A conflict is constructive if the resolution adopted by the aggrieved results in the group making improved choices and creative resolutions.
Additionally, conflict leads to a better understanding of people and issues in a group as well as creative ways of taking advantage of opportunities and solving problems (Van Scotter et al., 2011).
The negative experience of the discussion of constructive feedback to the disclosed information and participants’ unwillingness or reluctance to engage in the discussions.
According to the “Johari Window” context, conflict-based discussions have a tendency to provoke the development of “group-think” or “risky-cautions shift” when participants chose to fragment relevant information in order to avoid biases associated with the proposed solutions (Smith, 2005, n. Consequently, the team-members may experience “group conflict perceptual asymmetry” when there is different conflict perception among team-members in terms of individual level values and assumptions (Jehn et al., 2010, p. As a result, the negative towards conflicting discussions aimed at with adopting versions of risky choices by group-members when they withheld relevant information or became personally related to the content of conflicting discussions.
Eventually, both teams traded places from time-to-time On the other hand, the conflict represented a complex problem when the participants had to go through disagreements and opposing viewpoints.
In particular, the benefits of the conflict-based discussions are concerned with the increased necessity of team-members to work more efficiently to reach workable alternatives.Indeed, the fundamental strategies helped to select the supporting evidence of the proposed ideas needed in the group process. In the context of group dynamics theory, I employed the concept of “relative responsibility allocation” when the group-members lacked direct experience with “the task-led conflicts.” Eventually, the concept allowed the team members to eliminate the separation between the decision-making and and direct the group process to the conformity (Burnette & Forsyth, 2008, p. As a result, I was able to filter the given information and draft it concisely for the review of the group-members, considering that I did not experience informational fluctuations during conflict-based discourse. The effects of conflict asymmetry on work group and individual outcomes. You need to do your best to make a great impact on your audience and ensure that they will retain all the information you presented to them.That is not easy, and it goes without saying that a good Power Point presentation can’t be created in a few minutes.From the perspective of “the closed group” decision-making dynamics, this type of leadership involvement helps to reduce the complexity of manipulation associated with the conflicting discussions. Additionally, employing decision-making dynamics in situations may benefit the opposing team members and enhance interdependence of the work-group in terms of strategic re-creation of the process implementation (Burnette and Forsyth, 2008, p. With the provision of differentiating value that comes along with impartial leadership, the group-work process based on the conflicting discussions would help to eliminate participants cognitive dissonance and fear of failure associated with the inappropriate suggestions. “I didn’t do it:” Responsibility Biases in Open and Closed Groups. Unfortunately, we did not resulted in an asymmetry in the conflict perception of the group-members from competing teams when those who had to respond to the controversial questions resisted appropriate informational disclosure. Indeed, the presence of the intermediary who acted as conflict-evaluating agent helped to eliminate group members’ fear of failure and allowed to re-create potential solutions operational strategies. Indeed, the workable alternatives helped us proactively Notably, applying consistence with the context of typical patterns of team conflict, the experience of our team was effective in terms of the emergence of positive discussion outcomes since the nature of simulation technique allowed us not to experience “routine” and “relationship conflict” on the individual interactive level (“The Two Sides of Conflict”, n.d.).level of detail and its support with the respective amount of evidence collected by the means of the conflict-escalating discussions that encouraged participants to prove the reliability of the suggested details.