Enhancing Team Dynamics: Power, Conflict, and Trust
Preventing Group Decision-Making Pitfalls
Strategies to Prevent Shared Information Bias
- Designate a facilitator to ensure all voices are heard.
- Use visual aids to share information equally.
- Assign a devil’s advocate to encourage alternative viewpoints.
- Foster an environment where members resist defending initial opinions and actively search for new information.
Strategies to Prevent Groupthink
- Encourage open debate.
- Reduce group size.
- Ensure leaders remain impartial.
- Appoint someone to play the devil’s advocate.
- Focus first on the potential negatives of a decision.
- Ensure everyone has a chance to voice concerns.
Strategies to Prevent Group Shift/Polarization
- Focus on moderating extreme positions by seeking input from individuals with differing views.
- Ensure the group makes decisions based on careful analysis of risks rather than emotional group dynamics.
Understanding Status vs. Power in Groups
Status is the respect, admiration, or prestige that an individual has in a group or organization. It is often based on social recognition and can be granted by others due to expertise, experience, or reputation.
Power, on the other hand, is the ability to influence others and make decisions that affect them. It comes from different sources, such as formal authority, control over resources, or strategic positioning.
A key difference is that status is given by others based on perception, while power is often taken or exercised through control of key assets or decision-making.
Key Power Resources: Expert and Network
Expert Power: Derived from possessing specialized knowledge or skills that others value. It influences others by offering valuable insights. Those with expert power are trusted and respected for their knowledge.
Example: In a workplace, a senior engineer might have expert power due to their deep understanding of the company’s technology. When a new system upgrade is being considered, team members defer to this engineer’s expertise for advice on how to proceed.
Network Power: Based on relationships within a group or organization. It influences by leveraging the connections one has to facilitate information flow, gain support, and coordinate actions.
Example: In a corporate setting, a project manager might use their network power to push a new initiative forward. By reaching out to contacts in other departments, they can secure the necessary resources and collaboration to overcome internal roadblocks. The ability to mobilize their network leads to the successful launch of the initiative.
Principles of Coalition Formation in Teams
Coalitions form based on several principles:
- Common Interests: Coalitions form when individuals or groups share goals and recognize mutual benefits in collaboration.
- Resource Sharing: Members contribute different resources (e.g., money, information, influence) to strengthen the coalition.
- Strategic Alliances: Participants align with those who can provide the greatest advantage in achieving their goals.
- Trust and Commitment: Coalitions work best when members trust each other and commit to shared objectives.
- Flexibility and Adaptation: Successful coalitions can adjust their strategies and memberships based on changing circumstances.
- Influence and Bargaining: Coalition members negotiate terms and exert influence to maximize their collective power.
Coalitions become problematic when they create division and exclusion within the team.
Understanding Conflict Dynamics and Types
Conflict arises when individuals or groups perceive incompatible goals, limited resources, or differing values and interests.
Types of Conflict
Interpersonal Conflict: Occurs between individuals due to personality differences, communication issues, or competing interests.
Example: Two colleagues disagree over how to approach a project, leading to tension and arguments about roles and responsibilities.
Intragroup Conflict: Happens within a team or group, often due to role ambiguity, power struggles, or task-related disagreements.
Example: A team member disagrees with the direction the team is taking on a specific task, causing frustration within the group and slowing progress.
Intergroup Conflict: Arises between different teams or departments, commonly due to competition for resources, organizational priorities, or cultural differences.
Example: Two departments in a company fight over budget allocations, with each group believing their project is more critical than the other’s.
Task Conflict: Relates to disagreements about work-related tasks, strategies, or goals.
Example: Team members argue about which approach to use for a project’s technical execution, resulting in differing views on methods or strategies.
Relationship Conflict: Based on personal differences, emotions, and miscommunications.
Example: A team member’s behavior or communication style rubs another person the wrong way, leading to personal misunderstandings and feelings of resentment.
Conflict Management Styles Compared
Competing (Forcing): A win-lose approach where one party seeks to dominate. Effective in urgent situations but may harm relationships.
Example: A manager insists on a specific solution to a problem without considering employees’ input, prioritizing quick decision-making over team harmony.
Collaborating: A win-win approach where both parties work together to find a mutually beneficial solution. Requires time and communication.
Example: Two team members disagree on a project approach but work together to create a new strategy that satisfies both of their ideas and objectives.
Compromising: A middle-ground solution where both sides give up something to reach an agreement. Useful when quick resolution is needed.
Example: Two colleagues disagree on project deadlines and agree to adjust the timeline, compromising on the original plan to meet halfway.
Avoiding: Ignoring or delaying the conflict. Useful for trivial issues but ineffective for long-term resolution.
Example: A team member avoids addressing minor complaints about the team’s communication style, hoping the issue will resolve itself over time.
Accommodating: One party yields to the other to maintain harmony, often at the cost of their own needs.
Example: A team member agrees with a decision they don’t fully support just to keep the peace and avoid conflict with a stronger opinion holder in the group.
Building Trust Within Organizations
Basis of Trust
Trust is built upon several key foundations:
- Competence: Confidence in an individual’s or group’s abilities.
- Integrity: Honesty, consistency, and adherence to ethical values.
- Reliability: Consistently delivering on commitments and expectations.
- Communication: Open, transparent, and respectful interactions.
- Empathy: Understanding and valuing others’ perspectives.
Organizational Climate Surveys: Design & Challenges
Organizational climate refers to the shared perceptions employees have about their work environment. It is the way employees perceive the atmosphere, which can include aspects like support, communication, and innovation. When the organizational climate is positive, it improves employee engagement and motivation, leading to higher team performance.
Designing Climate Surveys
A climate survey helps measure employees’ perceptions of the organizational climate, which can guide improvements. The design should include:
- Target Group: Deciding who to survey (e.g., all employees, management, or specific groups).
- Questions: Questions should address key dimensions of the work environment, such as leadership, engagement, participation, and motivation. Typical survey questions could ask about leadership effectiveness, employee satisfaction, work conditions, and how motivated employees feel.
- Survey Format: The survey should typically use a Likert scale (e.g., 1-5) for responses.
Practical Difficulties of Climate Surveys
- Confidentiality and Social Desirability: Employees may alter their responses to conform to what they believe is socially acceptable or expected, which can lead to biased results.
- Survey Saturation: If climate surveys are too frequent, employees may feel overwhelmed or disengaged from the process, affecting the quality of responses.
- Segmentation: Deciding whether to survey all employees or just specific groups (e.g., management, permanent staff) is essential for obtaining meaningful data.
- Expectations and Follow-up: It’s important to manage employee expectations about how their feedback will be used. A lack of action after the survey can lead to disillusionment and reduced participation in future surveys.