4 Common Types of Team Conflict — and How to Resolve Them

Summary:

Managers spend 20% of their time on average managing team conflict. Over the past three decades, the authors have studied thousands of team conflicts around the world and have identified four common patterns of team conflict. The authors suggest strategies to tailor a conflict resolution approach for each type, so that managers can address conflict as close to its origin as possible.

If you have ever managed a team or worked on one, you know that conflict within a team is as inevitable as it is distracting. Many managers avoid dealing with conflict in their team where possible, hoping reasonable people can work it out. Despite this, research shows that managers spend upwards of 20% of their time on average managing conflict.

Consider Barbara, a senior executive who shared a memorable story with us about calling a special team meeting at the end of a particularly brutal day of bad news. Her planned purpose for the meeting was to agree on actions to take in hopes of getting the team back on track. What she got in the meeting, unfortunately, was a lot of team members blaming each other and defending their own individual actions. Within 10 minutes, she knew she needed to change tactics, or the meeting would spiral out of control.

Over the past three decades, we have studied thousands of team conflicts — from management teams in multinational companies like Barbara’s to assembly teams in factories in China to MBAs at top business schools. We have asked managers to share their stories of team conflict, surveyed executives, and observed conflict as it unfolds in boardrooms. Our aim has been to understand what team conflict looks like and how it evolves over time so that we can help managers improve team performance.

Despite all the differences in culture and content, we have identified four common patterns that cover virtually all team conflicts. Our work also shows that when managers take a proactive role in resolving conflict that respects the interests of the whole team, the outcomes can actually be positive and result in increased trust and better decisions that are more likely to be effectively implemented. Here are the patterns of conflict we identified along with how to manage each one.

The Solo Dissenter: Conflict surrounds one individual

Sometimes team conflict surrounds one individual on a team. This person may be the “odd one out” that is difficult to get along with or is not motivated to engage with other team members. Or this person could be the “devil’s advocate” that pushes the team, trying to get others to consider different ways of working when the team is too comfortable. Whatever the reason, it is easy to see that the tension or debate that exists in the team is attributable to this one person. Conflict due to one individual is quite common, occurring in about 20-25% of team conflicts.

If your team experiences this kind of team conflict, make sure that the team does not gang up on the individual. It’s easy to make this person a scapegoat for all things negative that plague the team or to shut them down by invoking “majority rules” and moving on quickly from the argument, but this is a mistake. It doesn’t allow you to uncover potential underlying problems, like whether this person is experiencing personal challenges or whether their team role is unclear or unmotivating. Perspective-taking is a better approach and can often ease tensions. You can model this approach in team meetings for team members to see. Ask the solo dissenter sincere questions to understand their unique perspective, build empathy toward them, while simultaneously creating new insights for your team. Research shows that when people are exposed to different points of view, it makes them more likely to think divergently, and that increases their capacity to learn and understand the problems more deeply.

Also avoid taking the entire team out for team building to deal with a disruptive solo dissenter. It is likely to annoy the majority of team members who know they are not the problem, and it does not address the fundamental issue. Instead, intervene with this person one-on-one. It could be you as team leader or another member of the team. Being open to learning more, expressing understanding, and coaching this person can go a long way to building bridges. So, if Barbara discovers that the team’s friction is primarily coming from one individual, she should have a conversation with that one person and not involve the whole team.

The Boxing Match: Two people within a team disagree

Believe it or not, the most common pattern of conflict in teams is when two people within a team disagree, comprising approximately 35% of team conflict. You may assume that this pattern will escalate to include others over time, but the evidence suggests otherwise. Most people tend to avoid taking sides when there is a dyadic conflict embedded within a group, making it most likely that the duo will continue to box until one is knocked out, or a referee steps in to mediate.

Dyadic conflict can be relationship-based, such as if two people have a history of animosity toward one another. If that is the case, tread carefully when trying to resolve it. It is possible that mediation may help, where meeting with each individual separately and then together helps them vent their feelings and perspectives. That said, make these sessions separate from the team and private. Do not let mediation be a drama for the rest of the team to watch; indeed, some team members may be unaware that the conflict exists. Alternatively, consider whether these two need to be on the same team, and if so, if there is a way to redesign workflows to minimize their need to interact. For example, if Barbara discovers that her team’s conflict is primarily dyadic and centered on a dysfunctional relationship, she needs to find a way to separate the two parties.

If a team’s conflict is dyadic but centered on the team’s tasks, leaders should use a different strategy. If kept civil, this kind of disagreement will likely help the team perform better in the long run. And it often resolves naturally as the team coalesces around what actions to take. Small-scale debates about ideas, like those that happen between two people at the watercooler or while waiting for others to join a virtual meeting or between meetings, are essential for helping people informally vet their ideas. Like a “pair and share” exercise in classrooms, these grassroots debates give people the chance to disagree in a more intimate forum, reconsider their positions, and bring the best versions of their ideas to the team. We even found that teams with multiple pairs of people debating ideas outperform teams with a single dyadic conflict.

Given that task conflict can be advantageous to groups, a savvy leader might wonder whether they can unlock greater learning in the team by assigning a devil’s advocate to create conflict between two or more members. Tempting as this sounds, it does not work. Studies show that artificial conflict or playing devil’s advocate typically feels good as a process but does not produce the same psychological reaction as listening to authentically different points of view, nor does it translate into better decisions for the team. Rather than manufacturing artificial differences of opinion, the better strategy is to create a diverse team and take the time to allow and encourage genuine differences of opinion to emerge. These real differences of opinion have the actual potential to stimulate divergent thinking and improve team performance.

Warring Factions: Two subgroups within a team disagree

The third pattern of team conflict occurs when two subgroups within the team are in opposition. Each subgroup may prefer a different team goal, project, or decision outcome. Most team members are likely to be involved in this sort of conflict, taking one side or the other. This conflict accounts for about 20-25% of conflicts in teams.

What makes this pattern of team conflict unique and dangerous, however, is that it creates approximately equal opposing sides with multiple team members allied together within the two sides. With near-equal opposition in this “us versus them” scenario, no one will consider the other side’s perspective, instead focusing on winning by digging their heels in on their preferred course of action. Strategies like voting will not work; even if one side comes up the winner, the other side typically feels ignored and will not likely support the implementation of the decision or execute it well.

Although counterintuitive, research suggests that you can break the deadlock by introducing additional ideas, alternatives, or goals to move past seemingly opposed courses of action. Doing so allows subgroups to understand their underlying interests and make trade-offs between issues that are more and less important, providing a more comprehensive solution that both sides can support. So, if Barbara’s team conflict devolves into warring factions, she should probably bring in someone from the outside to challenge the group’s thinking or present third, fourth, or fifth options.

The Blame Game: The whole team is in disagreement

The prototypical picture of team conflict is of everyone arguing with one another, but, while this happens from time to time, it is relatively rare. Less than 15% of teams ever experience this pattern of outright team conflict.

This pattern of conflict can emerge early in a project when everyone has a different idea of what the team should do. But more often than not, whole-team conflict emerges in response to poor team performance and related feedback. Poor performance prompts team members to assign blame to others who respond by shifting blame elsewhere, as Barbara experienced in the initial moments of her team meeting. As tempting as it is to assign blame for poor team performance to specific individuals, it usually generates more conflict than it resolves.

When whole-team conflict strikes, you need the whole team to come together in the best interests of the team. That may mean better articulating the team’s goal or vision or re-affirming the team’s identity. In the case of a team failure, this most certainly means debriefing poor performance feedback by focusing on the collective and not identifying specific individuals. For example, team leaders or members can articulate strategies that everyone on the team can improve or contribute to in a positive way — looking forward instead of rehashing who did what when.

As it turns out, Barbara was experiencing whole-team conflict. We advised her to shift the focus of conversation from looking at causes of the negative feedback to the need to work together to resolve the issues moving forward. The outcome was a shift in the room to a more constructive tone and problem-solving that addressed the issues and led to improved team performance.

Tailoring Your Approach

Your team’s conflict is likely as unique as the individuals involved, and yet, probably also fits into one of these four patterns. Knowing the pattern of your team’s conflict gives you more information about the number of people involved, how they are involved, and where to focus your efforts when it comes to achieving positive outcomes from team conflict.

There are two key points managers and team leaders should remember. First, tackle conflict at its point of origin according to the pattern. Save those team-building retreats for conflict that involves all team members where whole group unity is needed. Second, take care of conflict’s “sides.” When one side is represented by a minority (e.g., one person), do not allow the majority to prematurely shut the other side down with a vote. When two equally balanced sides seem miles apart, add different options to spark creativity in integrating them. If you intervene smartly as close to the origin of the conflict as you can, you’re more likely to stem its long-term consequences and improve team outcomes.

Explore AAPL Membership benefits.