Team Building and Conflict Resolution in Organizations

Introduction: Teamwork as an Organizational Imperative

Teamwork and team building are touted in management, business, and organizational newspapers, magazines, and books, yet numerous companies either pay lip service to this tool or do not use it at all in their structure. Yet it is an essential tool for internal and external effectiveness. In order for an organization to have high-quality products and services and be globally competitive, it needs people who are supportive and work together toward its mission and goals. If conflict exists among employees, it becomes a barrier to reaching organizational strategy.

Conflict resolution can be addressed through team efforts and can lead to increased communication, consensus decisions, and positive results. Unfortunately, too many companies do not consider the importance of managing conflict until a specific problem arises. Farsighted leadership organizations understand the need to have team procedures in place that will support conflict management and be available if and when a problem arises.

History of Team Development

The interactions of small groups have been of interest to social psychologists for some time. However, it has only been in recent years that researchers began to look at teams and how they function within the organizational setting. The term "sociometry" first appeared in the Psychological Abstracts index in 1940 with references to the work of individuals such as psychiatrist Jacob Levi Moreno, and the term "group dynamics" was listed in 1945 with reference to the work of Kurt Lewin and his colleagues. The first use of "small groups" and "group interaction" appeared in 1950 in conjunction with researchers such as Robert Bales.

The actual use of the concept "team" did not appear in the Abstracts index until 1971, with a reference to educational institutions using the "team teaching method." The general heading of "teams" did not appear in the index until 1988, by which point it included 21 research studies about teams and their use in clinical practice, sports, business, and the military. An article that same year by Robert Lefton and Victor Buzzotta began to address the theme of "teamwork."

Buzzotta and Lefton had founded Psychological Associates in 1958 and were among the first to apply behavioral science methods to business solutions. So little information was available at the time that these two psychologists designed their first training seminar using psychological research literature on basic interpersonal behavior, communications, and motivation.

Their first article, "Teams and Teamwork," was a study of 26 American executive teams comprising 275 CEOs, company presidents, and vice presidents — many from Fortune 500 companies. The study found that "while these teams came much closer to the ideal than most, the members of the teams themselves acknowledged that less than 40% of their interaction could be called teamwork." Most of the time, according to these leading executives, their interaction consisted of internal conflict and competition in the worst cases, and non-listening and hypocritical agreement in the best situations.

Lefton suggested that teamwork would not be possible with ineffective leadership and defined two basic management styles that negatively impact teamwork. The first was "hierarchical" or "formalistic" teams, where individual members spend most of their time ratifying the leader's demands without the opportunity to critique them; meetings are formal, superficial, and perfunctory. The second was "circular" teams, where it is mistakenly believed that harmony and equality alone will produce results, rather than the more insightful give-and-take of discussion and collaboration. Instead, Lefton argued, effective teams "are recognizable by the easy frankness that marks team discussions." Team members are not afraid to disagree with one another but recognize that this commitment leads to a strong team effort. The team leader remains in charge while encouraging the entire team to set strategy, problem-solve, and make decisions.

In 1989, Ned Rosen wrote Teamwork and the Bottom Line: Groups Make a Difference, which examined the correlation between negative productivity and employee interaction on one hand, and the lack of teamwork on the other. He stated, "The nation's productivity and labor problems and achievements…are strongly influenced by group dynamics in work organizations. The enthusiasm displayed by space workers after a successful rocket launch reflects a common form of team spirit." On the other hand, "chronic absenteeism, sub-standard productivity, negative attitudes, poor service, and shoddy workmanship are at least partly a function of inadequate attention to social organization in general and group dynamics in particular."

Around this same time, certain corporations also began to notice the strength of team building. General Foods discovered the importance of teamwork when it launched a line of ready-to-eat desserts by setting up a team of nine people with the freedom to operate like entrepreneurs starting their own business. The team was also responsible for building a factory with the equipment needed to assemble and manufacture the product line. Normally, it took companies five to seven years to go from product idea to shipping, but teamwork put Jell-O Pudding Snacks desserts in grocery stores across the country within three years, establishing a dominant market position worth hundreds of millions of dollars in sales.

Conflict Resolution

In 1988, William Ury, Jeanne Brett, and Stephen Goldberg wrote Getting Disputes Resolved, which included guidelines for designing systems to help organizations handle conflicts effectively on an ongoing basis. They provided an in-depth case study of a labor-management conflict to illustrate the importance of such a system. In order to make the grievance process more responsive to the concerns of the Miners Union, the authors devised an experiment with similarities to earlier experiments in prison mediation. Miners and their supervisors met informally with outside mediators who aided in discussions and created options for resolution. Some participants voluntarily chose mediation; others were referred automatically. If the parties were unable to reach an informal resolution in one meeting, the mediator offered additional motivation for a settlement by attempting to predict how an arbitrator would rule on the grievance.

The results were significant: 139 of 153 mediation conferences — 89% — held during the experiment's first year resulted in settlements. Settlement rates were consistent regardless of whether parties volunteered or were automatically referred. The average cost per case was $295, compared to an arbitration cost of $1,034, and the average time to resolution was 15 days, compared to 109 days in arbitration.

Most participants agreed that securing compliance with mediated settlements was easier than obtaining compliance with arbitration awards. The experiment demonstrated not only how to greatly reduce wildcat strikes but also how to give individual miners a greater sense of control over their problems. This concept of collaborative conflict resolution spread gradually to other industries, including telecommunications and retail sales.

By 1990, it was widely recognized that teams were an essential part of building a successful organization and that they could effectively be used for internal purposes such as conflict resolution. Increasingly, companies began to incorporate teams into their overall strategy.

Conclusion

In order for companies to be productive and competitive in a highly technical and fast-paced global environment, they need their employees to work together on teams that deliver effective results. Since not all teams will accomplish this on their own, it is necessary for leaders to build groups that will work toward the strategic goals of the organization.

This is not possible when negative conflict exists within the group. Conflict in and of itself is not always a detriment. Used constructively, it can produce positive results, since different perspectives and viewpoints are brought into the mix. However, negative conflict produces the opposite effect — it creates barriers that will stall or completely stop the communication process necessary for team building.

Every team will have a leader or leaders who work hand-in-hand with members. These leaders are responsible for fostering communication within the group as they build the team and for using that communication to eliminate any negative conflict that exists.

Such leadership requires individuals who either already possess specific traits or who are trained to acquire them. Above all, leadership is a people business. If a company promotes experienced and skilled workers who have no genuine interest in people and people issues, this will not serve the organization's communication and culture well. Too often, companies promote individuals who lack the ability to interact with others and build teams that further the organization's goals. The result is employee dissatisfaction, lower productivity, interpersonal and cross-functional conflicts, and ultimately higher turnover. In all these cases, the company loses.

On the other hand, leaders who have strong interpersonal skills, the ability to manage conflict positively, the capacity to listen and remain open to others, and the ability to empathize with team members' needs will help lead the organization toward strength and long-term success. In today's demanding competitive environment, leaders must wear many hats — as facilitators of change, coaches, mentors, and teachers. This style of leadership reflects a total concern for people and is strongly supportive and encouraging. Such leaders allow people the scope and freedom to operate. The teams they build feel good about themselves and work together productively. Conflict is not avoided but is approached constructively by individuals who care about one another and want to share their areas of expertise.

These leaders must establish a proactive environment and culture that encourages teamwork and motivates employees to do their best — for themselves and for the company. They must encourage innovation and inspire vision, creativity, and empowerment. A company should continually seek to promote individuals who have the ability to lead others and, by doing so, lead the business toward greater success. Investing in high-performing team development is ultimately an investment in organizational resilience and competitive advantage.