How MANAGEMENT TEAMS CAN HAVE A GOOD FIGHT
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The absence of conflict is not harmony, it's apathy.
How MANAGEMENT TEAMS
CAN HAVE A GOOD FIGHT
by Kathleen M. Eisenhardt, Jean L, Kahwajy, and LJ. Bourgeois III
Top managers are often stymied by the diffieulties of managing conflict. They
know that conflict over issues is natural and even necessary. Reasonable people,
making decisions under conditions of uncertainty, are likely to have honest
disagreements over the best path for their company's future. Management teams
whose members challenge one another's thinking develop a more complete
understanding of the choices, create a richer range of options, and ultimately make
the kinds of effective decisions necessary in today's competitive environments.
ARTWORK BY ERIC DEVER 77
MANAGING CONFUCT
But, unfortunately, healthy conflict can quickly In 4 of the 12 companies, there was little or no
turn unproductive. A comment meant as a substan- substantive disagreement over major issues and
tive remark can be interpreted as a personal attack. therefore little conflict to observe. But the other
Anxiety and frustration over difficult choices can 8 companies experienced considerable conflict.
evolve into anger directed at colleagues. Personali- In 4 of them, the top-management teams handled
ties frequently become intertwined with issues. Be- conflict in a way that avoided interpersonal hostil-
cause most executives pride themselves on being ity or discord. We've called those companies Bravo
rational decision makers, they find it difficult even Microsystems, Premier Technologies, Star Electron-
to acknowledge-let alone manage-this emotional, ics, and Triumph Computers. Executives in those
irrational dimension of their behavior. companies referred to their colleagues as "smart,"
The challenge - familiar to anyone who has ever "team player," and "best in the business." They de-
been part of a management team - is to keep con- scribed the way they work as a team as "open,"
structive conflict over issues from degenerating "fun," and "productive." The executives vigor-
into dysfunctional interpersonftl conflict, to en- ously debated the issues, but they wasted little
courage managers to argue without destroying their time on politicking and posturing. As one put it,
"ability to work as a team. "I really don't have time." Another said, "We don't
We have been researching the interplay of con- gloss over the issues; we hit them straight on. But
flict, politics, and speed in strategic decision mak- we're not political." Still another observed of her
company's management team, "We
scream a lot, then laugh, and then re-
solve the issue."
The challenge is to encourage The other four companies in
members of management teams which issues were contested were
less successful at avoiding interper-
to argue without destroying their sonal conflict. We've called those
companies Andromeda Processing,
ability to work together. Mega Software, Mercury Micro-
devices, and Solo Systems. Their top
teams were plagued by intense ani-
ing by top-management teams for the past ten mosity. Executives often failed to cooperate, rarely
years. In one study, we had the opportunity to ob- talking with one another, tending to fragment into
serve closely the work of a dozen top-management cliques, and openly displaying their frustration and
teams in technology-based companies. All the com- anger. When executives described their colleagues
panies competed in fast changing, competitive to us, they used words such as "manipulative,"
global markets. Thus all the teams had to make "secretive," "burned out," and "political."
high-stakes decisions in the face of considerable The teams with minimal interpersonal conflict
uncertainty and under pressure to move quickly. were able to separate substantive issues from those
Each team consisted of between five and nine exec- based on personalities. They managed to disagree
utives; we were allowed to question them individu- over questions of strategic significance and still get
ally and also to observe their interactions firsthand along with one another. How did they do that? Af-
as we tracked specific strategic decisions in the ter analyzing our observations of the teams' behav-
making. The study's design gives us a window on ior, we found that their companies used the same
conflict as top-management teams actually experi- six tactics for managing interpersonal conflict.
ence it and highlights the role of emotion in busi- Team members
ness decision making; D worked with more, rather than less, information
and debated on the basis of facts;
Kathleen M. Eisenbardt is professor of strategy and orga- D developed multiple alternatives to enrich the
nization at Stanford University in Stanford, California, level of debate;
where her consulting and research focus on strategy in
fast-paced industries, Jean L Kahwajy is a management
D shared commonly agreed-upon goals;
consultant with Strategic Decision Group in Menlo n injected humor into the decision process;
Park, California, and is pursuing research at Stanford D maintained a balanced power structure;
University on organizational influences on decision D resolved issues without forcing consensus.
making. LJ. Bourgeois III is professor of business ad- Those tactics were usually more implicit than
ministration at the University of Virginia's Darden explicit in the decision-making work of the man-
Graduate School of Business in CharlottesviUe. agement teams, and if the tactics were given names.
78 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW July-August 1997
the names varied from one organization to the next. ing milestones, and about external issues, such as
Nonetheless, the consistency with which all four competing products. They collect data narrowly
companies employed all six tactics is testimony to and infrequently. In these companies, the vice pres-
their effectiveness. Perhaps most surprising was the idents of finance, who oversee internal data collec-
fact that the tactics did not delay-and often accel- tion, are usually weak. They were often described
erated - the pace at which the teams were able to by people in the companies we studied as "inexperi-
make decisions. enced" or "detached." In contrast, the vice presi-
dent of finance at Premier Technologies, a company
with little interpersonal conflict, was described as
Focus on the Facts being central to taking "the constant pulse of how
Some managers believe that working with too the firm is doing."
much data will increase interpersonal conflict by Management teams troubled by interpersonal
expanding the range of issues for debate. We found conflict rely more on hunches and guesses than on
that more information is better-if the data are ob- current data. When they consider facts, they are
jective and up-to-date - because it encourages peo- more likely to examine a past measure, such as
ple to focus on issues, not personalities. At Star profitability, which is both historical and highly re-
Electronics, for example, the members of the top- fined. These teams favor planning based on extrap-
management team typically examined a wide vari- olation and intuitive attempts to predict the future,
ety of operating measures on a monthly, weekly, neither of which yields current or factual results.
and even daily basis. They claimed to "measure Their conversations are more subjective. The CEO
everything." In particular, every week they fixed of one of the four high-conflict teams told us his in-
their attention on indicators such as bookings, terest in operating numbers was "minimal," and he
backlogs, margins, engineering milestones, cash, described his goals as "subjective." At another such
scrap, and work-in-process. Every month, they re- company, senior managers saw the CEO as "vision-
viewed an even more comprehensive set of mea- ary" and "a little detached from the day-to-day op-
sures that gave them extensive knowledge of what erations." Compare those executives with the CEO
was actually happening in the corporation. As one of Bravo Microsystems, who had a reputation for
executive noted, "We have very strong controls." being a "pragmatic numbers guy."
Star's team also relied on facts about the external There is a direct link between reliance on facts
environment. One senior executive was charged and low levels of interpersonal conflict. Facts let
with tracking such moves by competitors as prod- people move quickly to the central issues surround-
uct introductions, price changes, and ad campaigns. ing a strategic choice. Decision makers don't be-
A second followed the latest technical develop- come bogged down in arguments over what the
ments through his network of contacts in universi- facts might be. More important, reliance on current
ties and other companies. "We over-M.B.A. it," said data grounds strategic discussions in reality. Facts
the CEO, characterizing Star's zealous pursuit of (such as current sales, market share, R&D expenses,
data. Armed with the facts. Star's executives had an competitors' behavior, and manufacturing yields)
extraordinary grasp of the details of their business, depersonalize the discussion because they are not
allowing them to focus debate on critical issues and someone's fantasies, guesses, or self-serving de-
avoid useless arguments rooted in ignorance. sires. In the absence of facts, individuals' motives
At Triumph Computer, we found a similar dedi- are likely to become suspect. Building decisions on
cation to current facts. The first person the new facts creates a culture that emphasizes issues in-
CEO hired was an individual to track the progress stead of personalities.
of engineering-development projects, the new-
product lifeblood of the company. Such knowledge
allowed the top-management team to work from a Multiply the Alternatives
common base of facts. Some managers believe that they can reduce con-
In the absence of good data, executives waste flict by focusing on only one or two alternatives,
time in pointless debate over opinions. Some resort thus minimizing the dimensions over which people
to self-aggrandizement and ill-formed guesses can disagree. But, in fact, teams with low inci-
about how the world might be. People-and not dences of interpersonal conflict do just the oppo-
issues-become the focus of disagreement. The re- site. They deliberately develop multiple alterna-
sult is interpersonal conflict. In such companies, tives, often considering four or five options at once.
top managers are often poorly informed both about To promote debate, managers will even introduce
internal operations, such as bookings and engineer- options they do not support.
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW July-August 1997 79
MANAGING CONTLICT
For example. Triumph's new CEO was deter- By contrast, in teams that vigorously debate just
mined to improve the company's lackluster perfor- one or two options, conflict often does turn personal.
mance. When he arrived, new products were stuck At Solo Systems, for instance, the top-management
in development, and investors were getting anx- team considered entering a new business area as a
ious. He launched a fact-gathering exercise and way to boost the company's performance. They de-
asked senior executives to develop alternatives. In bated this alternative versus the status quo but
less than two months, they developed four. The failed to consider other options. Individual execu-
first was to sell some of the company's technology. tives became increasingly entrenched on one side
The second was to undertake a major strategic re- of the debate or the other. As positions hardened,
direction, using the base technology to enter a new the conflict became more pointed and personal.
market. The third was to redeploy engineering re- The animosity grew so great that a major proponent
sources and adjust the marketing approach. The of change quit the company in disgust while the
final option was to sell the company. rest of the team either disengaged or slipped into
Working together to shape those options en- intense and dysfunctional politicking.
banced the group's sense of teamwork while pro-
moting a more creative view of Triumph's competi- Create Common Goals
tive situation and its technical competencies. As a
result, the team ended up combining elements of A third tactic for minimizing destructive conflict
several options in a way that was more robust than involves framing strategic choices as collaborative,
any of the options were individually. rather than competitive, exercises. Elements of col-
The other teams we observed with low levels of laboration and competition coexist within any
interpersonal conflict also tended to develop multi- management team: executives share a stake in the
ple options to make major decisions. Star, for exam- company's performance, yet their personal ambi-
ple, faced a cash flow crisis caused by explosive tions may make them rivals for power. The suc-
growth. Its executives considered, among other cessful groups we studied consistently framed their
choices, arranging for lines of credit from banks, decisions as collaborations in which it was in
selling additional stock, and forming strategic al- everyone's interest to achieve the best possible so-
liances with several partners. At Bravo, managers lution for the collective.
explicitly relied on three kinds of alternatives: sin- They did so by creating a common goal around
cere proposals that the proponent actually backed; which the team could rally. Such goals do not imply
support for someone else's proposal, even if only for homogeneous thinking, but they do require every-
the sake of argument; and insincere alternatives one to share a vision. As Steve Jobs, who is associ-
proposed just to expand the number of options. ated with three high-profile Silicon Valley com-
There are several reasons why considering multi- panies-Apple, NeXT, and Pixar - has advised,
ple alternatives may lower interpersonal conflict. "It's okay to spend a lot of time arguing about
For one, it diffuses conflict: choices become less which route to take to San Francisco when every-
black and white, and individuals
gain more room to vary the degree of
their support over a range of choices.
Managers can more easily shift posi-
More information is better.
tions without losing face.
Generating options is also a way
There is a direct link between
to bring managers together in a
common and inherently stimulating
reliance on facts and low
task. It concentrates their energy on
solving problems, and it increases
levels of interpersonal conflict.
the likelihood of obtaining integra-
tive solutions - alternatives that incorporate the one wants to end up there, but a lot of time gets
views of a greater number of the decision makers. wasted in such arguments if one person wants to go
In generating multiple alternatives, managers do to San Francisco and another secretly wants to go to
not stop at obvious solutions; rather, they continue San Diego."
generating further-usually more original-options. Teams hobbled by conflict lack common goals.
The process in itself is creative and fun, setting Team members perceive themselves to be in com-
a positive tone for substantive, instead of inter- petition with one another and, surprisingly, tend to
personal, conflict. frame decisions negatively, as reactions to threats.
80 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW iuly-August 1997
At Andromeda Processing, for instance, the team All the teams with low interpersonal conflict de-
focused on responding to a particular instance of scribed ways in which they used humor on the job.
poor performance, and team members tried to pin Executives at Bravo Microsystems enjoyed playing
the blame on one another. That negative framing gags around the office. For example, pink plastic
contrasts with the positive approach taken by Star flamingos - souvenirs from a customer - graced
Electronics executives, who, sharing a common Bravo's otherwise impeccably decorated headquar-
goal, viewed a cash crisis not as a threat but as an ters. Similarly, Triumph Computers' top managers
opportunity to "build the biggest war chest" for held a monthly "dessert pig-out," followed by
group weight watching. Those seem-
ingly trivial activities were part of
In teams that vigorously debate the CEO's deliberate plan to make
work more fun, despite the pressures
just one or two options, of the industry. At Star Electronics,
making the company "a fun place"
conflict often turns personal, was an explicit goal for the top-
management team. Laughter was
as positions harden. common during management meet-
ings. Practical jokes were popular at
Star, where executives - along with
an impending competitive battle. At a broad level. other employees-always celebrated Halloween and
Star's executives shared the goal of creating "the April Fools'Day.
computer firm of the decade." As one Star execu- At each of these companies, executives acknowl-
tive told us, "We take a corporate^ not a functional, edged that at least some of the attempts at humor
viewpoint most of the time." were contrived - even forced. Even so, they helped
Likewise, all the management team members we to release tension and promote collaboration.
interviewed at Premier Technologies agreed that Humor was strikingly absent in the teams
their common goal-their rallying cry-was to build marked by high interpersonal conflict. Although
"the best damn machine on the market." Thus in pairs of individuals were sometimes friends, team
their debates they could disagree about critical members shared no group social activities beyond a
technical alternatives - in-house versus offshore standard holiday party or two, and there were no
manufacturing options, for example, or alternative conscious attempts to create humor. Indeed, the
distribution channels-without letting the conflict climate in which decisions were made was often
turn personal. just the opposite-hostile and stressful.
Many studies of group decision making and inter- Humor works as a defense mechanism to protect
group conflict demonstrate that common goals people from the stressful and threatening situations
build team cohesion by stressing the shared inter- that commonly arise in the course of making strate-
est of all team members in the outcome of the de- gic decisions. It helps people distance themselves
bate. When team members are working toward a psychologically by putting those situations into a
common goal, they are less likely to see themselves broader life context, often through the use of irony.
as individual winners and losers and are far more H u m o r - w i t h its ambiguity - can also blunt the
likely to perceive the opinions of others correctly threatening edge of negative information. Speakers
and to learn from them. We observed that when ex- can say in jest things that might otherwise give
ecutives lacked common goals, they tended to be offense because the message is simultaneously seri-
closed-minded and more likely to misinterpret and ous and not serious. The recipient is allowed to
blame one another. save face by receiving the serious message while
appearing not to do so. The result is communica-
tion of difficult information in a more tactful and
Use Humor less personally threatening way.
Teams that handle conflict well make explicit - Humor can also move decision making into a col-
and often even contrived-attempts to relieve ten- laborative rather than competitive frame through
sion and at the same time promote a collaborative its powerful effect on mood. According to a large
esprit by making their business fun. They empha- body of research, people in a positive mood tend to
size the excitement of fast-paced competition, not be not only more optimistic but also more forgiving
the stress of competing in brutally tough and uncer- of others and creative in seeking solutions. A posi-
tain markets. tive mood triggers a more accurate perception of
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW July-August 1997
hjow Teams Argue but Still Get Along
Tactic •>- Strategy
Base discussion on current, factual information.
Focus on issues, not personalities.
Develop multiple alternatives to enrich the debate.
Rally around goals.
Frame decisions as collaborations aimed at
achieving the best possible solution for the company.
Inject humor into the decision-making process.
Maintain a balanced power structure.
Establish a sense of fairness and equity in
the process.
Resolve issues without forcing consensus.
others' arguments because people in a good mood members do wield substantial power, especially
tend to relax their defensive barriers and so can lis- in their own well-defined areas of responsibility. In
ten more effectively. balanced power structures, all executives partici-
pate in strategic decisions.
Balance the Power Structure At Premier Technologies, for example, the CEO-
descrihed by others as a "team player" - was defi-
We found that managers who believe that their nitely the most powerful figure. But each executive
team's decision-making process is fair are more was the most powerful decision maker in some
likely to accept decisions without resentment, clearly defined area. In addition, the entire team
even when they do not agree with them. But when participated in all significant decisions. The CEO,
they believe the process is unfair, ill will easily one executive observed, "depends on picking good
grows into interpersonal conflict. A fifth tactic for people and letting them operate."
taming interpersonal conflict, then, is to create a The CEO of Bravo Microsystems, another com-
sense of fairness by balancing power within the pany with a balanced power structure, summarized
management team. his philosophy as "making quick decisions involv-
Our research suggests that autocratic leaders ing as many people as possible." We watched the
who manage through highly centralized power Bravo team over several months as it grappled with
a major strategic redirection. After
many group discussions, the final
Autocratic leaders often tend decision was made at a multiday re-
treat involving the whole team.
to generate high levels of In contrast, the leaders of the
teams marked by extensive interper-
interpersonal friction. sonal conflict were either highly au-
tocratic or weak. The CEO at Mer-
cury Microdevices, for example, was
structures often generate high levels of interper- the principal decision maker. There was a substan-
sonal friction. At the other extreme, weak leaders tial gap in power between him and the rest of the
also engender interpersonal conflict because the team. In the decision we tracked, the CEO domi-
power vacuum at the top encourages managers to nated the process from start to finish, identifying
jockey for position. Interpersonal conflict is lowest the problem, defining the analysis, and making the
in what we call balanced power structures, those in choice. Team members described the CEO as
which the CEO is more powerful than the other "strong" and "dogmatic." As one of them put it,
members of the top-management team, but the "When Bruce makes a decision, it's like God!"
82 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW July August 1997
MANAGING CONFLICT
At Andromeda, the CEO exercised only modest When a competitor launched a new product at-
power, and areas of responsibility were blurred tacking Premier Technologies in its higgcst market,
within the top-management team, where power for example, there was sharp disagreement about
was diffuse and ambiguous. Senior executives had how to respond. Some executives wanted to shift
to politick amongst themselves to get anything ac- R&D resources to counter this competitive move,
complished, and they reported intense frustration even at the risk of diverting engineering talent from
with the confusion that existed at the top. a more innovative product then in design. Others
Most executives expected to control some signif- argued that Premier should simply repackage an ex-
icant aspect of their business but not the entirety. isting product, adding a few novel features. A third
When they lacked power - because
of either an autocrat or a power
vacuum - they became frustrated hy
their inability to make significant
Executives may believe that
decisions. Instead of team members,
they became politicians. As one ex-
consensus is always possible,
ecutive explained, "We're all jockey-
ing for our spot in the pecking
but insisting on agreement can
order." Another described "maneu-
vering for the CEO's ear." lead to endless haggling.
The situations we observed are
consistent with classic social-psychology studies of group felt that the threat was not serious enough to
leadership. For example, in a study from the 1960s, warrant a major response.
Ralph White and Ronald Lippitt examined the effects After a series of meetings over several weeks, the
of different leadership styles on boys in social clubs. group failed to reach consensus. So the CEO and his
They found that boys with democratic leaders-the marketing vice president made the decision. As the
situation closest to our balanced power structure - CEO explained, "The functional heads do the talk-
showed spontaneous interest in tbeir activities. The ing. I pull the trigger." Premier's executives were
boys were highly satisfied, and within their groups comfortahle with this arrangement - even those
there were many friendly remarks, much praise, and who did not agree with the outcome - because
significant collaboration. Under weak leaders, the everyone had had a voice in the process.
boys were disorganized, inefficient, and dissatisfied. People usually associate consensus with harmo-
But the worst case was autocratic rule, under which ny, but we found the opposite: teams that insisted
the boys were hostile and aggressive, occasionally di- on resolving substantive conflict by forcing consen-
recting physical violence against innocent scape- sus tended to display the most interpersonal con-
goats. In imhalanced power situations, we observed flict. Executives sometimes have the unrealistic
adult displays of verbal aggression that colleagues view that consensus is always possible, but such a
described as violent. One executive talked about be- naive insistence on consensus can lead to endless
ing "caught in the cross fire." Another described a haggling. As the vice president of engineering at
colleague as "a gun about to go off." A third spoke Mega Software put it, "Consensus means that
about "being beat up" by the CEO. everyone has veto power. Our products were too
late, and they were too expensive." At Andromeda,
the CEO wanted his executives to reach consensus,
Seek Consensus with Qualification but persistent differences of opinion remained. The
Balancing power is one tactic for building a sense debate dragged on for months, and the frustration
of fairness. Finding an appropriate way to resolve mounted until some top managers simply gave up.
conflict over issues is another - and, perhaps, the They just wanted a decision, any decision. One was
more crucial. In our research, the teams that man- finally made when several executives who favored
aged conflict effectively all used the same approach one point of view left the company. The price of
to resolving substantive conflict. It is a two-step consensus was a decimated team.
process that some executives call consensus with In a team that insists on consensus, deadlines can
qualification. It works like this: executives talk cause executives to sacrifice fairness and thus
over an issue and try to reach consensus. If they weaken the team's support for the final decision. At
can, the decision is made. If they can't, the most rel- Andromeda, executives spent months analyzing
evant senior manager makes the decision, guided their industry and developing a shared perspective
by input from the rest of the group. on important trends for the future, but they could
HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW July-August 1997 83
never focus on making the decision. The decision-
making process dragged on. Finally, as the deadline
Building a Fighting Team of a hoard meeting drew imminent, the CEO for-
mulated and announced a choice - one that had
never even heen mentioned in the earlier discus-
sions. Not surprisingly, his team was angry and up-
set. Had he heen less insistent on reaching a con-
sensus, the CEO would not have felt forced by the
deadline to act so arhitrarily.
How does consensus with qualification create a
sense of fairness? A body of research on procedural
justice shows that process fairness, which involves
significant participation and influence by all con-
cerned, is enormously important to most people.
Individuals are willing to accept outcomes they dis-
like if they helieve that the process by which those
results came about was fair. Most people want their
opinions to he considered seriously but are willing
to accept that those opinions cannot always pre-
vail. That is precisely what occurs in consensus
with qualification. As one executive at Star said,
"I'm happy just to bring up my opinions."
Apart from fairness, there are several other rea-
sons why consensus with qualification is an impor-
tant deterrent to interpersonal conflict. It assumes
How can managers encourage the kind of substan- that conflict is natural and not a sign of interper-
tive debate over issues that leads to better decision sonal dysfunction. It gives managers added influ-
making? We found five approaches that help generate ence when the decision affects their part of the or-
constructive disagreement within a team: ganization in particular, thus balancing managers'
1. Assemble a heterogeneous team, including di- desires to be heard with the need to make a choice.
verse ages, genders, functional backgiounds, and in- It is an equitable and egalitarian process of decision
dustry experience. If everyone in the executive meet- making that encourages everyone to bring ideas to
ings looks alike and sounds alike, then the chances are the tahlc hut clearly delineates how the decision
excellent that they probably think ahke, too. will be made.
2. Meet together as a team regularly and often. Team
members that don't know one another well don't Finally, consensus with qualification is fast.
know one another's positions on issues, impairing Processes that require consensus tend to drag on
their ability to argue effectively. Frequent interaction endlessly, frustrating managers with what they see
builds tbe mutual confidence and familiarity team as time-consuming and useless dehate. It's not sur-
members require to express dissent. prising tbat the managers end up hlaming their
3. Encourage team members to assume roles beyond frustration on the shortcomings of their colleagues
their obvious product, geographic, or functional re- and not on the poor conflict-resolution process.
sponsibilities. Devil's advocates, sky-gazing visionar-
ies, and action-oriented executives can work together
to ensure that all sides of an issue are considered. Linking Conflict, Speed,
4. Apply multiple mind-sets to any issue. Try role- and Performance
playing, putting yourself in your competitors' shoes,
or conducting war games. Such techniques create A considerahle hody of academic research has
fresh perspectives and engage team members, spurring demonstrated that conflict over issues is not only
interest in problem solving. likely within top-management teams but also valu-
5. Actively manage conflict., Don't let the team ac- ahle. Such conflict provides executives with a more
quiesce too soon or too easily. Identify and treat ap- inclusive range of information, a deeper under-
athy early, and don't confuse a lack of conflict with standing of the issues, and a richer set of possihle
agreement. Often, what passes for consensus is really solutions. That was certainly tbe case in tbe com-
disengagement. panies we studied. The evidence also overwhelm-
ingly indicates that where there is little conflict
over issues, there is also likely to be poor decision
84 HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW |uly-August 1997
MANAGING CONFLICT
making. "Groupthink" has been a primary cause of portant aspects of their strategic situation. They
major corporate- and public-policy debacles. And missed opportunities to question falsely limiting
although it may seem counterintuitive, we found assumptions or to generate significantly different
that the teams that engaged in healthy conflict over alternatives. Not surprisingly, their actions were
issues not only made better decisions but moved often easy for competitors to anticipate.
more quickly as well. In fast-paced markets, successful strategic deci-
Without conflict, groups lose their effectiveness. sions are most likely to be made by teams that pro-
Managers often become withdrawn and only super- mote active and broad conflict over issues without
ficially harmonious. Indeed, we found that the al- sacrificing speed. The key to doing so is to mitigate
ternative to conflict is usually not agreement but interpersonal conflict.
apathy and disengagement. Teams unable to foster
If you are interested in reading fuTthei ahout managing conflict
suhstantive conflict ultimately achieve, on aver- in the workplace, see "Fair Piocess: Managing in the Knowledge
age, lower performance. Among the companies that Economy" and "Putting Youi Company's Whole Biain to
we ohserved, low-conflict teams tended to forget to Work." also in this issue.
consider key issues or were simply unaware of im- Reprint 97402 To order reprints, see the last page of this issue.
CARTOON BY S. GROSS 85You can also read
