Team Conflict with the General Procedural Model Abstract This paper reflects on the utilization of the five-step General Procedural Model (CPM) intervention approach. Cream (2010, p. 197) distinguished these five stages of the model: identify the problem, brainstorm, evaluation, selection of the best idea, and put the solution into effect.
The basis for my writing revolves around a scenario in which I am the District Sales Manager for an insurance company with two recently consolidated district names that are unable to work past an underlying conflict: the inability to communicate effectively with each other. I point out how the five steps of CPM will improve the situation I am faced with in this organization, while referencing the work of Heifers, Grasses, & Links (2009), Buckskins (2005), and Cream (2010). Conflict in meetings is both natural and necessary to keep teams focused on issues so members can collaborate and apply good decision-making processes.
In this scenario, conflict becomes unproductive and negatively impacts the overall team’s ability to function effectively. It is a challenge for leadership and management teams to turn the situation around by imparting constructive conflict to get team members to work together. As a manager, I would be able to get this Job done by adopting the five-step General Procedural Model (CPM) intervention model which is an effective approach for problem solving meetings and an excellent technique for those teams that are experiencing procedural conflict and, consequently, affective and equality conflict. Cream, 2010, p. 197) The first stage in the approach is to identify the robber. While it may not be crystal clear, it would not be very reaching to deduce that, in general, the district teams are not effectively communicating. Calling both teams together for a meeting should open the table for discussion. Having such dialogue while utilizing problem consensus, an intervention technique in which members are polled initially regarding their individual perspective and perceptions of the problem (Cream, 2010, p. 96), will help me ascertain the issues that are preventing the teams from cooperating with each other. Cream (2010, p. 196) said hat by using problem census, you may derive, before you actually begin, a better sense of the task at hand and a clearer method of how your group intends to proceed to meet the group goals. If the group is struggling to reach consensus, consider asking the conflicted parties to reverse roles and articulate how they would feel if they were in the shoes of the person with the opposing viewpoint. (Buckskins, 2005, p. ) Handling this stage in this manner will, at the very least, have everyone in agreement on something: the existence of conflict between the teams. The next steps involve the two district teams collectively brainstorming ideas and getting them to evaluate the best method for tackling the issues at hand. Individuals brainstorm regarding solutions to the problem or dimensions of a problem (Cream, 2010, p. 197), which serves as movement towards a united commitment for evaluating the situation to determine the best ways to reach collective goals.
Thus, I would ask a member of each district team to record all of the brainstormed ideas, and then these two designated members would have to consolidate and a singular, brainstormed list or the entire group to evaluate. Dividing the larger group, consisting of the two teams, into buzz groups for the evaluation step is a good idea because it requires participation of all and therefore tends to reduce equity tensions. (Cream 2010, p. 192) I would ask them all to break themselves up into smaller teams of four or more people, requiring that there be at least two people from each district in each group.
This requirement will enforce interaction between members from the two constituencies. In the last steps of the CPM approach, the group will attempt to mom up with a consensus of the best solution or, more likely, the best combination of solutions to the issue, which Cream (2010, p. 197) identifies as selection of the best idea. Buckskins (2005, p. 6) said that building consensus allows people to focus, so getting team members to Jointly come to a decision will be part of the core for getting the districts to unite. After consensus is reached, I will lead the team to putting the solutions into effect.
Heifers et al. (2009, p. 149) stated that orchestrating conflict is discipline that requires seeing a necessary step in the Journey toward a deter future, tolerating the moments your people are not working well together and believing that working through some rough patches will help to solidify their collective effort and commitment. Orchestrating conflict successfully – as it applies to these last steps of the CPM approach – can mean having to change your communication style to help adversarial factions work through the issues.
As the manager overseeing these two teams, I need to remind myself of the purpose: helping the parties to be more authentic so they can identify, examine, and move through their conflicts toward some integrative solution. Heifers et al. , 2009, up. 154-155) To ensure that the districts are functioning as a unified team, I would facilitate change or improve the way they communicate with me and each other by holding more meetings, sharing memorandums, generating reports, and giving informative presentations of that will be beneficial to everyone.