Conflict Could Have Saved the Day!

In previous blogs we have been discussing the dynamics of my PLC team that has enormous pressure from above to attain a high passing score for accreditation standards. I have concluded that we experienced what some could say is a "fear of conflict". This is mostly likely due to the external pressures of performance put on the group. In order for the team to create a robust review and remediation plan specific data points were needed in order to create a plan. Gathering data gave us an idea of where we were and where we needed to get to. This task was accomplished relatively easily and was compiled from pre-assessments and county assessments. At which point we had a pretty good idea of where we were at. We also knew in particular, we were not where we needed to be in reference to our SWD and ELL students. This was key due to the fact that one of the main goals for the school year was to increase scores for both sub-group of students. However, we failed to really address how our plan would address those specific concerns. There were a few things we did well and others we could improve upon. Here are some things we did well as a team:

• Creating a common goal around which a team could rally. By creating a common goal of coming up with a plan and how it would b executed we did build team cohesion that stressed the shared interest

• Use of Humor. As mentioned before this team is a well working team for the majority that has a good relationship. Humor in this case worked as a defense mechanism that allowed tension not to mount in the room or overwhelm the team members while working on the given task.

• -Balance the Power Structure. You will see this listed below as well because when done correctly it could generate high levels of interpersonal friction. However, with a team while there was an established higher power of the PLC Leader there was a shared leadership responsibility among this group.

Here are some areas of improvement:

• Create options. By not creating multiple options we failed a pocket of students and in turn later down the line created a sense of animosity when teachers numbers weren’t as high as others.

• Balance Power Structure. While the shared leadership did provide a more cohesive team in decision making not having a principle decision maker to make sure the decisions that were made are in the best interest of all.

• Apply multiple mind-sets to any issue. As a team we all contributed to the total outcome, but we could have applied our working knowledge together in a way our perspectives would create healthy debate to problem solve.

Decision-making as a team should not always just be compliance and simplicity. There are times where small conflicts and debates could lead to very rewarding outcomes. For our team while we hit the mark on the bigger ideas in creating the plan we failed to address big tickets on our to-do list. One strategy our team could have greatly benefited from is the “devil’s advocacy debate”. With this we could have one group member play in that role as the devil’s advocate to our proposition. Potentially, it could have alleviated the hesitancy to conflict because we would have known we were intentionally going to encounter the conflict. It also would have provided us with the negative or downsides to our plan we overlooked up front. In fact, the following year the PLC did almost this exact method. We did have a few new members but we intentionally sat down to discuss what problems we encountered, what are some conflicts we have with this plan, and is it the plan for us. As a result ultimately we decided it was in fact a great plan at glance but there were improvements that needed to be made to address our need areas. All in all, conflict is a way of optimizing the decision process. It's even more important to introduce conflict to a team that does get along. We just have to be willing to face conflict in a productive manner.