Words: 3520
The present work starts with a focus on my group’s development and aims to explain and justify my performance during this activity, identifying both positive and negative aspects in order to learn from the experience. While theories of group development and conflict are useful in analyzing the situation, have chosen to also discuss my identity and role as a leader. Not only do I believe that this is the most appropriate and useful facet of the experience for my personal development but it is also an area in which I have a significant interest.
The remainder of the essay is divided into four separate but interrelated sections. The first considers our group’s formation, development – and the exultant conflict and the consequences Of no individual taking on a leadership role. The second section is concerned with identifying what I have learnt from this experience and detailing how I would act in the future. The third section is focused on identifying the effects that a similar situation may have on an organization and the final section considers which approach to leadership may be most appropriate for dealing with conflict.
The essay concludes with summary remarks. 2. Group formation and a leadership vacuum In discussing my group’s formation and development I have drawn on a rarity of sources – my individual reflections, the notes made in my personal diary and conversations I have had with colleagues about the event both at the time and subsequently. However, I have chosen not to highlight the sources of my data in the following narrative as I believe that this helps to facilitate the flow of the narrative and thus brings the reader closer to the reality described – a desirable feature of qualitative work (Stake, 1995).
Dustman’s (1965) model suggests that group development proceeds along four stages as described below (Figure 1). In what follows I describe my experiences at the different Stages Of this established model. Figure 1: Stages of Group Development Source: Adapted from TCPMAN (1965) and, Tit and Brothering (2008) 2. 1 Forming was disappointed with the way the groups had been chosen, as there were other students I actually would have liked to work with: but ended up working with the people who sat next to me.
During our initial discussions it seems that lines were drawn between the ‘strong’ and Geek’ as we launched into a discussion of the group assignment and the tasks that lay ahead of us. Use the terms strong and weak not in the sense that strong is good and eek is bad, but in the sense that the strong people were more vociferous in class and our meetings, had more demanding jobs, including greater responsibility and autonomy, and were older (perhaps the dominant coalition? ) (Child 1972).
The other three were quiet, calm, hard-working and extremely eager to learn from the project, but expressed concern at the thought of having to work with ‘us. ‘ I felt sad that people should feel that way about me, and when we discussed this a few weeks after our formation, it emerged that whilst they thought I was strong, I was not intimidating, unlike the other two. No leader emerged, we should have appointed one, and if I hadn’t been so selfish in wanting to be the creative, energetic one, I could have usefully played this crucial role.
I also don’t honestly know whether I realized how upset I would be with the poor mark – or my guilt at proportioning my own desires to not lead in this instance, when clearly a leader was needed. 2. 2 Storming As we tried to begin the project – working out what we had to do, and how to do it, tensions emerged within and between the sub-groups, I rebelled against one of my ‘strong’ colleague’s need for a rigid structure and several of us existed taking the demands of the assignment seriously, as it did not seem particularly pressing: 9 weeks seemed too long for such a simple task.
These differences of opinion resurfaced throughout the group assignment. 2. 3 Morning don’t think we ever completely got beyond the storming stage, and although We tried to be polite at first, the earlier tensions remained and escalated. I’m not sure that any ‘group norms’ emerged; I felt very little sense of group identity, and believe most of us worked as individuals. When emotions ran very high, comments became nasty, opinions were dismissed and felt we ad to break. On a number of occasions I wanted to run away, and did – both psychically and emotionally.
Two (strong) of the group were angered by this but if I had not been able to vent my frustrations this way, I think I would have engaged in hostile verbal (and perhaps ultimately physical) attacks, initiated by one often, and would have ended up more hurt and regretful. The other three thought it was acceptable behavior, a legitimate way for me to overcome my stress and need for physical activity. These are the three who thought my energy and encouragement was beneficial to the group, which I as very happy about.
We just about patched up differences by the end of week 4, but in the weeks following this early incident think there was little feeling of co-operation (Logged 1 990: 159). We lacked open discussion of views and feelings, did not really listen to each other, and this could signify a lack of respect. I feel a bit embarrassed to think did not really engage in group work after this episode. As the group broke for reading week, the three strong ones began to discuss the impasse – this was quite spontaneous, but it seemed to the others that we had not made up, and were really falling out.
Other people got concerned, including our tutor, but we needed to work through our feelings, getting feedback from each other, ensuring our friendship and established relationships were not damaged, before we could resume work in week 8. 2. 4 Performing believe energy was never fully diverted to constructive attempts to complete the task: a tenser frustrated atmosphere continued after reading week and decisions were taken quickly, agreeing with anything just to avoid discussion arguably evidence of group-think Anis, 1972). I completely lost a sense of commitment or involvement.
The last phase of the project was achieved through feeble, and by that I mean unchallenged, compromise, resulting in a poor performance. I think this was accurately reflected in the mark for the report. I can almost accept the mark by distancing myself from the group project, and telling myself that the final outcome did not reflect my contribution or my ability, and therefore should not feel as disappointed as I do. But I feel terribly sad that did not put more effort in. I feel guilty that I lost my patience and interest that didn’t take on a more important role (I. E. As the group leader).
This process of reflecting has caused me an enormous amount of pain. 3. Approach to Conflict and Leadership Reflecting upon this experience I have come to believe that there a number of areas in which I could develop. In this section I will focus on my approach to conflict management and leadership. I believe the experience I had during group work also serves as a cautionary tale, for future University group work projects and for my return to work following graduation. First, I wish to discuss my approach to conflict resolution – and in doing so it is useful to draw on the work of Thomas (1976).
Thomas distinguishes five broad approaches to conflict resolution along two dimensions: Assertiveness- how assertive each party is in pursuing their own concerns, and Co- cooperativeness – how co-operative or uncooperative each party is in satisfying the concerns of the other. The five approaches are detailed below (see Table 3. 1): Table 3. 1: Five Approaches to Conflict Resolution Approach Objective Rationale Likely Outcome Competing/Forcing Achieve own objectives The goal is important – and it is worth hurting a few feelings You feel vindicated but the other party feels defeated and possibly humiliated Avoiding
Avoid dealing with the conflict & situation Disagreements are inherently bad -they cause tension Interpersonal problems don’t get resolved -? long term frustrations manifested variously Compromising Reach a quick agreement Prolonged conflicts distract people from their work and cause bitter feelings Participants go for expedient rather than effective solutions Accommodating Do not upset the other person Maintaining harmonious relationships should be our priority The other person will take advantage Collaborating Solve the problem together Each position is important although not necessarily valid.
Emphasis should be n achieving the correct outcome through a fair decision making process. The issue is likely to be resolved. Both parties are committed to the solution and are satisfied they have been treated fairly. Source: Adapted from Wheaton et al (2000) and Thomas (1976). Considering Thomas theory and my reactions to conflict during the group work assignment (as described in section 2) it is clear that I started out competing but when this became personally upsetting opted to avoid conflict instead – and continued to avoid and compromise throughout.
While the adoption of an avoiding and competing style of conflict resolution did rev to avoid further open unpleasantness and hurt feelings, it did mean, as indicated, that the issues remained (and still remain) unresolved. As I believe the way in which conflict was managed in the group led to poor performance it is clear that the way in which we (and more importantly, l) managed conflict needs to change. If had been willing, could have continued competing – and although (as highlighted in Table 3. ) this can have negative emotional outcomes for others, do believe that my preferred approach to the assignment was best, and would have led to a high level of attainment for all. Alternatively, given the strong feelings amongst all parties, and the shared goal of achieving a good assignment grade it may have been more appropriate to collaborate: to determine a mutually agreeable solution which we could all ‘buy-in’ to and work towards. Yet, these were both approaches that I chose to avoid.
The notions of making decisions and influencing others to fall in-line and of pursuing a collaborative approach strikes me as a task for a manager or leader: a role I was determined not to play. However, now that a few weeks have past since the event, the emotion that is most prevalent is guilt. I feel ultimately as though I prioritize my own desires and needs (to be creative, energetic and take-a-break from leading) over those of the group. While don’t feel this is always a negative (or otherwise immoral) course of action it was in this instance (given the results) clearly not conducive to my own goals or the success of the group.
By this I mean I didn’t manage to play the role I wanted -? to be creative, energetic etc; I did not get to enjoy not being in charge and the group did not receive a good grade for the work. As for the future, I think that, when I feel I am the most able and capable, would lead – it may not be what I want, but I think ultimately it may be best course of action for all involved. Yet, wonder if given what know now I would do anything differently if I had this opportunity again. After all, my failure in this group assignment has been a valuable learning opportunity. 4. Conflict & the Leaderless Organization…
Having described my experience and explained it with reference to a number of theories and determined the implications for my personal learning I now wish to consider the implications of my analysis for an organization that is facing a similar situation. My own experience contained two broad components: conflict and an absence of leadership and so I will be focusing on these issues. Perceptions of organizational conflict vary (Mullions, 2007) and the four most common frames of reference on conflict are the Unitarian, pluralist, interactions and radical (Fox, 1966, 1973). These are detailed below (Table 4. 1). Table 4. : Frames of Reference on Conflict Frame of Reference Brief Description Unitarian The organization is essentially harmonious and any conflict is bad Pluralist The organization is a collective of groups, each with their own interests and objectives Interactions Conflict is a positive, necessary force for effective performance Radical Conflict is an inevitable outcome of capitalism Source: Adapted from Fox (1 966, 1973) and Husking and Buchanan (2007) My own perspective on conflict bridges both the pluralist and interactions, would hold that individuals and groups in organizations do have different goals but also that conflict can be a positive and necessary force for increasing performance. However, following Husking and Buchanan (2007, p. 768) definition I would argue that the conflict I experienced (see section 2) is est. described as dysfunctional: “a form of conflict which does not support organizational goals and hinders organizational performance”. This hindrance to organizational performance can be understood as having a variety of causes. First, conflict may lead to employees being De-motivated.
Mascots (1954) hierarchy of needs highlights that to become motivated individuals require the satisfaction of both social and self-esteem needs -? once lower physiological needs have been satisfied. Further, it is not only intuitive but also generally accepted that motivated employees perform better (Mullions, 2007). The conflict I experienced in the group left both my social and self-esteem needs unsatisfied and so this positive outcome was not realized. Second, if these needs remain unsatisfied in the workplace it is possible that this could lead to a decline in job satisfaction – I certainly was not satisfied with the group assignment! Such a situation may have costly implications for an organization.
Managing and Quinn (1975) have demonstrated a significant association between job satisfaction and counterproductive behavior such as industrial sabotage, drug use, physical and non-physical non-participation amongst some demographics of the workforce. It is clear that such effects could be costly for any organization. Third, conflict is sometimes dealt with through the adoption of avoidance behaviors (Fox, 1966, 1 973) and when this becomes the prevalent approach to conflict amongst all team members there is the danger that the phenomenon of group-think will occur. Group-think, a theory pioneered by Janis (1972) describes a situation in which ideas of the group are not challenged and are accepted without question.
Such a situation is unfortunate -? bad decisions may be made, and potentially good ideas and subsequent decisions that would have otherwise surfaced may not emerge. Nonetheless, I must reiterate that I do believe conflict is valuable -? it is something that can be to the benefit of individuals, groups and organizations (Kebabs et al, 2005). Indeed, the free flow Of opinion that can result from difference of opinion is an important aspect of knowledge sharing (Hyssop, 2009) and knowledge sharing in turn has been argued to be to the benefit of organizations and helps to increase their competitive advantage (Monika and Takeouts, 1995; Monika and Cannon, 1 998; Grant, 2005).
Given that there is a potential for organizations to benefit from conflict, intend that conflict needs to be managed and I am not alone in this view (see for example, Hatch 1997; Defender, 1998; Hatch and Continue, 2006). Indeed, Hatch (1997) and Robbins (1998) both argue that there is an optimal level of conflict to support organizational performance – and that one should seek to reduce or stimulate conflict accordingly. While it seems somewhat trivial to argue that organizations will benefit from leaders and leadership, it is often argued that leadership is crucial to organizational success (Stodgily 1974; Haring, 1996; Kebabs et al 2004;
Husking and Buchanan 2007; Viola 2010; These et al, 2010) and do believe that the absence of leadership in our group led to us failing to realize our potential. Moreover, I would expect that any organization that lacked a leader would face the same consequences as our group. Indeed, one of the functions of a leader is to provide direction and vision for their team (Viola, 2011) and an adept leader may have been able to utilities our personal, professional and ideological differences to create a dynamic and high-functioning team. As Holman and Endangered (2011) highlight in their recent study, treasonous teams can add a great deal of value to organizations by optimizing efficiency, quality and innovation.
Thus, drawing on the above would argue that the implications of unmanaged dysfunctional conflict in organizations may be – at the very least a failure to realize the greatest possible organizational performance and – at the worst ; the emergence of counterproductive and dysfunctional behavior from employees. 5. Which Leadership Approach? Have argued that conflict can be beneficial to organizations but that it needs to be managed and also that leadership is valuable for organizational success. In addition, leadership may also be useful in transforming dysfunctional conflict into functional conflict. Thus, it is necessary to determine the approach to leadership that IS most conducive to these aims.
Kent (2005) highlights that the study of leadership is a complex and somewhat convoluted area of research, with many scholars failing to find common ground; indeed, Grainer (1995) identifies over 400 definitions Of the term leadership, and It is likely, given continued interest in the subject (Husking and Buchanan, 2008) that further definitions have been offered in recent years. However, the task of determining the most appropriate definition of leadership is beyond the scope of this essay, and thus, the following broad definition offered by Kebabs et al (2004, p. 1 22) is adopted: ; Leadership is an influencing process; ; There are two or more people involved – a leader and one or more followers, ; Leadership occurs when people are trying to achieve given, implied or unconscious objectives.
However, the complexities of leadership research extend beyond determining an appropriate definition -? there are multiple approaches to the study of leadership (Mullions, 2007). The styles approach to leadership focuses on “The way in which the functions of leadership are carried out and the behavior adopted by managers towards subordinate staff…. Concerned with the effects of leadership on those being led” (Mullions 2007 p. 366). I would argue that most Organizations should adopt the styles approach to leadership. This approach has become popular in recent years and the most popular theories that fall within this approach to leadership are those of transformational and transactional leadership (Deadlines 2008).
While popularity does not necessitate veracity or utility it could be argued that the popularity of these theories, which were pioneered by Burns (1978) and more recently developed by Bass (1985); Bass and Viola (2004) and Viola (2011 is due to their utility in organizations. This serene an intuitive line of argument and there is a great deal of empirical support: a number of studies highlight the benefits of adopting such a leadership style (see Viola, 201 0 for details). Moreover, even the most preliminary web-search reveals numerous companies that offer to train individuals in these leadership styles – perhaps making this a practical choice. The following table (Table 4. 1) highlights the entrant features of both styles of leadership: Table 5. : Central features of the Transformational and Transactional leadership styles Leadership Style Description Transformational A process of influencing whereby leaders modify their associates’ awareness of what is important, and move them to see themselves and the opportunities and challenges of their environment in a new way. Transformational leaders are proactive: they seek to optimize individual, group and organizational development and innovation. They convince their associates to strive for higher levels of potential as well as higher levels of oral and ethical standards. Transactional Transactional leaders display behaviors associated with constructive and corrective transactions.
Transactional leadership defines expectations and promotes performance to achieve these levels: offering rewards for compliance and sanctions for non-compliance Source: Adapted from Viola and Bass (2004, up. 95-96) It could be convincingly argued that an organization whose leaders adopt either of these styles may be successful in reducing dysfunctional conflict and promoting functional conflict. A central feature of the transformational approach is to modify followers’ receptions of what is important and thus, someone who adopts such a style may be able to steer their followers away from their competing positions and towards agreed goals and objectives. Moreover, since this style of leadership involves challenging followers’ ideas and ideals and stimulating them to be creative it could arguably help to generate the free flow of ideas.
Alternatively, the adoption of the transactional style, which involves defining standards and expectations, monitoring performance and providing rewards for compliance and sanctions for non-compliance, may be equally effective. Such a leader may be able to incentives action towards agreed objectives (sharing ideas, working together) – and provide sanctions for the display of dysfunctional behaviors. Indeed, rewards and reward systems often provide a valuable incentive for employees (Mullions, 2007). However, perhaps the question should not be – ‘Hibachi style of leadership? ‘ As Viola (2010) highlights, both styles are important and should be used in conjunction with each other.