How Management Teams can have a good fight Nihar The management teams who have conflicts over each other’s thinking thinking about a critical decision, a whole range of choices open up before them and this will enable them to make rational decisions in the current competitive business environment. But sometimes the arguments made in conflicts might be construed as personal remarks. Personalities often become intertwined with issues. The challenge
before managers is this – keep the constructive conflict from turning into destructive interpersonal conflict. In fact, managers should encourage the team members to argue without destroying their ability to work as a team. The problems with interpersonal conflict show that, an emotional, irrational angle also comes into play. Addendum from class discussion:
There are two types of conflict in organisations: 1. Substantive Conflict (conflict on issues) 2. Emotional Conflict (interpersonal conflict)
Study: A study was conducted by this HBR author into a dozen (12) tech companies’ teams where the teams of 5-9 execs, who all had to make quick decisions under pressure to deliver. It was found that, while taking these critical decisions, executives in 4 of these companies had almost no conflict in taking tough decisions or resolving critical issues. On the other hand, conflict was observed in the management teams of 8 of the companies. In 4 of these companies, the conflict was benign. i.e., the executives ca lled their colleagues ‘smart’, ‘team player’ and ‘best in the business’ (had high regard for each other) and they described their work as a team as ‘open, fun and productive’. pro ductive’. Thus, they had avoided interpersonal conflict although there was a constructive, intellectual conflict. In the remaining four companies, the co nflict during work turned unproductive with members fighting with each other. They described each other as ‘manipulative’, ‘secretive’, ‘political’. The group dynamics were counter-productive to decision making. The 4 groups that were successful in minimizing interpersonal conflict following tactics – 1. – 1. Worked with maximum information 2. Debated based on facts 3. Set common goals 4. Developed multiple alternatives 5. Injected humour into the decision-making process 6. Resolved issues without forcing consensus 7. Maintained a balanced power structure. These tactics actually improved the speed of their decision making. Focus on Facts : The study showed how one of the companies which faced little conflict actually focussed on a lot of data in their discussions. They took periodic data from the environment such as performance data of the company such as bookings, accounts etc and also about moves of the competitors. This enabled the executives to focus on the data and on facts rather than steer the discussion into a selfaggrandisement exercise. Management teams troubled by conflicts focus on guesses and hunches rather than current data. There is a direct link between RELAINCE ON FACTS and low interpersonal conflict. The teams which don’t rely on facts work on past measures of performance and try to make subjective guesses of the future performance. The discussion will then be focussed on the future
Multiply the alternatives:
The teams having less interpersonal conflict in the study had multiple options before them. In fact, some managers strive to put more options on the table to enhance the discussion and prevent conflict. The more options there are, the more the discussion is focussed on substantive discussion rather than interpersonal issues. If there are only two options, managers see it in black and white and have to take a decisive stand and thus, the discussion flow into the interpersonal quarrelling. If there are more options, the process becomes more creative (in generating more option) and the options are less black and white, allowing managers to shift their stance without losing face. Create Common Goals
Having a common collaborative goal rather than conflicting goals for a team will help the team discussions be less destructive. The companies where the management team was focussed on a singular goal such as ‘improving the cash flows’ were focussed on the problem although the discussion went into various alternatives to achieve the same. When managers focus on a common goal, they will not see themselves as winners or losers at the end but see themselves as having achieved the goal. Use Humour: Using humour at work, sometimes even forced humour helped reduce interpersonal conflict. In fact, when people are in a positive mood, they tend to let down their guard and effectively listen to the arguments of others. Also, serious information conveyed by one person to another, when done in an environment filled with humour, is more likely to be received well without introducing a dimension of conflict. Balanced Power Structures: Managers are less likely to resent a decision when it has come from within the team when they think it is fair. A balance of power within the team lends a degree of fairness to the decision making. Typically, in a company, the CEO should not be either an autocrat or weak. In management teams which had low interpersonal conflict, although the CEO was the most powerful person, each of the executives had power in their area of expertise. Each decision must be taking involving as many people as possible because it helps to make them feel empowered. Imbalanced power structures were observed by a study to visibly show forms of verbal aggression and chaos.
Balancing power builds a sense of fairness. Seek Consensus with qualification Finding an alternative to resolve issues is the most critical. When a management team is faced with a critical decision, they need to sit together and have a discussion about the various choices before them. The top manager tries to get a consensus on the decision they make. However, if there is no consensus or agreement on the issue, the CEO or top manager makes a decision taking into account the views expressed by the team. Even though everyone may not agree with the choice made by the team, they would be satisfied knowing that they had a say in the process. The process of decision-making must be equitable and egalitarian providing everyone an equal opportunity to weight in with their views. This also helps a team to make a critical decision within a given time-frame. One could contrast this process with a consensus-building exercise which could drag on for months and finally, the decision taken in the end might not be an accurate representation of most of the views expressed.
Conclusion : Linking Conflict, Speed and Performance
In the complicated and fast-paced business world we live in today, conflict among top management teams is bound to happen. Only when such substantive conflict happens can teams find a richer set of alternatives, more information and gather knowledge about the strategic decisions they have to make. Also, decisions can be taken in a shorter period of time when there is conflict along with a higher performance. In teams where there is no conflict, it cannot be said that there is agreement. In fact, there will be disengagement and resentment in the team. Also, in such situations, Group Think arises which limits the choices when making a strategic decision. Lack of conflict often limits the performance of teams. How can managers foster substantive conflict ? 1. Assemble a heterogeneous team which has diverse people 2. Have the team members meet very often to get people to know each other’s positions 3. Let the team member’s play varying roles beyond the product and geography such as a devil’s advocate, sky-gazing visionary 4. Apply multiple mind-sets to the issue (ro le-playing, stepping into competitor’s shoes and wargames) 5. Don’t let the team give in too easily without conflict. Remember lack of conflict does not always means agreement, it might mean disengagement.
