Citing a personal experience, I was actually
involved in a conflict situation just last semester. It happened during a group
project discussion with regards to an oral presentation. Midway through our deliberations,
two of my groupmates started debating about the scope and level of detail of
our preparations. One was convinced that it was important to be spontaneous
during a presentation while the other was adamant that all details and possible
scenarios should be taken care of as much as possible. What began as a friendly
debate quickly escalated to a heated argument.
Looking back at the episode, it was possible
that the conflict arose because of fatigue and elevated stress levels. The
particular discussion actually came on the back of a discussion for another
project assignment. Furthermore, all of us in the group still had many
assignments on hand. All these probably contributed to higher levels of
irritability.
In this particular case, the argument occurred
ironically from good intentions – both of my friends wanted the project
presentation to be an excellent one. However, it evolved into something
negative which affected not only the two individuals, but also the mood of the
entire group. It took a while for everyone to be able to work as per normal
again.
As such, we can see from this personal
anecdote that emotional intelligence (EI) not only applies to individuals but
also has implications on the larger working group as well. We have read that one
of the attributes of EI is self-regulation, which is “the ability to control
emotions and impulses”. With this in consideration, it is worth taking note
that tempers may fray easily, especially in a professional setting where stakes
are high. The question is, can concrete measures be implemented to prevent such
outbursts of emotion and impulsive decisions? For example, by appointing a “mediator”
in a group setting to ensure positive working dynamics?
Somehow I can empathise with both parties in this conflict. When faced with presentations, I sometimes find myself wanting to plan everything to the detail, and yet at times wanting to do minimal preparations and just wing it. I have also worked in groups where there are mixes of both kinds of people and I generally give my members a free reign to choose how much preparation they want to do. The presentations have turned out pretty fine so far. I guess the key is to learn one another's working styles along the way, and as long as everyone consistently delivers results, then as far as I'm concerned, I can respect their working styles. This, in my opinion, involves a good deal of EQ, and reading body language, maybe some some PR skills as well.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to your question about applying a concrete measure to prevent such outbursts, I personally dont think that there is any way of doing so. I feel that this is a very dynamic issue, and usually no one is appointed to mediate. It usually falls on the shoulders of the first one to intervene in the conflict, or to whoever the conflicting parties may choose to confide in.
However, what I feel can be done to prevent such outbursts is perhaps to cultivate a healthy work environment with everyone motivated and working towards a common goal. I also think that synergy within the group and a comfort level where members can speak their mind freely and be willing to accept criticisms and challenges will be very beneficial in cutting out any conflicts.
First, in response to your question, I concur with Ka Shing that the appointment of a mediator is not a feasible preventive measure to the problem. There is always a possibility of the mediator being one of the two parties which ignite the argument since he/she is also part of the group. In addition, in this context, every team member was of the same seniority. Therefore, an appointed “mediator” might not command enough respect from everyone to enable him/her to resolve the conflict.
ReplyDeleteSecond, there is a positive side to this conflict. As heated as the argument was, it did not descend into personal attacks between the two parties. This showed a certain amount of “self-regulation” being practiced.
Third, in my opinion, anyone working in a team should try to recognize when the discussion you are in is escalating into an argument and learn to step back (such as politely excusing yourself out of the room) before the situation deteriorates. This allows each party to cool down before returning to the discussion table to reach a consensus.
I think that emotional intelligence of the members play a big role in determining the outcome of their project discussion. Even though members in a group may not see eye to eye, having empathy for others would enable one to better understand others' perspective. Practicing self regulation would prevent tempers from flaring. Communication is bidirectional not only in the aspect of conveying of message, but also in the sense that one person's non-verbal behaviour such as tone affects the response others give in return. In this instance, if one explains his perspective in a polite and less forceful manner, others will probably be more receptive although their opinions may differ. It would then be easier to reach a compromise.
ReplyDeleteRegarding your question, I feel that in this case where the tension and irritability are at an all time high, it is unlikely that members will respond positively to the interception of a mediator. If anything, members will probably become even more irritated. Therefore, I think that appointing a mediator would not be a plausible solution. I believe that in such cases, as mentioned by Jun Yuan, having a "cool off" period where one excuses him/herself from the room would be the most suitable solution. Firstly, prevents one from spurting unnecessary remarks/insults which may hurt others. Secondly, a break will allow all parties to cool down and clear their heads, so that they can carry on with a rational and calm discussion.