Page 324 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

Managing Conflict in the Small Group 307

However, collaboration often takes more time than other approaches, involves an
emotional investment that might not be shared by everyone, and requires trust
between group members. In addition, members with expectations for competitive task
conflict may, initially, be suspicious of collaborative behaviors.
Compared to competitive tactics, collaborative ones focus on mutual rather than
individual concerns and attempt to facilitate gains for all parties involved in the con-
49
flict. They recognize the interdependence between parties. The first major category
of collaborative tactics is analytical remarks. These facilitate collaboration by describ-
ing and disclosing important information as the parties try to maximize their gains.
These kinds of statements are most like the kind you would expect in a supportive
versus defensive group climate. Descriptive statements are nonevaluative remarks
about events such as “We have confirmed the availability of individual speakers that
fit both categories, including some that could be both educational and entertaining.”
Qualifying remarks from group members would define the nature of the conflict
between members. For instance, Chris could say, “Lori and Kevin appear to disagree
over the kind of speaker we could get, but I sense that both would entertain the idea
of a speaker who could be both entertaining and educational.” Group members can
also solicit both disclosure and criticism in a nonhostile fashion. Tony could add to the
discussion by soliciting from Lori what she meant by saying she would quit. Diedre
could also solicit criticism of herself by asking for feedback from the group about her
behaviors in the conflict between Lori and Kevin.
The second category of collaborative tactics involves those that are conciliatory;
they demonstrate one’s role in the conflict and display a willingness to work toward
50
mutual gain. For example, Kevin could back off his attacks of Lori and show support
for her feelings: “I can see why you would want to quit, Lori.” Lori, on the other hand,
can reconcile with Kevin by showing a willingness to be flexible, offering a concession,
rather than threatening to quit if she does not get her way. Important to collaboration
is recognizing your role in the conflict and thus being accountable for the nature of
the conflict. Kevin could show this acceptance of responsibility by acknowledging how
he had let the group down by not doing his fair share.

Compromise A compromise, also called a shared outcome, assumes that each party to Compromise
the conflict will have to give up something in order to gain something more import- The conflict
ant. In the Speaker Series Committee, Chris suggested a compromise when he management style
said: “Maybe we can get two speakers, less expensive—one educational and one enter- that assumes each
taining.” Each faction would have to agree to give up the idea of bringing in one very party must give up
well-known speaker. Thus, compromises entail some losses for both parties. For this something to get
reason, we recommend attempting a collaborative, fully integrative solution when the something.
decision is important to all group members. However, we think that compromise
should not be considered a dirty word! When collaborative resolution is impossible or
takes more time than is available, a compromise is a desirable and ethical outcome,
especially if each group member feels that what he or she had to give up is fair in
comparison with what others had to give up.
Chris’s suggestion that they get two speakers by compromising their desires for
one well-paid speaker is an example of a suggested tradeoff tactic common to

gal37018_ch11_291_320.indd 307 3/28/18 12:38 PM