Conflict within Groups - Assignment Example

Conflict within Groups and Conflict within Groups Introduction The proper functioning of anyorganization is critical for its societal well-being. There is a close tie between organizational efficiency and group performance. Indeed, work groups may be viewed as the most significant foundations between the individual and the organization. As such, the effects of group conflict may communicate to people the values and behavior required for a proper functioning organization (Dovidio, Sauy and Shnabel, 2009, p. 597). In work group theory, conflict within groups is viewed as one of the various group processes, and of high importance. No other occurrence can be as overwhelming to a given group’s efficiency and operation as conflict. At the same time, conflict can also be of benefit in assisting group members face reality and establish new answers to serious challenges (Hjertø, 2006, p.7). Conflict within groups may be considered as inevitable in high achieving firms. Several studies have brought an invaluable insight into the extent of the relationships between conflict and group operations. Since the 1950s, there have been three decades of major contributions in the study of group conflicts. In the early ‘90s, studies on various perspectives of intragroup conflicts and their links with group performance increased. The causality between the two conflict dimensions, which are cognitive and emotional, and group performance, has attracted a lot of inquiries. This has constantly accelerated to a significant amount of researches from then on (Hjertø, 2006, p.7). For a long time, the general impression has been that the link between E/R dynamics of group conflicts and group performance is positive is negative, while the causality between C/T dimensions of conflict and group performance is positive. Later, researchers, however, showed that most of the scientific researches carried out in the last decade, in fact, showed that also the C/T dimensions of group conflict are not positively, but negatively correlated to group performance and efficiency. One of the major weaknesses of previous group conflict studies is that they always put much emphasis on the supposition that all members of a given group view the same amount of conflict, overlooking the assumption that group members possess differing perceptions concerning the extent of conflict existing within a given group(Hjertø, 2006, p.7). Most of the studies conducted on group conflict focus on shared team properties, or the common experiences and perceptions that the team members share. Thus, they often ignore the presence of differences within the entire group. In addition, the past researches on group conflicts have put much attention on the average magnitude of conflict within a group, aggregating members’ perceptions (Ahlstrom, Ashkanasay, Neal, Chun and Li, 2012, p.352). The conflict asymmetry perspective postulates that it is not only the average amount of conflict that determines group operation, but the varying perceptions of members and the way such influence the group processes as well as the members’ attitudes when they are carrying out tasks together (Kellermann, 2000, p.276). In the previous group conflict researches, it was always presumed that all the individuals taking part in a conflict perceive the same degree of conflict in their group. Such a supposition excludes the notion of asymmetrical conflict perceptions.One idea of group conflict asymmetry takes into consideration the notion that the members of a particular group’s view of the extent of conflict within their group. Conflict symmetry also referred to as low group conflict asymmetry, takes place when all the group members have a perception of the same degree of conflict.If members perceive different levels of conflict, then the situation is termed as high group conflict asymmetry or the asymmetrical view of conflict within the group. For example, in our group assignment, two group members perceived that a conflict is existent whereas the rest of the members opined that there was no cause of alarm, and that there was very little if any conflicts present (Thatcher, Rispens and Jehn, 2010, p.597). The above differences in notions on conflict influence the efficient functioning of a group as well as the attitudes of the members. This has also for a long time been relatively ignored in past studies on conflict and group results. The idea that there exists varying perceptions of the same fact has been the foundation for a lot of social cognition research (Rubel and Champe, 2012, p.4). The social cognitive theories, together with the social information processing approach, have been employed to help explain the differing experiences of group members. Nonetheless, the presumption has been that groups have common characteristics, like emotions, attitudes and perceptions. This idea may be a substantial presumption, considering the classical research indicating that individuals always converge to a similar reality when placed in a social circumstance (Thatcher, Rispens and Jehn, 2010, p.597). There exist a substantive number of studies showing that asymmetries of perceptions and experiences exist within groups. These differences have been discovered to be in social networking studies of cognitive inconsistencies and dyadic asymmetries in relationships, together with studies revealing that asymmetries of perceptions and experiences exist within groups. Studies on diversity and relational demography in groups also indicate that employees have varying reactions to their environments since they may view them differently. More clear to our interest in perceptions of conflict in this discussion on diversity and relational demography suggesting that people in dyadic relationships perceive conflict differently, as do members of various cultural backgrounds.Given the aforementioned research, it is clear that it is vital to take into consideration varying perceptions within group members to further theory on groups, as well as to advance the explanatory theory on conflict in work groups(Thatcher, Rispens and Jehn, 2010, p.597). The study of conflict within groups and intragroup processes has been conventionally undertaken in ways that are independent from research on intergroup relations both experientially and theoretically. Works on intragroup processes and conflicts have focused on the significance of leadership, authority and power within groups, commitment, unity, teamwork, and performance. Studies on intergroup relations have focused on social identity, symbolic and realistic conflict between groups, and the measures that can mitigate intergroup conflicts. This paper is going to discuss conflict within groups, as well as its theory and implications (Hjertø,2006, p.7). Relevant Theoretical Description of Experience in the Group Assignment The group focal conflict theory can be of importance in analyzing and describing my experience in the group assignments. The theory makes use of a group of interrelated concepts to contain, order, and give meaning to the ever-changing dynamics of therapeutic groups, as well as to relate and link group and individual dynamics. The role of this theoretical model is to help the therapist make sense of the diverse and complicated occurrences at the therapeutic groups as they unfold, to tell when and how to come in so as to develop and maintain the group as a successful medium for therapy, and to look into ways of making use of circumstances emerging from the specific benefits of individual patients (Whitaker, 1989, p.225). This model is also normally used in researches, since it offers a way of tracing the progress of a given group and of taking note of how individuals take part in, and are affected by group issues. As a whole, a group can be described with respect to mood or atmosphere, shared themes, norms, conflict, agreements, and development stages. In our group assignment, we had a series of continuous disagreements on how the assignments needed to be carried out. While two of our members suggested that each individual be given his role to play, and then bring forward those portions that they have covered for discussions, others objected the idea, stating that it went against the concept of group assignment, as each person is left to independently carry out his or her task without assistance of other members. Thereafter, conflict emerged when some two individuals tried to be too dominant and dictatorial on other fellow members, by defining to them and giving them instructions. We felt that the two colleagues were not supposed to be bossy on us since all members are equal, had equal status, and that there should not be any single member who feels inferior to the rest(Whitaker, 1989, p.225). In common parlance, it is common to hear people say that a group is excited, lethargic, established, cohesive, or even collaborative. My early experience as a group member can best be described by the above terms. First, the group kicked off in an exciting fashion, as everybody came in with the mentality of contributing and making it work efficiently and effectively. However, the feeling of indifference and lethargy cropped in when some members started attacking others when they could not talk or give their suggestions. This made them feel disregarded and argumentative, resulting to a chaotic group. In another instance, some two members started assuming the role of group leaders and supervisors, instructing others and defining to them what they should or should not do in a harsh tone. Disagreements erupted as they felt that their personal space had been invaded and that they felt inferior among other group members. These incidences made it hard for the group to focus on its task and perform them efficiently (Whitaker, 1989, p.226). Whole-group phenomena are brought about by the interaction of group members, but are not just the summation of individual contributions. Therefore, in our group, some individuals contributed more than others, and that still made the entire group move on efficiently. They can accurately be described as belonging to the group as a whole. People adopt different positions with regard to group incidences. They may, for instance, be central to them or peripheral, comply with the group norms and shared beliefs, or stray from them, take on, become locked into given roles, or belong to some sub-groups (Whitaker, 1989, p.226). Members contribute to the character, direction and progress of the group, and are in turn influenced by it in major ways. The arguments in support of attending to whole-group phenomena and treating them seriously as part of the therapeutic process is that they unavoidably will be present and of much influence, and will not disappear or lose their power by being overlooked. For group therapists, the idea of is not whether such incidences take place, but how to view them and react to them in a therapeutic group. The list of total group phenomena is diverse and mixed. If whole-group phenomena are to be attended and made use of, some theory is needed for containing and dealing with them. A model is also needed for perceiving their interconnections with the experiences of individual patients. The group focal conflict theory is one of such models (Whitaker, 1989, p.226). Group Focal Conflict Theory The group focal conflict theory was crafted by a group of contemporaries at the Veterans’ Administration Research Hospital in Chicago, towards the end of 1950s and early 60s. The theory is partly an extension and reworking of the ideas of Thomas M. French, who had come up with a nuclear conflict model for having an understanding of individual dynamics and aspirations. The model was first discussed in various articles and then more comprehensively in a book. Specific perspectives and application of the theory have been discussed in further articles. A recent book highlights the ways in which the model may be of use in group conflict resolution with reference to a wider range of kinds of groups than those for which the theory was earlier meant for (Mackenzie and Bernard, 2000, p.198). Analysis Group focal conflict theory is founded on the premise that successive comments and behavior of members of a given group have a free associational quality. Such associations create and grow into themes, which characterize the entire group.The themes are developed by perceptions, such as non-verbal communications, paralinguistic behaviors, pace and timing, and sequence. Some of the major terms which refer to the group as a whole include: group focal conflict, which is inclusive of the interrelated aspects of distributing motives and reactive motives; and solution, which is inclusive of two kinds of solutions (enabling solutions and restrictive solutions, as well as conflict solution). Major terms referring to individual phenomena are nuclear conflict and individual focal conflict, both of which possess the same basic aspects of disturbing and responsive motives and solutions. The term resonance is of use in referring to the link between individual nuclear and the prevailing group focal conflict (Mackenzie and Bernard, 2000, p.199). Whitaker and Lieberman systematically observed and studied tapes of group meetings, noting the manner in which conversations progressed. One member after another would speak their minds. They took note of what the second member would pick and speak after the first individual in that order. Thus, a pattern seemed to develop from one person to the next. Concerning how the group formed the pattern or chose whatever the agenda of the session would be, they conferred that group members joined to address one unconscious conflict situation after another so as to ease tension and anxiety. They termed the conflict the group focal conflict. This form of conflict often has a disturbing or wishes motive, and a reactive or fear motive(Mackenzie and Bernard, 2000, p.198). Whenever conflicts emerge within a group, part of the answers to the tension is always either enabling, which is part of the wishand accompanies disquiet, or restrictive, where no part of the wish is given room. As a result, no anxiety is experienced.As soon as the group arrives at an answer to the conflict; the members proceed to an entirely new form of conflict. The theme of the group is made up of an array of focal conflicts linked by the same disturbing motive, which is wish. The group culture comes about from the pattern where the group addresses conflicts (Mackenzie and Bernard, 2000, p.198). This technique recommended by Whitaker and Lieberman entails the group therapist heading the group in the path of enabling answers to the problems at hand. The therapist composes a group of individuals whose capabilities for anxiety tolerance are the same. Then, the therapist evaluates the degree of anxiety tolerance of each group member. Thereafter, the therapist recommends remedies with the optimal extent of anxiety that the members can bear.Usually, the therapist may engage the group in talks via an intervention with an individual member or he or she may have talks with the individual member through a group-as-a-whole intervention (Mackenzie and Bernard, 2000, p.198). It is usually important that the therapist try as much as possible to create and maintain a safe environment so that the members do not feel judged in certain ways. In so doing, group members can take risks in finding enabling answers to their conflicts at hand. In our group assignment situation, to aspects of conflict, that is the disturbing and reactive motives persisted as time went by.In a group focal conflict perspective, a particular mood or atmosphere may be seen to come up for various reasons and serve several functions. For example, an apathetic mood developed by some of the group members when they felt inferior could function as a restrictive answer which safeguards members from the hazards of directly experiencing feelings or impulses involved in the underlying disturbing motive (Whitaker, 2001, p. 48). Panic and depression gripped some of the group members, owing to the tensions that arose as a result of arguments and quarrels over who should be the group leader. Panic or depression may be considered as expressions of fundamentalcommon fear, that is, of feelings possessed in a prevailing reactive motive. Emotional impurity can in some cases be viewed to work as a restrictive answer to the problem. In our group for example, there was a rapid escalation of silliness and cracking of jokes on the situation, which served to divert some members’ attention from the very serious feelings which they considered dangerous to face (Whitaker, 2001, p. 48). In some cases, emotional impurity denotes the absence of any form of remedy to the problem at hand. In such situations, impulses break into action without any constraining force in the form of a commonly maintained solution.Group focal conflict theory agrees that whatever extent of cohesiveness becomes established in a given group is the outcome of the interplay of the members through associative procedures. Within a therapeutic group, cohesiveness may be dysfunctionally high or low. In group focal point terms, extremely high cohesiveness may serve as a restrictive answer to the problem in question, buying relaxation but restraining explorations.Under the circumstances of dysfunctionally high cohesiveness, group members do not take part in interactions which pose danger to the extent of cohesiveness that they have attained (Whitaker, 2001, p. 48). In some situations, low cohesiveness may also serve as a restrictive answer to the issue at hand, by guarding the members from the presupposed risks of close participation. In other cases, however, low cohesiveness and pervious boundaries are composed of a preferable and necessary remedy in the sense that they make it possible for certain susceptible individuals to remain in the group.Growth and transformation can be comprehended in group focal conflict in the perspectives of the forms of remedies which prevail. In our group conflict, early sessions were characterized by a preponderance of restrictive remedies(Whitaker, 2001, p. 48). As widespread fears concerning the possible negative impacts of taking part in the group became allayed, restrictive remedies were substituted by the more enabling ones. Notable shift in the characteristics of the prevailing solutions marks the border between the formative and the established phase of a group. At the later stages of our group, some members used to resort to restrictive measures on a temporary basis, so as to adapt themselves to the upsurges in reactive fears. Since fears, again became lessened, the restrictive remedy was abandoned and some enabling remedies entrenched and re-established (Whitaker, 2001, p. 48). Implications of the Analysis for the Effective Management of people within Organizations There are many approaches to group conflict resolution that can be integrated with the group focal conflict theory to effectively manage individuals within the organization. Individuals have differing approaches to handling conflict in an organization or group. Sillars highlighted three most commonly used approaches to facing conflicts. Integrative behavior focuses on the attainment of the results of a single party over those of the other. Such an approach heavily depends on power games to arrive at a solution. Another strategy is avoidance, which is failure to face or try to address the conflict at hand.This shows low concern for the results of either party (Bostrom and Miranda, 1994, p.63). Whereas there is no particular conflict resolution approach that is conventionally considered as effective, the integrative strategy is viewed as appropriate for strategic kinds of conflicts. The attention of the integrative strategy is on problem solving. To effectively manage people within an organization, we have to first look at the objective. Whenever the purpose is group meeting is to reach a decision, the integrative approach is the most suitable in reacting to organizational issue-based conflicts. This ensures that all the conflicting parties and ideas are clearly highlighted and ironed out, hence reducing the probability of disastrous oversights in decision making. If conflict is not effectively managed, it can escalate to hostility within the groups or the entire organization, which in turn lower the motivation or morale, leading to poor decision making. Other negative consequences of a poorly managed conflict can result to increased depression, underperformance of employees, and lack of cooperation (Bostrom and Miranda, 1994, p.63). The group-as-a-whole strategy can also be of use in effectively managing people within an organization. This is because the approach takes into consideration the whole situation in which the conflicts take place and applies the concepts of individual dynamics to the entire group or organization, as though the organization will be capable of behaving, feeling and thinking like a person. As a result, all the individuals in an organization are able to unite and work together for the common goal of advancing the organization forward. The group-as-a-whole approach considers organizational tensions and conflicts as a specific disharmony in the structure of a particular system of the whole group of the larger surrounding and environment (Kellermann, 2000, p.268). The group-as-a-whole approach effectively manages people in an organization by depicting the organization as something ‘more’ than the collective sum of its members, possessing its own objectives, behavioral norms, modes of communication, and the power structure that may give rise to social restraints and interpersonal conflicts. One of the more colorful descriptions of individuals who fight for social dominance in such a ‘human zoo’ was documented by Morris. When handling conflicts, and hence managing individuals within an organization, the duty of the group leader is to evaluate and deal with several forces and transform the ones that exhibit a restrictive implication on the group to more enabling ones (Kellermann, 2000, p.268). In order to attain the above objective, experts of persuasion apply more or less interpretative and action-oriented methods to enhance cooperation and advancements of group unity, which is the main precursor to the fruitful management of people in an organization. In this process, collective interest in the targets of the organization is promoted and active participation by all the group members is welcomed. The group leaders make a democratic attempt to engage the resources and responses of the non-combatant members of the organization, by welcoming them to take part, resonate, or assist to iron out the emerging issues concerning, for instance, confidentiality, making decisions, as well as the social ties outside the organization (Kellermann, 2000, p.268). References Ahlstrom, D., Ashkanasy, M.N., Neal, M., Chun, H., and Li, Y., 2012. A multi-level study of emergent group leadership: Effects of emotional stability and group conflict. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, [e-journal], 29, pp. 351-366.Available at: [ Accessed 3 December 2014]. Bostrom, P.R., and Miranda, M.S., 1994. The Impact of Group Support Systems on Group Conflict and Conflict Management.Journal of Management Information Systems, [e-journal] 10(3), pp. 63-95.Available at: [ Accessed 3 December 2014]. Dovidio, J., Saguy, T., andShnabel, N., 2009.Cooperation and Conflict within Groups: Bridging Intragroup and Intergroup Processes, Journal of Social Issues [e-journal], 65 (2), pp. 429-449, Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 3 December 2014 Hjertø, B.K., 2006.The Relationship BetweenIntragroup Conflict, Group Size and Work Effectiveness.Ph.D.Norwegian School of Management. Kellermann, F.P., 2000. Interpersonal Conflict Management in Group Psychotherapy. Group Analysis, [e-journal] 29, pp. 257-275.Available at: [ Accessed 3 December 2014]. Mackenzie, R.K., and Bernard, S.H., 2000. Basics of Group Psychotherapy. New York: The Guilford Press. Rubel, J.D., and Champe, J., 2012. Application of Focal Conflict Theory to Psychoeducational Groups: Implications for Process, Content, and Leadership.The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, [e-journal], 37 (1), pp. 1-31. Available at: [ Accessed 3 December 2014]. Thatcher, B.M.S., Rispens, S., and Jehn, A.K., 2010. The Effects of Conflict Asymmetry on Work Group and Individual Outcomes.Academy of Management Journal, [e-journal] 53 (3), pp. 596-616. Available at: [ Accessed 3 December 2014]. Whitaker, D.S., 1989. Group Focal Conflict Theory: Description, Evaluation and Illustration. Group, [e-journal] 3 (4), p.225.Available at: [ Accessed 3 December 2014]. Whitaker, D.S, 2001. Using Groups to help People.Philadelphia: Brunner-Routledge. Read More