How Do High-Performing Teams Manage Conflict?
Research from Cornell University, University of California - Irvine, and London Business School.
Whether it's disagreements over project direction, interpersonal tensions, or disputes about work allocation, conflict is an inevitable part of team dynamics. But what separates high-performing teams from those that struggle?
A fascinating study (By Kristin J. Behfar, Randall S. Peterson, Elizebeth A. Mannix and William M.K. Trochim) published in the American Psychological Association by researchers at Univ of California - Irvine, London Business School, and Cornell University sheds light on this critical question, offering valuable insights for leaders looking to build and maintain top-performing teams.
The Problem: Understanding Conflict Resolution in Teams
The researchers set out to investigate a problem that has puzzled managers for years: the complex relationship between conflict and team performance.
While previous research has focused on the types and levels of conflict in teams, this study takes a different approach. The authors recognized that it's not just the presence of conflict that matters, but how teams handle it.
As our teams become more diverse and our projects more complex, the potential for conflict increases. At the same time, the pressure to deliver results quickly and efficiently is ever-present. In this context, understanding how successful teams navigate conflict becomes essential.
The study aimed to answer several key questions:
How do high-performing teams manage different types of conflict (task, relationship, and process)?
Are there specific conflict resolution strategies that are associated with better team outcomes?
Do different types of conflict require different management approaches?
By addressing these questions, the researchers sought to provide practical insights that could help teams improve their performance over time.
Methodology: A Deep Dive into Team Dynamics
To explore these questions, the researchers conducted a qualitative study of 57 autonomous teams. These teams were composed of MBA students working together on multiple projects over a semester. While student teams might seem a bit removed from the real world, especially in tech, the setup of this study actually mimics many aspects of professional work environments:
The teams were newly formed, much like project teams that come together for specific initiatives.
They had a heavy workload with high stakes, similar to the pressure-cooker environment of many tech projects.
The teams were autonomous, responsible for their own processes and outcomes, much like the self-managing teams common in tech organizations.
There were both task-related consequences (grades) and social/reputational consequences, mirroring the dual nature of team outcomes in professional settings.
The researchers collected data through surveys administered at two time points. The first survey, given after the teams completed their first assignment but before receiving their grades, asked open-ended questions about team norms and included a measure of team satisfaction. The second survey, administered after the final assignment, asked about specific conflicts the team had experienced and how they had managed them.
This methodology allowed the researchers to capture rich, detailed information about how teams developed and applied different conflict resolution strategies over time. By linking this qualitative data with quantitative performance measures (grades on team assignments), they were able to identify patterns associated with high-performing teams.
Results: How Successful Teams Managed Conflict
The study's findings offer valuable insights for leaders and managers in tech organizations. Here are the key takeaways:
They Focussed on Content, Not Style
High-performing teams consistently focused on the content of interpersonal interactions rather than delivery style. In other words, they prioritized what was being said over how it was being said.
This finding is particularly relevant in tech environments, where team members may have diverse communication styles, especially when teams are spread across countries (and by extension, cultures). A person from the Netherlands might be blunt in their feedback, while another person from Malaysia might be more diplomatic, for example. Successful teams look past these stylistic differences to engage with the substance of the communication.
They Had Explicit Discussion of Work Assignments
Teams that maintained or improved their performance over time explicitly discussed the reasons behind decisions about accepting and distributing work. They didn't just divvy up tasks; they talked about why certain assignments were made.
In certain projects, where tasks can vary widely in complexity and impact, this transparency is crucial. It helps ensure that work is distributed fairly and efficiently, and that team members understand the rationale behind assignments.
They Focussed on Expertise-Based Task Allocation
High-performing teams assigned work to members based on their relevant expertise, rather than using other common methods like volunteering, default assignments, or convenience.
By matching tasks to expertise, teams can maximize their efficiency and the quality of their output.
They Had Proactive Conflict Anticipation
High-performing teams didn't wait for conflicts to escalate; they actively anticipated potential areas of disagreement and addressed them proactively.
This could involve establishing clear communication protocols, defining roles and responsibilities upfront, or simply fostering an environment where open dialogue is encouraged.
They Had Pluralistic Conflict Resolution Strategies
High-performing teams developed conflict resolution strategies that applied to all group members. They didn't have one set of rules for some members and another for others.
This finding underscores the importance of creating a fair and inclusive team environment, something that's particularly crucial in the diverse teams common in tech organizations.
What were the characteristics of the least successful teams?
The least successful teams took an ad-hoc and passive approach to conflict management and resolution. From the paper:
Finally, the teams that were low/decreasing in performance and satisfaction took an ad hoc approach to managing conflict—roles were never clear; the root cause of problems was not identified nor successfully corrected; there was no central/coherent conflict man- agement strategy; and communication came at a high cost. […] teams tended to resign or make superficial accommoda- tions to get past the conflict, which neither improved their task focus nor integrated the interests of members.
These teams often just gave in to the most dominant person in the group, or spent far too much time trying to convince a member. Their discussions about the conflict usually escalated the situations rather than resolve them, and often the attempts to solve the problem were superficial fixes, avoiding root causes.
Pluralistic (Group-Level) vs Particularistic (Individual-Focussed) Approaches
The paper defined “Pluralistic” strategies as conflict management approaches that consider the entire group, and establish process which apply to everyone and are beneficial to task performance.
On the other hand, “Particularistic” strategies were defined as conflict management approaches that are made to benefit or contain a particular individual or specific situation, rather than thinking “big-picture”.
Teams with consistently high or increasing performance were more likely to have utilized group-level or pluralistic conflict management strategies (e.g., rules that clarify expectations and apply to all group mem- bers), whereas teams with consistently low/decreasing perfor- mance were more particularistic and focused on solutions to ad- dress individual negative reactions to conflict (e.g., dividing work according to “turns” rather than expertise so as not to upset individuals).
In other words, teams with low performance showed mostly particularlistic conflict management strategies, whereas high-performing teams showed pluralistic ones. Another thing to note is that high-performing teams (utilizing pluralistic approaches to conflict management) actually were more successful in addressing the root causes of conflict.
What Can We Take Away From This Research?
The insights from this study underscore a crucial point: building a high-performing team isn't just about assembling the right skills or setting clear goals. It's about creating an environment where conflicts - which are inevitable in any team - can be addressed effectively and used as opportunities for growth and improvement.
High-performing teams manage conflicts in an honest, transparent, fair, and proactive way.
Inexperienced managers often think any kind of conflict in a team is bad. However, conflict is always going to be there in some way, shape or form. In fact, lack of any conflict for a sustained period of time might be a concern (maybe you’re not aiming high enough?)
The goal isn't to eliminate conflict - that's neither possible nor desirable. Healthy disagreement can lead to better ideas and more innovative solutions. The key is to equip your team with the tools and strategies to manage conflict productively.
Great teams make sure they don’t shy away from it - but ensure that team members are focussing on what is being said than how, have fair and transparent processes, and work to anticipate problems before they become big.
By focusing on how your team manages conflict, you can create a more resilient, adaptable, and ultimately more successful team.
As you implement these strategies, keep in mind that every team is unique. What works for one team might need to be adapted for another.
The most important thing is to maintain open communication with your team, continuously assess what's working and what isn't, and be willing to adjust your approach as needed.
Conflict itself is not bad - the way we deal with them is the thing which defines high-performing teams.