Leadership, Cooperation and Conflicts in Physics -- Research Leaders' Perspective

TL;DR

This study explores conflicts in research teams, highlighting common issues, sources of support, impacts on productivity, and how research leaders adapt their leadership practices in response.

Contribution

It provides empirical insights into the nature of conflicts in research teams and how leaders perceive and respond to these conflicts.

Findings

Most conflicts involve respect, overconfidence, and authorship issues.

Informal support sources are perceived as most helpful during conflicts.

Conflicts often lead to delays or unpublished results, but rarely cause serious harm.

Abstract

Conflict in research teams was a near-ubiquitous phenomenon, with the three top issues being lack of respect or overconfidence, non-collegial behaviour and authorship. Most frequently involved (and perceived as most helpful) were informal sources of support, such as colleagues at the same institution and private contacts. Official institutional bodies were less often involved and often not perceived as helpful. In the majority of conflicts, there was no serious harm done to the research leaders involved, and qualification goals of conflicting parties could be reached. More wide-spread however were damages to research productivity such as delays or unpublished results. About two third of conflicts involved at least one person in a qualification process, demonstrating how inextricably research is linked with qualification, and that conflicts often occur in the complex entanglement of collaborative knowledge production and certification of individual research performance. Satisfaction with conflict development and its final resolution was fairly evenly distributed over the spectrum from complete dissatisfaction to complete satisfaction. Most research leaders changed their leadership practices in response to conflict experiences, showing that conflicts can be an opportunity to learn and grow.