Managing Project Conflicts

Conflict is inevitable in public projects and activities. This the case when money, influence, and limited opportunity abound. By changing the fundamental nature of stakeholders from power over to power with a higher level of collaboration can occur that leads to better results. A paper by Eivind Brendehaug shows how the planning process can be improved when local stakeholder interests and conflicts can be compromised and integrated into the development process (2013).

Co-management is a concept that helps to explain strategic development with three aims that include 1.) fulfill management aims, 2.) distribute cost and benefits among local stakeholders and authorities, and 3.) supplement representative democracy to reduce conflicts (Brechin et. al. 2003). It is a process of reviewing the varying issues inherent within projects and then finding a way to co-develop that concept.

When projects are developed they rest in the authority of the planners. The planners have instrumental power over the decisions, institutional power over the processes and cultural power over information (Lukes, 2005). This means that the entity in charge of projects has both real and perceived power that stakeholders naturally look to for direction.

Most planning projects are seen as zero sum games where there are clear winners and losers. The process of power over certain entities creates distrust and lack of engagement in the developmental process. Creating plus sum situations encourages higher levels of engagement and requires a paradigm shift of power to increase the likelihood of project success.

Each stakeholder has their own needs and wants. No one should expect to get everything they want as this is a public project. However, by listening to their needs, wants, fears, and concerns it is possible to create a greater match between the production process and stakeholder participation that leads to a more beneficial project.

The case study is important because it helps highlight a few points. Stakeholder develop analysis models for understanding problems and this impacts their influence in the process. The developing authority must desire the participation of stakeholders to realize goals. Conflicts are great sources of information in understanding worries and claims to help planners address these issues. Proper management can move planning from a zero-sum to a plus sum process that hedges the interests and abilities of the stakeholders.

Brendehaug, E. (2013). How local participation in national planning creates new development opportunities. Systemic Practice & Action Research, 26 (1).

Brechin, S. et. al. (2003) Contested nature. Promoting international biodiversity with social justice in the twenty-first century. State University of New York Press, New

York

Lukes S (2005) Power. A radical view, 2nd edn. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke

Communication Creates Higher Cognitive Models for Team Building

Workplace communication and cross-culture interaction can help foster greater levels of collaborative effort. A paper by Huber & Lews (2011) highlights how heuristics and bias are a platform for first understanding others but additional information creates stronger cognitive models. It is these models within groups or across groups that adjust overtime to create mutual development. 

When individuals understand each other’s cognitive models they create cross-understanding (Huber & Lewis, 2010). Cross-understanding can also occur on a group level whereby a cognitive model for a group and their vantage point has been developed. Knowing how your communication partners think and understand can be beneficial for relating information in a way in which it is palatable and creating shared understandings.

Shared understandings range from low to high in terms of their accuracy and quantity of information. Some may know very little about other groups while some may have a great deal of experience. This is a level of shared social theory or shared social understanding. This is generally based in familiarity, cross-communication, and reflection. Even members within the same group may have different understandings of others even though they have shared similar traits. 

 People come to understand others through default templates that are full of assumptions. As they interact with others, communicate, share experiences, and see how others act in certain situations they come to update those templates. It is a process of offering new information based within real life experience. 

Conflict is often caused by misunderstandings or unreasonable behavior. The more groups interact and share relevant information the better the decisions of the group. This process can only work if members are free to talk, share ideas, and brainstorm the possibilities. Group think occurs when individuals are not free to communicate leading to one sided vantage points and strategies. 

Over compliance to group norms, assumptions and rules creates 1.) a lack of new information, and 2.) poorer overall decisions that limit cross understanding.  Group assumptions based on heuristics create faster reactions but also limit the potential to be accurate in decision-making. Quick assumptions are regularly faulty as they are confined by a lack of available information. 

The paper brings forward concepts that may be useful to businesses that are either in the process of developing stronger teams or would like to reduce encampment within their ranks. People often choose to work with others that are similar to themselves. Each brings forward their own cognitive model based with quick heuristic platforms. As they interact with each other it broadens their ability to understand the other. When these cognitive platforms are different than other members of the same group there is pressure overtime to solidify them into shared conscious understandings (i.e. the stream of conscious). 

Huber, G. & Lewis, K. (2011). Cross-understanding and shared social theories. Academy of Management Review, 36 (2). 

Huber, G. P., & Lewis, K. 2010. Cross-understanding: Implications for group cognition and performance. Academy of Management Review, 35: 6–26.

Presentation: Tracking the Flow of Knowledge in IT Organizations

Dr. McKay and Dr. Ellis have collaborated on a research study that helps managers understand how information flows within IT organizations. The goal is to help IT teams improve and develop their skills. Failure can be a result of many factors ranging from loosing intellectual capital to blaming others. When knowledge within one project team was found it wasn't effectively shared with others indicating that organizations should do a better job of cataloging and sharing knowledge. Through building on learning, knowledge teams can become more effective.  You may see the results below:

Click for Presentation