Two team members have had professional differences during the execution of a project, a situation that has impacted the performance of both members. Neither of them has wanted to talk to resolve their differences, even though the project manager has insisted on it.
What technique should the project manager utilize next?
In situations where professional differences have impacted performance and neither party is willing to talk, smoothing is an appropriate technique. Smoothing involves downplaying conflicts and emphasizing common interests and goals to provide temporary relief from the conflict. This can maintain harmony and buy time until a more permanent resolution can be reached. It's a method to reduce immediate tension and improve working relationships, essential for maintaining team performance.
Answer is A Compromising. Check PMBOK book. It says when both have equally power.
Since neither team member is willing to talk or resolve their differences, compromising might not be feasible.
Smoothing and accommodating are useful when reaching the overarching goal is more important than the disagreement. This approach maintains harmony in the relationship and can create good will between the parties. In this case negotiating and compromise didn't work so before we use force, we smooth
Negotiating is the win win situation, where as the remaining are not
Professional differences here not project differences. Smoothing is often used by project managers when it is important to provide temporary relief from the conflict or buy time until you are in a better position to respond and/or push back against the conflicting party. It is also used when the conflicting party “stands their ground” and refuses to budge on their viewpoint.
It's C, but D makes me laugh. I am going to FORCE you to get along! Has that ever worked?
A. Compromising
Using the "smoothing" technique involves downplaying conflicts or differences and emphasizing commonalities to maintain peace and harmony. While this can provide a temporary solution, it often doesn't address the root cause of the conflict. In the scenario you provided, where two team members have significant professional differences that have impacted their performance, merely emphasizing areas of agreement without addressing the root cause may not be effective in the long term. The conflict could resurface later if not genuinely resolved. On the other hand, "negotiating" involves actively addressing the conflict and trying to find a mutually acceptable resolution. By mediating a negotiation between the two team members, the project manager can help them address their differences and reach an understanding. This approach can lead to a more lasting resolution, allowing the team to move forward productively.
I do not believe that negotiation is a conflict resolution method in PMBOK. It is used primarily for contract discussions and discussions for resources. The techniques I see from PMBOK are: Withdraw/avoid Smooth/accommodate Compromise/reconcile Force/direct Collaborate/problem solve Compromise/ reconcile may have been the answer if it was there. therefore "Force" is the only option that fits at this point.
Edit: Compromise is there so I would pick that.
Edit: Compromise is there so I would pick that.
Neither of them has wanted to talk to resolve their differences, even though the project manager has insisted on it. Looks like smoothing is more practical in this given situation.
How you will negotiate or smoothing without talking to each other?
This technique focuses on reducing tension and creating a safe space for dialogue. By utilizing smoothing, the project manager can: Acknowledge the existing conflict and its impact on the project and team performance. Emphasize the common goal of project success and the importance of teamwork. Redirect attention from blame to finding solutions and moving forward constructively. Utilize humor or positive reframing to lighten the mood and encourage communication.
Smoothing involves downplaying the differences and emphasizing common interests and goals to reduce tension and improve working relationships. A. Compromising: This might not be suitable if their differences are fundamental and compromise isn't feasible. Additionally, a forced compromise at this stage could lead to resentment and further hinder their performance. B. Negotiating: Negotiation implies reaching an agreement between two parties, which might not be achievable if they can't even engage in conversation initially. D. Forcing: This is likely counterproductive and could worsen the situation. Authoritarian measures seldom foster genuine cooperation and might damage trust between the team members and the project manager.
Compromising involves finding a middle ground where both team members can make concessions, helping to resolve their differences and improve team performance. This approach fosters collaboration and encourages both parties to work together towards a solution.
n this situation: There is a dispute affecting performance. Both team members refuse to engage in resolving it, despite the project manager's efforts. The situation requires immediate action to maintain project momentum. Forcing is a conflict resolution technique where one party pushes a solution at the expense of the other. It is used when quick, decisive action is necessary, such as in emergencies or when maintaining project performance is critical.
due to unwillingness to resolve the problem. Forcing is the option