As we know, team conflict is not good and needs to be resolved quickly to maintain a high level of team moral and performance. This notion is true in sports as well in the work place. There are a number of approaches to resolve conflicts. For example: ignore them and hope they work themselves out; fire the main instigator as president Truman did with General MacArthur; confront them and resolve them. I offer an example herein of two approaches to resolve conflict, one of which I feel is a bad approach and one a good approach that I favor.

Bad Approach

A new employee, Bob, was a new hire to an exclusive R&D group in an international high technology company. The group offered free design and analytical services to their clients. Bob had a BS degree with extensive experience and knowledge in signal integrity, a highly specialized area. He was the only person in the R&D group having an in depth working knowledge of the latest analytical tools. A well experienced and respected PHD, Bill, was hired into the group on the same day as Bob. Bill was senior to Bob. His expertise was in electromagnetic analysis. He was not adept with the new analytical tools. Both men reported to the Director.

It became painfully obvious to the team and the Director during the first week that a rather serious conflict existed between Bob and Bill. Bob was generating analytical results using the tools and presenting them to the team with backup data. Bill presented a screen shot of his analysis with no backup that did not agree with Bob’s results. Bill claimed his results were accurate. He also had a big ego, was loud and domineering during the meetings even citing the fact he had a PHD and should not be challenged. When on the phone with the client, Bill dominated the discussion and stated a number of incorrect technical comments and recommendations. The Director said nothing. This situation went on for a few weeks until finally the Director called Bill into his office and chewed him out for his behavior, The Director also spoke to Bob in private and told him he was doing a great job and noted he was on to Bill and would take care of him. In the end, the Director accepted Bob’s analysis over Bill’s and submitted it to the client. This situation went on for a long time causing reduced moral on the team. As it turned out, the Director did not handle Bill as promised. The Director chose to manage the conflict rather than resolving it at the expense of the team moral. Evidently, the Director was so impressed with Bill’s credentials that he let his technical poor performance continue without any consequence.

 Good Approach

Frank was the Director of Program Management who had a unique skill to take a complicated problem and break it down into small manageable pieces that could be easily resolved. He also was one of the best I have seen at resolving conflicts. This is an example of his approach.

The program manager, Marvin, of a training device project for the Navy was at odds with the engineering lead, Andy. Marvin wanted to use Ni-Cad batteries to power the training device for cost reasons but Andy wanted to use Lithium batteries for better performance. N- Cad batteries were safe and did not require any special testing or handling for shipment. The Lithium battery was prone to explosions, required extensive testing to approve them for use, and required special handling considerations for shipment. Neither man wanted to concede to the other.

Their personalities clashed and it soon evolved into an open conflict with the potential of creating a team morale issue and schedule impact to the project. It also became personal and rather nasty. Both Andy and Marvin had a separate sit down discussions with Frank to present their side. To resolve the conflict, Frank set up a meeting with Andy, Marvin, and himself. Frank facilitated the ensuing discussion. He started the meeting by telling Marvin what Andy had said about him. Then he turned to Marvin and asked him to verify Andy’s assertion and explain why he said it. It did the same thing with Andy. It seems much easier to criticize a person behind their back but much more difficult to do it face to face. Most times, poor communications is the primary cause of the conflict. Face to face communications with a facilitator in the room usually clarifies the problem opening the way up to resolve it. Once the communications were clarified and personal feelings calmed down, a decision to use Ni-Cad batteries was made and mutually accepted. Watching Frank over the years, it was amazing to see time and time again two very angry people walk into Frank’s office and an hour later walk out shaking hands and smiling.

Summary

Frank’s approach to resolving conflict is the preferred one because it forces face to face dialogue between the two conflicting parties clarifying communications that many times is the root cause of the conflict. In addition, his method addresses the issue and resolution early negating a situation that can worsen over time if the problem is allowed to fester. Ignoring the problem and letting it continue unabated as the Director did in the “bad approach” example, is one of the worst approaches because it undermines the team moral and eventually performance. In some cases, the only way a conflict can be resolved is to reassign or fire the main instigator or both parties if necessary.

Bio:

John earned a BS in Mechanical Engineering and MS in Engineering Management from Northeastern University. He has a total of 44 years’ experience, 30 years with DOD Companies. He is a member of PMI (project Management Institute). John has managed numerous firm fixed price and cost plus large high technical development programs worth in excessive of $100M. He has extensive subcontract management experience domestically and foreign. John has held a number of positions over his career including: Director of Programs; Director of Operations; Program Manager; Project Engineer; Engineering Manager; and Design Engineer.His technical design areas of experience include: radar; mobile tactical communication systems; cryogenics; electronic packaging; material handling; antennas; x-ray technology; underwater vehicles; welding; structural analysis; and thermal analysis. He has experience in the following areas: design; manufacturing; test; integration; selloff; subcontract management; contracts; risk and opportunity management; and quality control. John is a certified six sigma specialist, certified level 2 EVM (earned value management) specialist; certified CAM (cost control manager).