Probably the most common scenario involving interpersonal
conflict that I, as a college undergraduate, come across happens during group
projects and assignments. When put in a situation where there are project
deadlines hanging over our heads and exams around the corner, failure to
communicate effectively and patiently could prove disastrous. One such incident
was that which happened to a couple of friends of mine who were in the same
project group. I will refer to them as A and B henceforth. It should be noted
that A and be were also good friends with each other. They had weekly submission
deadlines for different stages of their final project. To complicate matters,
they had a new member join half-way through the semester. That semester, A had
a relatively high workload from her core modules while B, on the other hand,
had comparable workload from his co-curricular activities.
The problem arose when they had to submit project
specifications as one of their weekly submissions. Owing to time table clashes
and other factors, they did not meet until the day before the deadline. The
group had five members, out of which one was new. B wanted to explain their whole
project idea to the new member before proceeding with the project specifications.
A, on the other hand, was more keen on meeting the deadline that was set for tomorrow.
She stated that explanations could be done after meeting the immediate deadline.
This conflict in their views snowballed into a rather heated argument which
went dangerously close to affecting their personal relationship with each
other.
What could have caused this conflict? Both A and B had
rather acceptable reasons to disagree with the other’s point of view. It could
be said that, given A’s academic workload, a dire want to finish things on time
is understandable. One is bound to get agitated and annoyed when one has too
much work and nothing is going according to plan. However, it could also be
said that A’s reaction was nothing more than an emotional outburst; a result of
the academic pressure she was facing. Also, she would have felt that it was
rather pointless to make sure all group members were in sync before proceeding
if it meant missing the deadline. On a lighter note, A gets irritable when she
is hungry and she was hungry during the meeting.
B, on the contrary, could have been more interested in
touching home base before proceeding because he thought he could eke out some new
ideas from the new member. This is also understandable given the fact that the group
was going to be working together for a long time and integrity within the team
was important. B could have felt that it was pointless to meet deadlines if not
all the members knew what exactly they were doing. However, it could be argued
that given the deadlines, B should have sorted out his priorities. Also, B
could have misunderstood A as saying that there is no need to explain the
basics to the new member. She merely said it could be done later.
This is quite a complex problem. Both parties have
supporting and weakening arguments. Yet, a simple solution like managing to
meet sooner and more often than they did could have avoided this conflict. If
they had meet sooner, B could have easily updated the new member and still
manage to finish the assignment before the deadline, making A happy. The
conflict in interests could be attributed to not only the situations A and B
were in respectively, but also to their basic character traits. From my
experiences with them, A often tends to be punctual and neat. B, on the other
hand, is more creative and likes to explore new options with vigour. Again, on
a lighter note, a simple solution could have been to make A eat before the
meeting.
The real reason this conflict was resolved was the fact that
A and B were good friends outside the project group. This made it easier for
them to forgive each other, making sure that this conflict did not have any repercussions
on future meetings. However, in a professional setting, how could we stop bad
blood between two people with conflicting interests? In your opinion, who do
you think had the right idea? A or B? What could have been the solution?