Team conflict in ICT-rich environments: Roles of technologies in conflict management

This study looks at how an information and communication technologies (ICT)-rich environment impacts team conflict and conflict management strategies. A case study research method was used. Three teams, part of a graduate class in instructional design, participated in the study. Data were collected through observations of team meetings, interviews with individual members, plus analysis of electronic documents exchanged among team members. Findings indicate that all teams experienced conflict at some level and that conflict management strategies evolved over time. ICT played a dual role in the conflict management of teams. These technologies seemed to facilitate conflict management by offering a formal means of communication, by making communication more effective with minimal waste or unnecessary effort, and by creating opportunities for more thoughtful reactions, with chances for reflection on the content. However, ICT also aggravated conflict, specifically when strategies for use were imposed, when team members became blunt and forthright, and when misinterpretations occurred because of differing senses of urgency in replying to emails. Introduction Working in teams is an instructional practice used widely in formal and informal educational and training settings, especially in this era of globalisation and technological advances. Particularly at the university and graduate level, people from a wide variety of nationalities and cultures bring diverse sets of working experiences and backgrounds to team-based work. As McLoughlin and Luca (2002) explained, employers expect universities to prepare professionals with ‘not only a strong knowledge base, but also diversified social, communication, and cooperation skills, flexibility to work in different contexts and the capacity to manage information and self and others’ (p. 572). In addition, cooperative learning methods have many benefits compared to working British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 39 No 1 2008 18–35 doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00700.x © 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. independently; for example, teamwork: (1) increases student achievement and productivity; (2) allows for more supportive and committed relationships; and (3) boosts psychological health, social competence and self-esteem (Johnson, Johnson & Stanne, 2000). Background and significance of the study Members of a team bring a multitude of knowledge, experiences and perspectives, creating a unique learning environment where conflict is often referred to as the norm (Iles & Hayers, 1997). Knowing how to deal with conflict when it occurs is fundamental to the well-being of any team. Moreover, controversy and debate can be used to facilitate learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1985). Groups in general and small teams in particular have been objects of extensive study because of their intrinsic complexity. Many of these studies, however, are along the lines of experimental research and take place in controlled situations in noneducational settings (Johnson et al, 2000; McGrath, Arrow & Berdahl, 2000). Furthermore, research on how small groups operate has been conducted predominantly in the fields of organisational behaviour, information sciences, communication studies, and clinical and educational psychology (McGrath et al, 2000), and less in the area of educational technology. Studying team conflict from this perspective has potential to improve information and communication technologies (ICT)-supported teamwork as an instructional strategy. The use of ICT to support teamwork adds more complexity to the group phenomenon. By offering flexibility, convenience and low-cost communication, networked technologies are used to support collaborative efforts as a complement to face-to-face interaction or as the major means for communication when teams are geographically dispersed. But there has been little educational research aimed at investigating computermediated teams. Kerr (1996) emphasised the need for studies of the sociology of groups and the relationships between groups and technologies. Only a subset of research on small groups has looked at the role of ICT in managing team conflict and improving communication among team members. Findings were, however, ambiguous. On one hand, it seems that technologies can contribute to managing conflict in teamwork (Hsu, 1999; Rockart & Short, 1991). On the other hand, they can create dissatisfaction and lower confidence in group outcomes (McGrath & Hollingshead, 1994), and can make achieving consensus more difficult (Andriessen, 2003). Because conflict is a continuing mediator of performance, investigating its dynamics is a serious matter for educators and teams. Additionally, when mediated by technologies conflict management practices change (Poole, Holmes & Desanctis, 1991; Riopelle et al, 2003), and this also needs to be investigated. Research issues addressed The goal of this study is to understand the role of an ICT-rich environment in team conflict and conflict management strategies in a higher education setting. The research study seeks to address the following issues: Team conflict in ICT-rich environments 19 © 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. • What are the main sources of conflict experienced by teams? • What conflict management styles do teams use? • What types of technologies do teams use to support teamwork? How do they use these technologies to support their work? • What is the role of ICT-rich settings in managing team conflict? Although the concept of an ICT-rich environment is broad, it is defined here as any learning environment that makes available to learners networked computers, software, and web-based resources that complement face-to-face interactions, such as email, discussion forums, instant messaging, shared group calendars, listservs, cellphones and fax. Teams can use these resources to support their work. ‘Support’ here does not imply that the computer systems replace collaborative work. It means that ‘there is a human-computer system assisting the work itself and/or the coordination’ of work processes (Egger, 1996, p. 42). Conflict in teamwork Every team experiences conflict at some level. As Lauzon (1999) pointed out, conflict within communities of practice seems to result from ‘contradictions embedded in selfdefinitions’ (p. 267). Although small groups are distinct from communities of practice, many forms of disagreement still originate in tensions between explicit and implicit beliefs, values and practices. Conflict is defined in this study as any statement of disagreement that creates discomfort and disaffection among people in a team (Hobman, Bordia, Irmer & Chang, 2002). Types of conflict at the task and relationship levels of have been described frequently in the literature (Levi, 2001; Rahim, 2001; Stewart, Manz & Sims, 1999). Task-related conflict occurs when team members disagree about the tasks themselves, how those tasks should be performed and/or completed (Stewart et al, 1999), and how well they should be performed (excelling vs. meeting minimum requirements). Relationshiprelated conflict is centred on relationships, psychological and social constructs, when team members experience interpersonal incompatibility. Both relational and task-based conflict can have positive and negative effects on teams. These kinds of conflict often occur together. When members disagree about an issue, the debate sometimes can turn relational. What seems to be a ‘legitimate’ and therefore an impersonal conflict can easily turn into a relational, personal conflict (Forsyth, 1999). Conflict is more frequent in heterogeneous teams than in homogeneous ones (Levi, 2001). Group heterogeneity in this study was a result of different nationalities, social classes, races, age groups, gender, economic status, religions, affective orientations, ethnicities, lifestyles and expertise. Conflict is a fundamental aspect of teamwork (Forsyth, 1999; Levi, 2001; Putnam, 1986). Whitworth (2005) claimed that ‘conflict within organizations is inevitable, but without conflict there would be no creativity, and hence no innovation’ (p. 690). In an early phase of conflict research, theorists argued that conflict was detrimental to team20 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 39 No 1 2008 © 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. work and that it impacts organisations negatively (Jehn, 1995). Conflict was perceived as destructive and ineffective, as a problem that needs to be minimised and controlled. In that earlier view, conflict represents a danger to effective teamwork by taking time, by being irrelevant to the tasks, and by disrupting the relationships among team members (Smith & Berg, 1987). More recent research, however, has shown that conflict can be beneficial to teamwork (Forsyth, 1999; Johnson & Johnson, 2003; Levi, 2001; Tjosvold, 1992; Tjosvold & Tjosvold, 1991; Worchel, Coutant-Sassic & Wong, 1993). In terms of conflict management, this study follows Thomas’ model, which is organised around two dimensions: (1) cooperativeness as an attempt to satisfy the other’s concerns, and (2) assertiveness as an attempt to satisfy one’s own concerns (Thomas, 1992). Combinations of these dimensions lead to five modes of handling conflict: 1. Avoidance corresponds to evasiveness and failure to confront. It is low in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. 2. Accommodation consists of an attempt to achieve others’ goals at the expense of one’s own. It is low in assertiveness and high in cooperativeness. 3. Competition entails the use of power as one member tries to force her view on others. It is high in assertiveness and low in cooperativeness. 4. Compromise requires that each side of a dispute makes concessions. It is intermediate in assertiveness and cooperativeness. 5. Collaboration attempts to identify and achieve outcomes that satisfy the interests of all members involved. It is high in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. Conflict in ICT-rich settings ICT are frequently described in the literature as tools to facilitate teamwork. For instance, McLoughlin and Luca (2002) emphasised the advantages technological tools offer to ‘foster team skills, process knowledge and personal knowledge’ (p. 577). In addition, the role played by ICT in conflict management is described as either detrimental to teamwork, beneficial to teamwork or both (Andriessen, 2003; Grudin, 1994; Hiltz & Turoff, 1993). (Hiltz & Turoff, 1993) suggested that computers in particular allow for more equal participation among team members, because team members are less influenced by differences in status. In computer-mediated communication, the technologies act as an equaliser. On the same premise, computer-mediated decision making is more dependent on information and facts and less on social pressures. Turoff et al (2006) found that computer-mediated tools (eg, Delphi-like software systems) can effectively support online discussions among members of large groups on complex issues. In spite of the clear benefits noted earlier, some authors (Andriessen, 2003; Grudin, 1994) pointed to some limitations inherent in the use of ICT. They argued that the success of technologies’ use depends more on the user than on the technologies themselves. The adoption, use and success or failure of these technologies relies on three Team conflict in ICT-rich environments 21 © 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 British Educational Communications and Technology Agency. factors: (1) if it is appropriate for the tasks the user needs to perform, (2) if it supports the social context, and (3) if it is flexible enough to change according to evolving demands (Andriessen, 2003). Grudin (1994) added that the benefits of technologies developed to support teamwork are dependent on the preferences, prior experience, roles and assignments of every team member. What is helpful to one team member might not be helpful to others.