. In conflict resolution, they are supposed to kept in check or the process of conflict resolution will be only about listening to them and doing what they want (Camelo-Ordaz, 2014). In the team, these are the aggressors earlier identified. The aggressor in the team always wanted to be the winner whenever there was a conflict. Collaborative people These people have a democratic attitude and are willing to have everyone’s concerns considered. They are not necessarily willing to compromise but are open to discussion in a way that will lead to the best solution that serves everyone’s needs. These people are very useful in the case of a conflict because they try to be as rational as possible and reasoning with them is feasible. However, for them to be a part of the solution the other members of the conflict also need to have an agreeable level of rationality and if not, the person may feel frustrated if the others don’t want to be rational (competitive people). The team also showed signs of having some collaborators who were willing to always give way to and allow for a better solution to be reached. Compromising people These people can be useful if the cost of compromise is more acceptable. This method of conflict resolution does not give the optimum solution that could have been gotten if a collaborative way was used. There was at least one member who seemed to show signs of being a compromising individual. The problems with her is that she never used to give her thoughts but could always agree with everyone in the group especially controversial issues came up. Accommodative individuals These individuals when in a group can lead to the group not being productive. The mediator must be able to keep a eye on these people to push them to be more assertive in order that they don’t give up their position but feel left out in the process. The conflict managers must keep a reign on the competitive guy and loosen a little bit the accommodating individuals in order to bring in a balance in the conflict resolution process. Avoiding individuals These kinds of individuals when in a group dynamic want to avoid the conflict at all costs. People like these are more likely to refrain from contributing to the discussion during the conflict resolution process. These are some of the other types of people who together with the accommodating people must be listened to and coaxed towards being more open and talk their minds. Without pushing these people, the competitive people in the group will always have their way and the conflict will not have been solved. In my team, this problem was very evident where some members would fail to speak their minds when necessary. What happened was that they would not raise their concerns during the official meetings but would air their grievances out there when they are with their close friends who are also on the team. References: Ayub, N. & Jehn, K.. (2014 ). When diversity helps performance: Effects of diversity on conflict and performance in workgroups. International Journal of Conflict Management, 25, 2 , PP. 23-27. Camelo-Ordaz, C. (2014). Antecedents of relationship conflict in top management teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 25, 2 , PP. 90-112. Griffith, J.A., Connelly, S. & Thiel, E. (2014). Emotion regulation and intragroup conflict: when more distracted minds prevail . International Journal of Conflict Management, 25, 2 , PP. 34-45. Gross, M.A., Hoger, R. & Henl, C.A. (2013). Process, people, and conflict management in organizations: A viewpoint based on Webers formal and substantive rationality. International Journal of Conflict Management, 24,1 , PP. 90-103. Sandole, D. (1993). Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice: Integration and Application. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. Vollmer, A. (2013). Constructive controversy research in the business organizational context: A literature review . International Journal of Conflict Management, 10 , PP. 56-68. Vukovic, S. (2014). International mediation as a distinct form of conflict management . International Journal of Conflict Management, 25, 1 , PP. 34-39. Wilson, P. (2012). Managign Conflicts at the Workplace. Journal of Modern Conflct Management, 14, 05 , PP. 90-99. Read More