The church committee group has so much conflict on the situation of where the church should be located. Some say move to the suburbs and others say it should be stay where it is now. I’ve seen a lot of simple conflict and ego conflict during their session. There was a lot of disagreement over the church location. They kept putting other situation such as the financial and restaurant statements. They were not staying on course with the current situation; it kept going towards different directions. This is an example of simple conflict. Certain group members such as Paul kept interrupting the other members and saying some harsh comments which I thought were ego conflict. It really seems he was attacking Mary Alice.
I saw that Jake and Terry were the nonconfrontational type because stayed neutral in the situation. As the conflict was going, they did not contribute to the conversation. Either try to put their input or stop the conflict. It might be a good or bad thing because maybe they were considering the situation to make an appropriate response rather than blurt something out (Beebe..2007). But group members might consider you to be not effective in discussions. Paul and Mary Alice were the controlling type in this group. Paul wanted the church to be move in the suburbs while Mary Alice wanted the church to stay where it’s at now. Those two took control of the meeting by assertively stating their grounds which became defensive at times. Adam and Jennifer were cooperative within the group. They were seeking solutions amongst the group rather creating conflict. At some points, Adam intervene the conflict among Paul and Mary Alice.
In the next meeting the team should manage their conflict by including intervention to promote a healthier meeting. Probably the most important and simplest thing to do is actively listen to each member. Let members finish what their expressing, so that means don’t interrupt and wait your turn. Try to keep the discussion...