CHAPTER 5
Managing Project Conflict

Conflict is inevitable in the project management world because projects involve a myriad of different stakeholders, including the team members, the client, the sponsoring organization, suppliers, and the interested public (Meredith and Mantel 2003). Conflict must be addressed if a project team is to operate effectively, and it can often have benefits for a project.

It is essential for project managers to understand the reasons underlying conflict on teams, the process by which an individual experiences conflict, what happens when conflict is not addressed, and the specific conflicts inherent in different project stages. A conflict resolution model developed by Thomas and Kilmann (1974) offers a useful approach that project managers can follow to resolve many conflict situations.

CONFLICT IS PERVASIVE

The reasons for conflicts on project teams are varied, relating to the intricacies of personalities and the systemic challenges of completing tasks within complex and challenging environments. Every organization and industry has conflicts. They are simply part of the price of doing business, and the project manager should consider both their positive and negative aspects (see Table 5-1).

There are many sources of conflict within a project team or organization. Systemic sources of conflict include conflicting loyalties and alliances, such as when a project team member works for both the project manager and a functional manager.

Conflicts also arise following reductions in force, when the surviving employees struggle to obtain resources and personnel. Conflicts can also arise at the end of a project, especially when a “projectized” organization (in which project team members report directly to the project manager as they work full-time on the project) has been formed, and team members do not have a functional “home” as they await a new assignment.

Table 5-1. Positive and Negative Aspects of Conflict

Positive Aspects of Conflict • Productively challenges existing beliefs or paradigms • Reduces the risk of intellectual compliance within the team (“group think”) • May create an opportunity to forge more effective team relationships and revitalize team energy and bondedness

Negative Aspects of Conflict • When not addressed in a productive manner, can de-motivate team members and increase interpersonal withdrawal • Decreases interpersonal communication, increases cynicism • Adversely affects initiative and the willingness to take risks

---

Individual sources of conflict at work are also varied. These can include:

• Two team members may constantly irritate each other for no reason other than that their personalities are so different.

• Poor communication abilities can create chronic sources of worker conflict.

• Other conflicts emanate from the employee who brings acute personal problems (e.g., family problems, substance abuse) into the workplace.

• Conflicts can relate to the natural, different perspectives held by team members who were originally trained in different disciplines.

Conflict is not always a bad thing for a project, however. In actuality, conflict can serve a positive function on the team, becoming the energy that loosens the adhesive of old ideas.

THE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF CONFLICT: BODY AND MIND

The experience of conflict involves three distinct and often sequentially encountered levels of experience: cognitive, physiological, and affective (see Table 5-2).

The Cognitive Level

The cognitive level of conflict comes into play when a person notices that his or her “self-talk” contains themes of possible upcoming or current disagreement or conflict. For example, a project manager meets with a functional manager to discuss the resource assignments for an upcoming project. The project manager takes his seat in the functional manager’s office and quickly realizes that the conversation is not going very well. Soon the project manager notices that he is having apprehensive thoughts such as:

“I hope she is more flexible than last time. I had to fight for every person I got from her staff for my last project. I’m going to blow my top if she gives me one of those excuses about how busy her department is. This meeting is going to go nowhere, just like last time.”

Table 5-2. The Experience of Conflict
Type of Conflict Experience	Signs and Symptoms
Cognitive level	Internal self-talk with themes suggestive of impending or current conflict states
Physiological level	Awareness of body cues such as increased heart rate, decreased respiration, tightening of muscles, desire to “fight” or “flee”
Affective level	Cognitive and affective cues being interpreted as indicating emotions such as fear, anger, and anxiety

---

These self-statements need to be closely monitored; if they are grounded in faulty assumptions, they must be internally challenged. Challenging a self-statement can take the form of creating another statement that is more neutral or positive, such as:

“Well, maybe this time we will find a way to talk about the subject in a more positive and professional manner. I’ll do what I can to achieve that result.”

In essence, the project manager needs to remember that neutral or positive self-talk helps reduce the length and intensity of the conflict and creates opportunities for improving relationships.

The Physiological Level

If negative self-talk themes continue during a discussion, then the experience of the conflict can move to the physiological level. An individual will notice bodily experiences such as a racing heart, sweaty palms, and problems with concentration.

As these physical conflict cues surface, the body begins to activate the autonomic nervous system (ANS), the subsystem of the central nervous system that is responsible for regulating and monitoring many involuntary bodily functions. Operating within the ANS is the sympathetic nervous system, which prepares the body for emergency physical and survival action, such as personal defense and protective aggression (e.g., fleeing from a perceived threat).

Once the conflict reaches this level of physiological activation, it is difficult for the individual involved to calm down and return to a less agitated level of functioning. To address conflict when it has reached the physiological level, the project manager needs to identify some form of active, internal self-monitoring that is focused on quieting the activated autonomic system (such as a calming self-talk statement or deep breathing).

The Affective Level

The affective level of the conflict experience involves the conscious experiencing of all the emotions associated with conflict: fear, anxiety, vulnerability, and anger. As these emotions become more acute, discomfort rises, usually within both individuals. The volume of the conversation increases, rhetoric becomes more ragged and less focused, and emotions play a greater role in individual decision making. When the experience reaches this level, the best thing the project manager can do is to create some form of time-out (e.g., reschedule the meeting, talk about less intense issues) and let emotions cool down.

WHEN CONFLICT IS NOT ADDRESSED

The natural tendency of most people, whether in work or personal situations, is to avoid conflict. After all, who wants to be involved in unpleasant interactions? If conflict in the project environment is not addressed, however, unfavorable outcomes will likely develop:

• People will withdraw from each other and retreat into individual spheres of influence, allowing issues to fester.

• Team member motivation and initiative will decrease, while cynicism will increase.

• Role rigidity will be fostered, with team members becoming inappropriately territorial about their functions and not exchanging information or assistance.

CONFLICT IN PROJECT PHASES

While many variables contribute to project conflict, prime contributors are the people, tasks, and sequential challenges inherent in the various stages of the project life cycle. The project manager should be aware of the potential sources of conflict found in each project stage.

Project Initiation Phase

In the initial phase of the project, the project manager attends to all aspects required to begin a major piece of work. Tasks include identifying key resources or required personnel, determining project success criteria, specifying required technology, and clarifying roles and responsibilities as well as policies and procedures.

As Meredith and Mantel (2003) state, it is crucial for the project manager, during the initial phase of the project, to encourage everyone to address conflict openly. Team members take their cues from the project leader at this formative stage. If the project manager is sending the message that conflict should be avoided, then team members will respond accordingly. This is particularly true when the team members are more junior or when they have a diminished sense of their own self-concept or competencies.

Project Planning Phase

One of the main challenges for the project leader during the project planning phase is developing relationships with key stakeholders such as the supporting functional managers. As all project managers can attest, the relationship with the functional manager can be fraught with complexities as the project manager attempts to gain the needed support of funds and personnel.

During these times of relationship building, the functional manager may attempt to resolve a conflict by claiming to be the “technical” expert while indirectly casting the project manager in the less technically sophisticated role of a “generalist.” For the project manager, it is best not to confront such an approach directly, since the functional manager will likely react defensively. The best approach is for the project manager to let those comments pass and to stay persistently focused on project needs. The project manager would be well advised simply to acknowledge the functional manager’s competency in the technical area and keep the discussion moving forward.

In summary, the project manager needs to remember that the functional manager may have different needs and a different agenda. The best approach is to try to understand those needs and address them as directly as possible.

Project Execution Phase

During the project execution phase, the main activities of the project are underway and the bulk of the work is taking place. In terms of project content, key issues during this stage include unexpected problems, delays, technical problems, risks, or other unforeseen complexities possibly related to stakeholder expectations.

On the personal level, many of the situations involving conflict during this phase relate to issues of performance stress and perhaps even the unrealized personal “dreams” of individual team members.

Project Closeout Phase

The closeout phase of the project presents special challenges for the project manager. Team members are often emotionally and intellectually fatigued. The pressure to complete tasks against time and resource limits has diminished personal resiliency. Team members may be experiencing uncertainty about their next assignments, which can create distraction. Additionally, the emotional disengagement from the team and the project can bring up issues of loss for certain team members, hampering productivity.

The project manager should be sensitive to these potential sources of conflict when driving the group toward project completion and closure.

THOMAS-KILMANN MODEL OF CONFLICT RESOLUTION

The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument (TKI) is a self-assessment tool based on work in conflict resolution by Thomas and Kilmann (1974). This instrument helps the user define his or her primary and secondary conflict resolution styles as a competitor, an accommodator, an avoider, a compromiser, or a collaborator. Many team members have found this instrument helpful in obtaining quick and easy feedback regarding their preferred conflict resolution approach.

Each of the five TKI approaches to resolving conflict is valid under certain circumstances. The challenge for the project manager is to know when to use each approach.

Competing

The “competing” approach to resolving conflict is grounded in a combination of being both assertive and uncooperative. This approach is often driven by a need for power, with individual concerns and goals pursued at the expense of others. It can be useful in specific situations in which unpopular actions must be taken, in a fast-paced environment, and on tasks when an individual is certain that his or her position is correct.

While competing may be effective in certain situations, it must be used judiciously and not as a primary tool. When competing is applied in the wrong setting, it can stalemate the conflict, alienate the other stakeholders, prevent the views of the other individual from being heard, and cause team members to lose sight of the overall goals and objectives of the project.

Here is an example of a competing statement that a project manager can use when the situation warrants:

“Bill, I understand that you want to do it your way, but I can’t OK that change. We’ll have to follow the existing document.”

Avoiding

Avoiding works well in situations where the issue at hand is trivial, where there is little chance of winning, where more information or data are needed, or when interactions are emotionally heated and some form of cooling off period is warranted.

Avoiding can be harmful, however, when it results in unnecessary delays for the project or when it hinders communication. Moreover, the “avoiding” person runs the risk of being perceived by others as too passive.

An example of an avoiding statement is:

“I realize that’s an issue… let’s leave it for now and get back to it next week.”

Accommodating

The accommodating individual displays a high degree of cooperation but is low on assertiveness. Often, the focus for the accommodating person is on meeting the needs of the other person, occasionally at the expense of his or her own appropriate agenda.

The accommodating approach to conflict management can be helpful in demonstrating the quality of open-mindedness, particularly during the early, formative stages of the project team. Preserving harmony is another reason for using accommodation, as well as the need to avoid pointless competition over insignificant points.

When used to an extreme, however, accommodation can severely undercut a project manager’s standing in the eyes of team members and other important stakeholders. The project manager who overuses accommodation may be viewed as weak and ineffectual, and may risk anger from team members who believe that their positions and needs are not being pursued forcefully.

An example of an accommodating statement is:

“That’s fine… we can do it whatever way you want.”

Collaborating

The collaborator is the team member who emphasizes both assertiveness and cooperation and is willing to consider the merits of the other person’s position. This approach is based on an attempt to combine the best of both individuals’ positions into an integrated solution. Positive applications of collaboration include situations in which both positions are, to some degree, important and viable. Collaboration works particularly well in those instances where insights from both perspectives are valid, such as on projects that are culturally diverse.

The negative aspect of collaboration involves those circumstances where the integrated solution (i.e., the collaboration) results in a work product that is faulty because some of the integrated points were incorrect. Other pitfalls of collaboration involve situations where the desire to collaborate hinders the need to act quickly, such as during a project crisis.

An example of a collaborating statement is:

“That’s a good idea… I hadn’t thought of that. Let me tell you about my idea, and let’s see if we can somehow combine them.”

Compromising

In the compromise approach to conflict resolution, both individuals give a little and try to find middle ground. Compromise sounds similar to collaboration but differs in that it is more short-term oriented and is used productively in situations when temporary agreements need to be reached quickly. As with collaboration and accommodation, the project manager who uses compromise runs the risk of being perceived as too willing to give in to the other side or too willing to give up on his or her original position.

An example of a compromising statement is:

“OK, I can change the completion date… but I’ll need you to alter the amount of funding I’m getting.”

CONFLICT RESOLUTION CHECKLIST

The following checklist for addressing a conflict covers four main areas:

1. Determining the project phase

2. Considering a possible lack of information

3. Assessing whether functional issues are present

4. Determining whether personality issues are present.

Consider the following points and questions to resolve a conflict in the most productive way.

1. What is the current phase of the project?

Each project phase has unique sources of conflict (Thamhain and Wilemon 1975):

• Project initiation. Conflicts are possible because of issues of project priorities, administrative procedures, and schedules.

• Project planning. Conflicts are possible because of priorities, schedules, and procedures, in addition to issues with functional managers and general personality disputes.

• Project execution. Schedules, technical challenges, and staffing issues are often sources of conflict.

• Project closeout. In addition to schedules, a primary source of conflict can be a clash of personality styles (that may be due to job stress and fatigue) and staffing (uncertainties regarding the next assignment).

With an awareness of the phase of the project and the type of possibly inherent conflict, the project manager can maintain the perspective needed to respond with the proper intervention.

2. Is the conflict the result of a lack of information or knowledge?

Many times, project conflict is due to a lack of information resulting from inadequate communication among stakeholders. Make sure all important information (both factual and “personal”) is communicated to stakeholders. Such efforts at keeping the communication flowing are especially crucial when working with virtual teams.

3. Is the source of the conflict functionally based?

Functionally based conflicts arise between project managers and functional managers and between the project team (or the organization) and an outside party-at-interest (such as the customer, a subcontractor, or the public).

The project manager can minimize the risk of conflict with functional managers by understanding their needs and concerns. For example, if the organization is undergoing downsizing and if managers are rewarded when staff are fully used, the project manager can point out to the functional manager that the upcoming project will ensure that certain people on the functional manager’s staff will be fully employed. Collaborative approaches should be considered in resolving conflict with functional managers.

4. Is the conflict personality-based?

Personality-based conflicts include clashes of personal styles, such as two people with “competitive” styles dealing with each other.

Conflicts caused by personal style can be understood through the MBTI system of viewing individual differences (presented in Chapter 3). Kirby, Barger, and Pearman (1998) present an excellent description of the frequent sources of conflict among the different MBTI preferences.

They suggest that, to resolve conflicts between an extravert and an introvert, remember that:

• Extraverts often approach situations at a brisk pace, frequently challenging subjects as they “think out loud.”

• Introverts prefer a “measured pacing” of the discussion, preferring to maintain a more narrow focus.

Resolve conflicts between the sensing-oriented person and the intuitive-oriented person by remembering that:

• The person with the sensing style seeks to define the problem, or conflict, in the present tense, using concrete and measurable examples.

• The intuitive-oriented person will gravitate toward defining the conflict in broader terms, along the lines of concepts and trends rather than events and details.

Resolve conflicts between the thinking person and the feeling person by remembering that:

• The thinking person needs facts and analysis to come to resolution and is looking for the “correct” solution.

• The feeling person prefers to examine the underlying emotions held by the key participants in the conflict. Until these issues are explored to some degree, the feeling person has little interest in moving forward to a resolution.

To resolve conflicts between the judging person and the perceiving person, keep in mind that:

• The judging person prefers to move in a structured and deliberate manner toward resolution and closure of the conflict.

• The perceiving person may hesitate to agree on a resolution to the conflict based on the belief that there may be some better solution that has not yet been considered.

By developing a working understanding of the MBTI styles of the individuals involved in conflict, the project manager can develop a strategy that addresses the conflict resolution needs of the different styles and preferences.

MANAGING AGREEMENT: AS IMPORTANT AS MANAGING CONFLICT

As discussed in terms of the Thomas-Kilmann model, conflict can be resolved through various forms of “agreement,” such as accommodation, collaboration, and compromise. One potentially negative aspect of these agreement-based strategies, however, is the risk that necessary team conflict may be overlooked, resulting in less optimal solutions coming to the forefront. The project manager may be viewed as performing an inadequate job of “managing agreement” on the project team when appropriate conflict is not brought to the surface by the team members.

Excessive agreement, accomplished in an effort to avoid conflict and not to offend, has been described by Harvey (1988) as a phenomenon labeled the Abilene Paradox. In this paradox, people within groups often do things that they really do not want to do just to avoid a conflict.

Team members and project managers can easily fall into the trap of excessive agreement. People within groups can assume a mentality of group think, in which unwritten group norms are created regarding how tasks should be accomplished. These unwritten rules of behavior (in this case, the need to agree with the project manager or with other team members as a means of demonstrating support) become established and codified as a result of team members taking performance cues from the behavior of the team leader.

Under circumstances of group think, team members may withhold disparate points of view because they are concerned about being viewed as “not a team player.” When this withholding of contrary views reaches a certain level, members become disengaged, motivation wanes, and innovation suffers. The need to “agree” keeps the project moving forward, but often at the expense of the quality and sophistication of the project work.

How can the project manager manage the risk of having too much agreement on the team? The following are some ideas to consider:

• Observe and understand closely your own approach to conflict resolution. Are you an accommodator? A compromiser?

• Consider whether you reward or show some type of favoritism toward team members who follow your unspoken requests for “agreement.”

• Sensitize the project team during its kickoff meeting to the dynamics of the Abilene Paradox and encourage team members to guard against it. Create an environment for the team in which “forewarned is forearmed.” This process should be combined with development of a team charter laying out ground rules for the team that include guidelines for open and honest communication on matters of conflict.

Discussion Questions

1. Consider the following situation:

A project manager in an aerospace company was placed in charge of a multidepartmental team directed to work with another company to develop a product targeted for the growing recreational market. Each company had recently undergone significant layoffs, and the mutual goal was to use this new joint project as a means of developing greater viability for both organizations.

The project manager, aware that team members from both companies were still stunned from the recent layoffs, tried to adopt a posture that would address these sensitivities. Mistakenly, the project manager decided to try to act toward the team members in a way that they “would remain positive and not lose their motivation.”

During the first several project team meetings, the project manager minimized conflicts between the team members from the two companies. Disagreements over the technological requirements were never clarified, nor were the disputes among team members regarding roles, responsibilities, and reporting relationships. The project manager believed that these issues “would clear themselves up over time.”

During the project planning phase, both the team participants and the sponsors noticed that core priorities had not been established and that key commitments had not been obtained from senior managers. Additionally, the extent of teamwork was minimal because the early personal clashes over roles, style, and status had not been addressed.

What should the project manager have done in this situation? What would constitute a more appropriate approach?

2. What type of project manager is likely to avoid active conflict resolution? Describe some general types of possible conflict “avoiders” that may first be observed during the project initiation phase but will also surface during the remaining project phases.