This led him to not be concerned about future inspections. Yet, new members had joined the team and did not know how to handle inspection processes. The other team members did not step up to inform them because they thought the Commanding Officer would fulfill his responsibilities and do so himself. This lack of communication then was one of the biggest causes of the later conflict at hand. Communication is often a major source of conflict in any organization. Here, the article states that "Communication-based misunderstanding becomes especially prevalent if the other is angry, dislikes, or distrusts the party" (Wall & Callister 1995 p 522). In this, the lack of communication could have easily generated negative feelings and resentment, if not immediately fixed and adjusted after the lowered grade was received. Another source of the conflict resides within the structure of the group itself. Wall & Callister (1995) state that "if structure creates power imbalances, and the weaker party resists the stronger influence, or sees conflict as a way of increasing power when conflict will probably result" (523). When there was a structural imbalance within the group, none of the other team members really stepped up to the plate to adjust it. The Commanding Officer had failed to properly train the new recruits, yet no one else really stepped up to fill in those shoes. This was another source of conflict for the team, as many thought their management had let them down.

Overall, this conflict exposed some serious issues within the group. Lack of communications was exposed with the inept training of new recruits. Moreover, the fact that management was not always fully responsible for performing their duties was another issue that was exposed. The conflict led to upsetting behavior on behalf of the troops, and "negative emotions can lead in turn to personal frustrations, low job satisfaction, reduced motivation and performance" (Wall & Callister 1995 p 524). This could have easily negatively influenced the team to loose faith in its leadership...

I focused on adjusting the problems and increasing motivation for the troops to focus on future inspections, rather than dwelling on the past ones. There was a readjustment in the overall structure of the group as a whole, and "groups, in general, become more internally cohesive" (Wall & Callister 1995 p 524). Cooperative approaches to conflict management have been shown by research to work better in terms of finding a cohesive resolution and increasing the overall performance of the teams trying to resolve conflict (Alper et al. 2000). Using cooperative strategies to resolve conflicts has been seen in empirical research to have a constructive impact on team performance and overall management structure in trying to lead the team towards a conflict resolution (Barker et al. 1988). Overall, "it is thought to improve group efficiency and productivity" (Wall & Callister 1995 p 525).
The conflict described could have had damaging effects on the performance and morale of the team. Yet, at the same time this had a positive change because it forced the group to re-examine how training and communication was conducted within the group in order to better meet the top officer's goals for the inspection. Through using motivation as a way to resolve the conflict and increasing the communication capabilities within the group itself, the team eventually grew more effective and passed the next inspection with a grade of excellent.