An experience of interpersonal conflict - Edited with solution!

It was a group interview I recently attended for a particular programme. After we had a round of self-introductions, we were split into two groups to tackle a hypothetical scenario. Each group was given twenty-five minutes to come up with a solution to the scenario's problems.

My group took about fifteen minutes before reaching a conclusion. With about ten minutes left, I was certain that the ideas were finalized and I was running them through my mind. Then came the unexpected, a member from each group was called out and their positions were swapped.

When the new member arrived, I said, "Perhaps we should do a quick run-through of the presentation and ideas." A briefing was conducted almost immediately. As soon as the briefing ended, the new member, Mr. A (for anonymity), began to share with us his views on the matter. Confusion began as he tried to convince the group to change the agreed course of action. He felt strongly that the group should adopt his ideas. However, I believed his ideas could not be incorporated into what had been agreed upon because there wasn't sufficient time. Moreover, the acceptance of the idea would have been a lack of general knowledge. For instance, he mentioned a pistol, which requires combustion, would be of high importance on the moon as a means of signalling. However, I believed combustibles were ineffective on an oxygen-deprived location. The other group members also maintained their stand on the original ideas. There was a clash of perspectives.

There were five minutes left. Our group initially required at least fifteen minutes before arriving at a conclusion. There was a new member who was not ready to adopt the group's decision. The group was seemingly upset about this conflict of ideas coupled with being hard-pressed for time. In addition, Mr. A would not concur with the group's reasoning until he managed to put across his ideas. However our group would not have enough time to analyse the problem from Mr. A's perspective. Furthermore, it was an interview to demonstrate one's capability in a corporate setting, which was a possible reason behind Mr. A's steadfast attitude when conveying his ideas to the rest. The rest of the group probably intended to display synergy and teamwork. On the contrary, Mr A. probably intended to display influence and leadership. Our conflicting objectives in the interview were the likely source of our interpersonal conflict.

In this situation, what would you do to resolve the conflict? How would you respond to Mr. A and the other group members? (In my opinion, Mr. A is outspoken and steadfast in his views)

RESOLVED:

With five minutes left on the clock and a difficult person to convince, our team made the decision to not give in to his suggested changes. The reason was simply a lack of time to alter the course of action we have decided upon. Mr. A was seemingly unhappy at first, but finally accepted the group decision.

The way I chose to resolve the conflict was to explain the practical reasons to Mr. A. Not all situations can tap on using practical reasoning with little or no consideration for another person's feelings. But I think in this situation where time is short, emotions should be suppressed to a certain extent in order to facilitate team work. Moreover, we should not compromise a team effort just for the reason of displaying one's ability to convince and lead. These were the reasons for me taking a practical approach.

Perhaps the way I work could be better improved to consider the feelings of my teammates. However, I find it difficult to accomodate everybody's feelings when it comes to team work. As such, the seemingly easy way out is to adopt a stern and practical approach.

Expecting myself to take up leadership roles in the future, resolving interpersonal conflict will be one of my top priorities, in terms of training the said skill. I am starting to see how leading can be difficult, especially in resolving interpersonal conflicts. But I am willing to learn.