jim.shamlin.com

6 - The Structure And Dynamics Of Work Groups

Workers are not isolated in the organizational environment, but collaborate with one another to accomplish the goals of the organization. The manager doesn't merely need to get each member of the group to work well, but must also get the members of the group to work well together.

There is also a distinction to be made between groups and teams: a group is merely an arbitrary collection of people, who may or may not interact with one another or collaborate. A team, meanwhile, has shared goals and common interests to which each member of the team contributes and they depend on one another to be successful. To do so, they will need a coach who will facilitate decision-making and conflict resolution.

What Is A Team?

A team is differentiated from a group by a number of qualities, including:

• A goal that individual participants cannot accomplish on their own
• Work that must be done concurrently rather than sequentially
• A genuine need for people of different skills and perspectives
• A solution that requires discovery, not merely following procedures
• Participants negotiate rather than simply acting

And again, calling a group a "team" does not make it into one. There must be a goal that requires teamwork to accomplish, they must be managed as a team rather than a group, and they must collaborate.

What Is a Group?

A group is two or more people who might need to coordinate some of their activities - and in this sense many organizations have more loosely connected groups than closely interacting teams.

Aside of the formal groups (business units) intentionally created within a company, informal groups evolve - people who have lunch together or otherwise spend time on non-work-related activities become a group, most of which are incidental but can sometimes greatly aid or hinder the organization because of communication via informal channels. These groups can also become meaningful and valuable to employees as a social aspect of the workplace.

Formal groups are more structured, usually with clear management and reporting lines, and a delineation of how each individual employee supports and contributes to the group. However, these are not necessarily teams: employees who sit side-by-side and do the same job are not teammates but coworkers (e.g., two clerks who both enter invoices into the system are working independently, side by side, and the work of one doesn't impact the work of another).

Work groups tend to emphasize individual accountability. If one person fails to pull their weight, the others must take up the slack, but they are otherwise independent.

Work groups also do not have the same level of ownership and accountability as a team - they perform their tasks and are expected to meet certain standards, but are guided by standards and procedures that they cannot negotiate among themselves, and the tasks that each person performs is imposed by authority.

Types of Teams

The author defines four common types of teams:

• Problem-solving teams - Assembled when needed to deal with an issue or a crisis, the disperse
• Self-managed work teams - Teams that work together on an ongoing basis, but who have a bit more authority and autonomy
• Cross-functional teams - Bring workers from different areas together to combine their expertise
• Virtual Teams - Physically dispersed teams who use electronic mediums to coordinate their work and communicate

(EN: This is not comprehensive, nor is it well categorized: there can be a team that is cross-functional, virtual, and problem-solving all at once.)

Leadership of a team is largely hands-off: the team is assembled to solve a problem that a manager cannot solve on his own, the manager facilitates rather than directs their activities, and the team members negotiate how each is going to contribute to the effort.

The author reiterates that just calling a group of people a "team" does not make them function as such - and while they may figure out how to work together, it is less haphazard and inefficient if a facilitator directs their interactions.

Characteristics Of Effective Teams

There is a lot of literature that discusses how to have effective teams, but little consideration of what "effectiveness" means to a team. Of course, teams will work well together, but even "work well" is a vague description.

From the perspective of the organization, a team is effective if it is able to accomplish the goal it is given - it is not about the process, but about the outcomes. Processes do matter, but not in and of themselves - only because they contribute to the outcome.

In that way, the behaviors of a team can be assessed in the same way as the behaviors of an individual employee. (EN: IT is a good idea, though I've seldom seen it done, to have a team assessment to clarify expectations and assess progress.)

That said, the author considers some of the metrics and qualities that are generally effective:

• Purpose - The team members should know why they have been teamed, with a clear sense of purpose and direction
• Roles - Each member of the team should understand how they contribute to the group and how others depend on their work
• Guidance - There should be clear tactics that guide the team in achieving its purpose, including day-to-day interactions
• Process - There should be a clear process that enables the team to plan and track their work so that they recognize their progress
• Facilitation - Team members must understand how to work together as well as have a way to resolve conflicts that arise
• Engagement - Team members must be motivated and committed to the team, not just as an initial pep rally, but throughout
• Diplomacy - The method by which the team will communicate with external stakeholders and contributors should be clear.

Team Effectiveness Assessment

The author provides another facile quiz to assess the general effectiveness of teams - seems to me there are some good questions to consider.

• Do the team members understand the goals of the team?
• Do the team members know how they contribute?
• Do the team members have the necessary skills and resources?
• Does the team understand the methodology for getting work done?
• Do the team members understand the rules of conduct for interacting?
• Are the team members motivated and committed?
• What metrics are used to measure and coach team performance?
• How does the team communicate with stakeholders?

Understanding Norms and Process

One problem with teambuilding is that it is simply not done. Organizations form teams and expect people to start working and solving problems immediately, without "wasting" time on forming the norms and processes that will make it effective. A real team takes time to form, and goes through a predictable set of phases on its way to becoming productive - skip or shortcut any of these processes and the team will be dysfunctional to some degree.

Tuckman (1965) suggested a four-stage model for team development - in which there are three steps before the team begins to do anything that might seem productive.

• Forming - The team is formed when individuals are brought together and given a common goal, and the role of each participant becomes defined
• Storming - Teams go through a problem-solving process to determine what needs to be done, considering the various ideas and perspectives
• Norming - The negotiation of the solution settles and team members adopt a group mind-set and "rules" of interaction
• Performing - The team then executes on the solution

While the stages are broadly defined, the manner in which they are implement is as idiosyncratic as the goals and personnel involved - the manner in which one team goes through the steps will be different to any other team. The process will also be messy, with mistakes and false starts along the way.

Unfortunately, managers seek to make teams form more quickly by attempting to micromanage the formation process - instructing and insisting rather than coaching - and as such teams do not form properly, but conform to demands that are contrary to their interests and counterproductive to their purposes.

Direction and Charter

In the same way that the mission and values statements define and communicate the goals and principles of the organization to all employees, a team charter must be used to perform the same function on a smaller scale. The charter must derive from the organization's goals, but must be more specific and adapted to the purposes of the team in order to enable each member to understand his role in supporting the group.

A well-crafted charter encompasses mission, vision, purpose, objectives, and values. Some of these are obligations placed upon the team externally, but even these must be understood and voluntarily accepted by team members. Other elements are negotiated among members of the team, and these must be understood and supported by the organization.

Some detail follows on the elements of a team charter:

• Vision - A broad statement of the future state that the team will contribute to achieving.
• Mission - Informs team members of their objectives, which will be accomplished in the near term
• Purpose - An indication of the actions that will be taken to accomplish the missions
• Objectives - A roadmap of the major milestones that will be accomplished by the team, specific and quantified
• Functions - A list of the team members and the way in which each is expected to contribute
• Values - How the members of the team will interact with one another as well as external stakeholders

Members' Roles

The members of the team will develop an expectation of their role within the team. The functions defined in the charter indicate how members are "expected to contribute" but what they actually do contribute depends on their willingness and the dynamics of team interactions.

For example, one team member may be assigned with a specific function, but the team may find that another member is better able to address it. Or in other situations, the team member may find himself prevented from accomplishing a function and the team will renegotiate. This often happens accidentally rather than by open discussion among the team.

The roles that people play depend on their skills and strengths, and the negotiation between their ability and the team's need. People also choose to take on tasks in order to support personal needs, such as looking good to their superiors - so long as this is not dysfunctional, it can be tolerated.

In order to avoid conflict, members of a team must understand and respect the roles of others. This enables them to collaborate effectively: to perform their roles in a way that will support rather than obstruct the roles of other teammates.

It's also mentioned that people can become "stuck" in certain roles, which generally carries over from their past experience. It's important to remind team members that each team and project is unique and that patterns of behavior that were successful in the past may not be successful, and that they need to be flexible in supporting the team. (EN: functional effectiveness is a straw man that's easy to address in discussion - the problem of emotional attachment is more common and more difficult.)

Communication

Communication is critical to collaboration - so it follows that one of the most informative ways to determine the health of a team is observing the communication patterns.

The authors toss out a cloud of signals that can be observed

• Who speaks with whom and how often?
• Do all team members participate, or do some dominate the conversation?
• Do team members respect one another?
• Does the group pay attention to or ignore specific people?
• Who defers to whom, and on what topics?
• What styles of verbal communication are used among team members?
• Is the manner in which team members communicate direct and forthright?
• What do the nonverbal signals of the group reveal about the power structure?
• To what degree does the team seem to collaborate versus compete?
• How are disagreements among team members addressed and settled?
• Where do people sit at the table when they meet?
• Do demographic factors (gender, race, age, etc.) factor into the dynamics of team interactions?

(EN: this is random and superficial, but likely a good start for those who do not understand communication and are unobservant.)

Team Dynamics

(EN: The authors define the concept of team dynamics as "forces operating within a group," which is largely meaningless. My sense is they mean to discuss the way in which individuals interact: the degree to which they participate, the power structure, etc.)

The Role of Leadership on Teams

A team may have a designated leader, or it can emerge from interaction. The authors assert that successful teams share the function of leadership based on the skills, strengths, and styles of members.

The role of a team manager is limited to facilitating cooperation: he has less expertise than the members of the team, and must defer to their expertise, but at the same time must help the team to interact productively to complete tasks and solve problems.

Two specific duties of a team leader are defined:

1. Organize and structure the group to accomplish its task
2. Maintain harmonious and cooperative relationships among team members

(EN: This covers the internal duties of leading the team, but excludes a few important duties in dealing with outside stakeholders.)

In high-functioning teams in which members are fully engaged, the team becomes autonomous and there is very little for the manager to do. A manager of a team that has reached this point should refrain from interfering to gratify his own need to feel that he is contributing something - but instead interpret their independence as the consequence of his good management.

The actual leader of the team is the individual who guides the group, regardless of whether he as been assigned formal authority. On many teams, different members will take the lead at different times - often due to their knowledge and abilities, but sometimes due to their ability to facilitate interaction among others.

(EN: I balk at the notion of "taking the lead" as this is often driven by ego and can be dysfunctional. It is not the individual's desire to take the lead, but the group's desire to follow a given person that makes them a leader.)

Roles Team Members Play

A team is created to accomplish certain objectives, and the roles of team members must contribute to those objectives being accomplished - in three specific ways:

• Making Decisions - Teams do not merely perform routine tasks, but solve problems that require decisions to be made
• Accomplishing Tasks - Once decisions are made, tasks precipitate and must be accomplished (EN: This is sometimes done outside the team, but under their direction)
• Team Maintenance - There are certain maintenance roles that keeps the team focused and interacting in a healthy manner.

Some mention is made of "self-oriented roles" in which team members seek to leverage the team to accomplish their personal goals. These often (but not always) conflict with the team's objectives or sap resources, and as such team managers seek to minimize this behavior to improve the team's performance.

(EN: I would say it's more a matter of balance. People are primarily self-interested and are most motivated to do things that benefit themselves [those that object to this are usually accusing others and attempting to conceal their own self-interest], therefore it is important to consider what each team member is getting out of their participation and ensure that their needs are not entirely ignored.)

The authors prefer an arrangement in which team members change hats effortlessly to become a leader, worker, or harmonizer as the need arises at any given moment - but concedes that people tend to have specific strengths and may not perform well in some of the roles, and so should consider whether they are capable of fulfilling a role before assuming it.

Decision-Making Roles

The authors provide a list of "some of the more common" roles in decision-making tasks performed by the team:

• Informer: Offers facts and other information to the team that he feels are germane to the problem or a proposed solution
• Questioner: Does not have facts to offer, but asks questions that prompts others to provide information
• Clarifier: Verifies and validates the information provided to the team as well as its relationship to the perceived problem
• Analyzer: Makes suggestions as to how the objectives of the team can be addressed by taking action
• Assessor: Evaluates the suggestions of the analysts to consider their probability of success, feasibility of implementation, etc.
• Scribe: Organizes information and documents decisions made by the team, for reference as well as to formalize decisions

(EN: I've done some work on the list above, as the authors descriptions were a bit vague and overlapping.)

Task Roles

(EN: There is no section in the book to cover task roles, which seems to me a serious omission - though likely forgivable because the tasks that precipitate from decisions are wide-ranging that it would be difficult to define specific roles that would be applicable to all projects. This likely would benefit from further consideration, particularly because teams often disintegrate in this process. Teams may agree to decisions but then fail to execute for a number of reasons - a bad decision, insufficient resources, conflicting tasks, etc. So this would benefit from more deliberate consideration.)

Maintenance Roles

The authors now list some of the roles that are necessary to facilitating group interactions by encouraging participation and positive relationships:

• Facilitator: Keeps communication open between members of the group by encouraging passive individuals to participate and aggressive individuals to allow others to speak
• Coordinator: Keeps track of multiple conversations to ensure that ideas do not get lost and issues do not linger without resolution
• Harmonizer: Helps members of the group to reconcile differences and acts to relieve tension, using humor and empathy to restore a cooperative spirit
• Supporter: Builds confidence and security by expressing support and acceptance for contributions
• Enforcer: Maintains the cultural norms of a group when someone acts in a way that challenges established standards of behavior
• Explorer: Asks questions and requests elaboration to ensure that the information provided to the group is sufficient

(EN: Once again, I did some editing on the list for clarity.)

Along the way, the authors point out the way in which some of these roles can become dysfunctional: if a person is always a supporter and never contributes anything of their own, if a harmonizer's attempt to achieve agreement prevents adequate discussion or healthy disagreement, if an enforcer becomes imperious and persnickety, etc.

Self-Oriented Roles

The authors then list some of the self-oriented roles that can be detrimental to group performance.

• Dominator: Seeks power and deflates the status of others by using aggression to accomplish their personal agenda to the detriment of the process and product of the group.
• Distractor: Complicates or prevents discussion of necessary business by interfering with others' attempts to communicate
• Blocker: Resists progress toward the group's goal by being obstinate in discussions and attempting to reopen issues that have already been resolved
• Saboteur: Attempts to undermine the progress of the group in order to maintain the status quo and prevent the goals of the team from being accomplished.
• Attention-seeker: Seeks to improve their own status by their participation in the group, and behaves in a way that gratifies their ego or builds their image rather than achieves the group's goals.
• Cynic: Discourages participation by being overly negative about the ideas and opinions of others
• Socializer: Focuses on the personal relationships among members of the groups to a degree that interferes with the team's function.
• Clown: Uses humor excessively (even when there is no tension) and refuses to take anything seriously.

(EN: My sense is that these tend to be more stereotypical than the other lists, and that too much sensitivity to these behaviors can be detrimental: if anyone who disagrees is immediately shut down and labeled a "critic" this may exclude healthy disagreement and discourage their future participation.)

The authors also suggest that it is the duty of a manager to address these behaviors by confronting ream members directly when their behavior negatively affects the performance of the team. (EN: I'm inclined to disagree. The manager should only step in when the behavior is not handled within the group members, and should likely not merely address the individual in question but help the team to develop and fill the "maintenance roles" above, which are effective in mitigating the impact.)

Finally, it is observed that self-oriented behaviors are most common in the group's early stages of development, before they have established cultural norms and have settled into their working relationships.

Hidden Agendas

Each team has explicit goals that it has been assembled to accomplish, but there are very often additional goals that one or more individuals will pursue in the course of team interactions. These goals are not documented, and are often kept concealed. Some examples are:

• Insisting on getting your own way rather than working collaboratively with other members of the team
• Seeking recognition for individual contributions, even taking credit for the work of others
• Attempting to undermine rivals or engage in vindictiveness
• Attempting to avoid being blamed for any negative outcome
• Attempting to defend the status quo against changes that the team proposes
• Attempting to perpetuate the project rather than complete it as a means of job security
• Wanting to make the work of the team easier by avoiding tasks that are complex or discussions that are not congenial
• Attempting to put metrics that reflect on the team's performance, such as deadline or budget, before the successful outcome

The authors suggest that the best way to deal with hidden agendas is surface and discuss them.

1. Gather evidence of the problem - specific behavior and its consequences
2. Bring it to the perpetrator's attention in a non-accusatory manner
3. Ask the perpetrator what purpose his behavior is meant to serve
4. Evaluate the interaction with the team to resolve the issue, address any damage, and modify or reemphasize group norms

(EN: Dealing with personal behavior is a bit more complicated than this simple process suggests - particularly if your goal is to deal with behavior without damaging working relationships or alienating the perpetrator from the team. My sense, and my experience, is that attempting to handle such problems too aggressively and too prematurely can be seriously damaging, and a manger is best advised to proceed with caution - allowing the team to address the issues and intervening only if the problem is chronic or egregious.)

Evaluating Team Roles

When people act in a social setting, they do so in a way that is natural to them - without premeditation and without self-consciousness, guided by habits that have been productive for them in the past. As such, they may be unaware of their own behavior. Likewise, when they react to the behavior of others, it is often a reflex action that is guided by habit and pattern.

It is helpful to pay closer attention to interactions - though it is difficult to do so while participating in conversations and interactions because of the limitations of the human mind. If we carefully considered everything we do or say as well as everything that other people do or say, conversations would be marked by long periods of silence - and so long as interactions are productive, this level of deliberation is entirely unnecessary.

For that reason, it often requires withdrawing from interaction in order to observe it carefully. The manager must refrain from participating in the discussion to pay close attention to the behavior of others so that he might consider and analyze it in order to provide feedback to members of the team and coach them, individually and collectively, to behaviors that will result in better performance.

The authors provide a tool for doing this: it is a table that lists the members of a team on columns, and then the various behaviors and roles detailed in this chapter in rows, to create a sort of checklist that will make it clear which members are behaving in which ways.

(EN: The tool is rather primitive and facile, but likely a good exercise for those who are not adept at doing so. My sense is that observation is good, but being too persnickety becomes bad - and that an observer can easily recognize incidents that are unusually good or bad and take notes for follow-on discussion in a less rigid and structured manner.)

Team Decision Making

While a work group merely follows established procedures, a team is involved in decision-making: they do not merely take action, but decide what action to take. When any group of people make a decision, there must be consensus that the decision is acceptable, such that all are happy with the outcome.

(EN: To split hairs a bit, there are a few different components that may require negotiation - what is to be accomplished versus what will be done to accomplish it. It is not necessary to agree upon both for every decision. For example, when an action does not require a team member's participation or impact his resources, he should be indifferent to the way the outcome is accomplished. Sometimes, people need to be reminded of that to facilitate discussion and eliminate unnecessary contention.)

Decision-making is easy when all are in agreement from start to finish, but there is often cause for disagreement and debate before all can agree. Sometimes the reasons for disagreement are self-serving, but in most instances disagreement stems from a difference in priorities and perspectives. For example, the sales, accounting, and manufacturing departments may have different concerns surrounding a decision to purchase raw materials, and a decision that is best for one may be very bad for another. In such instances, negotiation is necessary to arrive at the decision that is best for all stakeholders.

Decision Making and Inclusion

Teammates work together toward a goal, but this does not mean that every member of the team is involved in every decision. In fact, involving those who are not impacted by the outcome or involved in the execution can slow the process and undermine effectiveness. Before discussions begin, determine whether each team member should be involved.

A team member should be completely excluded when the outcome does not impact his area of expertise or authority and when his participation is not needed to effect the solution. This results in a fast decision with clear accountability and eliminates interference and unnecessary conflict. The side effects are this team member has no input and does not buy into the decision, but because his cooperation is not needed and there will be no consequences for him, his participation is unnecessary.

A team member can be consulted to provide input when it is unclear whether the decision will impact him or the solution requires his involvement, both to rather small degree, or where his insight or expertise will be helpful. This also results in a quick decision and clear accountability, but also considers the input of team members in a way that is mitigated. Consultation is also useful in maintaining respect for expertise and areas of concern that may be impacted in a minor way.

A team member may be included in the decision-making process where the outcome will impact him, the solution requires his participation, and the decision is clearly within his areas of expertise and concern. Building consensus requires more time, effort, and deliberation - but those who are involved in these discussions will be able to provide input and participate in defining the solution, such that they grant consensus to the decision and commitment to effecting a solution.

Finally, a task may be entirely delegated to a team member where it is entirely within his area of expertise and concern and other members of the group are largely disinterested in anything but the outcome of the solution. Delegation often expedites action, but the individual to whom a decision is delegated will need time and resources to address it. The rest of the group does not participate in the decision, and so long as the output meets their requirements it is of no consequence.

The author suggests that it is the manager who decides which team members will be involved in decisions, but must give careful consideration to whether they should be excluded. (EN: I disagree it's the manager's job alone - a self-sufficient team can spend time defining the work to be done and whom should be involved, and openly discuss which people will be involved. It is often more effective for a group member to state whether he should be in or out of any discussion - the manager need step in only if a team member is being negligent or intrusive in their choices.)

Phases of Team Decision Making

The process of decision-making in teams is essentially the same as the problem-solving process for individuals and groups as well:

1. Identify and define the problem
2. Define the desired state the solution will achieve
3. Brainstorm multiple solutions to the problem
4. Evaluate options for effectiveness, efficiency, feasibility, etc.
5. Choose the best solution
6. Plan the way the solution will be implemented
7. Assign tasks to individuals
8. Monitor the execution
9. Evaluate the results

(EN: This includes the most common steps, but there are many other models for problem solving. Further research can be done to identify the precise model for a given situation.)

Per the previous section, not all team members will be involved in all decisions - but in general, the more team members are involved, the more effective the results will be because of their input and consent to effect the solution.

Managers of teams are encouraged to limit their participation to facilitating the problem-solving process among team members rather than imposing their own ideas and opinions - because when a manager makes "suggestions" teams tend to kowtow to those demands rather than think through the most effective and appropriate solution.

In facilitating problem-solving, a manager focuses on the process (whether all steps are being followed with adequate deliberation) and how each team member interacts with the group (whether he leads, follows, or contributes at all).

Encouraging Leadership

The effectiveness of teams depends on "many small acts of leadership" that are performed by different people at different times. Without a leader, a team tends to mill about and fails to use its time efficiently.

It is a temptation for managers to step in and take leadership when teams appear to be unproductive - but the better approach is to subtly coach members of the team to take on leadership responsibilities when appropriate. (EN: I would also argue that a manager should subtly coach members to refrain from attempting to lead when it is inappropriate, but that is another matter.)

The need for encouragement tends to be greatest at the start of a project, particularly when the members of the team are unfamiliar with one another. Over time they will settle into their roles and take leadership as appropriate and necessary.

Managing Teams

Management of a team is not a constant process of direction and control, but one of periodic intervention to coach the team to be successful and troubleshoot when the team is not operating efficiently.

Teambuilding

Teambuilding is a general term that describes an array of activities that are used to improve the functioning of teams, particularly in the early stages. A teambuilding exercise influences the culture of the team - the way in which people work together - rather than the particular task.

The author concedes that the reputation of teambuilding has suffered because it has been done badly, and many frivolous and unproductive activities have been undertaken under the banner of teambuilding. To qualify as teambuilding, an activity has to involve interaction between individuals that develops relationships and techniques that are then applicable or transferrable to their performance.

Teambuilding often consists of various activities that seem leisure in nature: physical activities and social gatherings. This is by design because it frees the participants from the concerns of the workplace and the conflict they will face in professional interactions and enables them to develop basic skills and cultural norms without feeling anything is at stake except the quality of relationships with colleagues.

For work groups (not teams), the manager may be an active participant in teambuilding activities because the foal is to facilitate a relationship between superior and subordinates. However, for teams, the manager should sit out to enable them to build relationships with one another that are not based on formal authority, as this is how they will work on the project.

In those instances, the manager can facilitate, but should not participate - not only does this give team members the opportunity to interact with one another, it also develops more of a coach-players relationship between the manager and the team, which is exactly the role managers will play in the real work of the team.

Of particular importance is to do teambuilding activities before the real work commences to develop the team's culture and norms. They can be repeated later in a lengthy engagement to reinforce norms, but the primary purpose is to introduce the team to each other and set the tone for the way in which they will work together.

Handling Conflict

While the ultimate goal is to build consensus, it is inevitable that there will be conflict along the way - and this conflict is entirely healthy because it leads to a thorough exploration of the problem and the consideration of multiple solutions, which improves the quality of the decision.

The Conflict Process

The author suggests that conflict "usually follows a predictable pattern" as follows:

1. People sense tension and anticipate that a conflict is about to occur
2. People avoid confrontation to see if the conflict resolves itself
3. One person offers a solution, to which others disagree
4. Members of the team decide whether to become involved in he conflict or stay out
5. Discussion ensues, with participants assessing the solution and suggesting modifications or alternatives
6. One solution is found to be better or more acceptable than others, and there is explicit or implicit consent
7. After the conflict, members reflect on the solution and decide whether to revisit the discussion
8. After the conflict, members also reflect on the behavior of those involved in the argument, including their own

(EN: I was doubtful about the predictable pattern - but this makes sense and does seem to include the components of most conflicts, though it is seldom this orderly.)

Approaches to Conflict

(EN: The author's consideration of individual conflict styles is superficial. While it's important to consider approaches to conflict to be conscious and make informed choices, it needs to be based on a better schema than is presented here, so I'm not preserving notes. See other sources.)

Mitigating Conflict

The author suggests that teams may on occasion need help in resolving conflict: when the conflict escalates and fails to resolve itself, a manager may need to step in and use his formal authority

It is a common practice for the manager to step in and make a decision for the team. This is thoroughly bad because the manager is not capable of making a good decision (if he were, a team would not have been assembled), the order will be imposed without acceptance, and there will be lingering resentment between the members and toward the manager.

A better practice is for the manager to coach the team toward completing the decision-making process: to identify the goal that the team is attempting to achieve, provide context for the decision, and coach team members to work collaboratively.