Indeed, teams that can address conflicts directly and openly should be better able to develop a long-term, open, healthy and constructive atmosphere (see Tekleab et al., 2009) that allows them to practice comprehensive team intervention strategies. Teams that can successfully implement global strategies are likely teams with strong team cohesion, which is not only beneficial for conflict management, but also has a positive impact on performance. At the interpersonal level, cooperative approaches that prioritize the collective achievement of goals are beneficial. Based on the German theory of cooperation and competition (1973), intergroup strategies that contribute to the sustainable resolution of conflicts include: substantial conflicts can influence performance for the better by removing barriers caused by different assumptions or misunderstandings about a team`s tasks, strategies or goals. Conflicts can be constructive if they increase awareness of how team members experience their work, resulting in changes that improve member productivity. Conflicts can also lead to process improvements, for example. B when they highlight a lack of communication from the team that can then be corrected. Clashes of ideas can lead to more creative solutions or offer other perspectives that convince the team to take a different approach that leads to success instead. Generally speaking, in organizational research, it is not the conflict itself that counts in conflict management, that is, the concrete question, but the way it is managed (Rayeski & Bryant, 1994). The first step in determining the best way to manage conflict is to understand the causes of the problem.

The second step is to assess the objective: is the objective to end the conflict or to lay the foundations that prevent it from happening again in the future? Tjosvold, D. (1998). Cooperative and competitive approach to conflict: successes and challenges. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47(3), 285-342. For example, relationship conflicts tend to have a negative impact on performance, as they can increase hostility between group members, reduce cooperation, and harm the task ahead. It almost always leads to negative team results and should be finished. In the same context, Proksch (2016) lists the fundamental forms of management of “top-down” conflicts. These go beyond the traditional “mechanical” methods described in the previous category and also reflect the very essence of interpersonal strategies: in such situations, it is useful to consider the context and consider broader interventions to (rebuild) team cohesion, develop new teams as a whole, or even resort to large-scale approaches to organizational development. In both scenarios, a conflict can be a great agent for change management.

Fourth, limiting scope can be problematic, given that teams that provide adequate performance are relatively unlikely to have significant task and relationship conflicts. In fact, none of the teams that were in the top 25% of teams reporting the greatest conflict of tasks and relationships were among the top 25% of teams. This limitation in scope may have reduced the results of statistical tests, which reduced the likelihood of finding statistically significant effects (Aguinis & Stone-Romero, 1997). . . .