Page 318 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

Managing Conflict in the Small Group 301

what you said you were going to do.”). Kevin’s continued lack of commitment to the
group also fed into Lori’s dislike and her constant needling. She scrutinized Kevin’s
contributions more closely than those of other members and criticized comments he
made while accepting the same comments from other members. Kevin’s perceived
inequity of effort created serious conflict with other members of the group and pro-
duced a situation where he was being required to measure up more perfectly to the
group’s performance norms.
As you can see, the stress of inequity can lead to coalitions that in turn impact
29
the management of group conflict. Coalitions emerge in groups when members with Coalition
access to few resources, minimal power, or little bargaining leverage seek out other Members who band
members in an attempt to level the playing field. Kevin sought out his buddy Tony to together to pool their
side with him on the issue of bringing in more entertaining speakers. Lori, however, resources and power
singled Kevin out for wanting to party rather than learn (although she also recognized to try to increase
“Tony’s idea” as worth considering). Coalitions also form when group members come their bargaining
to identify more with a subgroup than with the group as a whole or when some mem- leverage.
bers have tended to accommodate to others’ ideas; those who accommodate may join
forces in a coalition to try and get the upper hand. Low-status members or those who
hold minority opinions sometimes have more success in being heard if they talk to
one other group member rather than the entire group. 30
Group members easily recognize all three types of group conflict. Although
31
described as distinct, they are not mutually exclusive. Process conflict, given its task
and relationship dimensions, can be used to mask relationship or task conflict. For
instance, group members can genuinely disagree over procedures but sometimes use
procedural conflict to sidestep another task conflict by forcing a vote or otherwise
32
regulating the group’s work. Process conflict can seem to be a straightforward differ-
ence over how logistically to manage group work, but it may be rooted in differing
member needs for structure versus freedom. Those high in needs for structure are
more comfortable with linear procedures than those who prefer less structure.
33
These conflict types are dynamic, and all three involve human emotion. One
type can lead easily into another. Relationship conflict, in particular, is neither the
cause of poorly managed task or process conflict or the consequence of poorly man-
aged task and process conflict—it can be both. You can see this in our Speaker’s Series
Committee. Lori’s dislike for Kevin (relationship) combined with Kevin’s inequitable
participation (process/contribution) and his disagreements with Lori (task) intensi-
fied Lori’s dislike. She was most relieved when Kevin left the group. The dual dimen-
sions of process conflict—that is, its task and relationship characteristics—explain why
group members can be dissatisfied with perceptions of unfairness (process/contribu-
tion) yet not experience poor performance (process/logistical)—in the short term.
34
Process conflict, on the other hand, is problematic because its dual dimensions can
render it more ambiguous than task or relationship. Studies of high-performance
teams show that early process conflict, with its potential to become personal, can spill
over into later stages of problem solving, leading to both task and relationship con-
flicts. High levels of this conflict, especially if it is about the fairness of member
35
contributions, if left unresolved, may so damage the group that later attempts to
resolve it may be too late.

gal37018_ch11_291_320.indd 301 3/28/18 12:38 PM