Disagreements within teams: what managers need to distinguish
Should managers encourage technical disagreements to improve their team's decisions? For SHR — Swiss Human Resources' “Management de proximité” programme, the useful question concerns the conditions under which a difference of opinion remains an examination of the work rather than a confrontation between people.
What the literature establishes
Carsten K. W. De Dreu and Laurie R. Weingart (2003, Journal of Applied Psychology) distinguish task conflict from relationship conflict in their meta-analysis. Their findings show negative associations with performance and member satisfaction for both categories, contrary to the idea that disagreement about work is generally beneficial. Distinguishing the categories therefore remains necessary, but does not in itself establish the value of technical conflict.
When disagreement remains focused on the work
Frank R. C. de Wit, Lindred L. Greer and Karen A. Jehn (2012, Journal of Applied Psychology) offer a more conditional interpretation in a later meta-analysis. The relationship between task conflict and performance is more favourable when task conflict is less closely associated with relationship conflict; it also varies with the type of team and the outcome assessed. Decision quality and a team's overall performance are therefore not interchangeable criteria.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that managers should stimulate more debate, provided they insist on a courteous tone. These findings do not, however, demonstrate either that increasing disagreement improves performance or that courtesy prevents disagreements from becoming personal. The more useful task is to make arguments open to examination: which assumption, constraint or criterion separates the positions? (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot decide
These meta-analyses combine studies with differing contexts, measures and designs; their associations do not constitute a causal prescription for every team. Nor do they provide an optimal level of conflict that managers could apply to their operations. In practice, a calm discussion can leave a disagreement unresolved, while a lively exchange does not in itself prove that cooperation has deteriorated.
A practical check in Bâle
For a Basel-based pharma or life sciences team working at the interfaces with Rhine logistics and international R&D, a proposed exercise for the “Management de proximité” programme is to keep a register of disagreements requiring a decision, without replacing applicable quality procedures. For each case, record the issue, the options, the decision criterion, the decision and the person responsible for implementation, without assigning personality traits to participants. Over a period defined in advance, calculate the proportion of cases with both an explicit criterion and an assigned decision, then identify those reopened because the original resolution was ambiguous. This checks the traceability of how disagreements are handled, not a causal effect on performance. To go further: explore the Frontline Management training in Basel, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Frontline Management in Basel
- frontline management
- Basel
- research
- training basel