The Handbook of Conflict Resolution (3rd ed)

by Peter T Coleman

  Continuing the Lewinian influence, group relations is the interplay of psychodynamic and open systems theories to understand group and organizational dynamics. The open systems aspect of group relations concerns Lewin’s work on the significant impact of environmental context on a person’s behavior. Open systems include the approach that organizational subsystems are all related to each other and any change in one part of the organization will affect change in the other subsystems. Thus, there is an input-throughput-output model implicit in the group relations framework (Agazarian, 2005; Miller and Rice, 1967). The environment provides the input, the organization creates the throughput, and then it delivers work as the output back to the environment. One affects the other continuously, and boundary permeability, or lack thereof, across sectors and subsectors is constantly assessed (Agazarian, 2005; Miller and Rice, 1967).

  The psychodynamic contribution of group relations centers on the work of Bion (1961), who wrote about the presence of both conscious and unconscious processes in group life. Bion (1961) asserted that groups always have two primary aspects operating simultaneously: the “work group” (p. 143), consisting of overt, conscious, known group processes, and the “basic assumption group” (p. 146), consisting of covert, unconscious, sometimes irrational ones. Indeed, one of the tasks of attempting to resolve conflict in a group or team is to make the covert overt.

  In addition, the Freudian concepts of defense mechanisms, unconscious strategies used to cope with anxiety (Freud, 1966), are also incorporated in group relations thinking (Menzies, 1959). Group relations theorists posit that groups engage most commonly in the defense mechanisms of splitting and projective identification when faced with extreme anxiety (Horowitz, 1985, Wells, 1995). Splitting is categorizing people, groups, or systems as all good or all bad. The defining quality of splitting is that opposite qualities cannot be contained in the same entity. Young children do this naturally (e.g., Mommy is all good; Daddy is all bad) before they have the psychological maturity to understand that Mommy can be both good and bad, as can Daddy. In groups, members may seek to portray one member as all bad (a scapegoat) while the rest of the group remains all good (martyrs), or the human resource department may be seen as all good (helpful, dedicated to people) while the finance department is characterized as all bad (greedy, bean counters). Groups may engage in splitting when faced with significant anxiety (e.g., when tasks are extremely ambiguous, budgets are cut, work is high profile, leadership is incompetent or absent) so as to make a situation seem more manageable. For example, it may be easier for team members to characterize a team leader as inarguably incompetent rather than confront the fact that the team members may not have the talent or resources to produce the required deliverables.

  Similarly, groups that are under significant stress may engage in the defense mechanism of projective identification, whereby group members seek to disown undesirable characteristics in themselves and project them onto another, who then enacts them on their behalf. This protects the group from having to experience intensely uncomfortable feelings while allowing their expression through the member who “carries” the projections. Thus, the “bad” member of the group (unconsciously) enacts members’ incompetence, laziness, or other unwanted characteristics so as to free the other group members from having to own such undesirable qualities. Members then encourage the bad member’s badness (unconsciously) in order to identify with it, that is, to see their own feelings expressed. This defense mechanism protects group members from having to acknowledge their own painful, undesirable, unwanted qualities. Psychodynamic theorists typically position defense mechanisms as individual dynamics, that is, strategies that individuals use to cope with intrapsychic conflict. Yet group relations theorists believe they are applicable to group and organizational contexts (e.g., projective identification is, from a group relations perspective, the foundation of scapegoating in groups; see Gemmil, 1989). Relatedly, Sandy, Boardman, and Deutsch in chapter 17 in this Handbook discuss how defense mechanisms may be useful constructs in understanding not just intrapersonal conflicts but interpersonal and other external conflicts as well.

  CONFLICT IN GROUPS: A DIAGNOSTIC FRAMEWORK

  The group relations perspective offers a way to understand conflict in groups both systemically as well as in its discrete, specific parts (Lazar, 2004). Conflict in groups is frequently beneficial, as when it helps group members identify constructive, cooperative problem-solving strategies (see chapter 1 of this Handbook) or when it helps the group forge its identity, clarify goals, or develop better decision-making processes (Wheelan, 2013). Wheelan (2013) even asserts that high-performing teams have frequent conflict. These conflicts are typically brief, however, because these teams have effective strategies for managing conflict and engage in more cooperative processes than competitive ones in conflict resolution (see chapter 1 of this Handbook).

  The group relations approach to understanding conflict affords one multiple units of analysis and, as a result, numerous options in working toward productive conflict resolution in groups. The group relations perspective has been applied to a wide variety of organizational systems in organization development work, including urban school reform (Pruitt and Barber, 2004), an AIDS therapy group (Brazaitis and Gushue, 2004), a pediatric oncology nursing service (Fruge and Adams, 2004), Dalit empowerment in India (Viswanath, 2009), and a national financial institution in South Africa (de Jager and Sher, 2009), among others. The psychodynamic aspects of the group relations perspective include an examination of the unconscious and covert processes of group life. This affords a deeper understanding of the conflict dynamics in groups as well as more options for conflict resolution (see chapter 17 in this Handbook for an in-depth discussion of psychodynamic theory and conflict). The open systems tenets of group relations include using a levels approach to understand group dynamics and conflict and incorporating the impact of the environmental context as a vital source of information about the conflict’s root causes and possibilities for intervention.

  Wells (1995) described five levels of organizational analysis used to understand dynamics in groups and systems from a group relations perspective. This levels approach is a taxonomy for diagnosing group dynamics and conflict, as well as a blueprint to craft appropriate interventions. Wells’s framework is also called a group-as-a-whole or group-centered model, in that one of its central premises is that a group is more than the sum of its disparate parts. Again, this builds directly on the work of Lewin (1951), who, with a background in Gestalt psychology, also purported in his work that the whole is different from the sum of its parts. According to Wells and other group relations theorists (see Agazarian, 2005; Ettin, 2004), a group is not just a collection of individuals but an amalgam of those individuals. This means that the group’s essence or, as Wells puts it, the group’s “élan vital” (1995, p. 55), includes something different from but related to each individual’s contribution. Each group has its own personality or essence that is related to its particular members but is not equal to each discrete individual contribution. Using Wells’s group-as-a-whole framework, one might understand conflict in a group in related but different ways depending on which level of organizational analysis was being applied. The framework is described in detail below with an illustrative case example of how it can be used to understand group dynamics and conflict resolution.

  The first level in Wells’s model is intrapersonal. Understanding conflict at the intrapersonal level of organizational analysis means thinking about how one’s individual personality, internal traits, or state of mind is related to the conflict. An individual’s actions are said to be diagnostic of the actor at this level of analysis. So someone who explodes in a rage at a business meeting might be said to have an explosive personality, an anger management problem, or perhaps to be underrested and overcaffeinated. Either a trait (enduring personality characteristic) or a state (temporary condition) explanation is a potentially valid hypothesis at the intrapersonal level of analysis.r />
  The second level in the model is the interpersonal level. At this level, dynamics are understood by looking at member-to-member relations, often in a dyad. If two people have a significant conflict at a meeting, the interpersonal level of analysis means that we understand the conflict as residing primarily between the two of them. The conflict is understood as about the dyad rather than due to either one’s personality alone or as part of a larger group dynamic.

  The third level is the group-as-a-whole or group-centered level. At this third level of analysis in Wells’s taxonomy, a group member who erupts in anger would be said to be expressing that anger on behalf of the group. That is, others in the group likely also feel angry yet deny those undesirable feelings in themselves, project them onto another member, and then subtly, unconsciously, encourage that member to express them on their behalf.

  The fourth level in the model is the intergroup level. This level concerns individuals engaging in behaviors as representations of their respective group membership. Therefore, a conflict that occurs between two individuals could be understood at the intergroup level of analysis as being between their respective groups through their group membership. Thus, a human resources executive in conflict with a finance executive in an organization could be understood as a conflict between the HR and finance departments being expressed by these two individuals but existing between the two departments or subgroups.

  Finally, the fifth level of Wells’s taxonomy is the interorganizational level. Diagnosing and understanding conflict at this level means looking at the conflict as a representation of the organization’s relationship to another organization or organizations, as well as the organization’s relationship to its environment. Employees of two organizations undergoing a merger and acquisition may engage in conflict that is less about the individual employees and more about the relationship between the acquiring organization and the acquired one. That is, the conflict may represent power dynamics between the organizations such as turf wars or struggles around redundancies rather than real animosity between the employees from each organization.

  The five levels of organizational analysis framework can be applied to a group or team experiencing conflict as a means to diagnose the various sources of that conflict. The BART framework—boundary, authority, role, and task—can then be used across Wells’s five levels to develop strategies to improve group, team, and organizational performance, including conflict resolution.

  The BART system is a set of social-structural concepts for intervening in groups, teams, and organizations and can be used to address conflict (Green and Molenkamp, 2005; Hayden and Molenkamp, 2004). BART helps group members consider emotional and other potentially covert factors, including projective processes that may affect their ability to engage in constructive conflict (Noumair, in press). Focusing on the concepts of boundary, authority, role, and task in conflict resolution is consistent with recent empirical research findings on group conflict in organizations that identify task conflict, relationship conflict, and process conflict as the essential areas of study and intervention (Tindale et al., 2005). In addition, BART can be mapped across Wells’s five levels of analysis as a means of conflict resolution in groups. Each component of BART is explained below:

  Boundary. Group boundaries refer to the physical and psychological container that surrounds a group and lets us know a group is a group when we see it (McCollom, 1995). Physical boundaries include time and space (e.g., when a group meets, where it meets, including virtual meetings). Psychological boundaries form the “psychosocial basis of the group’s structure” (Hartman and Gibbard, 1974, p. 155). Psychological boundaries form around a group when members achieve a sense of group belonging and identity. Optimal boundary permeability is a key component to good group functioning. A group whose boundaries are too permeable will suffer from a loss of identity and purpose. A group that is overly bounded will not be attuned to the environment and will ignore imperative resources (ideas, talent, and the like) that it needs to thrive (McCollom, 1995).

  Authority. Authority refers to the right to make rules and decisions and enforce them (Obholzer, 1994). In a group or organization, authority also includes structural aspects (e.g., hierarchical, a matrix, flat). Authority might be shared or rotated among group members, or it might be static. Key questions regarding authority in groups are, “Who is in charge formally or officially, informally or in practice? Who is authorized to do what in the group? That is, whose leadership is supported, whose is ignored? What types of work are condoned, and what work is devalued?” Authority also applies to roles.

  Roles. Roles refer to the position or tasks one performs in an organization, as well as one’s response to the position or tasks (Krantz and Maltz, 1997). Roles can be formal, such as executive director or administrative assistant, or informal, such as clown or nurturer. Roles include aspects given (set forth by the organization or one’s boss) and taken (how one enacts a role on a daily basis) (Krantz and Maltz, 1997). They are authorized when an authorizing person or persons, such as a boss or manager, gives them significant resources, influence, prominence, or attention.

  Task. Task refers to the operationalization of the aims of the group, team or organization (Roberts, 1994). Task can be a synonym for goal or tasks can be a subset of goals. Hackman (2002) refers to task in groups as “compelling direction.” Tasks are typically in line with an organizational mission, yet there are often competing tasks in a group or organization, and conflicts arise when there is not a clear understanding concerning which task or tasks take priority. In addition, there may be covert tasks (advancing one’s private agenda) that are not aligned with overt tasks (working for the good of the team) (Roberts, 1994).

  Following is a case study of a group experiencing conflict, The Case of Pink Power. Group members at the Pink Power organization are wrestling with weighty issues, including diversity, access to resources, succession, and the organization’s future among others. There is nothing inherently wrong with the tensions they are experiencing; in fact, they are asking important, even profound, questions of each other. Yet they cannot make use of their differences of opinion to engage in problem solving around the organization’s critical issues. On the contrary, they degenerate into mistrusting one another and each other’s work. Some of the group’s problematic dynamics are described in the case study, and Wells’s taxonomy is applied to the case such that the group’s dynamics are categorized at each level of analysis. The BART model is then applied to the case as a group relations conflict resolution framework that can be used to help the group engage their conflicts more constructively.

  CASE STUDY: THE CASE OF PINK POWER

  Pink Power is a nonprofit educational and philanthropic organization that includes in its mission the goals of educating women and their families about breast cancer and its treatment, helping women advocate for themselves as they navigate the medical world of diagnosis and treatment for breast cancer, and providing one-time funds to women in need as a way to ease the economic stress that inhibits recovery and quality of life for those with breast cancer. The organization’s senior leadership team had been struggling with entrenched conflicts about diversity for nearly a year.

  Pink Power’s senior leadership team is made up of mostly white women (five out of nine), including the executive director, Diana, who is also the organization’s founder and a breast cancer survivor herself. On the team are one African American man, one African American woman, one Asian American woman, and one white man. The African American man, Leon, serves in the newly created role of director of diversity for the team. He had formerly been a part of the development function and was a very successful fundraiser. The African American woman, Nina, is the HR director; the Asian American woman, Angela, is the head of information technology; and the white man, David, is the medical director and an oncologist. The other white women’s roles are research director, Karen; education director, Emily; development and finance director, Alice; and program director, Pam
.

  Over the past year, the organization has been trying to work more closely with communities of color, particularly the African American community, as rates of female breast cancer are disproportionately high among African American women and the community is seen as underserved in terms of education and support from the medical establishment. Furthermore, two years ago, there was an article in the local newspaper about Pink Power where an African American woman said she did not feel welcome as a client at the organization. Although the quote was only a small part of the article, it was taken up heatedly in the blogosphere for several days afterward and reverberated negatively throughout the organization and its board for months. Diana and the board discussed improving Pink Power’s efforts to reach out to communities of color as both donors and clients. Pink Power’s board is very supportive of Diana as executive director and is in agreement that the organization should include new communities in its strategic plan.