se of connection with their co-workers and increased collaboration can result. The group becomes a single unit whose primary goal is to meet expectations as a way of self-preservation. But is this a good thing? It is important to remember that this perceived threat is just that—perceived. Once group’s goals are met it frequently becomes clear to group members that they have been manipulated and feel used for mercenaThe stereotype that conflict is always detrimental is coming under attack from many researchers. There is a growing school of thought that conflict can stimulate an energetic and dynamic working environment that shakes apathy and compliancy to its core. However, there is an equally vocal group that finds conflict is always dysfunctional and its consequences can far outweigh any potential benefits.

Conflict can effect radical change. In many organizations when radical change is necessary to fight stagnation and apathy, managers deliberately introduce conflict to raise the intensity of a group. New ideas and concepts can come from this intense level of activity. But, arguably, these ideas can just as easily come from cohesive group activity that is orchestrated by responsible managers. The truth is that radical change can come from a variety of methods, conflict being one of them. But the risks of conflict may make this a risky undertaking.

The consequences of conflict can kill a vital workforce because of the human element that defines a work group. Hurt feelings and anger may sound like petty complaints but as an active element of a work group, they can be fatal. Employee dissatisfaction leads to turnover, reduced productivity, and the potential for violence in the workplace. Given these risks, most managers look for safer ways to stimulate workers.

Conflict can increase group cohesiveness. Work groups respond to outside threats and often bond and pool their resources to ward off threats to their group integrity. Managers can introduce conflict to bring a group together and create an “us or them” mentality. Individuals may feel a sense of connection with their co-workers and increased collaboration can result. The group becomes a single unit whose primary goal is to meet expectations as a way of self-preservation. But is this a good thing? It is important to remember that this perceived threat is just that—perceived. Once group’s goals are met it frequently becomes clear to group members that they have been manipulated and feel used for mercena

ffect radical change. In many organizations when radical change is necessary to fight stagnation and apathy, managers deliberately introduce conflict to raise the intensity of a group. New ideas and concepts can come from this intense level of activity. But, arguably, these ideas can just as easily come from cohesive group activity that is orchestrated by responsible managers. The truth is that radical change can come from a variety of methods, conflict being one of them. But the risks of conflict may make this a risky undertaking.

The consequences of conflict can kill a vital workforce because of the human element that defines a work group. Hurt feelings and anger may sound like petty complaints but as an active element of a work group, they can be fatal. Employee dissatisfaction leads to turnover, reduced productivity, and the potential for violence in the workplace. Given these risks, most managers look for safer ways to stimulate workers.

Conflict can increase group cohesiveness. Work groups respond to outside threats and often bond and pool their resources to ward off threats to their group integrity. Managers can introduce conflict to bring a group together and create an “us or them” mentality. Individuals may feel a sense of connection with their co-workers and increased collaboration can result. The group becomes a single unit whose primary goal is to meet expectations as a way of self-preservation. But is this a good thing? It is important to remember that this perceived threat is just that—perceived. Once group’s goals are met it frequently becomes clear to group members that they have been manipulated and feel used for mercena

me from a variety of methods, conflict being one of them. But the risks of conflict may make this a risky undertaking.

The consequences of conflict can kill a vital workforce because of the human element that defines a work group. Hurt feelings and anger may sound like petty complaints but as an active element of a work group, they can be fatal. Employee dissatisfaction leads to turnover, reduced productivity, and the potential for violence in the workplace. Given these risks, most managers look for safer ways to stimulate workers.

Conflict can increase group cohesiveness. Work groups respond to outside threats and often bond and pool their resources to ward off threats to their group integrity. Managers can introduce conflict to bring a group together and create an “us or them” mentality. Individuals may feel a sense of connection with their co-workers and increased collaboration can result. The group becomes a single unit whose primary goal is to meet expectations as a way of self-preservation. But is this a good thing? It is important to remember that this perceived threat is just that—perceived. Once group’s goals are met it frequently becomes clear to group members that they have been manipulated and feel used for mercena

and the potential for violence in the workplace. Given these risks, most managers look for safer ways to stimulate workers.

Conflict can increase group cohesiveness. Work groups respond to outside threats and often bond and pool their resources to ward off threats to their group integrity. Managers can introduce conflict to bring a group together and create an “us or them” mentality. Individuals may feel a sense of connection with their co-workers and increased collaboration can result. The group becomes a single unit whose primary goal is to meet expectations as a way of self-preservation. But is this a good thing? It is important to remember that this perceived threat is just that—perceived. Once group’s goals are met it frequently becomes clear to group members that they have been manipulated and feel used for mercena

se of connection with their co-workers and increased collaboration can result. The group becomes a single unit whose primary goal is to meet expectations as a way of self-preservation. But is this a good thing? It is important to remember that this perceived threat is just that—perceived. Once group’s goals are met it frequently becomes clear to group members that they have been manipulated and feel used for mercenary reasons. Also, the bonds that are formed are often not dissolved at the end of the mission. The roots of distrust for management or skepticism in management objectives can sabotage future projects. Team building exercises and an empowering manager can just as effectively nurture group cohesiveness without subterfuge and manipulation. Alliances and bonds can be created through healthy ways that do not pit workers against each other. Research shows that these ties can often promote a high degree of worker satisfaction as personal goals match organizational goals.

Conflict can stimulate a higher degree of innovation. Because of the slightly higher level of tension, employees can work harder to find new and innovation solutions to problems. By virtue of the higher tension levels, group members are more dynamic and motivated to find previously unknown ways of solving problems simply because of the increased level of ideas and sharing that occurs. Much like a “think tank” operates, members find a new openness to bring ideas and thoughts to the table and answers are the outcome. But is introduced conflict the only way to increase the levels of tension? Indeed, many forms of “brainstorming” come from introducing healthy competition to the group. Competition does not mean conflict. Contests, humorous team activity, and incentives can increase the level of tension without negative consequences. Employees relate that they feel like they are having fun at work when tension is a positive force. Employees competing to find a better way to resolve a problem when the reward is a relatively minor incentive are not likely to be hostile to the winner. More ser