Page 325 - Effective group discussion theory and practice by Adams, Katherine H. Brilhart, John K. Galanes, Gloria J

308 Chapter 11

compromise. He could have also appealed to fairness by remarking, “Lori and Kevin,
51
you both got what you wanted last time, so this time let’s go with two speakers.”
Offering a quick short-term solution, “We do not have time to complain about this; let’s
ask the educational speaker because we can get her immediately,” is also an option for
the group.

Working with Conflict Management Styles in Groups Although no conflict style is
always best, some conflict styles are perceived as more appropriate in certain circum-
stances. We recommend a contingency view in which the most productive way for
settling a conflict depends on time pressures, distribution of information and skills,
group member values and needs, and other concerns, including culture. While each
style varies in its degree of effectiveness, research favors the collaborating approach,
supporting the idea that more integrative, or win-win, styles of conflict are more con-
52
structive. Having an integrative orientation is preferred in most problem-solving dis-
cussions, especially for those task groups that have developed a history and thus must
attend to both the task and social dimensions of their interactions.
Kuhn and Poole, in a longitudinal study of 11 work groups in large American
organizations, discovered that the work groups that took the time and energy to create
more integrative or win-win solutions to their problems, compared to those that
53
merely confronted or avoided them, produced more effective decisions. In addition,
the work groups that used a more integrated conflict style also managed to fulfill
other communicative functions effectively. They met the issues head on, worked
through obstacles to their problem, and recognized that they needed to work together
on the problem. These work groups used the difficult task of integration to develop
group norms and rules that effectively guided them in future interaction.
Kuhn and Poole’s study shows us that integrative solutions do not just happen
but take hard work and time. Schie and Rognes’s exploration of member motivational
orientations helps explain why. Member characteristics are critical input elements to
54
a group system and affect group processes, including conflict. Schie and Rognes
found, for example, that different member orientations influenced how members man-
aged resources during disagreement and members’ judgments of fairness. Individual-
ists showed a willingness to exploit resources and use distributive, win-lose behaviors
to get their goals met. Groups composed of all cooperatively oriented members had
the highest ratings of fairness compared to mixed groups. Distributive behaviors may
be effective on one level but may hurt perceptions about how fair the process was.
Group members need to be prepared to deal with distributive approaches or risk
being exploited or hurt by such approaches.
Renz’s study of the consensus process in a naturally occurring group shows how
helpful a group’s own norms are to guiding their conflict styles. They supported their
value in consensus decision making with strong rules that helped them deal with the
tensions between being open to each other and demands to finish the task. This
55
group used a specific set of rules, their “little white book,” to guide their actions
when members would block consensus on a proposal. This worked because the
group, early on and together, determined their set of rules to be fair to the group and
its members.

gal37018_ch11_291_320.indd 308 3/28/18 12:38 PM