Group Behavior Week 4 DQ 1 & 2 You must answer both discussion questions

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all&c… 1/34

Learning Outcomes After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

Explain the concept of social interdependence and how cooperative or competitive frameworks arise.

Analyze the relationship between cooperation and team effectiveness.

Describe the connection between social interdependence and con�lict, and the factors that in�luence one’s orientation toward cooperative or competitive interaction.

Distinguish between constructive and destructive dynamics in competition and con�lict.

List key points for devising strategies to manage cooperation and con�lict.

7Cooperation and Con�lict

Stocktrek Images/Thinkstock

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all&c… 2/34

De�ine the role and primary objectives of a group facilitator.

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all&c… 3/34

Introduction

Anders works as a medical researcher for a large company that develops new medical devices for use in hospitals and doctors’ of�ices. The company uses cross-functional teams to see a product through from start to �inish. Anders serves as the leader of his team, which is composed of a marketing specialist, several doctors, and an engineer.

Recently, a con�lict arose within the team that was related to the development and marketing of a new diabetes management device. The team was divided on how best to design and market the device. Raj, the team’s marketing specialist, argued that the device should be sleeker, look more fashionable, and pair with mobile devices to target the growing population of younger, tech-savvy patients who have diabetes. Raj’s position was supported by a couple of doctors on the team who had seen an increase in younger patients in recent years. Yoanna, the team’s engineer, disagreed with Raj’s design. She argued that the proposed design would be more expensive, take longer to develop, and be more dif�icult for less tech-savvy individuals to use. She supported a more basic design, with no pairing ability and a bulkier body that would be less expensive to produce. Yoanna’s position was supported by the other doctors, who worried about alienating users with a more complicated product.

Tensions had begun to develop on either side. Raj accused Yoanna and her followers of putting costs before innovation, while Yoanna accused Raj and his followers of discriminating against older patients for the sake of �lashy bells and whistles. The con�lict had brought the team to a standstill, and something needed to be done.

Rather than forcing a solution by choosing a side, Anders decided to make the entire team responsible for solving the con�lict. He began by facilitating the team in collaboratively establishing ground rules for handling the con�lict. The team decided on the following rules:

1. Take action quickly when a behavior or decision causes con�lict. Do not wait several days to say that something is bothering you; make the issue known to the team and start the resolution process.

2. Remove blame from the con�lict. Frame issues in a way that removes blame and does not allow for anyone to be personally offended.

3. Accept the �inal resolution decided by the team.

Once the team decided on and agreed to abide by these ground rules, Anders facilitated a critical discussion on the value of the different design options. Each side shared its concerns while being mindful not to place blame: Raj’s side worried about not innovating quickly enough to meet the needs of a growing demographic, while Yoanna’s side shared concerns about turning off established users from more effective products by making them too dif�icult to use. By removing the blame from their arguments, each side was able to see the valid concern held by the other. Eventually, they started brainstorming ways to combine elements of their designs. In the end they came up with and agreed to support a design that partially satis�ied everyone: a sleeker, fashionable device that was easy to operate but did not have a pairing capability.

Anders is proud of his team members for constructively resolving the con�lict. He hopes that the ground rules they’ve established will empower them to think, innovate, and collaborate more effectively in the future.

No group or team can function without cooperation—but that doesn’t mean that con�lict will not occur. As we know from our examination of diversity and problem solving in Chapters 4 and 5, con�lict is highly likely in a cross-functional design team like the one showcased in our opening case study. In fact, con�lict can be a necessary and bene�icial element that enables a higher quality solution—as it did here, by

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all&c… 4/34

inspiring the design of a diabetes management device that is effective and appealing to both younger and older generations of users. The key to keeping con�lict constructive is to frame it within cooperative attitudes and behaviors. Building and maintaining a cooperative framework not only enables group and team work, it allows potentially negative factors such as competition and con�lict to be channeled into constructive, rather than destructive, dynamics. In this chapter, we de�ine cooperation, competition, and con�lict, examine the connection between them, and identify strategies to manage each of these elements within a group or team setting.

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all&c… 5/34

7.1 The Dynamics of Working Together

Cooperation—the process of working together and/or in support of one another to achieve a mutually bene�icial outcome—is the underlying rationale for any organization and is the primary element that keeps it functional and intact (Fieschi, 2003). Cooperative work enhances organizational productivity, achievement, and innovation, which in turn secures the company’s value in the eyes of customers and stakeholders and promotes its continued existence as a commercial entity (Dunne & Barnes, 2003; Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 2003). By generating a rich and rewarding social environment, cooperative work fosters employee integration and commitment that encourages employees to work for the success of the organization as a whole. Cooperative work can integrate rival groups or organizations and enable a mutually bene�icial partnership. Today many organizations are learning that strategic alliances with potential competitors can strengthen industry and improve their ability to reach new markets (West, Tjosvold, & Smith, 2003).

Cooperation is the key to success in groups and teams. By working cooperatively, individuals learn to harmonize their own interests and needs with those of others and of the collective. Group members perceive each person as contributing to a mutually bene�icial whole. They consequently pool their resources and encourage and support each other’s efforts. Integrating diverse ideas and viewpoints further enhances performance. While some people perceive cooperative work as undermining individuality, it actually celebrates it. The integration of each group member’s KSAs, unique thoughts, ideas, and perspectives are what allow goup and team work to outstrip individual efforts (Tjosvold, West, & Smith, 2003). People also gain a great deal on a personal level from cooperation. The supportive environment that is generated though cooperation satis�ies the need for belongingness and enhances one’s sense of self-ef�icacy, self-esteem, and being valued by peers (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Korsgaard, Jeong, Mahony, & Pitariu, 2008). In fact, studies have consistently shown a strong relationship between cooperation and psychological health and well-being (Aubé, Rousseau, Mama, & Morin, 2009; Tjosvold, Yan, Johnson, & Johnson, 2008).

Cooperation is not a given, however. The question of how and why some individuals and groups cooperate while others compete has been widely studied. Muzafer Sherif ’s classic Robbers Cave experiment (Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961) is one of the earliest and most famous studies on this topic. Conducted in the mid-1950s at a Boy Scouts camp at Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma, the study sought to observe group dynamics between 22 “well-adjusted” American boys carefully selected for similarity in age and background. The experiment was set to function in three phases: �irst, in-group formation; second, friction; and third, integration. For the �irst phase, researchers brought the boys to camp in two groups that were kept separate from each other. Initially, neither group knew of the other’s existence. Each had time to form its own in-group identity. They both chose names: One group called itself the Rattlers and the other self-identi�ied as the Eagles. Gradually, each group was made aware of the other.

The second phase—friction—tested the effects of in-group loyalty by setting up a series of competitions. In a matter of days, in-group loyalties led to the development of rivalry between the groups. Once the groups viewed each other as rivals, intergroup friction emerged that was notably hostile. For example, the two groups began calling each other names and refused to eat together. Con�lict between the groups was so strong that the experimenters ended this phase of the study early to move on to the third phase— integration—which tested strategies for reducing intergroup friction.

Sherif designed various ways to generate cooperation between the groups, particularly in how they could come together to work on speci�ic goal-oriented tasks as one unit. Fostering cooperation in this way was the most famous conclusion to emerge from the Robbers Cave studies. Researchers engineered a series of

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all&c… 6/34

disasters that required Rattlers and Eagles alike to work cooperatively as one large group toward commonly valued goals. For example, a water pump broke, and then a truck broke down. The Rattlers and Eagles had to work together to retrieve the necessary parts in order to use the truck or repair the water supply. By the end of the third phase of the experiment, the groups had suf�iciently overcome the con�lict that had initially developed.

The Robbers Cave experiment was a pivotal study in seeing �irsthand how groups take shape, how rivalries develop, and how con�lict between groups can be resolved through cooperative efforts. Unfortunately, it also propagated two signi�icant fallacies: First, the idea that con�lict and cooperation are positive and negative forces that cannot coexist; and second, that con�lict primarily happens between groups, while cooperation happens within groups. Both cooperation and con�lict can and do coexist within and between groups, a fact proven by further research into social interdependence (Deutsch, 1973b, 2003; Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 2005) and the motivations underlying cooperative or competitive attitudes and behaviors.

Social Interdependence: Cooperation or Competition

Social interdependence exists between two or more people when they mutually affect each other’s goals and outcomes (Johnson & Johnson, 2005). When people associate with others, their behaviors and actions can promote each other’s goals or obstruct them. The motivation to do one or the other depends on a person’s perception of the relationship between his or her own goals and those of others (Deutsch, 1949, 1973b, 2003). Individuals are inclined toward cooperative attitudes and behaviors when they think that everyone’s goals are mutually bene�icial and that one success will promote the other. A relay race is one of the simplest and clearest examples of this concept. As each person successfully navigates a portion of the course, they hand off their baton to the next runner on their team, and so on, until the course is complete. Each individual success enables the next, and the completion of the course as a whole represents a collective accomplishment—a win for all of the team members. By contrast, a footrace measuring individual speed pits each runner against the others, and only one person can win the game.

Competition occurs when people work against each other (for example, vying for resources or an exclusive bene�it) and defend their own right to an individually bene�icial outcome. Competitive attitudes and behaviors arise when individuals assume that their goals are in opposition and that their own goal attainment con�licts with the interests of others. When only one party can win, the others must lose. Competition can be direct, as when only one individual out of several can attain a particular resource or goal. Or it can be indirect, as when goal-directed activities obstruct others’ actions—for example, by monopolizing a shared resource or engaging in an activity that con�licts with someone else’s goal-directed activity. An example of the latter would be when one team member sets out materials for a special presentation, and another member puts them away before the presentation takes place.

Both cooperation and competition—and their associated attitudes and behaviors—are rooted in self- interest (Deutsch, 1949, 1973b, 2003). Through cooperation, individuals achieve their own goals by helping others achieve theirs. Consequently, they are motivated to share information and resources and help each other act effectively. By contrast, people with competitive interests and goals assume that they are better served when others act ineffectively. People in competition are therefore motivated to restrict or withhold information and resources, obstructing others’ effectiveness in order to increase their own chances of success. Table 7.1 summarizes the basic differences between the cooperative and competitive orientations.

Table 7.1: Comparing cooperation and competition

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all&c… 7/34

Orientation Goal association

General behavior General attitude

Cooperation Positively related

Support one another’s activities and progress Win–win

Competition In opposition Obstruct others’ activities and progress while advancing one’s own

Win–lose

What happens if people perceive their own individual goals as unrelated to those of others? If they determine that the actions and behaviors of others have no effect on their own goals? In that case, they see themselves as socially independent and act without regard for the needs of others. They are relatively indifferent to the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of others in pursuing their goals. They are not socially interdependent, they will neither cooperate nor compete, and they will not function as part of a group or team.

The key takeaways for facilitating cooperation and managing competition are:

In perceiving a relationship between goals, both cooperation and competition bring people closer together than having no relationship at all. Both cooperation and competition are rooted in self-interest and can therefore be manipulated by this relationship. Cooperation is fostered by the perception of positively related goals and mutually bene�icial activities.

Next, we examine the connection between cooperation and team effectiveness.

The Role of Cooperation in Team Effectiveness

Of course, no group or team can function well without maintaining cooperative attitudes and behaviors. Beyond this, however, the quality of cooperation between team members during performance has a direct impact on team effectiveness because of its relationship to the primary components by which team effectiveness is measured: productivity, process improvement, and viability (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996; Agarwal, 2003; Korsgaard et al., 2003).

Productivity re�lects team ef�iciency and effectiveness in converting inputs into outputs, in terms of both quantity and quality (Caya et al., 2013; Adler & Clark, 1991). Productivity inputs encompass all of the things that go into team performance, including resources, member effort, and processing time. Outputs represent the performance outcome—the product of the team’s work. Cooperation is what working together is all about and is at the heart of any productive group or team effort. The collaborative and supportive nature of team effort also makes teams a natural setting for learning and growth, which are ultimately expressed as process improvement.

Process improvement re�lects the extent to which team members re�ine task-related processes and develop member KSAs to enhance team performance and outcomes (Kirkman, Rosen, Tesluk, & Gibson, 2004). Process improvement can have far-reaching effects, as enhanced knowledge, practices, and procedures spread from the team to other groups within the organization and contribute to growth and the development of organizational process and culture (Hackman & Wagemen, 1995; Rousseau & Aubé, 2010). For example, the use of online productivity tools such as e-mail and Google Docs for task and project management is a common organizational practice that originated in virtual teams. The

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all&c… 8/34

development of member KSAs also has lasting bene�its, as former team members continue to apply themselves to other tasks and activities within the organization.

Improvement implies the proactive removal of de�iciencies or defects in group process that are identi�ied and addressed through a process of learning and growth. Teams can be powerful vehicles for both of these elements. Time-sensitive performance encourages members to rapidly identify problems, developmental needs, and skill gaps, while the cooperative framework and teamwork values provide motivation and support for members who are addressing those issues (Katzenbach & Smith, 2001. Member development involves the personal enrichment and growth that occur as a natural by-product of team process improvement. All aspects of improvement depend on the attitudes and behaviors that are characteristic of the cooperative orientation, and on activities such as giving and receiving constructive feedback, sharing knowledge, openly discussing errors, engaging in collaborative problem solving, and teaching or modeling skills to others.

The quality of process improvement that occurs during teamwork also effects the team’s viability. Viability refers to the team’s ability to perform collaboratively, the extent to which performance enhances members’ satisfaction with the team, and members’ willingness to work together in the future (Caya et al., 2013). Viability re�lects team members’ ability to collectively deal with issues that impair team cohesion (Barrick et al., 1998). Though viability can be viewed from many perspectives, it most often encompasses members’ self-reported sense of group climate, team ef�icacy, and the quality of competition and con�lict within the team (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp, & Gilson, 2008). Group climate re�lects the standard quality and tone of interactions within the group. It is generated over time as the group develops both task- and relationship-oriented norms. It serves as a signi�icant indicator of whether major structural elements (communication, member interrelations, and leadership and responsibility roles) are functioning so as to facilitate group performance. Group climate can be categorized as positive or negative, depending on the degree of cooperation, trust, ef�icacy, and cohesiveness expressed within the group. A positive group climate is supported by cooperative practices that foster participation, inclusion, and member development, such as collaborative construction of performance goals, modeling effective communication and listening skills, balancing individual and collective acknowledgement and praise, and giving and receiving constructive feedback. This is one reason why a climate of cooperation is so desirable.

A climate of cooperation is also a well-known support for team ef�icacy (Alper et al., 2000; Lester et al., 2002). Ef�icacy levels in�luence team motivation and performance across the board, signi�icantly impacting output and effort on collective endeavors and the tendency to either persevere or give up when faced with apparent adversity, opposition, or failure (Bandura, 1997). As we’ll see in the coming sections, con�lict and competition can be either positive or negative for group interaction, and it is the degree to which these elements are embedded within cooperation that largely determines their impact on group and team performance. Before we get to that, however, let’s talk about the expectations people have regarding con�lict and how changing these can help us rede�ine the role that con�lict plays in group and team work.

Group Con�lict: Rede�ining Our Expectations

Con�lict is a process of argumentation, disruptive behavior, and discord that occurs due to perceived incompatibilities with activities, personalities, interests, or viewpoints (Jehn, 1995; Deutsch, 2003). Con�lict is often viewed as the antithesis of cooperation, yet it is both inevitable and normal (Brown & Kozlowski, 2000; Weiss & Hughes, 2005). Groups, teams, and organizations are characterized by the coexistence of divergent forces (such as disagreement, competition, and distrust) that push groups apart

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all&c… 9/34

and convergent forces (such as cohesiveness, team ef�icacy, and morale) that pull them back together (Sheremata, 2000).

Working to develop quality interpersonal relations and communication between team members will not “save” a group from con�lict—nor should they. Many of the bene�its we �ind in collaboration arise from disagreements sparked by differences in knowledge, viewpoints, experience, functional competencies, and strategic focus (Weiss & Hughes, 2005). Con�lict—whether within teams or across organizational boundaries—is the crucible from which great innovation, problem solving, and decision making emerge, but careful management of it is key. Hold the mix over the �lame too long, and all those bene�its could evaporate.

Organizations spend inordinate amounts of �inancial and human resources working out strategies and initiatives to improve internal cooperation—these include restructuring and reengineering business processes and offering cross-unit incentives and teamwork training. Yet all of this work has a limited impact if employees are not taught how to constructively manage and resolve con�lict (Weiss & Hughes, 2005). Anyone interested in furthering cooperation and teamwork should be ready and able to manage con�lict.

What does managing con�lict entail? In a nutshell, it involves the following:

Facilitating constructive con�lict Steering potentially destructive con�lict toward constructive outlets Mitigating the negative effects of dysfunctional con�lict Resolving both positive and negative con�lict

Before we take on the task of managing con�lict, however, there are a few things to consider. Think of the next section as a primer for managing con�lict, as it addresses some foundational concepts we’ll need to absorb before examining actual strategies and techniques.

Business Applications: Are We Stamping Out Con�lict or Cooperation?

Have you ever heard the old expression “Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water”? Traditional views on con�lict may encourage us to do just that. Organizational policies and norms that discourage con�lict and treat it as a wholly undesirable phenomenon can foster a fear of con�lict that hampers employees’ ability to communicate problems, raise issues, and effectively collaborate. In her 2012 TEDtalk, Dare to Disagree, �ive-time CEO turned author Margaret Heffernan discusses how avoiding con�lict can cripple progress in teams and organizations. Watch Heffernan’s TEDtalk and take note of how the relationships between team members can change how con�lict is enacted and perceived.

TEDTalks: Margaret Heffernan—Dare to Disagree

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all… 10/34

Critical-Thinking Questions

1. Did the story of the relationship between Dr. Alice Stewart and statistician George Neil change your view of con�lict? Describe how the con�lict was useful to Stewart’s research. What does this imply about the relationship between con�lict and cooperation?

2. Have you ever heard of a whistle-blower? If so, what was your perception of his or her actions? If you have ever served as or been in�luenced by a whistle-blower, describe the effects that followed your (or the whistle-blower’s) actions and how these were perceived. If you have never been a whistle-blower, what issues do you think might compel you to serve as one?

TEDTalks: Margaret Heffernan—Dare to Disagree

  0:00 / 12:51 1x © Infobase. All Rights Reserved. Length: 12:51

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all&… 11/34

7.2 Foundations for Managing Con�lict

Managing con�lict requires the skillful application of knowledge and experience (de Janasz et al., 2002). Before we can achieve this, there are a few foundational concepts to consider. To effectively navigate and manage con�lict, it is important to understand the following:

The relationship between social interdependence and con�lict The difference between constructive and destructive dynamics The conditions that produce high levels of con�lict, and how it is likely to be expressed

The following sections address each of these in turn. We begin by examining the connections between social interdependence and con�lict.

Social Interdependence and Con�lict

Competition and con�lict go hand in hand. The vary nature of competition involves opposing interest or goals that lead to the incompatibilities that de�ine the process of con�lict. This relationship has fostered the common misperception that competition and con�lict are the same thing—and that neither can coexist with cooperation. As we will see in this section, both of these statements are untrue. Con�lict can occur in either a cooperative or competitive context—and in fact, it often exists in a mixture of both.

When people experience con�lict in a competitive context, it re�lects a real or perceived incompatibility of goals. However, con�lict can also arise when goals are compatible—and positively related (Tjosvold, 2006). Consider, for example, members of a marketing team who disagree on the best way to increase sales, or members of a management team who are debating the merits of various candidates for promotion. In each case, the team members have a common goal (to increase sales or choose the best candidate for promotion). However, they can also have individual interests that may or may not align with those of their fellow team members. Each person on the sales team, for example, has a vested interest in being perceived as capable, making good contributions, and being valuable to the team. The management team members may also have speci�ic interests tied to one or more of the candidates for promotion that can affect their preference and actions during the debate.

The key to effectively managing and resolving con�lict is not to do away with competition or con�lict; rather, it is to steer the balance between cooperation and competition toward the cooperative end of the spectrum. As we outlined in the �irst section, the conditions surrounding our social interdependence dictate our initial tendency to engage in either cooperative or competitive attitudes and behaviors. However, there are other factors that in�luence the strength of that response, as well as our continuing allegiance to a cooperative or competitive orientation. Let’s examine these now.

Initial Orientation Team members’ initial attitudes and behaviors tend to set the pattern for ongoing interaction, particularly as others respond in kind. In effect, this is a practical example of the old adage “As you give, so shall you receive”—meaning that taking either a cooperative or competitive approach to interactions tends to encourage others to do the same. Consequently, our initial orientation toward cooperation or competition has perhaps the most signi�icant impact on ongoing interactions.

The in�luence of reciprocity—a mutual exchange of similar nature or value—in directing the nature of social interdependence was established by social psychologist Morton Deutsch, whose research on the

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all… 12/34

topic is considered foundational to the �ield of con�lict resolution. Deutsch (1949, 1973b, 2003) noted that when one party engages in the attitudes and behaviors that characterize either cooperation or competition, it tends to elicit a response in kind from others. Table 7.2 directly compares the attitudes and behaviors associated with each orientation.

Table 7.2: Characteristics of cooperation and competition

Cooperation Competition

Perceiving alignment in individual goals, interests, attitudes, and viewpoints Developing shared scripts for interaction and goal attainment Fostering openness in information and idea exchange Maintaining trusting and friendly attitudes Addressing con�licts as issues that require collaborative problem solving Working to enhance mutual power and bene�its

Perceiving opposition in individual goals, interests, attitudes, and viewpoints Ignoring or discounting areas of potential similarity or compromise and rigidly upholding a win–lose scenario as the only option Withholding information and resources Approaching interactions with hostility and suspicion Addressing con�licts as a battle and using tactics that involve coercion, deception, or threats Striving to enhance power differences by increasing one’s own power and bene�its while reducing those of others

People are initially motivated toward either a cooperative or competitive orientation based on their perception of goal alignment. As noted in Chapter 3, perception can be selective or biased. Keep in mind that demonstrating either cooperative or competitive attitudes and behaviors at the beginning of an interaction can elicit the same response from others. The �lip side to this practical insight is that a group can also guide an initially competitive interaction into a more cooperative framework by not responding in kind to competitive attitudes and behaviors and by modeling cooperation instead.

Task Complexity Whether participants initially orient toward cooperative or competitive attitudes and behaviors, task complexity can be a prime motivator for cooperation. Task complexity is typically measured across speci�ic dimensions:

Degree of task differentiation: the extent to which an activity requires different tasks. Activities that require only one or few tasks are less complex than activities that require many. Degree of operational specialization: the extent to which different people are required to perform activity-related tasks, either due to a need for division of labor or diversity in KSAs. Degree of task interdependence: the extent to which activities require joint effort. Degree of task uncertainty: the extent to which activities require process invention and development.

Complex tasks inspire cooperation mainly because they tend to require it—this is the basic idea behind using groups and teams to accomplish complex tasks and goals. Complex tasks can even inspire cooperation between competitive parties. In 1957, for example, the United States and the Soviet Union— then locked in the competitive Cold War and space race—both participated in an international effort to

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all… 13/34

study and map the Earth from space (Sagdeev & Eisenhower, 2008). Despite existing hostilities, both parties put aside their differences to collaborate on a complex task that would prove bene�icial to all involved.

Con�lict Type The type of con�lict team members experience can also affect their willingness to cooperate. Within the organizational context, con�lict can be differentiated into two basic types: con�lict based on task elements and con�lict based on relationship elements (Jehn, 1997; Bell & Kozlowski, 2002; Kolb, 2013). Task con�lict encompasses disagreements regarding concepts and issues central to group tasks or goals, including procedural disputes over how the group should engage in its work (Jehn, 1997; Kolb, 2013). Disagreement over the way to frame a problem, for example, or debating the critical merits of two favored solutions represent task con�lict. Relationship con�lict encompasses interpersonal friction and disputes that involve members’ personal feelings and the ways in which they relate to one another (Jehn, 1997; Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). Interactions that leave one or more members feeling disrespected or disregarded can generate relationship con�lict, as, for example, when members who must interact across a language barrier misjudge each other and fail to actively listen or participate during group discussions. People tend to react very differently to task or relationship con�lict, and this can affect the orientation and strength of their social interdependence.

Task con�lict, which stems from the need to work together to accomplish a task or goal, does not challenge the cooperative framework (Deutsch, 2003). Rather, it represents an effort to work within it and construct a mutually bene�icial work approach and procedure, or coordination of effort and resources. Consequently, task con�lict is more commonly viewed as constructive (Kozlowski & Bell, 2001), or performance enhancing, and is the type of con�lict referred to when discussing the bene�its of con�lict to group or team work (such as enhanced creativity, comprehension, and quality in group problem solving and decision making).

Relationship con�lict, on the other hand, tends to be identi�ied as destructive because it damages the cooperative framework and diverts participants’ time, attention, and processing abilities away from performance-related issues and tasks (Evan, 1965; Jehn & Mannix, 2001. Relationship con�lict is often perceived as a personal attack, evoking negative feelings and psychological withdrawal on both sides (Jehn, 1995; Janssen, Van de Vliert, & Veenstra, 1999). As the con�lict continues, participants become increasingly entrenched in individualism—or separateness from each other—and rigid in their perception of opposition (Deutsch, 2003). If they cannot be brought back into a cooperative frame of mind, the parties in con�lict will create a subsystem of competition, which can infect the entire group’s performance and interactions. The negative and antagonistic reactions this fosters can perpetuate an escalating cycle of hostility and competition (Baron, 1991; Janssen et al., 1999).

Communication The balance between cooperation and competition is often determined by the degree of communication and understanding between participants. Consider team members Deanna and Chan. Deanna is scheduled to give a presentation at 1:00 p.m. using some of Chan’s materials (with his permission, of course), which she has laid out in advance in the conference room. However, Deanna neglected to tell Chan about the preparations she is making for the presentation. When he happens upon his materials in the conference room, he assumes she must have forgotten them there and takes them back to his desk. Of course, now he has unknowingly undone all of Deanna’s work. This could have been easily avoided if Deanna had shared

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all… 14/34

more information regarding what she was doing with the materials and cooperatively planned a time and way to clean them up that Chan knew about.

Communication problems are a common cause of competition and con�lict, particularly in matters that involve how to collectively carry out group or team purpose. Goal and task alignment are critical to effective performance (Kathuria, Joshi, & Porth, 2007; Quiros, 2009), yet many team members are stymied by the simple question of what they are supposed to do. Common task knowledge re�lects the level of shared understanding between members regarding goal and task requirements, the procedures and actions needed to accomplish group goals, and member roles and responsibilities for carrying these out (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993; Brandon & Hollingshead, 2004). Failure to establish a common framework for group goals and tasks hampers members’ ability to effectively coordinate, deal with issues and problems, or correctly interpret communications (Sole & Edmonson, 2002; Crampton, 2001; Caya et al., 2013). The con�lict or competitive activities this can generate can set off a cycle of misunderstanding, negative feelings, and con�lict between group members. This can rapidly transform task con�lict into relationship con�lict, which is less constructive and more dif�icult to resolve.

Trust Trust is a powerful enabler of cooperation (Williams, 2001); however, it cannot be established until team members have demonstrated a certain level of integrity. Individuals are more likely to engage in cooperative behaviors with partners who appear trustworthy, or have established their trustworthiness— either directly in past collaborations or indirectly via their reputation for working with or against others (Blankenburg, Eriksson, & Johanson, 1997). As Deutsch (2003) noted in studying the characteristics of cooperation and competition, people’s perception of fairness, honesty, and reliability in others tends to generate a reciprocal reaction. When one person deals honestly, communicates openly, and exhibits supportive attitudes and actions, others respond in kind. The reverse is true as well—treating others as untrustworthy and regarding them as a threat in turn fosters negativity and competition. This is often an issue when group members come from very different cultures, and discomfort with the unfamiliar is expressed (or perceived) as suspicion and distrust. If areas of similarity are not found and a sense of unity is not developed (as suggested in Chapter 4), it can cause competition between group members who only put on the appearance of cooperation.

Trust can also affect how people perceive con�lict—and its cause (Dirks & Ferrin, 2001). Simons and Peterson’s (2000) study of management teams, for example, discovered that teams high in cohesion and interpersonal trust had a greater tendency to view any con�lict as task related, while those low in cohesion and trust tended to assume that con�licts stemmed from interpersonal friction and issues. Here again reciprocity shows its impact, as group members who assume that relationship issues are behind any con�lict frequently ful�ill that expectation through their own negative reactions, and in doing so transform even potentially constructive task-related con�lict into destructive relationship con�lict (Parayitam & Dooley, 2007; Simons & Peterson, 2000; Tidd, McIntyre, & Friedman, 2004). For example, the initial hostilities between the two groups in the Robbers Cave experiment were based on the boys’ interpretation of their competition as a personal rivalry. Had they viewed their con�lict as solely related to the nature of the tasks at hand, they would have been able to engage in a more friendly competition. Instead, their perceived relationship con�lict became real when they treated each other as enemies, resorted to name- calling, and adopted other negative behaviors.

Though initial orientation, task complexity, con�lict type, and quality of communication and trust can all in�luence one’s orientation toward social interdependence, they are only part of the equation. In the end, team members can choose to aim for more cooperative or competitive attitudes and behaviors (Evans,

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all… 15/34

2003). The choice they make deeply affects the process and outcome of their teamwork. In particular, orientation affects the tendency to engage in either constructive or destructive competition and con�lict. In the next section, we identify and describe these phenomena and how they are expressed in groups and teams.

Constructive Versus Destructive Dynamics

Free-market economists often argue that competition brings out the best in us. Competition is assumed to make us sharper and more productive, and so it can. Still, competition—especially tumultuous competition—can also generate sabotage, scapegoating, rumormongering, and con�lict within and between groups. What’s the difference between constructive and destructive competition, and does constructive competition really exist? To �ind an answer, let’s take a closer look at the dynamics that come into play when we take on a competitive mind-set.

Cooperative Framework Competitive attitudes and behaviors can be more or less extreme, depending on the degree to which they are balanced by the presence of a cooperative framework. On the extreme end of this continuum, we have hypercompetition, which occurs entirely outside of any cooperative framework. On the other end resides developmental competition, a form of competition that takes place entirely within a cooperative framework. Let’s talk about how these very different competitive models evolved and what they actually mean.

Hypercompetition re�lects a mind-set in which self-worth is bound by a need to compete, win, and avoid losing at any cost. Karen Horney �irst de�ined this concept in 1937, establishing some of the earliest notable correlations between individualism and competition. According to Horney (1937), hypercompetitive individuals culturally acquire a set of extreme individualistic values that justify manipulation, exploitation, and aggressive or derisive behavior, so long as a win is obtained or a loss is avoided. Hypercompetitive colleagues would blithely lie, steal credit, and manipulate others’ opinions and actions to make themselves look good or win whatever bene�its are in contention.

Despite its negative reputation, competition is not a universally destructive force. Nor is it necessarily governed solely by a desire to maximize personal achievement or gain (He, Baruch, & Lin, 2014), an assumption that clearly places this view of competition at odds with collective goals and teamwork (Chen, Tjosvold, & Liu, 2006; Tjosvold, Yu, & Hui, 2004). Hypercompetition has been identi�ied as an outcome of self-contained individualism, a mind-set characterized by distaste for af�iliation or identi�ication with groups and denial of others’ input or in�luence on self-perception and concept (Sampson, 1977, 1988; Ryckman, Libby, Van den Borne, Gold, & Lindner, 1997). Edward E. Sampson (1977, 1988), who coined the term self-contained individualism, maintained that if such egoism was at one end of the spectrum, then a more socially conscious version, ensembled individualism, resides at the other. Unlike its darker counterpart, ensembled individualism maintains no sharp boundaries between self and others. Instead, individuals engage in a commonly shared process of discovery and self-actualization through interpersonal connections, attachments, and relationships—self-de�inition cannot be achieved alone (Sampson, 1988, 1989; Ryckman et al., 1997).

The two extremes of individualism correlate to the cooperative–competitive spectrum. Whereas self- contained individualism leads to the purely competitive hypercompetition, ensembled individualism re�lects the mitigating in�luence of a cooperative framework, which fosters a prosocial variation known as developmental competition (Ryckman & Hamel, 1992; Ryckman, Hammer, Kaczor, & Gold, 1996). This

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all… 16/34

cooperative competition model re�lects attitudes and behaviors in which the primary focus is not on winning or gaining personal advantage, but on self-actualization, discovery, and growth. Rather than perceiving others as competitive threats, this mind-set welcomes them as partners in learning and achievement (Ryckman et al., 1997).

Figure 7.1 shows the two extremes of competition.

Figure 7.1: The continuum of competition

As competition moves from a competitive to a cooperative framework, it shifts from destructive to constructive.

Cooperative competition enhances teamwork when members are socialized to compete with rather than against others to accomplish collective goals (Sampson, 1988; Wilson, 1993; Collier, Ryckman, Thornton, & Gold, 2010). Next, we examine the competitive tendencies in groups and teams.

Competitive Tendencies in Groups and Teams Individual competitive interests are easily set off within a group. Some company practices, such as assigning high-pro�ile individual rewards, foster such competition. Setting individual rewards for members of a large sales team, for example, can discourage cooperation—and be detrimental to productivity in the long term. Team members may hoard information or contacts they do not need, even if other team members could put them to use. Competitive attitudes and behaviors can place individual interests at odds with group interests, especially in the short term.

The tragedy of the commons refers to the tendency of individuals to deplete group resources for their own self-interest without considering others’ need for or use of them (Hardin, 1968). Ultimately, all group members—including those who initially bene�ited—end up worse off. The tragedy of the commons is often associated with environmental damage and refers to the irresponsible exploitation and destruction of natural resources society is still struggling to overcome. However, it frequently occurs within economic, political, social, and business arenas as well. Within organizations, the tragedy of the commons can be expressed simply as one person or group that monopolizes, say, a shared printer, workspace, or discussion during a project management meeting. Alternatively, it can also occur on a larger scale, when one department wrangles an entire chunk of budget originally slated to be shared among several departments.

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all… 17/34

Competition for scarce resources—or for a speci�ic performance task, idea, or direction—can create con�lict both within and across groups. Group members can become divided, overlook positive aspects of each other’s viewpoints, and fail to effectively communicate or comprehend each other’s priorities—all of which makes resolution and collaboration dif�icult (De Dreu, Koole, & Steinel, 2000). This only serves to increase competitive tendencies and can push the group toward hypercompetition. Limitations and imbalances in resources or other bene�its are also a prime cause of competition between groups in competing organizations—two cable providers, for example, may compete for a limited customer base across a single territory. Competition can also occur between organizational factions, such as management and labor unions.

In each of these cases, con�lict can escalate to a hypercompetitive framework in which both groups view the exchange as a win–lose battle. As a result, they may employ dirty tactics such as coercion, information withholding, slander, and damaging spin rhetoric. They may unfairly assign blame, which effectively scapegoats both parties. For example, the demise of Hostess Brands, provider of Twinkies, Ding Dongs, and other classic 20th-century treats, is widely blamed on a union–managers dispute over a new contract that would have damaged both existing salaries and retirement bene�its for Hostess workers. This viewpoint was propagated by both sides. However, there were many other factors that contributed to the company’s failure, including sizable pro�it losses and debts incurred by three successive mergers, bankruptcies in 2004 and 2011, and unchanging product lines (Olen, 2012).

Constructive and Destructive Competition in Teams As mentioned previously, competition in teams can be both constructive and destructive. Team hypercompetition is described as an internally competitive state in which members feel a driving need to outperform their teammates with little regard to collective bene�it or detriment (He et al., 2014). Team hypercompetition is destructive. It represents a model in which the pursuit of personal advantages take top priority, while the needs of others are disregarded or blocked. Each side of the con�lict attempts to enhance its own power while reducing the power of the other. Any increase of power in the opposing side is viewed as a threat, and repetitive experiences of disagreement, destructive criticism, and rejection of ideas reduce both self-con�idence and con�idence in the other group members. The competitive view that only one side can win can even lead to coercive tactics that involve both psychological and material threats. Threatening to ostracize or eject a team member from the group works as both a psychological and material threat, as the team member may suffer equally from the emotional effects of social rejection and from damages to performance or reputation.

Conversely, team development competition, also referred to as cooperative competition, re�lects a competitive process that is aligned with a cooperative framework. It results in increased motivation and effort to strive for optimum performance and quality while creating and strengthening positive interpersonal relationships (Ryckman et al., 1996; Tjosvold, Johnson, Johnson, & Sun, 2003). Team development competition is constructive and experienced as a positive and enriching interaction. Whereas team hypercompetition features a me �irst mentality that has a decidedly harmful effect on teamwork, cooperative competition re�lects a perspective on competition that keeps with the concepts of win–win and prosocial motivation (He et al., 2014). Team development competition fosters norms that value integrity and fair contest between members. This helps uphold a common focus on collective growth and team-level achievements, as well as deriving personal satisfaction from mastering and enjoying collective tasks (Ryckman et al., 1996). Such prosocial interactions represent opportunities for learning and self- actualization at both the individual and team level (Ryckman & Hamel, 1992; Ryckman et al., 1996, 1997; Collier et al., 2010).

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all… 18/34

Cooperative competition enhances psychological health and well-being, as parties on both sides of the competition practice the principles of good sportsmanship. These include the following:

Perceiving fellowship. The sense of competing with or alongside instead of against each other is integral to the cooperative framework that constructive competition needs to exist, and it results in morale boosts as competitors encourage each other toward higher levels of performance and praise each other’s accomplishments. Playing “fair”. Procedural fairness is a key element in maintaining mutual accountability, a foundational component of team cohesion. Being considerate. Using good manners and treating each other with mutual respect helps maintain awareness of the cooperative framework and mitigate personal attacks during con�lict, and it is just plain useful as a cooperative work practice. Playing for fun. Perceiving competition as personally rewarding no matter who actually “wins” in the end helps maintain good relations and constructive dynamics.

Besides the immediate positive effects on performance and psychological well-being, cooperative competition tends to increase team members’ sense of ef�icacy, motivation to take on challenging tasks, interest and satisfaction in their work, willingness and capacity to collaborate with competitors, and con�idence in their ability to express con�licting viewpoints and manage con�lict toward constructive avenues (Forsyth, 1999; Tjosvold, Johnson, et al., 2003). Within a group, these sentiments are joined by a corresponding rise in group satisfaction, attachment, and cohesiveness (Tjosvold, Johnson, Johnson, & Sun, 2006). Though this style of cooperative competition seems to be a polar opposite of team hypercompetition, these two states are not mutually exclusive. Team development and hypercompetitiveness can coexist within a team, as member competitiveness can encompass both individualistic and prosocial motivations that are not necessarily at odds. Likewise, con�lict can occur under either framework, though cooperative competition does tend to lead to far more constructive con�lict.

Identifying Constructive Con�lict Con�lict is considered constructive when it contributes positively to individual and group performance. Constructive con�lict provides a forum for sharing diverse viewpoints, knowledge, methods, and solutions; venting frustrations; and calling attention to problems or concerns (Amason, 1996; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006). Facilitating effective communication during interpersonal con�lict can break down unproductive barriers between team members, causing members to re�lect on their own viewpoints and the potential bene�its to change (Stevens & Campion, 1994). Constructive con�lict also strengthens problem solving and idea generation, which enables criticism and debate to activate these processes (rather than shut them down).

Constructive controversy is a critical expression of constructive con�lict within organizational groups and teams. In processes of constructive controversy, group members use con�lict as a tool to stimulate informative and conceptual processing and exchange, foster creativity, and enable critical analysis, problem solving, and evaluation (Vollmer & Seyr, 2013). Controversy is by nature a competitive process; however, the cooperative framework is engaged when group members acknowledge that the underlying purpose of the con�lict is to further a cooperative endeavor and must ultimately end in agreement (Johnson et al., 2006). Constructive controversy is viewed as a team learning process and is an integral component of process improvement (Kirkman et al., 2004).

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all… 19/34

Next, we examine the common predictors of con�lict—contextual elements that have a high likelihood of con�lict within groups and teams and the how that con�lict is likely to be expressed.

Predicting How and When Con�licts Will Arise

Although con�lict is a natural and inevitable component of social interaction, being able to predict when and how it will arise within the performance of a speci�ic group or team allows managers and team members to better prepare for and manage con�lict interactions. Task attributes and member diversity heavily in�luence the likelihood and expression of con�lict within organizational groups and teams and are prime predictors of how and when con�lict will arise.

Task Attributes Just as individuals have particular traits and qualities that make up their overall nature and personality, tasks have speci�ic characteristics or attributes that de�ine and describe them. Task attributes fundamentally shape group interactions (Pelled, Eisenhardt, & Xin, 1999), and certain characteristics can help set the stage for con�lict. Key task attributes include:

Task uncertainty. Routine tasks such as accessing and printing out a marketing report are structured activities in which we know exactly how to get from A to B. On a larger scale, routine tasks form the basis of mechanized production lines. By following a carefully planned sequence to its end, their machinery routinely manufactures products like cars, food packaging, and cell phones. Routine tasks entail very little uncertainty. Nonroutine tasks such as problem solving, decision making, and managing others are unstructured activities that require us to assess the situation and develop our own process for accomplishing goals. Even within the procedural framework typically offered by organizations, nonroutine tasks can encompass a high degree of uncertainty. Tasks with a high degree of uncertainty can increase personal stress and fear of failure. They also require deliberation, which frequently stimulates debate, both of which make task and relationship con�lict more likely (Korsgaard et al., 2008; Mooney, Holahan, & Amason, 2007). Task interdependence. Increased interdependence corresponds to increased complexity in coordination—and more chances for miscommunication and mishap. A marketing scheme that depends on input and activities performed by multiple people is necessarily more complex in terms of task coordination, accessing and sharing resources, reaching agreement on issues or solutions, and putting together a �inal product than is a marketing scheme designed by only one individual. Likewise, work group members whose efforts are dictated and coordinated by a group leader will have little or no opportunity for con�lict within their separate endeavors—though they may compete for individual praise. The likelihood of both task and relationship con�lict goes up as the level of required task interdependence increases (Komorita & Parks, 1995; Pinkley, Grif�ith, & Northcraft, 1995). Task and activity type. Some tasks and activity types are more likely to involve or inspire con�lict than others. Problem solving and decision making, for example, are both task types that depend on knowledge and viewpoint sharing, and they often require diversity of opinion and constructive controversy. However, both of these processes encompass a range of associated activities, and these can be more or less prone to con�lict. Debating ideas or decision options naturally involves controversy; however, performing a marketing test, interviewing customers, or gathering information from reliable sources typically does not. When group members understand the

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all… 20/34

nature of a speci�ic task or activity type, they are better able to predict the emergence of task con�lict. Task presentation. In the �irst section, we examined how perception affects our tendency toward cooperative or competitive behavior. Merely believing that our interests and goals are aligned or opposed can orient us toward one or the other. The way in which a task is presented or framed can signi�icantly impact the likelihood of con�lict by establishing or strengthening either a cooperative or competitive framework for interaction. Framing a situation or task as competitive tends to decrease cooperation and increase con�lict among group members (Korsgaard et al., 2008; Harinck, De Dreu, & Van Vianen, 2000; Ohbuchi & Suzuki, 2003). Individual or collective rewards often play a signi�icant role in framing a situation or task as cooperative or competitive. If reaching a departmental sales goal is motivated by individual rewards, for example, then sales team members will be unlikely to help each other; con�lict may arise as they try to block each other’s progress or enhance their own. A collective reward, on the other hand, motivates team members to work cooperatively and engage in supportive behavior and practices. Task presentation can in�luence the likelihood of relationship con�lict that stems from competitive attitudes and behaviors.

Being aware of which activities and processes are more or less prone to con�lict is critical to effective coordination and planning.

Diversity Any kind of diversity increases the likelihood of con�lict (Mohammed & Angell, 2004; Pelled et al., 1999; Vodosek, 2007). Heightened potential for a speci�ic type of con�lict can depend on the type of diversity. Task con�lict, for example, is associated with differences in individual KSAs, cognitive style, and function within an organization (Mooney et al., 2007; Olson, Parayitam & Bao, 2007). An accountant and an engineer may take a very different approach to reducing overhead costs at a manufacturing company; the former may recommend a less expensive materials supplier for an immediate bene�it, and the latter may suggest a machinery redesign that requires an initial outlay of expense but will cut costs over the long term. Meanwhile, cultural differences are associated with both task and relationship con�lict because culturally diverse group members are likely to have different views about task and procedural norms, follow different scripts for behavior and interaction, subscribe to different cultural norms and value systems, and work across potentially damaging language barriers (Jehn & Mannix, 2001; Vodosek, 2007). The combination of these elements heightens the chances of miscommunication and missteps that are personally offensive or frustrating to group members.

Differences in status—particularly those that create power imbalances—also shape an individual’s experience with and response to con�lict. This includes the decision to engage in competition and con�lict versus cooperation and compromise (Rousseau & Garcia-Retamero, 2007; Korsgaard et al., 2003). Studies have shown that we work harder to avoid con�lict with individuals who have higher status or power (Baron, 1989), and we tend to forgive or reconcile with high-status individuals more easily than those of lower status (Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2006). For example, group members may take interruptions in stride from a manager but be offended when other group members interrupt their thoughts or suggestions. Likewise, the group may be less apt to argue with a natural leader or speci�ic expert, even if the situation might warrant some controversy. While less con�lict may seem like a good thing, suppressing concerns or disagreement because of status differences can lead to process loss, poor-quality decisions, and dysfunctional dynamics like groupthink. Understanding the effects of the different diversity types on con�lict is a useful tool—not just for planning for emergent con�lict but for conscientiously encouraging it in constructive formats when needed.

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all… 21/34

Next, we examine practical strategies for managing both cooperation and con�lict.

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all… 22/34

7.3 Management Strategies for Cooperation and Con�lict

In the previous sections, we de�ined the dynamic components of social interdependence, examined the relationships between them, and assimilated some foundational concepts regarding cooperation, competition, and con�lict. Now it’s time to talk about how that knowledge can be applied in the workplace to foster cooperation in groups and teams.

Fostering Cooperation: Applying Foundational Knowledge

Managing con�lict is not just about dealing with the task and relationship con�licts that arise within interactions. It’s also very much about fostering cooperation—and the cooperative attitudes and behaviors that enable constructive con�lict and competition. What have we learned about cooperation so far?

Cooperation is fostered by the perception of positively related goals and mutually bene�icial activities. Individualism and differentiation from others fosters competition and decreases cooperation. Both cooperation and competition are rooted in self-interest and can therefore be manipulated by this relationship. Competition can be enacted in and guided toward a cooperative framework. Complex tasks can be a prime motivator for cooperation. Cooperation requires some trust to exist between group members. The processes and effects that characterize cooperation also elicit it.

How do these concepts translate into management strategy? Let’s return for a moment to Muzafer Sherif ’s Robbers Cave experiment (Sherif et al., 1961) to see how he put these concepts into practice. When the two groups, the Rattlers and the Eagles, were engaged in competitive activities, they immediately oriented toward hypercompetition. They had little to no cooperative tendencies, and cooperative attitudes and behaviors were nil. In the third phase, integration, Sherif deliberately manufactured situations in which the two groups had positively related goals and thus engaged in mutually bene�icial activities. He rooted these in self-interest by including personally relevant goals, such as having a working water supply for drinking and washing. This strategy changed the dynamics of competition between the two groups, directing them toward a more cooperative framework. By engaging them in a series of complex tasks that required them to act cooperatively as one big group, Sherif effectively stimulated cooperation.

Similarly, in an organizational setting, cooperation can be fostered by the following:

Developing a climate of cooperation, as outlined in Chapter 2. Engaging in activities and processes that support identi�ication and cohesion, such as identifying points of commonality in interest, collaboratively setting agenda and performance goals, and upholding fair and equal standards for mutual accountability. Tying self-interest to group accomplishment by establishing collective rewards. Identifying and raising member awareness of task complexity. Deliberately manufacturing cooperative activities that require all members’ participation.

In many cases, these elements can be combined. For example, in collaboratively setting performance goals, group members can identify and discuss task complexity and set up fair criteria for measuring progress and tracking accountability. They can also set collective rewards and superordinate goals as part of this process. Superordinate goals can only be achieved with the contribution of multiple groups or parties. A group leader might enact this by setting a goal that requires speci�ic contributions from each member; for

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all… 23/34

example, a presentation outlining each phase of a proposal wherein each member must address and present a speci�ic topic. The act of achieving these goals can—and ideally must—foster cooperation between or among the parties involved (Gaertner et al., 2000). This was the most famous conclusion to emerge from the Robbers Cave experiment.

Despite these tactics, fostering cooperation between individuals with diverse KSAs, viewpoints, backgrounds, and styles can be seriously challenging. They must be equally willing and ready to cooperate, perceive that their goals are positively associated, and be able to develop shared scripts for cooperation and practical ways in which to support each other’s success while working toward their own. They must also be able to effectively deal with the inevitable con�licts that arise.

In the modern world, managing cooperation is increasingly challenging as individuals and groups are asked more frequently to work cooperatively across functional, cultural, geographic, and organizational boundaries (Leung et al., 2003). Cross-functional teams must effectively coordinate their members’ areas of expertise to realize the special bene�its of this diversi�ication (Drazin, Kazajian, & Blyler, 2003; Harris & Beyerlein, 2003). As we will examine in Chapter 8, many employees rely heavily on technology to communicate and coordinate their efforts (Agarwal, 2003). All of these factors increase the likelihood of con�lict and the need to resolve it. We address this issue next.

Resolving Con�lict: Combining Knowledge and Skill

We know that con�lict can occur in both cooperative and competitive settings—and competition can exist within a cooperative framework as well. This was proved in 1944, when mathematician John von Neumann and economist Oskar Morgenstern joined forces to give us the now classic Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Game theory represents a major contribution to social psychology because it puts the problem of con�licting interests in mathematical terms. In doing so, it also revealed that parties in con�lict have interdependent interests—that is, their outcomes are mutually affecting. This is perhaps most obvious in win–lose situations, referred to in game theory as zero-sum games. In effecting this outcome, one party de�initively loses while the other gains. The term non-zero-sum games encompasses situations in which both participants can win (the win–win scenario) or both can lose (the lose–lose scenario). A famous thought experiment called the prisoner’s dilemma offers an all-in-one illustration of each of these outcomes. It unfolds like so:

The police have nabbed two burglars in possession of stolen goods. The prisoners are brought to the station and placed in separate interview rooms. Each is told: If you confess and implicate your partner, you will be granted immunity and go free, but your partner will be sentenced to six years in prison. However, if you both confess, you will each receive a three-year sentence. If neither of you confess you will each receive a one-year sentence.

If one partner confesses and the other does not, this represents a win–lose outcome where the one who confesses comes out on top. If both partners confess, it’s a lose–lose outcome, in which both are sentenced to three years in prison. If neither partner confesses, they both serve time, but the sentence is lightened considerably, making this a win–win outcome. There are some situations in which individual goals are complementary and a win–win involves no loss to either side; for example, if Charleze needs someone to take her place during a presentation, and Timone wants an opportunity to demonstrate these skills. However, in situations that involve competition or con�lict, a win–win often re�lects a compromise, as shown in the prisoner’s dilemma. The question is: How do we effectively resolve con�lict so we can agree on a compromise?

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all… 24/34

Con�lict resolution is a learned skill set that requires conscious effort and practice to achieve (de Janasz et al., 2002). There are many programs, textbooks, and how-to manuals for training con�lict resolution skills in all of the areas in which people work together. Though their details vary, most share a central tenet of seeking to instill the knowledge, attitudes, and skills that support cooperative problem solving and discourage escalation of competitive attitudes and behavior (Deutsch, 2003). As a result of con�lict- resolution training, individuals should be able to do the following:

1. Recognize available options in con�licts of interest. Most people are predisposed to see con�licts as win–lose situations. Game theory proves, however, that there are other alternatives. It may take time and effort, but most parties in con�lict can �ind some way to work cooperatively to solve their problems and construct a win–win compromise that is of greater mutual bene�it than a simple win–lose outcome. Keep in mind that when people must continue to work together, rigidly holding on to a win–lose expectation can result in a lose–lose in the long run, as interpersonal relations are damaged.

2. Understand the role of reciprocity in con�lict. When it comes to cooperation and competition, reciprocity is key. Group leaders and members must model the cooperative attitudes and behavior they wish to encourage. Sometimes this means one party must be the “bigger person” and change the group’s dynamics by meeting competitive attitudes and behaviors with cooperative ones. Cooperative practices will become self-sustaining as they elicit reciprocity within the group.

3. Face con�lict rather than try to avoid it. Con�lict can be unpleasant and even scary. Avoidance tactics such as suppression, rationalization, conformity, and postponement are common—and may even be encouraged if organizational culture treats con�lict as a negative to be dealt with as quickly and quietly as possible. However, con�lict cannot actually be avoided without resolution; only evaded or left to smolder. When this occurs the problem persists and may even grow, increasing interpersonal tension and irritation between group members. It is better to face con�lict and attempt to resolve it than to let it fester and grow.

4. Act from a place of mutual respect. Feeling personally attacked and vulnerable can immediately activate relationship con�lict and escalate both con�lict behavior and the competitive perception that a win–lose situation is the only possible outcome. Treating each other with mutual respect helps keep con�lict in a constructive zone and can mitigate the tendency to automatically escalate when emotions do get involved.

5. Distinguish between “positions” and “interests”. Recall from Chapter 6 that positions and interests are not the same. Although a position may be opposed, we may still be able to �ind a solution that takes both parties’ underlying interests into account to achieve a mutually bene�icial outcome.

6. Identify commonalities and compatible interests. People have areas of similarity that may not be readily apparent, but discovering these can help develop mutual understanding and empathy and can further our desire to cooperate by seeking out compatible interests. Rounding out perspective on opponents and �inding compatible interests generates a sense of fellowship, making it easier to work cooperatively when dealing with opposed interests.

7. Address con�licts of interest as mutual problems. When both sides acknowledge ownership of a problem—and recognize each others’ ownership—cooperative problem solving becomes the obvious interaction choice.

8. Support effective communication with other interpersonal skills. Perceptiveness, mindfulness, listening, and intercultural sensitivity are all skills that can work in tandem with our communication skills to help people communicate effectively on both task and relationship issues. Interpersonal communications skills involving feedback, metacommunication, and consciously choosing constructive over destructive communication methods also have a signi�icant and positive impact on con�lict interactions.

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all… 25/34

9. Guard against detrimental tendencies toward bias. It is human nature to �ilter information and perceptions through cognitive bias. Many act in tandem, and some can be particularly detrimental. For example, the actor–observer bias, commonly acting in tandem with the fundamental attribution error, predisposes people to attribute their own actions to the environment, the situation, or other people but explain the actions of others in terms of their personal characteristics or dispositions (Hamby & Grych, 2016). This explains why people tend to take things personally when others do them (such as when someone repeatedly interrupts a discussion), while excusing the same actions or behaviors in themselves.

10. Recognize and improve our own reactions to con�lict. Constructive response to con�lict is a learned skill. People are more naturally predisposed to have negative reactions to con�lict, and habitual responses can be hard to break—even when we realize they are inappropriate or detrimental to our interactions. For example, some people try to avoid con�lict; they may deny that anything is wrong, suppress thoughts and feelings regarding the situation, or postpone confrontation or discussion with those they are in con�lict with—all of which ultimately tend to exacerbate the original issue. Others may take an overly aggressive or overly submissive approach to con�lict. Some are prone to contentious, domineering behaviors and unyielding attitudes, while others are unduly meek and unassertive, leaving viewpoints unexpressed, and expecting others to “read their minds” or extrapolate their interests from other conversations (Deutsch, 2003). Acknowledging the different types of con�lict reactions and how they affect interactions can help group leaders and members develop more constructive attitudes and behaviors.

11. Request—and accept—support when it is needed. Con�lict—and con�lict resolution—can be dif�icult, but group members should always feel like they can ask for help. If a resolution is too long in coming, it can take up valuable performance time, escalate what could have been a minor con�lict, or seriously damage interpersonal relations. This can happen in both task and relationship con�lict. Sometimes members need a deciding vote or outside opinion on a task issue, for example, which is typically provided by a group leader or manager. At other times, relationship con�lict can get out of hand to the point where participants lose perspective—and with it their ability to effectively manage interactions and resolve con�lict. In such cases mediation can offer critical assistance. Formal mediation requires a trained mediator. Although some managers are trained in mediation, this more often falls to a designated group facilitator.

Next, we look at the role of facilitator, the activities and responsibilities this entails, and how facilitators can foster cooperation and assist in con�lict management. We’ll also examine a few speci�ic strategies and methods facilitators use—including mediation.

Facilitating Process: Getting Outside Help

In a groundbreaking 1946 conference, Lee Bradford and Kurt Lewin �irst demonstrated the concept of using a trained facilitator to make group discussions and processes more effective. Bradford and Lewin’s training focused on teaching facilitative functions and was intended to show leaders how to foster group performance rather than simply mandate it (Bradford, 1974; Keltner, 2006). Their agenda included instruction on how to:

build, validate, and expand the group’s work agenda; maintain the group’s task focus without overt regimentation and time management; help groups begin necessary processes; handle disruptive members and members who tend to monopolize discussions; encourage members who are not actively participating; and build member con�idence in group and team work.

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all… 26/34

Today facilitators manage group dynamics to make group processes and performance outcomes more effective. While a certain degree of knowledge, training, and detachment from task processes is recommended, there is no rule for who can be a facilitator (or temporarily take on the duties of one). In a comprehensive review of group facilitation, Keltner (2006) identi�ies three basic categories of roles:

1. Group member as facilitator 2. Leader as facilitator 3. The facilitator specialist

Table 7.3 outlines these basic categories.

Table 7.3: Basic facilitator categories

Role category

Description Potential drawbacks

Group member as facilitator

Emergent role Typically assumed by a member with a high degree of mindfulness, sensitivity, and interpersonal skills

Potential (either real or perceived) to exercise control over discussions and process Can be mitigated by having a member facilitator remove him- or herself from the process

Leader as facilitator

Self-designated role Very common Leadership can be held by a single individual or shared by several

Potential for confusion or con�lict between leader and facilitator roles

Facilitator specialist

Assigned to a member or a nonmember Deals with task or process content indirectly Functions as a member with a unique and restricted role

Members may struggle to separate themselves from social and task content

Sources: McGrath, 1962; Keltner, 2006.

As shown in Table 7.3, each role category has potential drawbacks. Facilitators are meant to be apart from rather than a part of group processes and dynamics they manage. Maintaining this detachment is one of the biggest personal struggles facilitators face. When group members or leaders take on the role of facilitator, this becomes a critical issue. It can be exceedingly dif�icult for group members to effectively step in and out of interaction as they step in and out of their role as facilitator. Leaders face an additional issue in that what they say has more weight than is normally appropriate for facilitation, and they may be tempted to dictate rather than facilitate when favored issues or frustrating con�licts come into play. Specialist facilitators are the best option for avoiding these issues; however, they are not the most common. In the end, the group will function best with the facilitator—and method—with which they feel most comfortable, as that will open them up to the process of facilitation.

Group facilitators are like process mechanics who maintain a group’s functioning and serve as its process problem solvers. They support the group’s ability to collaborate by fostering the primary bene�its of group interaction. To accomplish this, facilitators generally employ strategies geared toward:

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all… 27/34

Figure 7.2: The destructive cycle of poor communication and con�lict

maintaining momentum and task focus; managing motivational balance among team members; fostering effective communication, knowledge sharing, and constructive con�lict; and mitigating or resolving dysfunctional con�lict.

Group facilitators typically encounter two major obstacles to effective collaborative performance: inadequate participation and poor communication.

Effective collaboration requires that all group members actively and equally participate and contribute to group efforts. Despite the fact that cohesion and mutual accountability tend to encourage this, members do not always strive for active or equal participation and contribution. As noted in Chapter 5, sometimes group dynamics generate an atmosphere that fosters social loa�ing. Generally perceived of as freeloading or failing to contribute their fair share, social loafers are often overlooked, disregarded, or resented by fellow group members (Aggarwal & O’Brien, 2008). While their lack of participation or contribution is not bene�icial to the group’s performance, neither are any of these negative reactions, particularly when dysfunctional dynamics have encouraged social loa�ing.

The second major obstacle facilitators face is poor communication between group members. As we have learned, communication plays a major role in developing trust and cohesion, accessing resources (including diverse KSAs), unifying scripts and coordinating action, solving problems, and managing member relations (Olekalns et al., 2008). Poor communication can therefore have a dramatically negative effect on group process. In fact, it is one of the most frequently cited causes for failed teamwork. Nonparticipation and poor communication can be intertwined if, for example, members are holding back from group discussions due to high levels of evaluation apprehension. So how do facilitators deal with these issues?

While speci�ic duties and tactics can vary, facilitators primarily address these issues by fostering a climate of cooperation, encouraging members to be mutually supportive, and guiding members by maintaining a cooperative framework for group interactions. While most facilitators have similar training, differences in individual personality, attitude, and expertise can produce many variations in how they approach and carry out their duties (Kramer et al., 2001). Despite these differences, there are some key elements of strategy and method that remain fairly consistent. Facilitators model interpersonal skills, help the group maintain constructive norms, foster mutual understanding and unity of purpose—particularly in groups that deal with cultural diversity—and assist in con�lict resolution. Let’s begin by looking at the facilitator’s role in modeling interpersonal skills.

Modeling Interpersonal Skills The quality of interpersonal relations, including how members interact, group cohesiveness, and the interplay of group norms with cooperative performance, are powerful determinants of con�licts (Pondy, 1967; Korsgaard et al., 2008). Consequently, interpersonal skills are a critical asset in facilitating cooperation and con�lict resolution. While facilitators are not actively involved with group process—they do not contribute task-related information or ideas and do not make decisions—they do play a major role in fostering cooperation during group process and interactions. One way in which they do this is by modeling effective interpersonal skills, particularly those associated with effective communication.

Effective communication is incredibly important in groups and teams. It affects every aspect of interaction, from task coordination to building and maintaining member relations. Communication is also a major factor in shaping, mitigating,

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all… 28/34

Poor communication can instigate or escalate con�lict, and the reverse is also true.

and resolving con�lict (Olekalns et al., 2008). Not only are the potential bene�its of con�lict more easily realized when issues are openly and skillfully discussed (Tjosvold, Wong, & Yi- Feng, 2014), but poor communication can cause con�lict, and con�lict itself can foster communication avoidance (Wall & Callister, 1995). This can create a cycle that perpetuates con�lict and poor or insuf�icient communication (see Figure 7.2).

The interpersonal relations we experience during our tenure with an organization, both as individuals and in groups, affect our future cooperative endeavors. Past interactions and relationships between groups or group members have a de�inite effect on con�lict. People who have engaged in positive relations and friendships in the past tend to be less aggressive and confrontational during con�lict than those who do not (Shah & Jehn, 1993; Tjosvold & Sun, 2002). Conversely, previously negative interactions or relationships can exacerbate con�lict by “priming” both parties to have negative expectations. When this happens, it can be helpful to enlist a neutral third party who has or can develop positive ties with everyone, to provide a positive buffer and break the existing negative pattern for con�lict interactions (Venkataramani & Dalal, 2007). Thus, the role of facilitator can signi�icantly mitigate con�lict by offering this third-party relationship.

Next, let’s turn to the facilitator’s role in maintaining constructive norms.

Maintaining Constructive Norms Managing norms is a common facilitator activity—particularly for leader–facilitators. As we discussed in Chapter 1, norms represent the unspoken and often unwritten set of social expectations and rules that govern individual behaviors in a group (Feldman, 1984). Some group norms are imposed by the organization, but many develop naturally as group members interact. Taken together, a group’s norms represent its culture. Norms have a tremendous impact on a team’s performance effectiveness, yet the spontaneous development of constructive, task-appropriate norms is rare (Hackman, 2011). While norms are emergent, they can nonetheless be managed. It is the role of the facilitator to question destructive norms and help establish and maintain positive or constructive norms. Imagine sitting around with a group of friends, one of whom tells an offensive joke. It may be easier to conform and laugh when everyone else does than to indicate that the joke is offensive. How often are we willing to speak up in such a situation? What is implied if we do not challenge our own or others’ assumptions within the group?

Constructive norms facilitate the group’s effective functioning and decrease the probability that dysfunctional dynamics will occur. Destructive norms represent socially accepted dysfunctional attitudes and behaviors that are all the more damaging for the fact that they are tacitly enforced and seldom challenged. Table 7.4 provides examples of constructive and destructive norms.

Table 7.4: Constructive versus destructive norms

Constructive norms Destructive norms

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all… 29/34

Constructive norms Destructive norms

Cohesion, solidarity, esprit de corps Encouraging con�lict about issues, not people Shared airtime among group members Curiosity about other points of view Having the leader speak last to prevent groupthink Self-monitoring and self-evaluation among team members Making contributions public

Lack of respect, trust, and cohesion Fear of con�lict; destructive humor Some team members, including the leader, dominate conversation Lack of effective listening among members Discouraging creativity and innovation Laziness, lack of commitment to the team’s goals Lack of individual ownership for goals and tasks

Ideal opportunities to instill constructive norms include the early stages of new team development or the beginning of a new project in an established team. However, it is important to remember that teams are not socially static. Established norms change, and new norms—both good and bad—emerge. Developing constructive norms within a speci�ic team is an ongoing process, one that represents a collaboration that involves all of the people involved with the teamwork, from team leaders and managers to individual members. Establishing and maintaining constructive norms is a high-leverage activity—a practice that consistently pays off effort with highly positive returns in terms of effective teamwork and performance. Facilitators and leaders can work together to help establish constructive norms and continue to guide them by seizing opportunities to reinforce and support those norms though positive feedback and encouragement. Facilitators watch for negative member dynamics that can sabotage the practical value of constructive norms and create potentially destructive patterns within the team’s social dynamics.

Fortunately, destructive norms often derive much of their strength from the fact that no one wants to actively challenge them. Although it can be dif�icult to be the �irst to speak out, once challenged, destructive norms tend to lose much of their power. This is often the case because other team members either agree the destructive norms are indeed negative, or are open to changing them to keep the peace with team members who �ind them offensive. Facilitator-led questioning of destructive norms can prompt open discussion of negative issues and collaborative problem solving. It can also help form positive norms such as speaking up about concerns and issues, self-monitoring and regulating group attitudes and behavior, sharing knowledge and viewpoints, and actively listening to other people’s viewpoints. These, in turn, facilitate effective communication and other interpersonal skills. Both modeling interpersonal skills and maintaining constructive norms help manage con�lict caused by cultural differences. The task of facilitating cooperation across cultures often falls to leaders of virtual teams but can occur in face-to-face settings as well. In both cases, group leaders and/or facilitators must work against additional obstacles to cooperative attitudes and behaviors.

Cooperating Across Cultures Cultural diversity can generate relational con�lict and communication issues within multinational groups, both at the organizational level and within the smaller context of individual teams. For example, when U.S. company Sage Publications initiated an operational move into India, management faced many cultural issues. These included U.S.–India political relations and governmental bureaucracy, the instability of local currency, unionized resistance to Western management practices, and misunderstandings due to differences in Indian and American body language and nonverbal cues (Whiting & Reardon, 1994). Likewise, an attempted collaboration between U.S. and Japanese management teams at Las Vegas’s original Aladdin Hotel in the late 1980s also experienced major dif�iculties due to cultural diversity.

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all… 30/34

Creatas/Thinkstock

Semiheterogeneous, multinational teams tend to form divisive in- and out-groups unless a collective effort is made to generate a shared framework and mutual understanding between team members.

American team members perceived the Japanese emphasis on consensus as being at odds with the fast- paced, dynamic casino environment, and the con�lict over management styles ultimately sunk the venture (Ricks, 1993). The operational confusion, communication issues, and managerial disagreements experienced in these settings were primarily caused by differences in national and organizational culture.

Social identity theory asserts that, in a process similar to stereotyping, people predictably exhibit favorable bias toward those perceived as in-group members and will make negative associations and/or view themselves as in con�lict with those perceived as out- group members (Turner & Haslam, 2001). Members of the same culture assume a basic similarity of cultural norms, views, attitudes, and knowledge. This perception is strengthened when those members are contrasted with members of other cultures. The predisposition of basic similarity can heighten bonding between members of the same culture and foster psychological in-groups and out-groups within a cross- cultural team. Cooperative behavior follows our assumption that in-group members share our same interests and goals and will therefore help us achieve them (Joshi & Jackson, 2003). Categorizing people into us and them subgroups obstructs cooperative attitudes and behavior and may stimulate nonconstructive competition (Deutsch, 2003; Lott & Lott, 1965; Sanchez-Mazas, Roux, & Mugny, 1994). This was the problematic dynamic that drove the hostilities between the two groups of boys in the Robbers Cave experiment. Sherif solved that problem by imposing related goals and shared interests with activities that could not be accomplished without cooperation between the two teams. Ultimately, this caused the two group identities to merge into a single group with aligned interests and needs.

Con�lict between culturally diverse members is often caused by misunderstanding, or misaligned assumptions regarding how things should be said or done. The tendency for misunderstanding and confusion is escalated by underlying tensions between members who are uncomfortable with each other’s unfamiliar body language, customs, and cultural norms. The sense of dissimilarity caused by these differences makes group identi�ication and cohesion more dif�icult. Lack of knowledge and understanding about each other’s cultures leaves group members unable to predict one other’s behavior and values— making it also more dif�icult to develop trust. Problems that arise from miscommunication or misinterpretation in cross-cultural teams often stem from an inability to view interactions from outside the narrow focus of our own cultural viewpoint. Facilitators and/or group leaders combat these negatives by fostering intercultural sensitivity and mutual understanding between culturally diverse group members. This is largely accomplished by encouraging positive norms regarding member diversity and communication, establishing common knowledge and shared understanding through the collaborative discussion of the group’s primary task and the development of performance goals, and fostering a sense of trust and identity within the group.

Finally, let’s examine the facilitator’s role in resolving con�lict.

Assisting in Con�lict Resolution

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all… 31/34

Facilitators can play an informal or formal role in con�lict resolution. The primary means by which facilitators informally assist in con�lict resolution is by guiding member mindfulness and respect of the cooperative framework within which constructive interaction can occur. One way they can accomplish this is by helping members collaboratively set ground rules for conduct during con�lict. Doing so helps group members learn the communicative and behavioral boundaries that encompass constructive and destructive con�lict. Just as collaboratively setting performance goals establishes ownership and buy-in to team actions and outcomes, participating in the creation of ground rules fosters a psychologically healing sense of autonomy and gives groups a cohesive rallying point for interaction (Korsgaard et al., 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The ownership and buy-in this engenders also reminds members to not take things personally when they step out of bounds and gives them a platform for reminding others that those bounds exist. Upholding ground rules during the initial stages of con�lict is critical for deescalating and resolving con�lict.

When facilitators take a formal role in con�lict resolution, it is typically expressed as mediation. Mediation occurs when an outside party with no authority to impose an outcome engages in a structured process to assist con�lict resolution for two or more parties (Wall, Stark, & Standifer, 2001). Informal mediation can occur if one team member steps up as a self-proclaimed facilitator; however, this is rarely as effective as formal mediation. When informal mediation is successful, it is mainly because the team has already instilled good cooperative practices and is guided by norms for constructive con�lict. In such cases, the informal mediator need only remind teammates of appropriate behavior.

A formal mediator’s activities are directed toward four basic goals:

1. Establish a working alliance with both parties. 2. Improve the climate for interactions between them. 3. Identify and address the relevant issues. 4. Help parties coconstruct an acceptable solution (Kressel & Pruitt, 1989; Doherty & Guyler, 2008).

Mediation is used worldwide and is one of the oldest forms of con�lict resolution (Wall et al., 2001; Deutsch, 2003). It can be an effective solution when unassisted con�lict resolution is likely to fail due to intense negative feelings or dysfunctional patterns of communication, unyielding disagreement over issues and incompatible interests, and serious division over the facts of the situation.

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all… 32/34

Chapter 7 Summary and Resources

Cooperation is a key element of any group or team work, and an integral factor in any interaction, association, or organization in which we work together. The tendency to cooperate or compete often depends on people’s perception of how their interests and goals relate. Maintaining a cooperative framework can transform both competition and con�lict into constructive behaviors. Therefore, managing and resolving con�lict begins by developing and maintaining shared interests, positively related goals, and the attitudes and behaviors that both characterize and elicit cooperation.

Chapter Summary Cooperation and competition are both rooted in self-interest; however, the attitudes and behaviors people engage in as they work toward their goals under either orientation are nearly opposite. Con�lict, competition, and cooperation are all interrelated, and con�lict can occur in both cooperative and competitive settings. Constructive attitudes, behaviors, and norms enhance group functioning and performance, while their destructive counterparts have the opposite effect. Constructive competition is achieved when competitive attitudes and behaviors are placed within a cooperative framework. In con�lict, team members have a tendency to focus on win–lose outcomes. Yet it is important to recognize that willingness to compromise can open new possibilities for win–win outcomes. A basic understanding of what cooperation requires can be usefully applied to manage both cooperation and con�lict in many settings. Facilitators provide perspective and in�luence that is outside the normal dynamics of group interactions because they do not actively contribute to task work—rather, they manage the dynamics and processes that drive it. Facilitators assist cooperation and con�lict management by fostering participation, effective communication, constructive group norms, and mutual understanding and unity within the group. Finding points of commonality is a major step toward both con�lict resolution and cooperative interactions. Sharing perceptions, knowledge, and viewpoints is key for both con�lict management and cooperative behavior.

Critical-Thinking Questions 1. The prisoner’s dilemma is an illustration of competitive interests. In the example, the prisoners

are kept apart and have no way of knowing what the other will choose. Using the prisoner’s dilemma as a framework, describe the impacts that communication, trust, and cooperative versus competitive orientation can have on interaction and outcome.

2. Most of us have participated in some form of competition, and many of us have had at least one experience in cooperative competition. Describe some of the differences in attitude, behavior, and perspective that occur when we shift from a competitive to a cooperative framework.

3. Using the concepts from this chapter, explain how Sherif deliberately set the stage for competition between the Eagles and the Rattlers in the Robbers Cave experiment. Discuss how different methods could have been employed to encourage the groups to work cooperatively from the beginning.

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all… 33/34

Additional Resources Links Sherif ’s Robbers Cave Experiment: http://www.experiment-resources.com/robbers-cave- experiment.html (http://www.experiment-resources.com/robbers-cave-experiment.html)

The Jigsaw Classroom: http://www.jigsaw.org (http://www.jigsaw.org)

Prisoner’s Dilemma Explained: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma)

Tragedy of the Commons: http://india.forbes.com/article/ivey-business-school/the-tragedy-of- commons/37574/0 (http://india.forbes.com/article/ivey-business-school/the-tragedy-of-commons/37574/0)

Play a Version of the Prisoner’s Dilemma: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/playground/pd.html (http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/playground/pd.html)

Aligning Interests in Strategic Alliance: http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanreid/2016/02/25/the- makings-of-a-great-strategic -alliance-partnership/#36a0922d1b3f (http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanreid/2016/02/25/the-makings-of-a-great-strategic-alliance- partnership/#36a0922d1b3f)

Building Trust in Strategic Relationships: http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanreid/2016/02/27/getting-to-know-your-strategic -alliance- partners/#5966a793723a (http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanreid/2016/02/27/getting-to-know-your- strategic-alliance-partners/#5966a793723a)

Key Terms and Concepts

common task knowledge

competition

con�lict

constructive con�lict

constructive norms

cooperation

destructive norms

developmental competition

facilitator

game theory

group climate

hypercompetition

9/17/2018 Print

https://content.ashford.edu/print/Coget.1752.17.1?sections=navpoint-49,navpoint-50,navpoint-51,navpoint-52,navpoint-53,navpoint-54&content=all… 34/34

mediation

member development

non-zero-sum games

process improvement

productivity

relationship con�lict

social interdependence

superordinate goals

task attributes

task con�lict

team development competition

team hypercompetition

tragedy of the commons

viability

zero-sum games