Page 317 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

300 Chapter 11

group’s task. It represents the who in small group conflict and is generally detrimental
to the efficient functioning of any group. For example, Speaker Series committee
members Lori and Kevin did not like each other and missed no opportunity to
disagree or belittle each other. When Kevin agreed with Tony in preferring an enter-
taining rather than an educational speaker, Lori said, “I could have expected that
from you. Let’s not learn—let’s party!” This statement revealed that Lori personalized
the conflict with Kevin. Her dislike compounded the effects of disagreement over
work procedures and ideas. She rarely failed to make sarcastic comments to Kevin
throughout their meetings. Such conflict is both difficult to resolve and exceedingly
harmful to the group.
Although the origin of this type of conflict is difficult to pin down, your coau-
thors’ observations of numerous groups suggest that much of it is rooted in one
person’s acting as if he or she is superior and another member’s refusal to accept this
difference in status or power. Most of this “I am better than you” signaling is nonver-
bal, projected by subtle patterns of vocal tones, postures, and head/body angles. Much
of what is called interpersonal conflict emerges from a struggle for position and
power, those scarce resources we mentioned in our definition of conflict. Research
has indicated that group members are able to differentiate between personalized
(relationship) and depersonalized (task) conflict. Furthermore, the type of conflict
26
affects group consensus. Because relationship conflict can impede resolution of task
issues, Fisher and Brown recommend disentangling relationship and task goals and
27
pursuing them independently. This gives the parties a chance to resolve their task-
related differences, even though they may never change their feelings about each
other. We talk later about how you might do that.
Process Conflict Process conflict takes two forms. In its logistical form, it represents the how of
Conflict resulting from group problem solving. When group members disagree over how to distribute the
disagreement about work, scheduling, how to use their time best, which group tools are best for tracking
how to do something their work, or whether they should make decisions by consensus or majority vote,
and member they are struggling through logistics. In our Speaker Committee, Lori proposed split-
contributions to ting up the money available to the group and letting every member decide individually
the group. which speaker he or she would like to invite. Diedre countered with a more consensual
way of selecting a speaker and provided a reason: “We should agree as a group! What
if we all pick the same kind of speaker?”
The second type of process conflict in its logistical form, it involves coordination,
representing the how much of group work. Conflict that occurs over perceived unfair-
ness and workload inequity in the group is harmful. Inequity reduces satisfaction with
the group and is associated with high levels of conflict. In our Speaker Series
28
Committee, Kevin’s early behavior was perceived by Lori as irresponsible. His work
and contributions came to be perceived as inadequate. Although Lori rode him the
hardest about his lack of commitment, Chris, Diedre, and even his friend Tony men-
tioned Kevin’s lack of follow-through and failure to complete assignments for the
group. When Kevin showed up late again, Chris remarked, “I’m tired of waiting for
the jerk. Let’s get started.” Later, Diedre directly confronted Kevin by describing his
behaviors that indicated lack of commitment to the group (“You have missed two of
the last four meetings and were late to the ones you did come to. You also didn’t do

gal37018_ch11_291_320.indd 300 3/28/18 12:38 PM