>> Whenever people come together
in small groups, conflict is inevitable.
Many people shy away from conflict,
but conflict can actually help a group,
depending on how it is expressed
and how it is managed.
In the following meeting
of a group of students
who are trying to decide how to allocate money
for their school's speaker series,
you will observe
a number of conflicts.
See which conflicts are helpful,
and which styles of managing conflict
are most beneficial to the group.
>> Many, what time is it already?
>> It's 8:00.
>> He is 10 minutes late.
If he would have gotten here on time,
we would have been done by now.
I'm tired of this.
>> I'm tired of waiting on the jerk, okay?
>> I don't have time for this.
>> I'm kind of tired of it, too.
>> I know, man.
>> Look, let's just go ahead and get started,
try to get the ball rolling.
>> We have to.
>> Okay.
Fine.
>> Absolutely.
>> Tony, did you find out
how much money we've got?
>> Yeah, we got about $15,000,
but that has to cover everything.
You know, that's really not that bad since
most speakers charge that for one speech.
>> I know it.
>> Yeah, they do.
>> You know, we can save ourselves
a lot of time by just dividing up the money.
You know, that's $3,000 apiece, and then we can
decide individually what speakers to get.
>> No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
>> Mm.
>> You know, that means
less meetings and less time.
>> See, that's the point.
You know, we're supposed to come
together as a committee
with the best representative
plan for the whole student body.
And, personally, I just don't think
you want to meet.
>> Actually, I think
that's a good idea, Chris,
because that's gonna save a lot
of time and a lot of arguing.
>> Oh, yeah.
>> Yeah, but, guys, that's not
what we're supposed to do.
We're supposed to agree together.
>> See, that's what I'm saying.
>> Yeah.
What if we all pick the same type of speaker?
It's gonna be a really boring program.
>> That's true.
>> Hi, guys.
>> We need to work together on that.
>> Well, well, well.
>> Sorry I'm late.
>> It's about time, man.
>> Oh, God.
>> Kevin, didn't you get your engraved invitation?
>> Yeah, really.
>> I said I was sorry.
>> Real sorry.
>> I got a phone call as I was leaving.
I couldn't make it away.
>> Phone call.
Pbht!
>> Right.
Was President Bush happy
with the advice you gave him?
[Laughter]
>> Laurie, ease up.
>> He's late 10 minutes every time.
>> Kevin, we're talking about
how to select a speaker.
We're going toward a group discussion
instead of individual presentation?
>> Kevin, did you bring a copy of
the last three years' budgets
so we can see what they did
on past committees?
>> No.
I haven't had any chance to get them.
>> Of course not.
>> I've had papers to do,
and I've had tests all week.
>> Imagine that.
>> Is there anybody at home?
>> You know, that is just great.
Why didn't you tell somebody that last week
so someone would have gotten it and done it,
and we would have had it here?
>> Yeah.
>> We could have had it.
>> Hey, look, stop it.
Bickering is not gonna help.
>> All right.
Okay.
Look, at least we can, you know,
come to some sort of decision
about the kinds of speakers to bring in.
You know, then we can compare our list
to what they did last year.
What do you think?
>> I have a great idea.
Let's bring in Bernard Shaw.
I think he'd be a really good speaker.
>> Shaw is good.
Shaw is good.
>> He's got a great voice.
-Wait a minute.
I've got one question.
>> It's a hot topic.
>> Who is he?
>> Who is Shaw?
>> If you didn't watch "What's Happening!
!"
every afternoon, you would know
he's the anchor for CNN, okay?
He's worked on the Operation
Desert Storm, the whole war thing.
In my class, we've been talking about
whether reporters create the news
or if they,
you know, just report it.
>> Agenda setting?
Yeah.
>> Yeah, agenda setting.
>> That's good.
>> Mm-hmm.
>> I think he'd be a really good speaker to have.
>> He would be great.
>> It's very powerful.
I think Shaw's good.
>> Well, I was kind of thinking
of David Letterman.
See, everybody watches "Late Night
with David Letterman" in the dorms,
so I think he'd have a better appeal.
>> Well, that's great.
I mean, that's a good idea, but --
>> Uh, I don't know.
I want Shaw.
>> The only thing I have against it,
you know, I don't like Paul Shaffer.
If he brings Shaffer, you know,
I don't want any part of it.
>> He wouldn't do that.
>> I want Shaw.
>> I think Shaw.
>> I want Letterman.
>> He'd be better.
Shaw's better.
>> I think Letterman.
>> Good idea.
>> More educational.
He's got a lot to say.
>> Wait a second, guys.
What criteria are we using here?
I mean, Deirdre, what's your whole reason
behind getting Bernard Shaw to come in?
>> Well, I thought we're supposed
to set an educational example.
I mean, bring in somebody who knows something,
who's here with current issues.
I think he'd be the best bet.
>> I think so, too.
>> Well -- >> [Groans] Oh, God.
>> You know, I see your point.
You want to bring some educational value
into the whole thing, but --
>> Yeah.
>> Tony, what's your reasoning behind Letterman?
>> Look, education is all right.
But I'd rather spend my free time
being entertained, because I want entertainment.
I mean, I don't want to go through
another educational thing.
We do that all day in class.
And I think most of the students
would feel like that.
>> I agree 100%.
If I'm going to hear a speaker, I want to
hear somebody that I'm going to enjoy.
And I bet that if you went around
and polled the students,
you'd find that they feel
the same way, too.
If I'm gonna put my energy
into something, I want to enjoy it.
>> We can't get Bozo the Clown, man.
>> You know, I could have predicted that from you.
By all means, let's not learn.
Let's party.
>> [Chuckles] >> What is your problem?
You've been riding my case all day long.
>> You've done nothing to help this group.
>> Hey, look, this is not helping.
Hey, I'd rather avoid this fight.
And look, I can go along
with the educational idea.
It's fine with me.
>> Hey, Tony, don't give up so soon.
I've got plenty of arguments left.
>> Look, Kevin, our money
comes from student fees.
We have an obligation to bring in a speaker
who's gonna teach us something.
>> Yeah, but when I'm off duty,
I want to have some fun.
>> Yeah, you're always off duty, man.
>> Always.
>> Look, let's just cut it.
Look, there is no way we're gonna agree.
So, hey, let's see how much
Shaw will charge us.
>> Good.
>> Oh, no.
Come on, Tony.
>> I think Shaw would be good.
>> You know, something we haven't looked at,
maybe we could try to bring
in two different speakers.
You know, less expensive.
One that's educational,
and one that's entertaining.
>> Now, that's a good idea.
Why don't we take one person who's both
educational and entertaining?
Maybe somebody like Oprah Winfrey.
>> Ugh.
Um, Letterman and Shaw
are both gonna cost a lot of money.
If we pick even one of them, we'll have to spend
all our money around publicity
around that one person.
>> I absolutely will not support a speaker
that is strictly fun and games.
And if that's the case,
I will quit the committee.
>> Oh, come on, man.
Let's not --
>> I'm not doing this.
>> Hey, look.
That is a little extreme.
Hey, let's just go along with Chris'
idea about the two main speakers.
>> Maybe we can get the best of both worlds.
I mean, how about someone
who satisfied both criteria?
Both entertaining and educational?
>> I think we can.
>> There's an original idea.
>> I mean, I think we can
do both, you know, feasibly.
>> Yeah.
Let's do it.
We ready to vote on it?
What do you think?
>> No way!
I think that we should come up
with a consensus as a committee
as to just exactly what kind
of a speaker we're gonna want.
>> Wait a minute, you guys.
Why don't we ask the students
what they would like to hear?
You know, ask their opinion of it?
>> Now that's the best idea I've heard yet.
You know, because the students
can even suggest what speakers they want to hear,
and I think that's
the most important thing.
>> Yeah.
>> I mean, and then when we get the results back,
we can pick the main speaker,
and then set up the other two speakers
where we can fit them in.
>> Laurie, you remember when you said
that you couldn't live with
just an "entertainment" speaker only?
Suppose the students vote like that?
What are you gonna do then?
>> Well, I guess I'd have to live with it.
But if we have two additional speakers,
I think one of them should be educational.
>> Okay, look.
We're all agreed.
We'll make up a list of the top
three or four speakers,
with a place on there for the students
to write in their suggestions.
You know, that way, when we get the results back,
we can use this information to go ahead
and plan our speaker series.
Okay?
>> Sounds good.
>> That's fine.
>> Good deal.
>> Um, we still have
one more problem, though.
Kevin, we need
a commitment from you.
Man, you missed the two
last meetings out of four,
you were late for the other two
that you did show up with,
and you didn't do what you said
you'd do for this meeting.
I mean, we all feel pretty much let down by you.
What's up?
>> [Sighs] Guys, I'm sorry.
I've been feeling guilty
about this myself.
But when I took on this position on the committee,
I didn't realize how busy I was gonna be.
And with work and school
being my main priorities,
I'm not gonna be able to give the kind
of commitment that you guys deserve.
So I guess I'd better resign from the committee.
>> Well, I hate to say it,
but it may be the best thing
for the group, too.
You know, 'cause we need to stick
together on this stuff.
>> You know, I'm sorry for riding you,
but I think you're right.
I think, as the group goes, I think you should.
>> Okay.
Look, um, let's try to meet same time,
same place next week.
Can everybody do that?
>> Yeah.
>> Yes.
>> All right, great.
We'll just discuss then what happened
last year, and go from there.
>> Okay, great.
>> All right.
Let's do it.
>> Conflict is a normal and
desirable occurrence in a group.
If members don't disagree,
they aren't doing their jobs.
Groups generally come up with
more ideas, test information and reasoning better,
and usually think of more things
than an individual can.
However, this almost guarantees
that conflict will occur.
In this scene, a number
of conflicts appeared,
as did a number of approaches
to managing conflict.
First, you can tell that the other members
are angry with Kevin because he has let them down.
This type of inequity
in the amount of effort
and dependability is a common
cause of group conflicts,
and not just in student groups.
Notice that the members ignore Kevin, so that his
potentially useful suggestion about Oprah Winfrey
as an entertaining
and informative speaker
didn't even receive a response.
Kevin's lack of commitment
has undercut his credibility.
Conflict over inequity can often lead to affective
conflict when members dislike each other.
Laurie has become disgusted
with Kevin, and snipes at him often.
Tony, in turn, seems
uncomfortable with Laurie.
Personal dislikes can interfere
with the effective functioning of the group.
Members of a group
don't have to be best friends,
they just have to respect
each other enough
to work together
productively.
Third, this group engaged
in some disagreement over procedures.
Should each member have $3,000
to spend on a speaker of his or her choice
as a way of avoiding conflict,
or should they discuss
until they arrive at agreement?
The group members decided to ask
the entire student body for suggestions,
and to organize a vote
to help them decide on speakers.
Fourth, substantive conflict
deals directly with the group's task.
This can often provide a source
of creative solutions for group problems.
For example, the discussion over
the merits of Bernard Shaw and David Letterman
stimulated the students
to think about the purpose
of the Speaker Committee.
The idea to poll the student
body and decide later
resulted partly from this disagreement.
Affective conflict and conflict over inequity
are generally harmful to a group,
but substantive and procedural conflict
can be quite beneficial
depending on how they are handled.
Several different styles
of managing conflict occurred here.
For example, Tony is
uncomfortable with conflict,
and would rather avoid it, or accommodate to
someone else's idea than argue too much.
Laurie, on the other hand,
is pretty competitive.
She says she plans
to leave the committee
if the speaker doesn't have
some educational value.
Chris is the compromiser.
His suggestion is to abandon
the idea of having one major speaker
and bring in two
lesser-known speakers --
one who is educational
and one who is entertaining.
Both Kevin and Deirdre support
a collaborative solution,
one that meets the needs
of both subgroups.
They each suggest
looking for a speaker
who is both educational
and entertaining.
However, Kevin's suggestion
is ignored, and Deirdre's, later, is supported.
Did you notice how
the group began to use
the Principled Negotiation procedure?
Deirdre was determined
to have Bernard Shaw speak,
and Tony was equally adamant
about having David Letterman.
Their positions were
not reconcilable.
Chris asks each of them
why they hold these positions.
Deirdre reveals that having an educational speaker
is an important interest of hers,
while Tony explains that
his interest is entertainment.
This revelation paves the way
for an eventual suggestion
that the group look for someone who is
both educational and entertaining.
This is a way that both sets
of interests can be met,
even though the original
positions may be irreconcilable.
Finally, this group did something
that most groups avoid,
although they shouldn't.
Deirdre confronts
Kevin politely but firmly,
with the effect of his
irresponsible behavior on the group.
She states how she feels --
that is, let down --
and asks Kevin directly how much time
he feels he can give to the group.
Kevin, although he's
uncomfortable, responds honestly,
and offers to withdraw
from the committee.
All members finally
are behaving in a direct,
responsible way
for the good of the group.
Most groups we know don't confront
non-participating members.
Instead, they spend a lot of time
complaining about such people behind their backs.
That usually doesn't
solve the problem.
Direct confrontation may
not solve the problem, either,
but it has a better chance
than complaining.
Don't be afraid
of conflict in a group.
Learn to manage it wisely, and you will find that
it works to a group's benefit.
The following are several principles
we think are appropriate for
handling conflict in a group.
Express your disagreements,
don't keep them under wraps.
Express your disagreements
with sensitivity toward others.
React to disagreements
with a spirit of inquiry, not defensiveness.
Use procedures, such as the Principle
of Negotiation procedure,
that encourage members to explain
their important needs or interests
that are behind
the positions they hold.
Use mediation and arbitration
procedures if the group seems truly deadlocked.