CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN DECISION MAKING TEAMS: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY
CAROLYN BIRMINGHAM Department of Management University of Oklahoma Norman, OK 73019-4006 E-mail:
[email protected] LARRY K. MICHAELSEN Department of Management University of Oklahoma
ABSTRACT
Groups change and develop over time. Research on longitudinal groups documents both group process and task performance changes. The decision making/conflict resolution literature includes relatively few longitudinal studies. This study examines the use of compromise (a conflict resolution strategy that results in sub-optimal performance on the tasks used in this research) by learning teams over a sixteen-week semester (192 groups of 5-7 members with 6 data collection points). The groups worked together for a minimum of 36-40 hours including approximately six hours on the decision tasks. At time one about two thirds of the groups used a compromise conflict resolution strategy. The use of compromise declined over time and was zero by time five.
CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN DECISION MAKING TEAMS:
A LONGITUDINAL STUDY One area in which management practice clearly agrees with both conceptual and research literature is that newly formed groups are far less likely to be effective than groups that have gone through a developmental process. For example, even though the teams are made up of highly skilled athletes, professional sports managers’ (i.e., team owners, and coaches) standard practice is to prepare for the games that “count” by holding a training camp and playing a series of pre-season games. This kind of practice is clearly consistent with the conceptual and empirical literature on decision-making groups. In the conceptual literature, for example “performing” is the third stage (Mason, 1996; storming and norming – see Tuckman, 1965) in what is probably the most widely discussed developmental model. In the research literature, groups in both case studies (e.g., Hackman 1990) and empirical studies (e.g., Arrow & McGrath, 1993; Gruenfeld & Hollinshead, 1993; Watson, Michaelsen & Sharp, 1991, Watson, Kumar & Michaelsen 1993) show productivity gains over time. The current study is an attempt to identify some the process changes that most likely underlie the productivity gains that occur as decision-making groups interact over time. Three of the process variables that provide some of the key background for this study have been shown to both change as groups mature and to have an impact on group effectiveness. They are the level and manner of dealing with conflict, and the degree of focus on interpersonal, task and process issues, and members’ information sharing and influence patterns. Jehn (1997) documented the existence and effects of three types, dimensions and levels of conflict on work group performance. Gersick (1988), concluded that a shift in the focus of group interaction from interpersonal to task issues was accompanied by increases in task accomplishment. Watson, Michaelsen and Sharp (1991) found that, early on, the best members’ score on a judgement task was a far better predictor of the groups’ scores than the average members’ score. Later, however, the average members’ score emerged as a better predictor of the groups’ score than best members’ score. In the absence of explicit process data, they hypothesized that their outcomes resulted from a shift in communication and influence patterns that had enabled groups to incorporate input from a broader set of group members. This study extends previous work by explicitly examining how members’ strategies for resolving conflicts change over time as groups engage in a series of judgement tasks. In part, these conflict resolution strategies are of interest because they are so closely tied to both group development and group effectiveness. For example, too much conflict reduces performance (Jehn, 1997, 1995; Jehn, Chadwick, Clint & Thacher, 1997; Bouas & Arrow, 1995/6) yet effective decision making requires expression of and appropriate resolution of differences of opinion (e.g. __Amason, 1996; Amason &Schweiger, 1994; Shah & Jehn, 1993; Sambamurthy & Poole, 1992).
2
A number of studies have found that new groups suppress information if members believe that might produce conflict (e.g. Ellis & Fisher, 1975, McGrath & Gruenfeld 1993; O’Connor, Gruenfeld, & McGrath, 1993). Further, the desire to avoid conflict groups seems to affect both the way in which newly formed groups tend to resolve conflict and group effectiveness. For example, even though voting is less effective than discussion as a means of handling disagreements in decision making groups (e.g., Innami, 1994), Gruenfeld, Mannix, Williams and Neal (1996) found that newly formed groups were likely to use voting as a means of resolving conflict. In part, the dysfunctional processes that seem to be characteristic of newly formed decision-making groups are probably due to the fact that they are forced to cope with the dilemma of having to complete a task at the same time they are learning to work with each other (e.g., Argote &McGrath,1993; Levine & Moreland, 1990; McGrath, 1991). On one hand, effective performance of non-routine tasks requires constructive conflict (task or functional conflict – see Jehn, 1997, 1995, 1994; Jehn, Chadwick, Clint & Thacher, 1997; Amason, 1996; Amason & Schweiger, 1994; Priem & Price, 1991). On the other hand, unless group members trust each other (which is unlikely in newly formed groups), any conflict is likely to be seen as a personal attack (i.e., a relationship conflict – see Simmons & Peterson, 1998). The present study on the use of compromise, over time, as a means of resolving the conflict management dilemmas that seem to be inherent in newly formed task groups. As such, it is an extension of previous studies that have catalogued conflict types, conflict levels and/or conflict dimensions but have not examined the strategies that were used to resolve these conflicts. Although their terminology is somewhat different and there is no explicit empirical support for the model, a number of authors (e.g., Filly, 1975; Thomas, 1976; Thomas, 1992), maintain that collaborating (also called problem-solving) is the most effective conflict management strategy for decision making groups (see Figure 1). However, because any conflict in a new group is likely to be interpreted as interpersonal conflict (Simons & Peterson, 1998), the open communication required for collaboration could interfere with the group development process to the point that it might even be counterproductive. Thus, even though it is clearly sub-optimal from a task effectiveness standpoint, the compromise strategy might well be used more often in new groups because it is less likely to threaten the development of positive interpersonal relationships. As groups mature, however, they would seem to be more likely to develop a level of trust that is needed for the collaboration strategy (e.g. see Hackman, 1990). Taken together, the conceptual and empirical studies cited above suggest the following hypothesis that will be tested in the current study: Hypothesis 1: The use of compromise as a conflict resolution strategy is likely to be high in newly formed decision-making groups, but decline as group maturity increases.
3
FIGURE 1
Conflict Management Strategies Emphasis on Task Completion Low Medium High High Emphasis on Building Positive Relationships
Competing
Medium Low
Collaborating Compromise
Avoiding
Accomodating
METHOD Research Setting and Participants Subjects were members of 192 Team Learning Groups (e.g., see Michaelsen & Black, 1994) that formed the basis for instruction in 27 organizational behavior courses (13 undergraduate courses with 706 students divided into 119 groups and 14 graduate courses with 398 students and 73 groups) taught over a 6-year period. Approximately 91% of the 1104 total subjects were came from courses at the same US university campus. The remaining 9% of the subjects were enrolled in extension courses taught at sites around the world. In the Team Learning instructional format (see Michaelsen & Black, 1994), the vast majority of class time is spent actually working on group problem solving tasks. As a normal part of Team Learning: (a) students were assigned to a group for the duration of the course; (b) groups were engaged in a variety of activities, including experiential exercises and projects, six objective tests and two or more essay exams and/or projects, which, in combination , accounted for at least 60% of the course grade; (c) over the course, the groups spent a minimum of 32 hours working together in class, including about 6 hours working on the objective tests from which the data for this study were obtained. In addition, although no specific figures are available, most groups reported spending at least an equal amount of time working together outside of the class. In all cases, subjects were assigned to a group by the instructor in an attempt to ensure that potential assets and liabilities were spread as evenly as possible among the groups. In making group assignments, the instructor: (a) asked a specific category of students to stand, (b) randomly assigned each of those standing a number between one and the total number of groups in the class, and (c) repeated steps 1 and 2 with different categories of students until everyone in the class had been assigned to a group.
4
The specific categories used in the formation of the groups and the order in which they were used were also determined by the instructor. These decisions were based on information, gathered by a show of hands, on students’ work experience and educational and cultural backgrounds. Scarcest categories of resources were allocated first. Thus, in an undergraduate class, the initial category was typically similar to: “Those with three or more years of full-time work experience”, whereas in a graduate class the initial category might be similar to “Those with an undergraduate degree in Engineering”. The vast majority of the groups consisted of 5-7 members. Because students occasionally elected to drop the class after the groups were formed, three of the groups had only 4 members. Task Data for the present study were collected from a series of tests that are part of the Readiness Assessment Process in Team Learning (see Michaelsen & Black, 1994). In Team Learning, these tests cover concepts from assigned readings and are given at the beginning of each major instructional unit to provide: (a) an incentive for individual student preparation, (b) an opportunity for peer teaching to occur, and (c) a mechanism for identifying concepts that need further clarification from the instructor before students engage in application-oriented projects and exams. In the actual testing process, individuals first complete their test alone. As soon as all members of a group turn in their answer sheets, they are given an answer sheet on which they immediately retake the same test as a group. Both individual and group tests scores counted toward the course grade in proportions set by students through an experiential Grade Weight Setting exercise (see Michaelsen, Cragin, & Watson, 1981). On average, the individual scores on the 6 tests counted as 8% and the group scores counted as 22% of the course grade, with other projects and exams making up the remainder. Each of the 6 Readiness Assessment tests from which the data for the present study were collected consisted of 17-18 true or false and multiple choice questions. Students first answered the test individually. They then turned in their individual answer sheets and immediately (I.e. with no feedback) re-took the same test as a group. On both the individual test and the group test, each question was worth three points. When students were unsure of the correct answer on any of the questions (or if the group could not agree on a single answer) they had the option of spreading their risk by allocating the three points between more than one answer alternative. Measure On the group test, unless all of the members had selected the same answer alternative, groups were faced with having to resolve conflicts on a question-by-question basis. Whether or not groups used a compromise strategy was determined by examining the pattern of answers on the group answer sheets. If groups allocated points to more than one answer alternative on any of the questions they were judged to have used a
5
compromise strategy because doing so inevitably results in both a positive and a negative outcome. The positive outcome was that allocating points to more than one answer alternative (splitting answers) was that doing so increased the possibility of receiving at least partial credit on questions on which members disagreed on the selection of an answer alternative. The negative outcome of splitting answers was that doing so guaranteed the loss of at least one of the three points possible on each of the questions. Allowing split answers on the group tests enabled groups to use compromise to resolve the conflicts that occurred when members disagreed as to the correct answers on the group tests. When members disagreed, they could either focus exclusively on the task (i.e., resolve the conflict through a give and take discussion) or focus on building positive relationships (i.e., by avoiding potentially damaging confrontations) and still get partial credit by dividing the points between two (or even three) alternatives. Data for the current study consist of observations of whether or not students chose to cope with disagreements in the group exams by splitting one or more answers (i.e., compromise) on each of the 6 group tests. It was expected that a high percentage of groups would split answers on the early tests, but that the use of compromise would decline over time. RESULTS A summary of the percentage of groups using compromise (split an answer by allocating points between answer alternatives) over time is presented in Table 1. Group use of compromise as a conflict resolution strategy declined over time. On test one, the percentage of groups using was 66.04%. By test six no group used compromise. On test six, the use of compromise increased slightly from 0% to 7.29%. Analysis of variance was used to see if there were any differences between undergraduate groups and graduates groups on each test. While the pattern of results was similar between undergraduate and graduate students, there were significant differences between the two groups on test two [F(1, 191) = 4.378, p>.038] and test six [(F (1, 191) = 6.245, p
