Conflict is a widespread occurrence in the business environment. Ideological differences could be a very positive contribution to any organization if treated the right way. One way of ensuring that work conflicts are resolved in the best way is through the adoption of stable conflict management policies by employing better mechanisms and models. Such a module should entail the 4-D dimension of conflict management which implies the creation of a compelling direction, the establishment of a stable structure, the establishment of a supportive context, and encouraging a shared mindset in business procedures and policy implementation.
Compelling Directions
The foundation of any great team lies in the direction that is geared towards energizing, orientating, and actively engaging its members. It is correct to point out that groups cannot be inspired if they do not know what it is they are working for, and towards. Similarly, by having a shared sense of direction, members of such a team can reposition and align their thinking to correspond to these goals, and as such can adopt a point of view that is almost uniform, thereby limiting on the chances of ideological differences, that serve as the backbone for any conflict in the business environment (Haas & Mortensen, 2016). Such business goals should be challenging since the modest ones do not motivate the workforce. At the same time, the challenging goals should not be so difficult that it encourages the team from the word go. A challenge poses excitement, but difficulty is known to crush the spirit of any organization. Again it is essential for a team to be motivated enough to love their work and give it their best in such an environment, every member knows what I expected of them, and can deliver effectively and in good time, thereby limiting the chances of conflicts and disagreements with the management or the supervision body in charge of their progress. On the 4-D team, the direction is crucial because it makes it easy for far-flung members from diverse backgrounds to hold different views of the group's purpose.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Strong Structure
Another critical factor for effective team management is the adoption of the right mix and the number of members. Such a structure should entail optimally designed tasks and processes, and norms that discourage destructive behavior and promote positive dynamics. The other reason why most people in the workplace develop conflicts of interest is due to compatibility. Working with someone who is not as visionary as the other person could pose a potential threat for disagreements. Typically, when two people who are not on the same side, and do not seem to have the same visions are put together, they tend to have conflicts of interests, where each person wants things done their way, and do not readily accept to compromise (Haas & Mortensen, 2016). Similarly, when people are put in a department that they are not qualified, or adequately trained to handle, they tend to lag behind, and as such do not necessarily give their best. This could be in conflict with that department's expectations or procedure of production, thereby eliciting constant arguments and disagreements between the management and the said individual. But on the overall, it is very effective for a team to be made up of highly skilled and diverse members. It is true that high-performing teams include members with a balance of skills. In as much as every individual does not have to possess extraordinary or excellent technical and social skills, the team itself needs to have a healthy, and a balanced dose of each of these. Diversity in knowledge, perspectives, and views, as well as in age, gender, and race can help teams become more creative and avoid arguments (Haas & Mortensen, 2016). By encouraging diversity, team members are exposed to the fact that it is ok for them to be ideologically different, or on opposite sides at one point or the other, but that these differences are at the end of the day what foster innovation and diversity. By being introduced to such an environment, the level of tolerance is boosted, and the employees can accommodate each other more dynamically, and at some point are made to be comfortable with the challenges such differences bring to the teams.
Supportive Context
Having the best support system is the third condition that makes it facilitates team effectiveness. This would include maintaining a reward system that encourages good performance, an information system that provides access to the data needed for the work ( Haas & Mortensen, 2016). By rewarding good performance, the workforce is encouraged to give their best. Giving their best, it also entails getting along with other colleagues, which ultimately means reducing conflict with other colleagues. By basing the reward system on discipline as well as productivity, the system fosters corporation. It is vital that workers learn to get along with each other. In as much as there are different ways to go with this issue, including the fact that the company or organization could adopt punishment systems, it is crucial that good relations are also rewarded. Not only does it decrease the possibilities of conflict, but it also boosts the workforce morale (Haas & Mortensen, 2016). By default, every human being loves being appreciated, and if a system offers this appreciation policy, every worker would naturally want to do their best to ensure they make it to that list. Still on a supporting system, the establishment of such institutions as the department that handles cooperation issues could also come in handy in enlightening the team on how to effectively air their grievances and differences, instead of resorting to acts and mediums that could be considered as being capable of disrupting the corporation and productivity of the team.
Shared Mindset
Establishing the first three enabling conditions paves the way for team success, but it is not all that needs to be done to ensure a model that effectively handles conflict and conflict resolution matters of the organization. If much is not done to closely weave these three conditions, distance, and diversity, as well as, changing membership and digital communication, could be prone to the creation of a new problem; the ideology of ‘us' versus ‘them' mentality (Haas & Mortensen, 2016). As such, it is more capable of creating a distinction between two groups, leading to the creation of a new ground of conflict. To effectively curb this, it is essential that the organization cultivate a shared mindset between the members of the team. By emphasizing on the fact that these individuals function as a team, and that these conditions are meant to bring the team together, rather than tear them apart, the members can work together holistically to achieve the set goals of the team. This fourth condition also plays a vital role in ensuring that accurate and complete information is shared between the members (Haas & Mortensen, 2016). If not handled correctly, and with the absence of this fourth condition, the module is prone to incomplete information, where one side of the team could potentially possess more information than the other, mainly due to the type and level of technology employed. This information disparity is a breeding ground for the creation of two opposing groups that could grow to despise or resent one another. Teamwork has never been smooth and has evolved over the years to become more complex. In response, the conflict management module needs to be diverse and complex too to answer to this development.
References
Haas, M., & Mortensen, M. (2016). The secrets of great teamwork. Harvard Business Review , 94 (6), 70-6.
