Wageman and donnenfeld conflict intervention model

WAGEMAN AND DONNENFELD’S CONFLICT INTERVENTION MODEL

Wageman and Donnenfeld distinguish four kinds of interventions that team leaders and managers can use to improve the quality of conflict resolution processes:93

Team (re)Design: Deliberate changes in the structure (e.g., environment and tasks) in which teams do their work. Interventions might include increasing the amount of task interdependence that a team has in accomplishing a given work product. Team design usually involves very specific, structural changes to a group, which might include how the goal is defined, who is on the team, the nature and amount of resources allocated to the team, team rewards, and norms of conduct. Task process coaching: Coaching that helps the team perform better via changes in effort, strategy, and talent. Task process coaching is different from conflict process coaching in that task process coaching is aimed exclusively at improving motiva- tion, strategy, and talent but not conflict per se. Task process coaching may include developing team members’ skills, improving the communication system, and so on. Conflict process coaching: Direct intervention in a team to improve the quality of conflict in the team.94 Interventions might include trust-building exercises, struc- tured debate, and appointing a devil’s advocate. Changing the individual: Individual-level training with the goal of making specific team members more tolerant, thoughtful, and capable when they disagree with others.95 This might include behavioral training in negotiation.

Wageman and Donnenfeld propose four guiding principles for enhancing teams with respect to conflict:96

Principle 1: Of all the strategies listed above, Team (re)Design has the largest effects. For this reason, Wageman and Donnenfeld suggest starting at this point of inter- vention.97 An effective team design addresses the root causes of most team conflicts. One important aspect of team design is the stated goal of the team.

Teams that agree on a common goal or shared vision are more successful than those that don’t or can’t. When 33 Chilean miners were trapped one-half mile beneath the ground, they survived by creating a leadership structure focused on one goal: surviving until they could be rescued. For 69 days, the miners maintained a leadership structure by choos- ing a leader and delegating tasks. The miners followed a strict schedule of daily tasks such as exercise and cleaning up the very informal living area. Every decision was voted upon.98

96Wageman, R., & Donnenfeld, A. (2007). Intervening in intra-team conflict. In K. M. Behfar & L. L. Thompson (Eds.), Conflict in organizational groups: new directions in theory and practice. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

94Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management Review, 30, 269–287. 95Lewicki, R. J., Weiss, S. E., & Lewin, D. (1992). Models of conflict, negotiation, and third party intervention: A review and synthesis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 209–252.

97Ibid. 98Moffett, M. (2010, August 25). Trapped miners kept focus, shared tuna. Wall Street Journal. wsj.com

93Based on Wageman, R., & Donnenfeld, A. (2007). Intervening in intra-team conflict. In K. M. Behfar & L. L. Thompson (Eds.), Conflict in organizational groups: new directions in theory and practice. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, © Leigh L. Thompson.

M08_THOM4204_06_SE_C08.indd 214 10/25/16 3:09 PM

http://wsj.com