team work 3
217
what your proposals are. I will be honest in saying that I am not sure anything can change, at least for now, but I think that it is important that we all have a chance to understand exactly how each one of us perceives the workload and assignments on the project at this point.” Contending (rights-based) response: “Look, Larry, you agreed to cover that part of the project when we first took on the challenge four years ago. As a matter of fact, I believe that I have an email from you indicating that you would agree to do that part of the work. As far as I am concerned, this is strictly a matter of precedent and what people have agreed to do. I am sure that our supervisor would reach the same conclusion as I would if she saw the email I am referring to.” Contending (power-based) response: “I think you are completely out of line, Larry. It is not helping our team effort to have people such as yourself acting like prima donnas and demanding special treatment. We all have important things to do to meet the project goals. I am tired of having to walk on eggshells around this issue, and I don’t think that discussing unrealistic and selfish goals is a good use of our team time. We could simply follow a principle of rank in our team but that would be bad for you. I am ready to continue our democratic process, but only on the condition that you start working with us as a team.”
The power-based team member in this example is using several techniques designed to threaten and intimidate. First, there are numerous unflattering character attacks—Larry is labeled as “out of line,” “demanding,” a “prima donna,” and “unreal- istic and selfish.” This comment also contains some thinly disguised threats: If Larry does not shut up, this team member intends to notify a superior. The rights-based team member, by focusing on the past, effectively says, “We cannot have this discussion.” The interests-based team member clearly states that there might not be any room for move- ment, but she is open to discussion. In this way, the interests-based response models the double-loop style of communication.108 Most people, when faced with sensitive and important issues, find it far easier to launch into rights- or power-based argu- ments. However, nearly any rights- or power-based argument can be converted into an interests-based response without forcing team members to capitulate to others.
108Argyris, C. (1977a). Double loop learning. Harvard Business Review, 55(5), 115–125.
Chapter Capstone
Conflict in teams is inevitable. However, it does not have to result in decreased produc- tivity. Managed effectively, conflict can be key to leveraging differences of interest to arrive at creative solutions. Many people however, instinctively respond to conflict in a defensive
fashion, and this emotional type of conflict can threaten productivity. To the greatest extent possible, team members should depersonal- ize conflict. The most effective teams share several common practices when it comes to conflict and conflict management. They
M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 217 10/25/16 3:09 PM