(First part of a multi-part series)

Wherever there are multifunctional and owner contractor project teams there are conflicts. In my industry (pharmaceutical) and in the literature I have often heard that Project Managers (PM) spend an enormous amount of time dealing with conflict. Is it possible just the time drain on Project Managers explains why too many projects run into budget, quality, schedule, and performance problems. Would PM be better off if their time spent in conflict resolution was significantly? In order for this to happen a paradigm shift is necessary and available.  There are trained professionals who can deal with avoidance, prevention, and resolution of conflict. These professionals are facilitators, mediators, and arbitrators trained in the field of negotiation, problem solving, using processes specifically designed for dealing with conflict.

Think about it, if PM’s spend more than 50% of their time dealing with conflict it’s that much less time dealing with increasingly sophisticated technology, ever more demanding quality requirements, higher and higher performance expectations, increasingly onerous time and budget constraints. 50+% time spent on people issues is akin to going into a race with one leg tied behind ones back.

What is it which keeps managements from instituting and project teams from embracing conflict resolution specialists? Part of the problem is lack of understanding of what conflict specialists bring to the table. They bring:

·         Objectivity with no vested interest in the outcome.

·         Experience and proficiency in processes specifically designed to deal with conflict used with great success in many areas.

·         Exploitation of multiple alternatives which is a condition often missing in disagreements where “positions are taken as attitudes harden.

·         Confidentiality which allows parties to share with the intercessor that which they would not disclose to one another and is critical to provide context in a negotiation.

·         Focus on the issues rather than the emotions.

·         Provides safeguards against power imbalances.

What is the origin of conflict in teams

1. Teams are multidisciplinary. Each specialty brings its own perspective into a project. There may be inherent conflict built into the differences in perspective.
2. Conflict is present in every human endeavor and projects are no different.
3. Teams have not only loyalties to the team they also have loyalties to the functional area they come from. Team members know hopeful and full well they are highly likely to return to their functional area after a project. Functional areas are jealous guardians of their turf.
4. Although team members report to the team leader they also report to their functional managers. Functional managers may not agree with what nor how a team is performing its tasks and this may be reflected in a team members performance.
5. Although owner and contractor teams share in a common objective, execute the project successfully, members of the owner and contractor teams often deal with issues veiled in secrecy, sharing data selectively while pursuing differing strategies aligned with objectives more closely held within their own organizations. This adversarial collaboration still strives to achieve project success. Internally for example, QA may have a strategy which emphasizes stricter Good Documentation Practices, while TS or Automation may strongly believe there is a need to move on to avoid project delay and cost overruns. Putting the PM in the middle of this clash of priorities is very time consuming.
6. For both Owners and Contractors resource levels and even individuals involved in project execution can be contentious. Functional managers can and do decide who is assigned, for how long, and levels of participation particularly in smaller projects (<$10MM). In these instances and many others conflict can arise directly with the PM.