Team Conflict Solution
Modern companies and organizations consider teamwork as one of the best methods to meet market requirements and technological updates and thus create accurate and stable mechanism for internal working process of the company. However, this mechanism can often act up, as disagreements between team members may occur. In our case there is a conflict situation with Dan – one of the company employees, who does not share the point of view of the team. He states that the idea to use mobile application for shopping is going to fail in the end. Before to give a response and solve this conflict one has to choose the right strategy. Somech suggests determining team identity first and then choosing whether cooperative or competitive strategy of team conflict management (360). Cooperative is based on logic, competence and arguments. Competitive, in contrast, is followed by the principles of dominance and opposition. Team identity is considered to be the level of concern of the self and other members of the party (362). Cooperative strategy requires high level of concern both of self and the team, and competitive – only concern of the self.
I think that ideally the response has to represent the golden middle between both strategies. It should contain arguments and logic, but at the same time show that the interlocutor has serious intentions and is not going to retreat. Thus, if I had to talk to Dan, first I would have brought a few arguments in favor of the idea to create a mobile application, focusing on the deep knowledge of our team in this area. I would also like to draw particular attention to his biased and premature certainty in failure of our project. It is impossible to determine the success or effectiveness of something without testing. I could suggest starting a trial version of the application, and in case of any discrepancies or failures to meet certain requirements, the team would be given time to carry out all the necessary modifications. Of course I would count on my partners and look for their support before presenting each argument because team makes you stronger and gives your opinion more value. Finally, after all the arguments had been given be given, but Dan would not manage to compromise I think I should use some manipulation. So, I would try to convince him to side with the team, having told that he, who was not with us, was against instead. In this moment we can clearly see the result of the merge of two strategies. On the one hand, I am the leader, who protects his point of view. But on the other hand I am acting in the interest of my team, using arguments and logic. In this case team is transformed into one big self, which facilitates the task of persuasion. To my mind, the team should discuss in advance all the sensitive issues and misconceptions before they begin to escalate and turn into a real conflict.
…
