Resolving Workplace Carpool Conflict: Organizational Behavior

Introduction

Carpooling involves two or more commuters who share the driving and expenses of commuting to work or other mutually desirable destinations on a regular basis, with the overarching goals of saving money and helping the environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These goals have become more important in recent years as gas prices continue to strain the budgets of many working Americans who lack personal vehicles or access to reliable public transportation, and as concerns over global warming continue to grow. Despite the savings and the reduced carbon footprint that carpooling provides, traveling for lengthy periods in close physical proximity with others inevitably introduces some form of conflict. Left unresolved, such conflict can result in the dissolution of the carpool. Thoughtfully resolved, however, even major conflicts can be addressed in ways that prolong the viability of the carpool for as long as the members desire.

To gain additional insights into how such conflicts can be resolved effectively, this paper reviews the relevant literature on carpooling conflicts in general and how one team resolved a conflict involving radio music in particular. A description of team formation and development is followed by a discussion of the respective values, motivations, and communication preferences of the team members. An evaluation of the communication processes used for conflict resolution is followed by an assessment of the power held by each member and the manner in which the conflict was resolved. Finally, a summary of important findings concerning conflict resolution in team settings is provided in the conclusion.

Formation is the first step in creating virtually any type of team (Langton, Robbins & Judge, 2015), including carpools. According to Benkler (2004), "Carpooling can be divided into two stages of activity: (1) formation and scheduling and (2) behavior of participants while carpooling" (p. 274). For the purposes of this study, team formation involved the members of a student carpool. The team used a scenario in which one member began listening to loud Christian Rock music during the commute, which the other members found disruptive and bothersome — a situation that provided the basis for exploring conflict resolution strategies.

The results of the needs assessment exercise are set forth in Table 1 below. As the results indicate, one team member scored highest on the power and achievement dimensions but lowest on affiliation. By contrast, the other team members scored near-mirror images on these three dimensions, suggesting that the highest-scoring member is more self-sufficient and does not have a strong need to belong to a group.

Team Formation and Development

Table 1: Results of Assessment of Needs Exercise

Dimension scores across team members on Power, Achievement, and Affiliation were recorded. One member scored 22 (Power), 23 (Achievement), and 11 (Affiliation). The remaining members scored in the range of 17–19 across all three dimensions.

Values, Motivations, and Communication Preferences

In response to the need to complete a group assignment, two team members chose a training activity, as both felt they learn best by doing. One member also noted that teaching others a task reinforces the information for herself. Another member indicated she was not confident using PowerPoint, making a presentation in that format unsuitable. A third member said he would be comfortable with a case study but does not feel comfortable drawing attention to himself, making a formal presentation inappropriate.

Team members expressed personal motivators rooted in both terminal and instrumental values. One member's terminal values centered on world peace, family security, and happiness, with honesty as a key instrumental value. A second member prioritized a comfortable and prosperous life, freedom, and happiness as terminal values, with independence as an instrumental value. A third member identified a comfortable (though not necessarily prosperous) life, a sense of accomplishment, and equity as terminal values, with being broadminded and courageous as instrumental values.

One member expressed a strong connection to family, viewing his values as handed down through generations, though he noted that his personal values diverged somewhat from those of his immediate family — possibly reflecting his upbringing in British Columbia from age seven, while his family originally came from Toronto. Another member similarly noted that her values differ from her father's, describing him as narrow-minded and racist while characterizing herself as more open-minded and welcoming of new people and ideas.

The team's communication preferences, summarized in Table 2, included feedback, confirmation, face-to-face interaction, reflection time, open sharing of ideas (pros and cons), and the ability to speak at one's own pace. These preferences were then compared with Rokeach terminal and instrumental values: feedback aligned with being helpful; confirmation with being capable and competent; speaking at one's own pace with politeness and courtesy; and sharing and discussing ideas with open-mindedness.

Thinking in terms of Maslow's hierarchy, the team noted that feedback and confirmation reflected the social (middle) level of the pyramid. One member recognized that she needed to give others time for reflection and to gather their thoughts, ensuring that everyone had a voice in the conversation. This observation is supported by a growing body of research confirming the association between relationship satisfaction and the quality of communication between team members (Askari & Noah, 2012).

The power preferences identified by the team members included legitimate power, expert power, coercive power, and financially-based power, among others. One member cited expert power derived from life experiences; another referenced legitimate power through reasoning grounded in a military background; a third described power in terms of facilitating situations through real estate expertise. Power preferences across the team thus reflected a wide range of sources and orientations.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing analyses, the main points that emerged include the recognition that everyone is unique, with different values and motivations that must be taken into account when facing the need for conflict resolution. The significant differences identified among team members' conflict resolution preferences made it clear that there are divergent views concerning which values and motivations matter most in a given scenario. The situation described above, or similar ones, is likely repeated in tens of thousands of carpools each year. It is reasonable to conclude that these conflicts are either resolved amicably using one of the conflict resolution styles described above, or that the carpool disbands due to member dissatisfaction.