Resolving Conflict and Managing Agreement

8

Conflict is inevitable in portfolio management, program management, and project management because of the complexities involved, the myriad different stakeholders, the requirements to show the value and benefits of the work that is to be done and then to realize these benefits, and the need to complete programs and projects on time, within budget, according to specifications, and with customer satisfaction. PMI (2008a) notes that conflicts arise because:

• Necessary resources are lacking

• The schedule has been imposed on the team rather than developed by the team

• There are differences in the personal work styles of each team member and the project manager.

By using a team charter (or, as PMI recommends, establishing ground rules), planning communications, and defining roles and responsibilities, teams may be able to reduce conflict. They will be more productive and build a more positive, collaborative relationship.

Keep in mind that conflict does not have to be negative. Conflict can actually be a way to boost a team‧s creativity—it can become the energy that loosens the attachment to old ideas. And, if the team takes advantage of its diversity by devising a solution that brings together different points of view, it also can improve the quality of the team‧s decisions.

If the team cannot resolve a conflict on its own, it is the project manager‧s responsibility to do so. (Meredith and Mantel write that the project manager “who cannot manage conflict is doomed to failure” [2009, p. 219].) PMI (2008a) suggests the project manager use a direct, collaborative approach, working privately with the people involved in the conflict as much as possible. PMI discusses several different approaches to resolving conflict, which this chapter discusses further. Briefly, the following factors should be taken into account when trying to determine how to manage a conflict:

• The importance and intensity of the conflict

• How much time is available to resolve it

• The emotional attachment each involved person has to his or her point of view in the conflict

• Whether it is best to devise a long-term or short-term solution.

Remember that it is important to focus on positions, not on the personalities involved; to emphasize the present; and not to resurface old grievances or concerns in the process.

The project management literature has for years addressed conflict resolution skills and the effective management of the conflict resolution process as a key role for project managers. A PMI monograph (Kirchof and Adams 1982) is devoted to this topic. Kirchof and Adams assert that “conflicts will exist in all project environments” (p. i) and explain that matrix management intensifies conflicts because the working relationship between the project manager and the functional manager involves balancing authority, accountability, and responsibility. If a project manager fails to recognize and carefully manage conflicts, the project team could totally collapse.

But conflict management is not just the project manager‧s domain. It is also part of program and portfolio management. PMI (2008c) says that the program manager‧s approach to resolving conflict defines how conflicts among stakeholders will be managed and creates escalation paths. The ability to resolve conflict is a key skill for portfolio managers, too (PMI 2008b), especially because the portfolio manager interacts with a wide range of internal and external stakeholders at varying levels.

This chapter describes the positive and negative aspects of conflict in portfolio, program, and project management; describes the types of conflict that can happen in various phases of the life cycle; describes a variety of conflict resolution approaches and explains when each one is helpful; provides a checklist that can guide managers in assessing and managing conflict; notes the consequences if conflict is not addressed; and also discusses the importance of managing agreement.

Types of Conflict

Rapport (1960) says that there are two basic types of conflict: competitive and disruptive. In competitive conflicts, the people involved have goals that are mutually incompatible, and each is striving to win. The conflict is resolved when the result is one that everyone involved can accept and is obvious. A disruptive conflict is one in which people are not following a mutually agreed-upon set of rules (for example, a team charter) and want to weaken, defeat, harm, or drive away the other party. The atmosphere is very stressful, requiring immediate action to diffuse it. Typically, conflicts are on a continuum between competitive and disruptive.

Thompson and Border (2007), building on work by Robbins (2003), write that conflicts can be functional or relational. Functional conflicts are positive conflicts. They are basically disagreements about how to best proceed on the work of a program or project and the specific processes that should be used to do so. Relational conflicts are caused by emotional differences. They do not involve processes, procedures, or functions, but rather personal styles, choices, and work habits. They also may be rooted in relevant social or political issues outside the work environment.

Thompson and Border say that project managers must monitor relational conflicts to prevent the development of damaging differences of opinion, even if these conflicts are subtle (which is especially likely on virtual teams). If relational conflicts are not resolved, they can lead to larger conflicts that are time-consuming and costly to the program or project. The authors say that relational conflict leads to team decomposition in three stages:

1. Communicative detachment. People are unwilling to constructively communicate with their teammates, and often they will take hard stands on an issue that may not be important.

2. Selective detachment. Like-minded team members form alliances—sub-teams—with others to prepare strategies to deal with the conflict.

3. Factionism. Now there are multiple teams, rather than a single team that is united toward common goals and objectives—leading to duplicated effort, confusion over roles and responsibilities, and in the long term, increased cost.

When relational conflicts are disruptive to the team, the manager must refocus team members around the program‧s or project‧s goals and objectives.

Individual Sources of Conflict

There are many possible individual sources of conflict on program or project teams, including:

• Two team members who constantly irritate one another

• A team member‧s poor communication skills

• A team member whose acute personal programs (e.g., family problems) affect his or her work performance

• The different perspectives held by team members who were originally trained in different disciplines

• A team member‧s lack of interest in being assigned to work on the program or project

• Unclear roles and responsibilities

• The need for one team member to rely on someone he or she does not trust or respect

• A team member‧s lack of respect for the technical capabilities of fellow team members, based on prior experiences with them or knowledge of them from other sources

• Team members having incongruent goals and objectives (Kirchof and Adams 1982).

Conflict on Program and Project Teams

The reasons for conflict on program and project teams are varied; they can be related to the personal characteristics of team members, the systemic challenges of completing tasks within complex and challenging environments, some combination of these factors, or relevant external events. Every organization and industry has conflicts. They are simply part of doing business, and the program and project manager should consider both the positive and negative aspects of conflict (Table 8-1).

Table 8-1 Positive and Negative Aspects of Conflict on Programs and Projects

Positive Aspects of Conflict	Negative Aspects of Conflict
Productively challenges existing beliefs or paradigms	When not addressed in a productive manner, can demotivate team behavior and increase interpersonal withdrawal
Reduces the risk of intellectual compliance within the team (groupthink)	Decreases interpersonal communication, increases cynicism
May create the opportunity to forge more effective team and stakeholder relationships and revitalize team energy and boldness	Adversely affects initiative and the willingness to take risks

There are many sources of conflicts on programs and projects. Systemic sources include conflicting loyalties and alliances or ambiguous jurisdiction (Filey 1975)—for example, when a project team member works for both the project manager and the functional manager, or when a project team member works on multiple projects, sometimes working for a manager on-site and other times working for a manager in a different location, where there will be no face-to-face interaction during the project.

Conflicts also arise with downsizing and reductions in force. While the people who are no longer employed may harbor resentment toward those who remain, the surviving employees also struggle. They are forced to do more with less and may have trouble getting the resources needed to complete the work; they may feel guilty about being retained while some of their peers were not. They also may worry that they will be the next to be released if they believe other reductions in force lie ahead; their focus might shift from enthusiastically completing their assignments to locating another job.

Other conflicts arise when a program or project ends, especially in projectized organizations, in which team members lack a functional home in the organization and must look for new positions each time a project ends. They tend to delay the closing tasks as long as possible. Though they realize it is important to finish the work, they are more interested in their own safety and security and in locating another position.

Conflicts will invariably arise on virtual teams, though they may not be apparent, especially if only two or three team members are involved. On a virtual team, it is easy for a team member to have an “out of sight, out of mind” attitude, especially if he or she is not enthusiastic about being on the team. Virtual team members, particularly those who have this attitude, may not involve the project manager in resolving conflicts and may not follow the team charter (if one exists).

Conflict in Portfolio Management

The portfolio manager interacts with such a large number of stakeholders that a variety of conflicts can arise. Most of these conflicts involve the organization‧s portfolio management process. People will resist using this process if they do not believe it is equitable and fair. They may believe that the process will restrict their freedom to do a project that they believe is necessary for the organization because it will not meet the selection criteria. See Table 8-2 for some examples of the positive and negative aspects of following a portfolio process.

Table 8-2 Positive and Negative Aspects of Following a Portfolio Process

Positive Aspects	Negative Aspects
Promotes an unbiased method to allocate resources	Increasing resistance by stakeholders if they feel the structured approach is not in their favor
Provides a sense of importance to people because they know the priority of their work to the organization	Decreasing interest in working on a program or project if it has a low ranking in the organization
May help unify the executive team as portfolio management is embraced as the way to ensure successful programs and projects are undertaken	Increasing frustration from some executives if they wish to propose a program or project that does not meet the defined criteria

The portfolio manager must continually communicate with stakeholders at all levels about the value of portfolio management and why it is important to use it in a structured way in the organization. He or she also must have a positive outlook on changes. When a change does occur or is about to occur, he or she must be able to assess its impact on the organization so it can be managed effectively and turned into an opportunity that will enable the organization to obtain new customers, enter new markets, and pursue programs and projects that it might not have considered previously.

Conflict throughout the Project Life Cycle

Thamhain and Wilemon (1975) identified seven types of conflict that tend to occur in project environments and then related these types of conflicts to specific phases in the life cycle in priority order. (See Table 8-3.)

Conflicts over personnel concern the human resources who are proposed for the project team, while those about personalities involve disagreements on interpersonal issues. Thamhain and Wilemon found that the greatest number of conflicts involved personnel resources, even if the people remained in their functional departments and worked in a weak matrix-type environment. They also noted that personality conflicts were the most difficult for managers to deal with in an effective way. All the sources of conflict were significant in Thamhain and Wilemon‧s study, however, and varied in intensity from team to team.

Table 8-3 Types of Conflict by Project Life Cycle Phase

In reviewing Thamhain and Wilemon‧s work, it is interesting to note that personnel resources were among the top three sources of conflict in the executing and closing phases. The majority of the work of the project or program is performed during the executing and monitoring and controlling phases (PMI 2008a) or the delivery of the program benefits phase (PMI 2008c), which is why the resource issue is so critical. Good personnel planning may help avert conflict. PMI recommends preparing a program resource plan (2008c) or, for projects, a human resources plan that includes a specific staffing management plan describing how and when the staffing resources would be met on the project (2008a). This plan describes how resources will be acquired, where people will work, when they will be needed, how people will be released, training requirements, and rewards and recognition.

It is not surprising that personality conflicts are ranked high during the closing phase, especially if people are unsure about their next assignment or whether they even will have a job once the program or project ends. Personnel resources are another significant source of conflict during closing because there may not be enough people available to complete the activities in this phase; people have moved on to other opportunities. If personality conflicts arise or competition for resources develops during closure, program and project managers should:

• Meet individually with team members to discuss their future and their contribution to the program or project.

• Recognize and reward team members for their work.

• Work actively with people who do not have a new assignment to help them locate one, using the services of the human resources department as appropriate.

• Recognize, however, that resources are needed to close the program and project. If a team member‧s new assignment can be deferred, ask him or her to remain with the program or project as long as possible to help complete the closing tasks.

If it is impossible to obtain sufficient resources for the closing phase, the manager should work with the program sponsor to see if someone can be brought in to work with the program or project manager to handle the closing tasks. Other considerations for ways to best manage conflicts in the various phases of the life cycle follow.

Initiating Phase

During the initiating phase on a program or project, the first step is to prepare a charter to describe the key roles, responsibilities, accountabilities, and authority of the program and project manager. The sponsor should prepare this charter, but in many situations, the program or project manager must do it and then have it approved by the sponsor, members of the governance board or steering committee, if applicable, functional managers, and other key stakeholders. The program or project manager can use this charter to obtain needed resources from functional managers throughout the organization.

The program or project manager attends to all activities that are required to begin a major piece of work that is linked to the organization‧s strategic goals and objectives, including identifying key resources or required personnel, determining specific success criteria and how success will be measured, specifying required technology and other resources, and clarifying roles and responsibilities and policies and procedures. If the organization is at a high level of maturity in program and project management, it probably has a detailed methodology to follow. Some aspects of this methodology, however, may not be required for a given program or project. If this is the case, to avoid future conflicts later, especially if there is an audit, the program or project manager should consult with the enterprise program or project management office (EPMO) staff and get a waiver from key requirements in the methodology that are not applicable.

Meredith and Mantel (2009) note the need during the initiating phase to focus on setting the stage for open discussion of conflicts. Team members take their cues from the leader at this formative stage. If the program or project manager is sending the message that conflict should be avoided, then team members will respond accordingly. This situation is particularly true if the team members are new to the organization or are more junior and have a diminished sense of their own competencies. At the beginning of a project, at the kickoff meeting, encourage the entire team to look at conflict in a positive light rather than viewing it as something to be avoided and to frame issues as problems team members can solve collectively.

Parker (1994) points out the importance of setting clear goals at the beginning of a program or project, especially when working with a cross-functional team, as a way to ward off future conflicts. He explains the importance of having a common goal that all members of the team support. A team charter also is critical at this stage; it promotes team buy-in and commitment by taking the overarching goals from the program or project goals and making them more specific to the work to be done by the team.

During the initiation phase, the program or project manager can establish a good precedent for handling conflict by serving as an example, role-modeling conflict resolution behavior early and often, and reinforcing that behavior in team members.

Planning Phase

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

Working with a functional manager presents many opportunities for conflict. The program or project manager must clearly think through the needs, priorities, and motivations of the functional manager—which may be different from those of the program or project manager—as fully and as carefully as possible.

While the program or project manager and functional manager are building a relationship, the functional manager may attempt to resolve a conflict by claiming to be the “technical” expert, while indirectly casting the program or project manager in the less technically sophisticated role of a “generalist.” It is best for the program or project manager not to confront the functional manager directly if he or she takes this approach because the functional manager will likely react defensively. The best approach is for the program or project manager to let those comments pass and to stay persistently focused on specific requirements. The program or project manager is well advised to simply acknowledge the functional manager‧s competency in the technical area and keep the discussion moving forward.

Executing Phase

This phase is the longest in both the program and project management life cycles. Typical conflicts revolve around technical issues the team encounters. By this time team members are familiar with one another, and each person understands what he or she is to contribute. Everyone on the team should understand how other team members can help if needed. For virtual teams, it is critical that the program or project manager set up a method everyone on the team can use to communicate regularly.

Key issues during this stage involve the resolution of risks and issues. The team should be able to resolve most of them on their own. If project work is being done within a program structure, team members should tell the project manager about any risks or issues and how they have been resolved so that he or she can inform the program manager in case the issue or risk involves other components of the program. No one should be afraid to escalate an issue or risk to a higher-level person. This includes the program manager, who should consult the governance board or steering committee when necessary. The portfolio manager should be consulted or informed about risks or issues that could affect another program or project underway elsewhere in the organization.

Other conflicts during this phase involve personalities. Team members are under stress to complete the program and deliver its promised benefits or to complete project deliverables on time and ensure customer satisfaction. Burnout is common during this stage, and program and project managers should be alert to signs of significant stress in team members so they can intervene and help as needed.

Program or project managers also may have to counsel dissatisfied team members. If a team member is disgruntled because he or she is not achieving a personal goal on the project, the program or project manager can respond by:

• Talking with the team member and acknowledging that his or her personal goals may not be addressed during this project.

• Encouraging him or her to establish new personal goals for the remainder of the program or project that might increase his or her motivation.

Closing Phase

One might think the closing phase is rather easy because the work of the program or project has been completed, but in reality, it presents new challenges for the leader. 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 uncertain about their next assignments, which can distract them from their closing responsibilities. Some team members may experience a sense of loss when they must emotionally disengage from the team and the program or project, which also can hamper productivity.

The program or project manager should be sensitive to these potential sources of conflict when driving the group toward project completion and closure. During the closeout period, the program or project manager can be helpful by:

• Assuming that each team member may be a little burned out and not at full emotional or intellectual strength

• Paying individual attention to each team member, noting the best ways to help each one flourish during this trying period.

The 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, which include “competitor,” “accommodator,” “avoider,” “compromiser,” and “collaborator.” Many portfolio, program, and project managers and team members have found this instrument a helpful way to get a quick assessment of their preferred conflict resolution approach. By knowing one‧s primary and secondary conflict resolution method through the TKI, one can then be aware if he or she is over-using a preferred style when another approach might be more beneficial given the situation.

The TKI is based on work done by Blake and Mouton (1964), who identified five methods of conflict resolution. The methods differ primarily in the degree of assertiveness and cooperation shown by the person who employs them. Their work led to the current concept of five conflict resolution modes (PMI 2008a):

1. Smoothing

2. Forcing

3. Withdrawal

4. Compromising

5. Problem solving.

Combining the Blake and Mouton work with that of the TKI, there are five main approaches to conflict resolution:

1. Smoothing or accommodating

2. Forcing or competing

3. Withdrawing or avoiding

4. Compromising

5. Problem-solving or confronting.

A sixth mode is collaborating, which is similar to problem-solving or confronting.

The following sections describe these approaches and how they are used in portfolio, program, and project management. Each style is appropriate in certain situations, and each person uses all five styles from time to time. The TKI instrument identifies one‧s primary and secondary conflict resolution style, but everyone uses all five styles from time to time. Kirchof and Adams (1982) note that in project management, the most effective one is problem-solving or confronting, but they add, “No single ‘best’ method of dealing with conflict exists. Depending on the situation, the project manager needs to have the ability to use all of the conflict management methods as necessary” (p. 29).

Smoothing or Accommodating

This approach involves retreating from an actual or perceived conflict situation (PMI 2008a). The accommodating individual displays a high degree of cooperation but is low on assertiveness. Often, the accommodating person focuses on meeting the needs of the other person, occasionally at the expense of his or her own agenda. Examples of accommodating or smoothing statements include:

• “That‧s fine … we can do it whenever you want.”

• “Let‧s try to get some more information and then revisit the problem.”

• “Maybe we can find someone else who might help us. Let‧s not take any drastic action now.”

Using the smoothing or accommodating approach to conflict management can help a person demonstrate open-mindedness, particularly during the early, formative stages of the team. Other reasons for using this approach include preserving harmony and avoiding pointless debate over insignificant matters.

But overuse of smoothing or accommodating can severely undercut a portfolio, program, or project manager‧s standing in the eyes of team members and other important stakeholders. The manager who overuses it may be viewed as weak and ineffectual, and team members who believe that their positions and needs are not being pursued forcefully may become angry. When considering taking an accommodating approach, the portfolio, program, or project manager should first answer the following questions:

• Is accommodation too much a part of my character, something that I use too often?

• Will my team react negatively to the use of accommodation?

• What are the long-term implications for my reputation in the organization if I accommodate the other party?

Forcing or Competing

The forcing or competing approach is one in which one person pushes his or her point of view at the expense of others, creating a win-lose situation (PMI 2008a). Kirchof and Adams (1982) say that the forcing or competing approach is valid when time is of the essence, stakes are high, and no other alternatives exist.

This approach is grounded in a combination of assertiveness and uncooperativeness. It is often driven by a need for power, with individual concerns and goals pursued at the expense of other parties’ goals. It can be useful in specific situations in which unpopular actions must be taken, in a fast-paced environment, and when an individual is certain that his or her position is correct.

For example, assume you are managing a construction project. Two of your team members are engaged in a heated discussion. You believe you must intervene; there is no time for arguments. You decide that you need to tell them what to do so the project is not delayed. As another example, a portfolio manager might need to resort to forcing or competing if he or she learns that someone in the organization is pursuing a project that has not been formally approved through the portfolio management process.

Here are examples of forcing or competing statements a manager can use when the situation warrants:

• “Bill, I understand that you want to do it your way, but I cannot approve that change. We have to follow the existing document.”

• “We have to get this deliverable to the client tomorrow; while other options may be more desirable, we lack the time to explore them now, so save your opinions for later, and we will discuss them.”

• “I know you do not like the EPMO‧s policies, but we have to follow them because we have a quality audit scheduled in one week. After the audit, we can meet with the EPMO staff to discuss your concerns.”

While forcing or competing may be effective in certain situations, it must be used judiciously, not as a primary tool. When it is applied in the wrong setting or at the wrong time, it can stalemate the conflict, alienate stakeholders, prevent the other party from being heard, and cause team members to lose sight of the overall goals and objectives of the program or project. Before using the forcing or competing approach to conflict resolution, a manager should:

• Attempt to use other, less confrontational approaches

• Consider the long-term effects of the approach on ongoing working relationships with all stakeholders.

Withdrawing or Avoiding

The withdrawal or avoiding approach is one in which the individual retreats from what he or she perceives to be either an actual or a potential conflict situation (PMI 2008a). This approach, of course, fails to resolve the issue, so as Kirchof and Adams (1982) point out, it is not one to follow if you desire long-term resolution.

Examples of withdrawal or avoiding statements include:

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

• “Let‧s bring in a facilitator to help us with this issue and resolve it then.”

• “We can wait on this one a while because we have more pressing problems to solve, so we will bring it up during the quarterly meeting of the steering committee, when it reviews the existing portfolio.”

Withdrawal or avoiding is acceptable when the issue at hand is trivial, if there is little chance of winning an argument, if more information or data are needed, or when interactions are emotionally heated and a cooling-off period is warranted. This approach can be harmful, however, when it results in unnecessary delays for the program or project or when it hinders communication. Moreover, someone who regularly responds to conflict by withdrawing runs the risk of being perceived by others as too passive. Before applying the avoiding approach to conflict, the program or project manager should:

• Determine whether the issue is crucial or trivial

• Assess the risk of possible delay in completing the deliverables

• Consider the effect on personal reputation and the perception of others.

Compromising

Compromise is used to find solutions that bring a degree of satisfaction to all parties (PMI 2008a). Kirchof and Adams (1982) note that it is especially useful in contract negotiations and in informal negotiations, especially if the project manager can afford to give up something in return for agreement.

In this approach to conflict resolution, both individuals give a little and try to find middle ground. An example of a compromising statement is “OK, I can change the completion date, but I need you to alter the amount of funding I will receive.” Compromise seems similar to the confronting or problem-solving approach, but it is a more short-term solution; it works well in situations in which temporary agreements need to be reached quickly.

Filey (1975) points out that because team members and managers are basically interdependent, they may choose to use the compromising approach because they want to resolve conflicts quickly, believing that continued disagreement is more costly than compromising.

Program or project managers should consider using compromise when:

• A short-term action needs to be taken quickly, and the compromise may not be of great significance

• A need to demonstrate openness and flexibility exists

• It can easily lead to a contract that is critical to the program or project and that both parties can support

• The manager must obtain a key resource from a functional manager; the program or project manager can offer support for the functional manager‧s team on a technical issue in exchange.

Compromise directs the energies of the people involved toward one another, and they approach issues as solutions rather than problems. The people involved want to sacrifice, but they are not necessarily focused on devising a solution that is beneficial to all parties. The conflict ends when all involved accept the proposed compromise.

As with the confronting/problem-solving and accommodation/smoothing approaches, the manager who uses compromise runs the risk of being perceived as too willing to give in to the other side or to give up on his or her original position.

Problem-Solving or Confronting

The manager or team member who emphasizes both assertiveness and cooperation and is willing to consider the merits of the other person‧s perspective takes a problem-solving/confronting approach to conflict. This manager has a give-and-take attitude, and he or she works to combine the best of both parties’ positions. This approach is ideal for use in culturally diverse teams because it brings divergent points of view together for a common solution.

PMI (2008a) recommends the problem-solving or confronting approach. It is the preferred conflict resolution method in project management, especially if time is not a major issue and the parties involved trust one another. This means it is especially helpful in a program or project team that is in the performing stage and in which mutual respect and trust exists among team members.

Some examples of confronting/problem-solving statements are:

• “This is a good idea. I had not thought of it before. Let me tell you about my idea, and then maybe we can somehow combine them.”

• “I like your approach, but before we adopt it, I would like to provide some information about another way we might solve this issue that builds on your suggestion.”

• “Your suggestion is a good one for us to consider, but before we adopt it, I would like to involve some other people from our team with expertise in this area. I will plan a brainstorming session to see if we are definitely on track with this solution.”

The emphasis in this approach is on developing a long-lasting solution. Other programs and projects underway in the organization may benefit from the solution, so it may be helpful to involve the EPMO staff as well to document lessons learned and for knowledge management purposes.

On virtual teams, using the problem-solving or confronting approach may require more planning to ensure that the key people are available to help solve the problem. It also may be beneficial to use a facilitator (this could be a suitable role for an affiliation-type person who is not directly involved in the conflict) to assist in alternatives analysis to explore and document all possible solutions before determining which solution to pursue. (A facilitator may also be appropriate on co-located teams to help to make sure everyone on the team contributes and interacts with one another.)

Problem-solving/confronting is ideal for use in situations in which both positions are considered important and viable; insights from both perspectives are valid. The emphasis is on clarifying areas about which there is agreement and disagreement. The parties involved discuss facts and feelings and offer feedback without fear of reprisal (Filey 1975). It is important, for example, to use this approach when developing a portfolio management process so that all units of the organization will support it.

But even this approach has some negative aspects. It is generally inappropriate in situations in which a quick response is necessary, as in an emergency, because the approach does not allow for immediate action. It also may result in a faulty product if some of the integrated points were incorrect and were not explored in detail before the solution was determined. Including a subject matter expert or a customer representative in resolving the conflict can help ensure the end result is acceptable.

The portfolio, program, or project manager should address these questions when considering taking a problem-solving/confronting approach:

• Are both positions really important and accurate, warranting a collaborative approach?

• Will the resulting product warrant the extra time that a collaborative approach requires?

Collaborating

PMI (2008a) adds collaborating to the five classic conflict resolution approaches discussed thus far, noting that it serves to incorporate multiple points of view from different perspectives and then merges them, leading to consensus and commitment. It is similar to the problem-solving/confronting approach.

Building a Culture of Conflict Resolution

To facilitate a team culture in which conflicts are resolved effectively, the program or project manager should:

• Emphasize early in the program or project that conflicts will occur, and let the team know how to escalate them as necessary.

• Encourage the team to refer to the team charter when attempting to resolve a conflict, and revisit the charter periodically in team meetings to ensure that it is effective.

• Continually communicate the vision for the program or project and its importance to the organization to make sure everyone knows their specific roles and responsibilities and their importance to team success.

• Point out that conflicts, if managed effectively, can be used to generate new ideas and creative solutions to problems the team may be facing.

• Review conflicts that have occurred to determine if changing any processes or procedures the team may be using to do its work is warranted. Involve the team in the change process as necessary.

• Show genuine interest in the work each team member is doing at group meetings and in one-on-one meetings, phone calls, emails, or instant messages.

• Remove any barriers to communication, such as a lack of common software, to facilitate more effective communications so that when conflicts do surface, team members are less likely to avoid dealing with them.

• Ask probing, open-ended questions to determine whether there are conflicts that team members are not talking about openly with others.

• Actively listen to all stakeholders, even those who may not have a direct interest in a specific phase of the program or project, to broaden your perspective and potentially avert conflicts.

When the program or project manager embraces and processes conflict in a constructive manner:

• An intellectually stimulating environment is built as team members challenge paradigms and constructs, pushing their performance to higher levels.

• Teams avoid groupthink; members challenge status quo approaches to solving problems.

• Opportunities emerge to forge improved working relationships and to revitalize team energy.

Conflict Resolution Checklist

The following questions and answers can help you resolve a conflict in a productive, efficient way.

1. What phase is the program or project in? Each phase has unique sources of conflict.

• Initiating phase. Conflicting priorities, administrative procedures, and schedules are common in this stage.

• Planning phase. Conflicting priorities, procedures, and schedules can affect the program or project in this phase, too. Issues with functional managers and general personality disputes also may give rise to conflicts.

• Executing phase. Schedules, technical challenges, and staffing issues are often sources of conflict.

• Closing phase. In addition to schedules, clashing personality styles (possibly due to job stress and fatigue) and staffing uncertainties (with regard to team members’ next assignments) can be primary sources of conflict (Thamhain and Wilemon 1975).

Managers who are aware of the kinds of conflict common in each phase can maintain the perspective needed to respond appropriately.

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

A lack of information often results from inadequate communication among stakeholders. Make sure all important information (both factual and personal or feeling-based) is communicated to stakeholders. Such efforts to keep communication flowing are especially crucial when working with virtual teams.

3. Is the source of the conflict functionally based?

Functionally based conflicts arise between program and project managers and functional managers or between portfolio managers and their stakeholders. The project team or an external interested party (such as the customer, a subcontractor, or the public) may also cause a functionally based conflict—i.e., a conflict in which one‧s authority and accountability are unclear.

When working with functional managers, program and project managers can minimize the risk of these conflicts by striving to understand the functional manager‧s needs and concerns. Problem-solving/confronting approaches are appropriate when working with functional managers. For example, if an organization is undergoing downsizing, and if functional managers are rewarded when their staff members are fully employed, a program or project manager can point out to the functional manager that the upcoming program or project work will ensure that certain people on the functional manager‧s staff are fully employed. Program or project managers can then work with the functional manager to prepare a resource management plan to show specifically when and for how long a functional team member will be needed, whether the work is full- or part-time, and when the team member can expect to be released from the program or project. Both functional and program or project members also can determine how they will recognize the team member‧s work on the program or project in addition to the usual work he or she does for the functional organization.

Similarly, portfolio managers should strive to use problem-solving/confronting approaches when trying to obtain sponsors’ and other managers’ commitment to the portfolio management system and buy-in to its value. They also should solicit ideas for improvement from these stakeholders, demonstrating that they are receptive to change and continuous improvement.

4. Is the conflict personality-based?

Personality-based conflicts include clashes of personal styles; for example, conflict might develop when two people with competitive styles deal with each other. Understanding the psychological preferences defined by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) can be helpful in resolving personality-based conflicts.

Managing Agreement

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 portfolio, program, or project manager may be viewed as an inadequate manager of agreement if stakeholders and team members never bring appropriate conflict to the surface.

Harvey (1974) devised the Abilene paradox to elucidate the consequences of excessive agreement, the result of efforts to avoid conflict and offending others. Through an example of a group of people deciding to go to Abilene, Texas, though no one actually wanted to go at all, Harvey illustrated the truth that people in groups often do things that they really do not want to do just to avoid a conflict. Their agreement is really a mask, and serious problems may lie ahead for both the organization and the people involved.

Team members and portfolio, program, and project managers can easily fall into the trap of excessive agreement. People within groups can slip into groupthink, the creation of unwritten group norms regarding how tasks should be accomplished. These unwritten rules of behavior—in this case, the need to agree with the 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 the influence of groupthink, team members may withhold disparate points of view because they are concerned about not being viewed as team players. As team members continue to withhold contrary views, they become disengaged, motivation wanes, and innovation suffers. “Agreement” keeps the program or project moving forward, but often at the expense of the quality and sophistication of the work.

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

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

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

• Share the Abilene paradox with your team during its kickoff meeting and encourage team members to guard against similar situations. Create an environment that encourages active discussions of issues involving the team and the program or project work. This process should be combined with the development of a team charter laying out ground rules for the team, including guidelines for open and honest communication on matters of conflict.

Consequences are significant at the program level if there is too much agreement. For example, if everyone on a project team agrees with an approach to resolve a risk without adequately discussing all alternatives and later the response proves unsuccessful, not only is the specific project affected, but other projects in the program also may suffer if the response involved other work underway. If the entire team is in agreement on an issue because they have not really discussed alternatives and the program or project manager does not inform the governance board about the issue, other programs or projects may be affected. At the portfolio level, if everyone unquestioningly follows an outdated portfolio management process, and no one attempts to review and revise it, the organization may stagnate. For example, people may be discouraged from submitting new ideas by a process that does not make sense.

Summary

Conflict is a natural part of any program or project and also is natural at the portfolio level. Ideally, the conflicts that surface create an intellectually challenging and stimulating setting.

Addressing conflict in an active fashion is key for the successful portfolio, program, or project manager. Left unaddressed, conflict impedes the development of effective interpersonal relationships among team members and other stakeholders.

Conflict can be resolved through a number of approaches, including smoothing/accommodating, forcing/competing, withdrawing/avoiding, compromising, confronting/problem-solving, and collaboration. Each of these approaches can be effective, depending on how it is applied and the situation at hand.

To successfully resolve conflicts, the portfolio, program, or project manager must first be aware of his or her own preferred approach to resolving conflict. This self-awareness serves as the foundation from which the manager can make necessary adjustments when working with team members who have different personality styles and respond to conflict differently.

Managing agreement is another challenge for portfolio, program, and project managers; too much agreement in a team often masks conflict and hinders the free exchange of disparate ideas, which can lead to creative and innovative solutions for programs and projects, as well as breakthroughs and transformation at the organizational level.

Discussion Questions

A project manager in an aerospace company was leading a multidepartmental team assigned to work with another company to develop a new product. Each company had recently undergone significant layoffs, and the mutual goal was to use this new joint project to boost the viability of both organizations.

The project manager, aware that team members from both companies were still stunned by the recent layoffs, tried to adopt a posture that would help the team members remain positive and stay motivated. But the manager‧s approach was misguided.

During the first several project team meetings, the manager minimized conflicts between team members from both companies. The teams never addressed disagreements over the technological requirements, and the project manager did not try to resolve 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, the team members and the sponsors noticed that core priorities had not been established and that no one had obtained key commitments from senior managers. On top of this, teamwork was minimal because the teams had not addressed their personal clashes over roles, style, and status. Conflicts became the norm among the team.

1. What should the project manager have done in this situation to avoid these problems in the first place?

2. Now that team conflicts are the norm, what type of conflict resolution approach would be the most appropriate for the manager to use?

3. Why do you think this manager avoided active conflict resolution?

4. If you are working for a manager who tends to avoid conflict, but you realize that conflicts are arising that are detrimental to your team‧s work, what can you as a project team member do? What strategies would you use?