How to Handle Conflict Between Two Team Members

Abstract

This article is about conflict between two team members, and what a manager can do about it. Three pieces of research bear on it. A meta-analysis by De Dreu and Weingart (2003) linked both relationship conflict and task conflict with weaker team performance and lower member satisfaction. A later meta-analysis of 116 studies and 8,880 groups (de Wit and colleagues, 2012) found relationship conflict and process conflict consistently negative, and did not find the strong negative link for task conflict reported earlier. A qualitative study of 57 autonomous teams (Behfar and colleagues, 2008) described how teams that improved or kept top performance divided and explained their work. These are findings about teams in general, not finance teams in particular. The three steps at the end are practical readings, not tested methods, and this article is not legal or HR advice.

The reconciliation nobody owns

It is the Wednesday of the close. Two of your team have not spoken directly since Monday. One copies you on every message about the intercompany reconciliation. The other answers you and ignores the first. Each has told you, separately, that the other one is the problem.

You have not decided whether this is a question of work, a question of character, or just a bad week. The close has to finish, and you are the one person both of them will listen to.

What kind of conflict between two team members is it?

Researchers separate conflict at work into types. Task conflict is disagreement about the content of the work, such as figures, methods or priorities. Relationship conflict is tension between people: irritation, mistrust, dislike. Process conflict is disagreement about how the work gets done and who is responsible for what.

Conflict between two team members often mixes all three. Part of the manager's job is to see which one is in front of you. The reconciliation in the scene looks like a process conflict, because it is about who owns the work. It may already be turning into a relationship conflict. The studies below were not limited to finance, and none of them tested the three steps at the end.

What a meta-analysis found about task and relationship conflict

De Dreu and Weingart (2003) combined studies of teams to ask how conflict relates to team performance and to member satisfaction. Relationship conflict was strongly and negatively linked with both. Task conflict was also strongly and negatively linked with both, which went against the common expectation that disagreement about the work helps a team.

Two conditions mattered. Conflict hurt performance more on complex tasks, such as decision making and projects, than on simpler production tasks. And task conflict was less harmful to performance when it was only weakly correlated with relationship conflict. This is summarised from the published abstract.

Read the scene through this. A disagreement about figures that has started to feel personal is the version the research links with the worst results. This is an inference. The meta-analysis looked at teams in general, and it does not say what a manager should do.

What a larger meta-analysis found about the paradox

De Wit, Greer and Jehn (2012) reviewed 116 empirical studies covering 8,880 groups. Relationship conflict and process conflict both showed consistent negative links with group outcomes. Task conflict did not show the strong negative link with group performance that De Dreu and Weingart had reported.

The link between task conflict and performance was more positive in three situations: when task conflict was only weakly correlated with relationship conflict, when the sample was top management teams, and when performance meant financial results or decision quality. The authors call the mixed picture a paradox. This is summarised from the published abstract.

Read your own team through this. A disagreement about the numbers is not automatically a problem, and it is not automatically useful. This is an inference. How personal it has become matters more than whether it exists, and a meta-analysis cannot see that from outside.

What a study of 57 teams found about resolving it

Behfar, Peterson, Mannix and Trochim (2008) studied 57 autonomous teams in a qualitative study. The teams that improved or kept top performance over time shared three tendencies. They focused on the substance of what people said to each other, not on how it was delivered. They openly explained the reasoning behind decisions to accept and divide work. And they assigned tasks to the people with the relevant expertise, not by volunteering, by default or for convenience.

The authors also describe the more successful teams as proactive, anticipating when conflicts would need resolving. This is summarised from the published abstract.

Read the reconciliation through this. Who owns it is a decision about dividing work, and the study links explained reasoning and allocation by expertise with better trajectories. This is an inference. It was a qualitative study of teams, and it does not show that these practices would settle a conflict between two particular people.

Conflict between two team members: three steps

None of these is a tested method, and none was studied in finance teams. They combine what the research points to with ordinary management practice. Where a step goes beyond the research, it says so.

1. Speak to each person separately, and start with the work question. Ask each of them what exactly needs to be decided, and what they need from the other person to do their part. Keep a note of what is about the work and what is about the person. For instance: "Tell me what you need from the reconciliation, and what you need from the other person to get it." This is a judgement. It follows the research distinction between task and relationship conflict, and no study cited here tested it.

2. Put the work question on paper: who owns what, and why. Write a short note with the task, the owner, the reason for that owner, the deadline, and what the other person provides. Send it to both people at the same time. For instance: "The intercompany reconciliation is owned by the person who holds the ledger access. The other person provides the confirmations by Thursday noon." Behfar and colleagues (2008) linked explained reasoning and allocation by expertise with better outcomes. This is an inference from that study, and no study cited here tested this step.

3. Agree a rule for the next disagreement, together with both of them. Decide what happens when they disagree again, before it happens. For instance: "If you disagree on ownership, raise it with each other first. If it is not settled the same day, bring me two options and I decide." This is a judgement. The study of 57 teams describes successful teams as proactive about conflicts, but it did not test this rule, and no study cited here tested it.

If the question underneath is how directive to be, Directive vs Empowering Leadership: When to Tell or Ask is about that choice. If the ownership question is about work that keeps coming back, How to Delegate as a Finance Manager: Why Work Comes Back may help. For the conversations themselves, there is Difficult Conversations: A Framework for Honest Communication. If one of the two stays quiet in the room, Why You Stay Silent When You Disagree With Your Boss is about why people do. And if you are the one absorbing both sides, Emotional Labour in HR Work: The Cost of Staying Neutral covers the cost.

Questions People Ask

Should I step in right away or let them sort it out?

The research cited here does not compare early and late intervention. Behfar and colleagues describe the more successful teams as proactive, anticipating when conflicts would need resolving. This is an inference. If the conflict is already affecting the work or the people around it, waiting has a cost. If it is one disagreement about figures, you may only need to ask both people for their reasoning.

Is some conflict between team members healthy?

The two meta-analyses differ on this. De Dreu and Weingart found task conflict negative on average. De Wit and colleagues did not, and found it more positive in top management teams, when it stayed apart from relationship conflict, and when performance meant financial results or decision quality. Relationship and process conflict were consistently negative.

Should I take a side?

No study cited here tested taking sides. Step 2 above decides ownership on a stated reason, not on who complained more or louder. That is a judgement, not a research finding.

Can coaching help me manage conflict in my team?

Coaching is educational support for work patterns. It can help you prepare the separate conversations and notice which type of conflict you are looking at. It is not mediation, and it is not treatment. No study cited here tested coaching for team conflict.

When it is more than a disagreement

If a conflict involves bullying, harassment, discrimination, threats, or anyone's safety or health, it is no longer a question of team process. Follow your organisation's procedure and speak to HR, your own manager, or a legal adviser. If someone on your team seems to be struggling beyond ordinary work stress, encourage them to talk to their doctor or to the employee assistance programme if there is one. This article is not legal or HR advice. Coaching is educational support for work patterns. It is not treatment and not a substitute for it.

Sources

• Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. K. (2008). The critical role of conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 170–188. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.170 (Summarised from the published abstract.)

• De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741–749. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741 (Summarised from the published abstract.)

• de Wit, F. R. C., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(2), 360–390. DOI: 10.1037/a0024844 (Summarised from the published abstract.)