Organizational Behaviour in Action Resolving Conflict in a Carpool

Carpooling involves two or more commuters who share the driving and expenses of commuting to work or other mutually desirable destinations on a regular basis with the overarching goal of saving money as well as helping the environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These goals has become more important in recent years as gas prices continue to drain the pocketbooks of many working Americans who lack personal conveyances or access to reliable public transportation alternatives and growing concerns over global warming. Despite the savings and the reduced carbon imprint that can be achieved by participating in a carpool, though, traveling for lengthy periods of time with others in close physical proximity inevitably introduces some type of conflict which, left unresolved, can result in the dissolution of the carpool. Thoughtfully resolved, though, even major conflicts can be addressed as needed in ways that can prolong the viability of the carpool for as long as the members want. To gain some additional insights into how such conflicts can be resolved effectively, this paper provides a review of the relevant literature concerning conflicts in carpools in general and how one team resolved a conflict involving radio music in particular. A description of the team formation and development is followed by a discussion concerning the respective values and motivations and communication preferences of the team members. In addition, an evaluation of the communication processes that were used for conflict resolution is followed by an assessment of the respective power held by each members and the manner in which the conflict was resolved. Finally, a summary of the research and important findings concerning conflict resolution in team settings are provided in the conclusion.

Team formation and development

Formation is the first step in creating virtually any type of team (Langton, Robbins & Judge, 2015) including carpools. For instance, according to Benkler (2004), "Carpooling can be divided into two stages of activity: (1) formation and scheduling and (2) behavior of participants while carpooling" (p. 274). For the purposes of this study, the team formation involved the members of a student carpool. Graham and I used the example of carpooling for the commute to Nanaimo next term with Hayley using a scenario regarding her carpooling behavior wherein she started to listen to thumping Christian Rock and it was driving Graham and me nuts.

Values and motivations

Assessment of needs. The results of the assessment of need exercise are set forth in Table 1 below.

Table 1

Results of assessment of needs exercise

Dimension

Bill

Graham

Hayley

Michelle

Power

22

17

18

18

Achievement

23

19

19

19

Affiliation

11

19

18

18

As can be seen from the results in Table 1 above, Bill scored highest on the power and achievement dimensions, but scored the lowest on affiliation. By contrast, the other team members scored near-mirror images on these three dimensions, suggesting that Bill is more self-sufficient and does not have a strong need to belong to a group.

Activity. In response to the need to complete a group assignment, Michelle and Graham both chose a training activity. Both felt they learn best through doing. Michelle also felt that by teaching others a task it reinforces the information for herself too. Michelle is not confident using PowerPoint, so a presentation using it is out. Bill said he would do a case study but does not feel comfortable drawing attention to himself so a presentation would be inappropriate.

Discussion about personal motivators. Team members expressed the following personal motivators:

Graham: World at Peace, Family Security, Happiness - Terminal Values Honesty - Instrumental value.

Bill - Comfortable Life - Prosperous, Freedom, Happiness -- Terminal Values, independent - Instrumental Values.

Michelle, Comfortable Life (not prosperous, but sufficient, Accomplishment, Equity - Terminal Values, Broadminded and Courageous --Instrumental.

In sum, Graham has a strong connection with his family and feels that the values have been and continue to be handed down through his family. Bill did not feel that his personal values reflect his family values. We briefly discussed that it was perhaps because he was raised in BC from age 7 years, whereas his family came from Toronto. Michelle's values differ from her family's. Her father is narrow-minded and racist and Michelle feels she is more open minded and welcoming to new people and new ideas.

Communication

A breakdown of the team's communication preferences is set forth in Table 2 below.

Table 2

Team member communication preferences

Graham

Bill

Michelle

Hayley

Feedback

Feedback

Feedback

Feedback

Confirmation

Confirmation

Face-to-face

Face-to-face

Reflection time

Reflection time

Opening sharing of ideas pros and cons

Opening sharing of ideas pros and cons

Speak at own pace

We then compared the above-listed communication styles...

Michelle realized that she needs to give others time for reflection and to gather their thoughts. To make sure there is time for everyone to have a voice in the conversation. Not surprisingly, there is a growing body of research that confirms the association between relationship satisfaction and the quality of communications that exists between team members (Askari & Noah, 2012).
Power

The power preferences identified by the team members are set forth in Table 3 below.

Table 3

Team member power preferences

Graham

Bill

Michelle

Hayley

Legitimate power

TBD

Financially powerless

Expert power

Clean sweep

Coercive and legitimate

Facilitate the situation through real estate

Specifically trained

Expert power: life experiences

Legitimate -- reasoning through military

Expert power

Policy and regimented

Although a carpooling team may be a democracy in many respects, including decisions over what is regarded as acceptable behavior such as being on time for pickup, how many (if any) stops are allowed for personal business such as convenience stores or coffee shops, and decisions over what type of music will be played and at what volume, it is reasonable to suggest that the majority of the power in these relationships is held by the vehicle owner/driver on any given day of commuting. Because some carpools share driving responsibilities, this power relationship would change when the daily driving responsibilities changed; however, in other carpooling arrangements, one member is responsible for all of the driving and the other carpool members share expenses only (Benkler, 2004). In this type of sole driver arrangement, the team member who owns the vehicle and performs the driving would hold the lion's share of the power in this relationship. Because older drivers are more likely to organize and operate carpools, there is also the likelihood that the sole owner/driver would enjoy additional age-related power in this team relationship (Pisarki, 2007).

From a strictly pragmatic perspective (and disregarding any power that is attributable to the inherent dignity of the human actors that are involved), power relationships in carpools are dynamic during the operation and are consequently subject to abuse. Therefore, it is vitally important to establish the ground rules for carpools at the outset in order to avoid exploitation of the changing power relationships that may characterize carpool where driving responsibilities are shared or the abuse of power by sole driver/owners that can result in conflicts. As noted above, although conflicts are inevitable in any team setting (Langton et al., 2015), there are some proven methods that are available to help resolve them in healthy and effective ways as discussed further below.

Conflict

Thereafter, we looked at the various Conflict Styles and came up with potential alternatives set forth in Table 4 below.

Table 4

Potential conflict resolution alternatives

Alternative

Description

Yielding:

The other carpool members would just live and let live and hope that Hayley got bored and changed the station in time.

Avoiding:

Passengers could wear sound dampening headphones or ear plugs, Hayley could wear ear buds or the vehicle owner could disable the radio entirely.

Problem solving:

We would ask if we could each choose a station to listen to one way (Hayley, Monday morning; Graham, Monday afternoon; Michelle, Tuesday morning, etc.).

Compromise:

Ask Hayley to turn down the radio, she still gets to listen to her preferred music, but at least it is not so loud.

Forcing:

The passenger in the front passenger seat could reach across and change the station.

Best Alternative(s) to a Negotiated Agreement (BATNA):

Graham and I could start our own car pool and set some ground rules around music and radio stations and volume from the outset, but we would also invite Hayley to participate in these negotiations for a "new and improved" carpool arrangement.

Source: Adapted from Langton et al., 2015

The conflict that has been experienced in this carpool group is certainly not unique and are characteristic of any team enterprise that requires personal sacrifice in general and the sacrifice of personal space in particular, something many Americans hold sacred. For instance, Rouse emphasize that, "While rising gas prices often prompt people to take public transportation, few are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to join a car pool. Chief among them is the loss of personal space" (p. 2). In some cases, these problems can be avoided entirely or at least mitigated to the maximum extent possible through the careful selection of carpool members to ensure mutual compatibility. In this regard, Rouse advises that, "If you are car-pooling, there has to be a bit of closeness. ... It's not easy to find a match that you would enjoy the 30- to 45-mile…