Work Group Conflict the Department

Work Group Conflict The department work group was recently set up to manage daily operations within the department. After several weeks of operating, the work group is in a severe state of conflict. While some conflict is expected in new teams, there is no indication that the group will be able to resolve the problems itself and become a performing team. A description of the problem and recommendations for its solution will now be made. An effective group needs to proceed through several levels to become effective.

The first is forming, where members of the group get to know each other and establish themselves as part of the group. In this stage, members also learn what is acceptable behavior in the group. The group has been through this stage and moved on to the next stage, which is storming. In the storming stage, the group is defined by conflict and a lack of cohesiveness. Daft (1999, p.

602) notes that this stage often involves members jockeying for position, leaders trying to establish themselves, and other individuals rejecting the self-assigned leader. This is exactly what has occurred in the work group, with a number of members trying to assert themselves as leaders of the group. Even members of the team who do not want the leadership role themselves are reacting to their peers trying to be the leader of the group. This has resulted in a situation where the members of the work group are not working together.

Instead, they are working against each other, rejecting each other, while most individuals try to gain a higher position within the team. Daft (1999, p. 602) notes the importance of getting through the storming stage saying that "unless teams move successfully beyond this stage, they may get bogged down and never achieve high performance." This describes the exact situation that is occurring within the team, where it is bogged down in the storming stage and not able to move forward.

The next stage that the team needs to reach is the norming stage, which is where the conflicts are resolved, the team members reach consensus on who is the leader, and general harmony is achieved. The final stage is performing, where the members can finally effectively focus on the goals of the team and begin to achieve results. To reach his stage and achieve its purpose, the team needs to proceed through the storming stage.

After spending weeks in the storming stage, there is no indication that the team will manage to move beyond this stage and resolve its conflicts. It is for this reason that I am suggesting that action be taken to help the team complete this stage and move on so that it can begin to achieve results. One of the major problems with the team is that the main focus for many members is based on jockeying for position, rather than on achieving the goals of the team.

It must be noted that for a team to be effective, members must be aligned and focused on achieving team goals together, not on achieving individual goals. This is not occurring. I believe that a major reason for this is based on the fact that members are viewing the work group as an opportunity to be noticed by the manager and achieve individual success. In saying this, it must be noted that the work group is the first opportunity many members have had to contribute to the department.

This means that members are viewing the work group as an opportunity to contribute more to the department. The other issue is that members are also seeking individual rewards or promotion and so are more focused on showing themselves to be doing more than team members. This creates a situation where there is endless conflict over leadership, where everyone wants to contribute the most, and where most members are rejecting any member who seems to be taking on a leadership role.

The related issue is that there is no supervisor or manager on the team to observe member behavior. This means that members cannot show senior staff what they are capable of by their actions within the team. For example, a member who is an active contributor, who listens to others, and who views the achievements of the work group as a team effort will not be noticed by senior staff by these positive actions because senior staff do not view the team in action.

Instead, members can only get themselves noticed by winning over the team so that the achievements of the team become seen as their individual action. It is these factors that are contributing to the conflict within the team and preventing it from becoming a cohesive unit focused on team goals. Another issue that arises in the team relates to the way that members are focused on arguing over positions. Fisher and Ury (1999, p.

5) state that "when negotiators bargain over positions, they tend to lock themselves into those positions." They go on to say that the more people clarify their position and defend it from attack, they more committed they become to it. This is occurring constantly in the team, where members are making a suggestion, having it rejected by other members of the team, and then continually arguing to fight for their position. Fisher and Ury (1999, p.

5) describe this situation as occurring when "your ego becomes identified with your position." This is what is happening in the team with members becoming focused on being right or winning, rather than actually discussing or considering the argument. This symptom is related to the way that members are jockeying for position, where being right becomes a way for members to prove themselves to the team and assert their leadership.

The other members of the team are also rejecting the ideas of others as a way of preventing the other person from being seen as the leader. This creates a situation where the team cannot achieve effective results, because there is no discussion of ideas or issues. Instead, the team is operating based on positions, with members either fighting to achieve a higher position, or fighting to prevent others from achieving a higher position.

These problems show that one of the main issues with the team is that there is no effective leadership. Daft (1999, p. 602) notes that the leader needs to encourage participation and encourage members to manage their conflict for the team to proceed successfully through the storming stage. This cannot occur in the team because there is no leader to take on this role.

Even when an individual attempts to take on this role, they are rejected by the work group because most members are rejecting any action where an individual tries to assert leadership. This locks the team in a pattern that it cannot break free from. Based on this, it is recommended that a leader be appointed to manage the team. It is suggested that the leader appointed needs to be a senior manager within the department. There are several reasons for this decision.

The first is based on the concept of status congruence. Status congruence "occurs when a person's position within the group is equivalent to positions held outside of the group" (Schermerhorn, Hunt, & Osborn 2004, p. 181). This concept explains why a member of the current work group cannot be appointed as leader. The members of the work group are all peers and so appointing any member as leader would give them a higher position than is held outside of the group.

This would create even greater conflict, since group members would resent and reject the new leader. To achieve status congruence, the new leader needs to be an individual who holds a higher position outside of the group. For this reason, it is recommended that a senior manager within the department be appointed as team leader. Appointing a senior manager will also solve the problem of members jockeying for position and for individual achievement within the team. This will occur because the senior manager.