Running Head: ORIGINS AND APPROACHES OF INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT

Psychological Origins of Interpersonal Conflict and Approaches for Effective Group Communication Laura Wake-Ramos Pennsylvania State University

ORIGINS AND APPROACHES OF INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT Abstract Organizations rely heavily on teams and teamwork to conduct much of their business

(Flanagan et al., 2009). When teams are formed and challenged to contribute new ideas, better methods, and novel approaches to help their organizations compete, conflict is inevitable (2009). Each member is equipped with different backgrounds, values, cultures, and experiences, which are all laid on the discussion table. If conflict is fostered in a controlled environment, these differences serve as catalysts for vigorous debate and creative thinking (2009). However, this is a critical challenge, and a concern for all leaders and teams. This paper first explores the concern of deconstructive conflict, and how it damages task performance. Then, Symbolic Interaction (SI) theory will be defined, and applied to the problem to help understand the origins of conflict. Finally, the paper will offer useful solutions for team members to cultivate productive conflict.

Keywords: conflict, team, social reality, communication

ORIGINS AND APPROACHES OF INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT Psychological Origins of Interpersonal Conflict and Approaches for Effective Group Communication

Organization scholars have focused their attention on how different types of conflict in task groups affect performance. conflict. There are four distinguishable types of

Task conflict is a disagreement over ideas and opinions pertaining to the Relationship conflict is a disagreement resulting from interpersonal

groups task.

incompatibilities, such as different personal values. Process conflict is conflict about dividing and delegating responsibilities and deciding how to get work done. Finally, status conflict is conflict over members status positions in the groups social hierarchy, and relative level of respect each member receives from others (Bendersky et al., 2012). According to a study conducted by Corinne Bendersky and Nicholas Hays, scholars of organizational conflict and management at UCLA, these disputes over peoples relative status positions in their groups social hierarchy can induce the more competitive behavior than other types of conflict, because they implicate other members more, have long-term consequences, and have more distributive outcomes (2012). These kinds of characteristics make status conflicts similar to competitive negotiations, which tend to involve restricted information sharing (2012). Status hierarchies are dynamically

evolving social structures, than can be manipulated through efforts of the parties involved. As a result, instead of the group working together to solve the task at hand, they are fighting to have their opinions dominate over others. According to SI theory, developed by social constructionist George Herbert Mead, thoughts, self-concept, and the wider community are created through

ORIGINS AND APPROACHES OF INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT communication, including language and gestures (Griffin).

Herbert Blumer further

developed symbolic interactionsim by identifying three core principles of the theory: meaning, language, and thinking. Meaning refers to the construction of social reality, derived from the idea that humans act toward people or things on the basis of the meaning they assign to those people or things. Language is the source of meaning. Thinking is the process of an individual taking the role of the other, and interpreting symbols to create understanding. These three principles combined draw conclusions about Self and Community. Self is the social construction of identity by taking the role of the other, and imagining oneself from the others perspective. Community is a

composite mental image of others in the community, their expectations, and possible responses. community. SI theory helps to explain the origins of conflict within group communication. Team members construct their own individual social reality based on their interpretation of the situation. In an environment where ideas are critiqued or dismissed, individuals can easily view the approach as a personal attack (Flanagan et al., 2009), and lose sight of organizations goals, to defend their own self-identity and status within the group. If an individual believes that his or her effort isnt being recognized properly, or believes he or she is sliding down the hierarchy of social status, or believes his or her opinion weighs less than anothers, the individual will feel threatened by the other team members. If the individual believes that everyone is opposed to him or her, then the community will appear hostile. The individual will then become defensive, and argumentative towards others, which can lead to emotional decision making, rather than rational reasoning. These images shape how one thinks and interacts within the specific

ORIGINS AND APPROACHES OF INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT

Once one individual develops these feelings of an aggression and competition in the social reality, it will spread to the other group members (2012). As a result, group productivity is disturbed. By understanding how destructive conflict occurs among group members, a team can effectively harvest this conflict for its own creative advantage. This initiative

requires constructive communication skills and techniques among the members to keep discussions headed in the right direction. Tim Flanagan and Craig Runde, directors of the Leadership Development Institute and Center for Conflict Dynamics at Eckerd College, recommend team establishment of essential norms to create the right environment for addressing conflict (2009). A team should address to the members how they will

promote and support each of these elements. First comes trust and safety (2009). In order to feel comfortable to share thoughts and feelings openly and honestly, team members must trust their colleagues. Trust develops when team members make

themselves vulnerable by being willing to exchange fresh ideas. Teams can further enhance trust, by enabling each member to share interests, insights, experiences, and predictions of potential hot topics of the days meeting. Securing trust will eliminate the risk of developing a hostile social environment as analyzed by SI. Next element is collaboration, also known as behavioral integration (2009). When team members share information freely, make decisions together, and are recognized and reward collectively, cohesiveness increases. A team can improve its ability to collaborate through practice. One technique advocated is called preliminary perspective talking, during which team members quickly and concisely state their starting views without interruption (2009). Having each member allowed time to speak his or her own opinion, each individuals

ORIGINS AND APPROACHES OF INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT

self-identity is secured, because his or her opinion has been contributed to the group. Finally, the last element is emotional intelligence. Conflict by its nature often ignites negative emotions that spread among other members (2009). Teams can improve their own emotional intelligence by utilizing assessment tools to raise self-awareness. Members can learn these techniques through training, and recognizing destructive types of behaviors, such as the winning at all costs mentality, avoiding, demeaning others, retaliating, yielding, and hiding emotions. A harmonized team is able to detect these kinds of destructive behavior, and redirect the group. When conflict occurs, perhaps its time to remind the group of the days goals, or take a break to cool emotions and collect rational thoughts.

ORIGINS AND APPROACHES OF INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT Discussion

According to conflict studies conducted with small groups, SI can explain development of conflicts based on the idea that humans each develop their own individual social realities. The analysis of SI identifying and explain group conflict can have limitations. There may have been differences in the way the scholars interpreted the conflict data their studies. In the article Status Conflict in Groups, there was a study of the frequencies of status conflict occurring with task, relationship, and process conflicts. Its possible that there may have been an overlap and causes of different conflicts, which allows possibility for error. Furthermore, members of the group may have developed psychological boundaries in their mind differently than the scholars analyzed. However, members of the group are typically not psychologically aware of their actions, so they wouldnt have an idea of why they developed their feelings. However, there are more limitations in the proposed solutions than the background research. The results of training team members in communication skills will greatly vary, and will take time and practice for the ideal outcome. Furthermore,

administered techniques will have different results with the members. Its possible that the suggested solutions will not foster improvements among the team, and new methods will have to be researched and experimented with the team. Team communication is an ongoing effort that requires motivation and will to develop. In order to direct group communication in the productive direction, the team must have an understanding of conflict and the origins that arise these emotions. Only by understanding how the members disagree will the team be able to use conflict creatively to benefit the organization.

ORIGINS AND APPROACHES OF INTERPERSONAL CONFLICT References Bendersky, C., & Hays N. (2012). Status Conflict in Groups. Organization Science, 23(2), 323-340. Flanagan, T., & Runde, C. (2009). How teams can capitalize on conflict. Strategy & Leadership, 37(1), 20-22. Griffin, E. (2012). A First Look at Communication Theory. McGraw-Hill, 54-64.