The conflict is a process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected something that the first party cares about. Whether the conflict is good or bad depends on the type of conflict. Functional conflicts are constructive; they support the goals of the group and improve its performance. On the other hand, dysfunctional conflicts are destructive and hinder group performance.

The conflict process comprises five stages. The first stage is potential opposition or incompatibility. It creates an opportunity for the conflict to arise. At the second stage, cognition and personalization, parties perceive that there is a conflict but no behavior is apparent yet. In the third stage, parties develop intentions about how to handle the conflicts, such as competing, cooperating, or avoiding. The fourth stage, behavior, is the stage that we usually see as the conflict itself for this is when the conflict becomes visible. The fifth and last stage is the outcome, which might increase group performance (functional conflict) or decrease group performance (dysfunctional conflict).

There are several ways to resolve conflicts, of which problem solving is the most common. It involves face to face meetings of the conflicting parties for the purpose of identifying the problem and resolving it through open discussion. We will describe a typical resolution of a dysfunctional conflict through problem solving, based on my personal experience.

Since two weeks, Mitch is consistently late with the tasks he's accountable for. It seems that he always encounters some "obstacle". Looking into it, I noticed that he could have solved most of these issues by himself; he definitely didn't try very hard. For those he couldn't, he could have found another way to contribute to the project instead of waiting idly till the next daily meeting. At daily meetings I could tell that other team members were starting to see Mitch as a fifth wheel.

Mitch and the rest of team ? which I'm part of ? have a conflict. As project manager, it is part of my role to resolve the conflict.

Mitch is part of my team since only one month, but is working with the company for the last 2 years. I decide to talk for a few minutes privately to his former project manager. She mentions that Mitch was never a star, but delivered decent results. If I fail to solve this conflict, Mitch will have to leave the team, possibly even the company. Since he has the skills and proved a decent worker before, I would see that as a personal failure. It is my job to bring him back on board and unlock his potential.

I have to talk to Mitch privately. Having this discussion publicly might humiliate him. I ask him when we could have a 30 minutes discussion, and I choose a small meeting room as the location. I could have chosen my office, but a meeting room is better as neutral territory.

The next day we meet in the small room as planned. I tell him what I noticed, and why it troubles me. I briefly go though facts but never show anger. Rather, I show disappointment. I don't mention anyone else: I am the one making the observations and I am the one having an issue with his behavior. I then clearly mention that my goal is to help, that he's a skilled and experienced professional and that we need him on the project. Note that, even if I had received information from someone else, mentioning this third party would instantly broaden the conflict and turn it into something personal.

Now comes the time for me to listen in order to understand the underlying cause of the problem. Mitch clearly dislikes what he's working on. "It's this new CMS", he tells me, "I'm a graphic designer and I'm working on this thing since two months because I'm the only one who knows how to use it!" I know that Mitch is a graphic designer. From the start we agreed that he would work temporarily with this new CMS. But I couldn't imagine that he would come to dislike it to this point.

I tell Mitch that he should have been more proactive instead of letting the situation degrade until it affects his mood and the whole project. I also tell Mitch that we have to find a solution. The project is scheduled to be finished in 6 weeks, and until then we do not have any other choice but to rely on this CMS. I clearly tell Mitch that I will make sure that he will resume his graphic designer role after the project. I ask Mitch if he agrees on that. He does, but I can see he is somewhat reluctant to trust me. I tell Mitch that I will look into the next projects to find a role that better suits him. I add that, if it's impossible, then I'll consider transferring him to another team. I ask him once more if he's ok with that. Mitch seems to trust that I'm really looking for a solution now. I immediately schedule another short meeting, next week, to follow up on what we said, so that I can tell him the result of my investigation and give him a feedback on his performance (since he's supposed to beef up his effort). I'm happy with the negotiation too. I removed any possible excuse for Mitch to do sloppy work, which should put the project back on track.

We can easily summarize the problem solving steps:

1. Formulate desired outcome
2. Research antecedents
3. Set place and time for negotiation
4. Tell what I have observed
5. Listen to gain better understanding
6. State my needs clearly
7. Agree on a way to solve the problem
8. Follow up thoroughly

The theory part of this post is heavily inspired by the excellent book Organizational Behavior, S. P. Robbins, Prentice Hall.