Managing Team Conflicts

Scenario 1
According to Shockley-Zalabak (2011), conflicts present the occurrence of frustration in attaining the set goals or addressing an issue of concern for an organization, individual or between small groups. There are many types of conflict based on the source, members involved and the setting where they occur. Therefore, based on the scenario involving Gary, the type of conflict it describes is group-procedural conflict. This is found to arise where interpersonal issues are resulting from the lack of regular performance of the assigned responsibilities. As a result, the group is prone to tension and a total disruption of the cohesion. The counter-production by Gary threatens the success of the group in making the assigned project a success. Based on the work of Shockley-Zalabak (2011), framing and sense-making are some of the key factors used in the identification of conflict. These are usually the contributing factors where a group is involved. Framing describes a projection of the risks and the outcome of the conflict whereas sense-making is the conceptualization of the conflict. Both sense-making and framing contribute to the process of reaching a solution regarding the conflict. Consequently, the team could practice negotiation and bargaining while questioning Gary for his poor performance.
Scenario 2
The events describing the scenario points to the causes of conflict and misunderstanding among members of a team or group. In regards to Shockley-Zalabak (2011), the conflict could be an outcome of change with the administration, scarce resources, sophisticated technologies, irrationality, and difficult people.

These factors about an employee-leader situation may result in a perceived form of conflict. Accordingly, coming back to the scenario at hand, the cause of the predicament could be a miscommunication from the leader, who is responsible for advising other members on what to do. To best tackle the problem, the use of collaborative engagement could effectively result in finding solutions to the current problem and avoid a repeat of the same. Collaboration encourages team building through a thoughtful analysis of ideas and suggestions. Moreover, through compromise, the members could formulate a workable solution derived from negotiating possible methods of meeting the deadline for presentation and achieving an effective one.
Scenario 3
According to Shockley-Zalabak (2011), the source of conflict in the group setting is attributable to some factors. These include the incivility among the two members (Brad and Carrie) and majorly contributed by Brad. Incivility involves any acts that describe the lack of social behavior. The act of texting in the process of an ongoing meeting is a sign of being rude and a disregard of other members. Comparatively, the conflict could be associated with irrationality in addressing the problem at hand. Taking into account that Brad excludes other members and resorts to addressing his concerns to only one of them may be interpreted as an act of backstabbing. Shockley-Zalabak (2011) describes backstabbing as an act of avoiding confrontation. Even so, possible tactics in handling such a scenario would include avoidance, compromise, competition, accommodation, and collaboration. These tactics are can be divided into two distinctive groups of assertiveness and cooperativeness. Therefore, based on the given situation, an effective solution would include a cooperative direction rather than an assertive tactic. The group is engaged in a project. They are more likely to meet over lunch in the future. Based on this probability, the members should negotiate and agree on appropriate settings that promote comfort while holding the discussion. It may include a suggestion not to carry lunch during the meeting and addressing any discomfort directly to the leader of the meeting as a means to avoid distracting others.

References
Shockley-Zalabak, P., (2011). Fundamentals of Organizational Communication. Boston, MA: Ally & Bacon.