Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior - Soltanieh ...

338 LAURIE R. WEINGART AND KAREN A. JEHN
This conflict can be characterized as a task conflict with low resolution potential (i.e.
team members have low collective efficacy). It involved an important aspect of their task
performance and needed to be resolved, but neither side believed they had the ability to
resolve the confl ict. There was no sense of a shared fate – rather than focus on developing
the best product, each side focused on its own concerns. Conflict norms were more toward
blaming and attacking than listening and building. Negative emotions were evoked. What
transpired was a contentious conflict, pitting “ us ” against “ them, ” resulting in a solution
that neither party was especially happy with. Was there another way out of this confl ict?
What could the team have done to fi nd a better solution?
Collaborative integrated product development ( IPD ) team
Consider another design team working on the same component. This team faces the
same change in styling. But this time, design presents the change in terms of a shared
problem – they take responsibility for the change and are willing to consider its implications.
Engineering is then willing to collaborate with design to try to make the change possible.
The IPD team has a frank discussion about the implications of the change. Design
tries to come up with less expensive and less disruptive ways to change the console and
instrument panel while maintaining design intent. Engineering tries to develop innovative
ways to fit the internal components in the new space. They also start looking for additional
sources of funding for the change from the overall vehicle budget. Some discussions
grow heated, but because frustration is focused on the problem rather than one another,
tension is quickly dispersed. Several potential solutions are developed. A dominant option
emerges which includes a slight design modification that provides adequate space for a key
component and some additional funding is found.
This conflict situation differed in several ways from the previous example. While the
conflict was just as important and difficult to resolve, collective efficacy was high. Both
engineers and designers believed a solution was possible. They viewed themselves as a team
tackling a common problem. As such, members were cooperatively oriented and epistemically
motivated to work hard to find a mutually beneficial solution. Conflict norms supported
open information exchange and constructive discussions. Emotions remained under
control (Chapter 8 ). An integrative solution evolved because the entire IPD team “ owned ”
the problem and worked together, collaboratively, to develop a solution. They trusted one
another ’s expertise, motives, and information in a way that allowed them to reach a mutually
satisfactory solution. A team orientation, trust in one another, and a belief that a jointly
beneficial solution was possible motivated the team to search together for a solution. This
search involved sharing information, creativity, some tradeoffs, and an effort to avoid turning
task frustration into personal attacks. In addition to a high - quality agreement, this successful
conflict resolution process reinforced the team ’s belief in its ability to solve problems
and will make the team more willing to tackle similar problems in the future.
Summary of cases
The fi rst team ’ s conflict was very contentious, plagued by low affective integration and
individualistic orientations – an “ us versus them ” framing of the problem. In contrast,
the collaborative team shared ownership of the problem and developed solutions that