Tensions in Conflict and Workgroup Development
Smith and Berg (1987) advanced a different view of the role of conflict in workgroup development. They argued that rather than following a set developmental sequence, groups should develop through addressing inherent paradoxes that confront them.
These paradoxes consist of “coexisting opposites”—contradictory and conflicting emotions, thoughts, and actions—that exist in groups. Smith and Berg defined three sets of paradoxes: (1) paradoxes of belonging, which represent coexisting opposites around group and individual identity, involvement, individuality, and boundaries; (2) paradoxes of engaging, which feature coexisting opposites concerned with disclosure, trust, and intimacy; and (3) paradoxes of speaking, concerned with the tensions among authority, dependency, creativity, and courage to disagree in groups. These paradoxes represent problems that continuously face groups, and groups tend to cycle within these paradoxes and between them. The paradoxes are sources of conflict for groups, and groups manage conflicts through managing the paradoxes. In terms of how groups can deal effectively with paradoxes, Smith and Berg argued that attempting to eliminate the paradoxes is likely to result in the group getting stuck. Instead the group should live within the paradoxes, work to understand them and the conflicts they produce, and find links between conflicting forces and issues. Finding these links enables the group to move forward both in terms of its own effectiveness and in terms of building a stronger group.Group dialectics is a stream of research branching off from Smith and Berg’s dynamic of tensions in group development. Kramer (2004) conducted an ethnographic study of a community theater group, arguing that group dialectics would differ from dyadic relationships because of the goal-directed nature of groups and because of group size.
Kramer found four global dialectics present in his data: (1) commitment levels to the group, (2) ordered versus emergent group activities, (3) inclusion versus exclusion and group boundaries, and (4) norms for acceptable versus unacceptable behavior. In this model, a group would deal with conflict by using “a range of choices from explicitly communicating about them, such as venting or discussion, to communicating implicitly or choosing not to communicate about them through avoidance or minimization” (p. 328).Approaching dialectics from an alternative perspective, Garner and Poole (2009) examined leadership emergence in workgroups as a function of conflict between a potential leader and a “foil,” a difficult person who threatens the group’s ability to focus and complete its task. Garner and Poole studied three groups that were part of a government organization. In two of those groups, the potential leader was able to overcome the difficult member, and the group effectively completed its task. In the third, the difficult person never faded in dominance and continued to distract the group until it dissolved. Garner and Poole concluded that, paradoxically, the leader in each group needed a difficult person; cast against the backdrop of this distracting element, the leader overcoming the difficult person exuded competence aligned with the group’s best interests. Without the conflict between the leader and the foil, these groups may not have recognized their need for a leader and may have never have developed to a productive stage (as happened in the third group).
The developmental perspective views conflict as a useful and inherent part of group life. Properly managed, conflicts can help groups resolve critical issues and become more effective. The conflicts that the developmental perspective is concerned with exist at a deeper and more fundamental level than those discussed in the instrumental perspective. While some developmental models, such as Wheelan’s (2005), propose that these conflicts can be resolved, others, such as Smith and Berg’s (1987), imply that conflicts will always be with groups continuously presenting new tensions that must be dealt with (see also Bion, 1959).