Conflict, compromise and collaboration

Good decisions are at the heart of business success, so perhaps it is surprising that we spend so little time considering how these decisions are made. In large organisations, many of the decisions are made in consultation with others. We might expect that decisions made by a group would be more effective than those made by an individual: the group has a wider range of knowledge on which to draw and inform their choices.

Why, then, do groups sometimes make very poor decisions?

“Groupthink”, a term originally defined by social psychologist Irving Janis in 1972, is one example of the negative behaviours that can arise from group dynamics. Groups affected by this phenomenon tend to ignore alternatives, discount warnings and suppress minority views, which can lead to irrational decisions or extreme risk taking that is not recognised as such. Groupthink often occurs when group members have similar backgrounds (the group is insulated from outside opinions) and when the rules for decision making are unclear.

How can organisations counter this risk? According to Ken Coon, Human Resources Vice President for Shell Projects & Technology, it starts with recruitment. “We aim to recruit colleagues who represent the diverse markets in which we operate and, consequently, a wide range of social backgrounds and cultures. In simple terms, there are two aspects to this: diversity and inclusion. Diversity is about ensuring there is a good mix of staff from various cultures, backgrounds, etc. throughout Shell’s organisations.

Inclusion is about giving people confidence in their working environment so that their input is sought and appreciated and they are free to speak their mind without fear of negative consequences.”

When recruiting staff or bringing people into a project team, there is the potential for a natural bias among selectors to choose people with whom they find common ground. The trap of “hiring people like us” tends to lead to homogenisation of the group, which is detrimental to creativity and innovation. This is particularly the case where a strong leader uses the group as a “rubber
stamp” for his or her preferred solution.

Sally Martin, Vice President of Commercial Services at Shell Global Solutions, explains: “When everyone in a team shares common backgrounds and world views, it is less likely that alternatives will be proposed or that anyone will ask why a particular course of action is the best option. In my view, people in a team should be given permission and/or responsibility to dissent.”

Even groups with a few dissenting voices do not guarantee better decisions. To run against the group view can be a thankless task if a dissenter is continually overruled, ignored or characterised as difficult. Over time, if the dissenting voices are few, they will either be removed from the group or assimilated into it.

For many people, conflict at work is something to be avoided. When it is handled well, however, conflict forces us to be more creative problem solvers, helps us to avoid mistakes and shows us how to benefit from our differences. Of course, a group that is at war with itself will not achieve much. Conflict becomes a problem if it disrupts the workflow, becomes personal or leads to more conflict and harms working relationships.

One of the best ways to prevent harmful conflict is to create an environment where opinions can be exchanged without fear of negative consequences.

Shell aims to enable group members to present their opinions and to disagree with others as part of a constructive process. Coon explains, “We aim for a work environment where all employees will feel included and free to speak their mind. This is good for Shell and will bring us closer to our business partners. Other organisations will value relationships with us because we are genuinely focused on understanding their needs and concerns.

“Collaboration with universities and many business partners or other companies is a major part of the Shell business framework. These external voices challenge our thinking, which often leads to modifications or improvements to our plans. In all circumstances, we gain a broader perspective on the issue,” he concludes.

Martin adds, “Having a strong corporate culture can inhibit the quality of decision making by convincing groups to make familiar choices that they know will lead to familiar destinations. Bringing in another organisation, either as a consultant or a partner, is a good way to find diverse views, but, to benefit, we must be willing to listen to, assess and, if appropriate, act on those different viewpoints.”

For “group” activities, you are only as good as the people you work with. Companies that can attract the best business partners will have opportunities to interact and exchange views with experts in other organisations. Shell recognises and embraces this because it provides a crucial check against the dangers of groupthink and plays an important role in finding innovative business solutions.

A little conflict is good for you

According to a recent study¹, conflict can deliver better results in terms of creative output. Researchers observed design teams during idea generation and then compared the conflict behaviour of each team with their creative output. The highscoring groups in innovation and functionality were those more prone to competing and compromising, while the low-rated groups were more collaborative. The findings also showed that more ideas were generated in the higher-scoring groups. The researchers concluded that creative performance in teams is maximised through controlled confrontation and compromise.

^{1. Badke-Schaub, P., Goldschmidt, G. and Meijer, M.: “How Does Cognitive Conflict in Design Teams Support the Development of Creative Ideas?”, Creativity and Innovation Management (2010), 19(2), 119–133}

For more information, contact Ken Coon.