February 2007 Mechanical Engineering: Editorial

editorial

conflict resolution

By
John G. Falcioni,
Editor-in-Chief

Why does it seem as though we're wrought with conflict these days? At work, at home, even on the golf course, the stakes seem to be getting higher and higher all the time, no matter what we do, and there's no letting up. Or does it just seem that way?

Even real estate mogul turned television star Donald Trump and talk show host Rosie O'Donnell, two wealthy celebrities who you'd think would have better things to do with their time, can't stay out of each other's way and are entangled in a public and very personal feud.

But it's not only the rich and famous who are at risk of going at each other. Put three engineers in a room for a couple of hours, give them a high-stakes problem to solve, and you'll likely get at least two different opinions on a solution. And, if you're not careful, you may end up with bruised egos along the way.

It turns out that conflict may have more to do with our own personal styles and makeup than with the actual problem we're in the midst of figuring out. Team leaders bring together certain people who possess the necessary aptitude to solve a particular problem. But what is often not considered is the problem-solving styles, or cognitive styles, of the individuals involved.

In a revealing article, "The Substance of Our Styles," on page 30 of this issue, Kathryn Jablokow, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Pennsylvania State University, tells us that without the proper preparation, conflict is often inevitable because each of us has an innate preference regarding structure in solving problems.

So the reason you work better with Mary than you do with Jerry is not just because Jerry's methodical nature drives you crazy and Mary is much smarter. It may very well be that Mary and you are Innovative problem solvers whose cognitive styles are similar, and that Jerry is an Adaptive problem solver.

British occupational psychologist M.J. Kirton's Adaption-Innovation Theory, which Jablokow discusses in her article, provides an understanding of each of these two cognitive styles. Once understood, the insight gained by identifying different cognitive styles could be the difference between creating teams that are successful and teams that have a high probability of failure.

Jablokow points out that it isn't necessarily better to have the same cognitive types of people on a team. But it is most important for team leaders to understand the dynamics of the teams they are creating. These cognitive differences, she points out, can actually improve the dynamics and cohesion of the group and reduce the stress of its members, as long as there is an understanding of what's going on among them. That is, if members of the team appreciate the value of diversity.

Of course, not all conflicts lie in the inherent cognitive nature of the conflicting parties. Yes, Donald and Rosie may have differing styles, but they also may happen to hate each other as well.

While understanding the diversity of team members can lead to success, undervaluing the cognitive differences of team members could lead to trouble that may otherwise be avoidable.

Jablokow stresses that, often, people misinterpret different styles with levels of capability or intellect, which can ruin team chemistry.

With a greater understanding of cognitive style differences, all of us can better focus on the task at hand without having to stew over our colleague's penchant for driving us crazy, even if the colleague happens to be your spouse.