If this material is helpful, please leave a comment and support us to continue.
Table of Contents
Conflict is inevitable in any team, including in a Scrum environment, but the manner in which it is handled can help determine the success of the team in achieving its objectives. As an Advanced Certified ScrumMaster (A-CSM), understanding the default pattern of conflict resolution and being adept at employing alternative methods can become essential tools in managing team dynamics.
The prevalent response to conflict within teams is either avoidance or confrontation. Some team members may choose to ignore the conflict, hoping it will resolve itself or disappear over time. On the contrary, some may directly engage in a confrontation, thinking that arguing the issue will bring resolution.
For instance, during a sprint, developer A and developer B have a disagreement over the best approach to solve a particular problem. The ScrumMaster may choose to avoid intervening, believing that the developers can resolve their differences professionally. Alternatively, the ScrumMaster might confront the situation head-on, initiating a debate between the two developers to decide on the best approach.
However, both approaches have limitations. Avoidance could let the conflict to escalate and confrontations could damage relationships among team members, decreasing overall team collaboration and productivity.
The facilitative approach to conflict resolution is centered around improving communication. It encourages open dialogue and understanding, fostering a collaborative environment where everyone’s views are acknowledged and considered.
In the case of developers A and B, the ScrumMaster might decide to have a three-way conversation to understand each developer’s point of view, fostering open communication. This method helps the people involved to understand each other’s perspectives better, often leading to a compromise that benefits the whole team.
This method fosters a culture of mutual respect and understanding within the team. It may require more time and patience, but it’s more effective for fostering team cohesion.
In situations where there is difficulty in reaching a consensus, mediation could provide the needed resolution. The ScrumMaster, as a mediator, provides an objective and neutral perspective that helps guide the team towards resolution without taking sides.
For the same conflict between developers A and B, the ScrumMaster, as a mediator, would grasp both sides of the argument and guide each developer to appreciate the other’s viewpoint. The ScrumMaster could suggest options for resolution that neither developer may have considered. This type of intervention encourages open-mindedness and fosters innovation, making the team to be more resilient in the face of future conflicts.
This approach requires an understanding and objective ScrumMaster who can impartially influence the resolution process.
Approach | Pros | Cons |
---|---|---|
Avoidance | Quick, Easy | Short-term |
Confrontation | Direct, Immediate | Damages relationship |
Facilitation | Fosters Communication | Time-consuming |
Mediation | Fosters Innovation | Requires unbiased view |
In conclusion, conflict resolution is fundamental to helping teams overcome obstacles and meet their objectives. As an A-CSM, recognising the default patterns for managing conflicts within your team and being cognizant of the alternatives such as facilitation and mediation can be potent tools in your arsenal to foster better synchronisation and productivity among team members.
False
b) Other people’s viewpoints
c) Open dialogue
True
c) Open dialogue and negotiation
d) Mediation, Problem Solving
True
b) By trying different conflict resolution methods
c) Interrupting
True
c) Both (a) and (b)
False
41 Replies to “compare your default pattern for responding to conflict with at least two alternatives.”
I dislike too much theoretical content. The examples were okay, but could have been better.
I tend to accommodate others to avoid conflict. Any suggestions for a more balanced approach?
Try ‘compromising.’ It allows both parties to meet halfway and can be faster than collaborating.
Yes, compromising can be less stressful and quicker but still ensures both sides feel heard.
For those with more experience, how do you balance between ‘confronting’ and ‘compromising’?
It’s a fine line. Assess the situation. If it’s critical and needs immediate resolution, confronting might be better. For long-term, compromising works well.
I agree with User 33. It’s situational. Always weigh the pros and cons before choosing.
Thanks for the post, very informative!
Interesting read. ‘Competing’ sounds risky but potentially rewarding.
I normally avoid, but will consider compromising now.
This was super helpful. I’ve been having trouble with conflict resolution in my team.
I’m new to Scrum Master roles. Is ‘compromising’ generally preferred in agile practices?
Not necessarily. It depends on the context. Agile values transparency and collaboration, so often ‘collaborating’ is more encouraged.
Both have their place. Compromising is faster but may not address all issues, whereas collaborating is more thorough.
For those using ‘competing’ in conflict resolution: is it as effective as it sounds?
Competing can be effective in situations where quick, decisive action is needed, but it can also create resentment.
Yeah, it works in high-stakes situations but should be used sparingly. It can damage relationships if overused.
Anyone use ‘collaborating’ as their go-to conflict resolution? How has it worked for you in Scrum settings?
Collaborating works well for us, but it can be time-consuming. It ensures all voices are heard and usually leads to more sustainable solutions.
In my experience, it’s fantastic for complex issues where multiple perspectives are needed. It’s worth the time investment.
I usually avoid conflicts, but I’d like to explore the ‘confronting’ technique to be more proactive. Thoughts?
Agreed. Make sure to use ‘I’ statements to express your perspective without making the other person defensive.
Confronting can be very effective if done respectfully. It allows issues to be addressed head-on and prevents them from festering.
Great post! Comparing our default conflict response patterns with alternatives is really crucial.
Appreciate the insights! This has been really helpful.
Contributing ‘competing’ to conflict resolution might be too aggressive. Better alternatives?
Depends on the context. Sometimes being assertive is necessary, but more collaborative approaches are usually safer.
You could try blending competing with collaborating. Be clear about what you need but remain open to dialogue.
Are there any instances where ‘avoiding’ is actually beneficial long-term?
Rarely, but if the conflict is minor and likely to resolve on its own, avoiding can be a reasonable short-term strategy.
Good read. I never really thought about ‘compromising’ as an option until now.
I appreciate the practical examples in the blog!
Really learned a lot from this blog. Thanks!
Does anyone here use ‘avoiding’? Curious if it has any merits despite its pitfalls.
Avoiding can be useful when the conflict is trivial or when emotions are high and it’s best to cool off first.
Avoiding might work temporarily, but unresolved conflicts can resurface stronger later on.
I find collaborating to be the best approach, though it takes time.
Exactly, it builds stronger teams and better solutions in the long run.
Thanks! This really helped me think about alternative ways to handle conflict.
Thanks for the post! Just what I needed.
Thanks for sharing this. Very insightful.