« Sources of Risk
How many volunteers do you have working on your project? »

Conflict Management in Projects

September 3, 2007 | Author: PM Hut | Filed under: Conflict Management

Conflict Management in Projects
By Samuel T. Brown, III, PMP, Global Knowledge Course Director and Instructor

Conflict is an inevitable occurrence in projects as in life. The really important question is how we choose to address conflicts as they arise. Historically, perhaps even innately, most people immediately interpret conflict as negatively weighted — as bad. Many people also find that they instinctively hesitate to engage in conflict, often searching for a path to avoidance. Over the last 30 years or so, much research has been done around the topic of conflict, and in that time, much of our view has shifted away from conflict as innately negative toward a more neutral view, in which the impact of the conflict becomes the defining factor in any judgment of good or bad.

What is conflict?

Definitions vary, depending on the source of the definition. Psychologists define conflict in the perspective of intra-mind differences. Sociologists tend to define conflict as differences between the interests of people or groups, and so it goes. When we examine the common elements in almost all of these various definitions, we find that a definition of conflict can be reduced to: “Conflict occurs when there are two or more competing responses to a single event.” (Cummings, Long, and Lewis 1983) This sort of impact-neutral definition allows us to focus on the context and sources of conflict rather than exclusively on the result or impact of the conflict.

Conflict may occur in various contexts. Cummings, Long, and Lewis, in their 1983 book, Managing Communication in Organizations, suggest six contexts for conflict.

  1. Intrapersonal - the internal, mental struggle to select from among alternatives
  2. Interpersonal - differences between individuals
  3. Intragroup - differences between members of a group pursuing a similar corporate goal
  4. Intergroup - differences between groups with competing goals
  5. Intraorganizational - generalized differences in goals or perceptions of various factions within an organization
  6. Interorganizational - differences between organizations (companies or governments) competing for a similar goal or to advance competing ideologies

In 1975, Hans Thaimhain and David Wilemon published fundamental research on the conflict in projects. Their study identified seven potential sources of conflicts in projects, which they went on to correlate with the various phases of the project life cycle (nitiation, planning, execution, and closure). The seven sources of conflict include (in order of intensity):

  • Schedule conflict
  • Conflict of priorities
  • Resource conflict
  • Technical conflict
  • Conflict over administration
  • Personality conflict
  • Cost conflict

Interestingly, Thaimhain and Wilemon also tracked the shifts in the intensity of each conflict source through the general phases of the project life cycle. In every phase, personality conflict was at the bottom of the intensity list, except during closure. Schedule conflict consistently ranked high in intensity during every phase of the life cycle. As we attempt to proactively approach conflict, it is useful to note the correspondence between the contexts of conflict and the sources of conflict.

Source Context

  • Schedule conflict Intergroup and/or Intragroup
  • Priority conflict Interpersonal and/or Interorganizational
  • Resource conflict Intergroup and/or Intraorganizational
  • Technical conflict Intrapersonal, Interpersonal and/or Intergroup
  • Administration conflict Intraorganizational and/or Intergroup
  • Personality conflict Interpersonal
  • Cost conflict Interpersonal, Intergroup and/or Intraorganizational

Much research and discussion has been devoted to the handling of conflict. Most of us are familiar with the five approaches to conflict (particularly since many of us had to learn them to pass the PMP examination); withdrawal, smoothing, compromising, forcing, and confrontation. Any of these approaches may be appropriate for addressing and managing a given conflict. Withdrawal is necessary when tension and emotions are high, and the conflict has become dysfunctional. We may want to smooth or compromise in a conflict situation to help control negative tension and keep the conflict beneficially focused. Forcing may be an appropriate approach when a conflict poses significant threat to project objectives. Finally, confrontation, often also called consensus or collaboration, is appropriate to help keep a conflict contained within its source and to keep the focus on the benefits that can be derived. Most conflict management strategies will employ one of more of these approaches for handling conflict.

As we begin to consider specific strategies for managing conflict, it is appropriate and useful to revisit the decision-making process model. In his book, Effective Project Management, Third Edition, Robert Wysocki describes six phases in decision-making. First is Situation Definition in which the situation is investigated and clarified. Next, there is Situation Decision Generation where the team identifies and accumulates alternatives. The Ideas to Action phase is next, when the team defines and agrees on criteria for evaluating and selecting among the alternatives. Following the Ideas to Action phase is the Decision Action Plan phase in which the team determines how and when to implement the selected alternative. Next, Decision Evaluation Planning phase provides a learning opportunity for the team through the examination of lessons learned relative to the executed decision and its results. Decision Evaluation Planning also involves the development of plans for improvement in the future. Finally, Evaluation of Outcome and Process looks at quality of decision outcomes. This decision process model provides an excellent foundation for any strategy of conflict management.

The most common elements in any conflict management strategy are the early recognition of the conflict and keeping attention focused between the conflicted parties. Both of these elements are important for the management of either functional or dysfunctional conflict. Clifford Gray and Gary Larson, in their book, Project Management: The Managerial Process, Second Edition, observe that, “The demarcation between functional and dysfunctional conflict is neither clear nor precise. The distinguishing criterion is how the conflict affects project performance, not how individuals feel, as long as the disagreement furthers the objectives of the project. Then the conflict is functional.” On this basis then, all approaches to conflict management must seek early identification of the conflict, early evaluation of the impact of the conflict on the project, and specific plans for encouraging functional conflict or managing dysfunctional conflict.

Larson and Gray’s list of five strategies for managing dysfunctional conflict provides a good summary of approaches.

  • Mediation. Based on a search for common ground, this strategy provides an opportunity for negotiation between the parties in conflict. The goal is to identify multiple possible alternatives and to mutually select one that is acceptable to all involved parties and in the interest of project objectives. This strategy is based on the confrontation approach described earlier.
  • Arbitration. This strategy requires the project manager to provide a safe and productive opportunity for the conflicted parties to air their disagreements. After careful attention and fully listening to each party, the project manager should formulate, define, and provide a solution to the parties. This strategy is based on the forcing approach to conflict described earlier. Arbitration can often be effectively combined with mediation by forcing an initial conflict solution and then allowing the parties to negotiate to a more mutually acceptable alternative.
  • Control. Based on the smoothing approach described earlier, this strategy seeks to bring tension and emotions down to a level at which productive discussion and negotiation can occur. Humor is often an effective tool, as well as the use of temporary breaks or time-outs in the discussions between conflicted parties.
  • Acceptance. The decision can be made that the conflict consequences are negligible relative to project objectives and, therefore, require no action. This strategy carries significant risk of later escalation and should be combined with specific plans for monitoring the situation to ensure that the conflict remains at an acceptable level. (This strategy is obviously similar to the PMBOK Guide® risk management strategy of active acceptance.)
  • Elimination. Finally, the elimination strategy is reserved for those conflicts that have become so dysfunctional that the project can no longer tolerate any impacts from them. Often a last resort, elimination involves the removal of the conflicted parties from involvement with the project.

In summary, conflict is neither good nor bad in and of itself, but rather should always be judged on the basis of the impact of the conflict on accomplishment of project objectives. Successfully dealing with conflict requires a management approach that recognizes conflicts early, carefully assesses impact on project objectives, and actively addresses those impacts through encouragement of functional conflict and management of dysfunctional conflict.

This article was originally published in Global Knowledge’s Business Brief e-newsletter. Global Knowledge delivers comprehensive hands-on project management, business process, and professional skills training. Visit our online Knowledge Center at www.globalknowledge.com/business for free white papers, webinars, and more.

© Copyright 2007, Global Knowledge. All rights reserved.

Share this article:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • blogmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • TwitThis
  • Yahoo! Buzz

Related Articles

This entry was posted on Monday, September 3rd, 2007 and is filed under Conflict Management. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1 person has left a comment

need more information relating to conflict in industrial sector.

kavi wrote on December 28, 2010 - 5:09 am | Visit Link

feel free to leave a comment

Comment Guidelines: Basic XHTML is allowed (a href, strong, em, code). All line breaks and paragraphs are automatically generated. Off-topic or inappropriate comments will be edited or deleted. Email addresses will never be published. Keep it PG-13 people!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

All fields marked with " * " are required.

Project Management Categories