Toward Integration and Cross-Fertilization

While research in the instrumental, devel­opmental, and political perspectives has developed predominantly in separate “silos,” it is clear that the three perspectives have the potential to inform one another.

Goncalo et al. (2010) saw connections between process conflict from the instru­mental perspective and group development processes. Their results indicated the condi­tions under which groups might deviate from traditional development stage models. Thus, concepts originating in the instrumental per­spective revealed a nuance in the developmen­tal perspective. Similarly, Greer et al. (2008) studied process conflict as it related to stages of development and found that the effects of certain types of conflict might carry across developmental stages. In this case, ideas from the developmental perspective informed out­comes typically associated with the instrumen­tal perspective. In both cases, one perspective shed light on the other. This type of synergy demonstrates the value of lifting one’s head from a particular tradition and seeing insights in other traditions. As discussed previously, Chen (2006) found that the life cycle stage in which conflict occurs moderated the effects of conflict on creativity in some groups. Again, a developmental perspective joined with instru­mental variables produces better understand­ing than either could alone.

Korsgaard, Jeong, Mohony, and Pitariu (2008) argued that the work on intragroup conflict since Jehn (1995) has advanced under­standing of various types of conflict but has conflated levels of communication.

Two recent studies have used an instru­mental lens to study political relationships within groups. Boros et al. (2010) studied 125 multicultural groups, looking at how power and interdependence affect conflict management styles. They found that when members perceive equal power relationships and feel connected, they are more likely to use collaborative conflict management strategies. On the other hand, when members perceive unequal power held by group members and feel independent, group members are more likely to use avoidance strategies. Greer and van Kleef (2010) found that the effect of power on group conflict was more compli­cated. Studying 42 workgroups, they found that power struggles moderated the relation­ship between power and conflict strategies. For groups with overall low power, power differentials (where some members were in control and other members were not) led to better outcomes.

Despite these inroads into integrating these perspectives, much more work remains. The following discussion relates a few potential ways by which we believe each perspective could contribute to a better understanding of the other perspectives. It is not meant to be an exhaustive list but to spur thought and discussion.

The three points of view offer complemen­tary insights into conflicts. The instrumental view focuses our attention on the immedi­ate give and take of conflict interaction, the surface on which groups do their work. The political view reminds us that this interaction also reflects and plays a role in constituting the power structure that is brought to bear in conflict tactics and strategies. While the instrumental view sensitizes us to constructive and destructive patterns of conflict interaction, the political standpoint cautions us to consider factors that go beyond the immediate situation when we encounter destructive interaction patterns. The political perspective takes a long­term view that may serve goals such as group capacity building and member need fulfillment especially well, while the instrumental perspec­tive is stronger on performance and immediate group effectiveness.

The developmental view stresses that all conflict, including the one based on deep- seated interests, unfolds within an ongoing concern—the workgroup—that is developing according to its own dynamics and facing challenges that may transcend the instrumen­tal or political dimensions. A power struggle or conflict over work means very different things and is influenced by different factors in a group just forming than in a well-estab­lished workgroup. The developmental per­spective also directs our attention to ways in which constructive responses must go beyond addressing work or structure to helping the group and its members grow. Together, the three perspectives remind us that multiple levels must be considered in understanding workgroup conflict.

Provided with some understanding of the conflict and the factors that drive it, we face another question: How should conflicts be managed? Again, the three perspectives pro­vide diverse advice. Instrumental researchers have advanced many of the most effective models for managing workgroup conflict. These approaches advocate dealing with con­flict “in the present”—that is, on immediate issues that surface during conflict interaction and in response to interventions in the conflict.

Political research has tended to focus more on describing the plight of groups with power issues and how they are controlled than to prescribe how to deal with power. Political scholars often project a sense that existing structures are so deeply embedded that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to change them or to use the conflict they engender for constructive purposes. This would require shifts in power relations that are often deeply rooted and reinforced by many structures in the group, the larger organization, and society. Resolving political conflicts sometimes seems more a matter of reforming society than han­dling things within the group.

The developmental perspective views the management of conflict as akin to psycho­logical therapy (e.g., Gibbard, Hartman, & Mann, 1974) and emphasizes the importance of the quasi-therapeutic role. In some cases, this role is filled by an outside consultant or mediator, and in others, by a prominent mem­ber of the group. As occurs in psychological therapy, this person may be a facilitator who helps the group understand itself and suggests approaches for dealing with the conflict. The developmental perspective, like the political perspective, views conflict management as broader than simply dealing with the con­flict at hand.

Combining the three perspectives has the potential to greatly enhance conflict manage­ment. The quasi-therapeutic approach of the developmental perspective offers a useful resource for resolution of political conflicts. As Jurgen Habermas (1975) noted, one useful model for critical analysis of power structures is psychoanalysis. Developmental approaches to conflict management look past the imme­diate conflict to the deeper dynamics of the sort that drive control and domination in groups. The conflict management models advanced by instrumental scholars also have great potential in the management of politi­cal and developmental conflicts. It is difficult to deal with outbreaks of contention and competition, and instrumental models of conflict management provide guidance and techniques for achieving civil discussion and comportment in groups. It is also difficult to deal with deeper issues if the group engages in avoidance (Bion, 1959, called this flight) or if some members are able to keep important issues off the floor. Instrumental approaches such as constructive controversy can help groups surface issues safely and manage discussion so that minority voices are heard, thus increasing the probability of a successful diagnosis and change.

That conflict management means more than just handling the immediate conflict, but requires us to go beyond it to change the group and its members, is a useful addition to instrumental models of conflict manage­ment. The finding in instrumental research that groups with less open communication climates handle conflict less effectively implies that longer-term development of the group is important even for surface-level conflict man­agement.

As we stated at the beginning of this chapter, workgroups are a ubiquitous part of contemporary organizations. As such, under­standing conflict in these groups is important for reflecting on how to improve communi­cation in these contexts. The instrumental, developmental, and political perspectives offer unique ideas regarding the sources of conflict, how conflict can be productive, and where research is needed within this phenomenon. Because of that uniqueness, interplay and cross-fertilization between perspectives have the potential to reveal nuances in what we know about workgroup conflict. We hope that this chapter will continue to create conversa­tions toward those connections.