Abstract

Students engaged in group assignments often report challenges related to uneven participation and differing work styles, which can result in frustration and diminished morale. This chapter presents findings from an investigation of the complex experiences of undergraduate students at a New Zealand university who encounter conflicts during group assignments, intended to enhance institutional teaching and learning strategies. Employing a qualitative study approach, this report utilised a combination of in-depth interviews and focus groups. The report sought to provide comprehensive, context-specific insights into the nature, sources, and processes of conflict among undergraduate university student groups.

Key themes of the findings included: the impacts of students’ personalities and cultural backgrounds on group dynamics, the role of student leadership, the role of educators in the prevention and management of conflicts, and strategies to navigate groupwork-related issues. The findings also suggested that while conflicts can be detrimental to students’ learning and performance, they may also serve as a platform for developing teamwork and communication skills when addressed effectively.

The chapter takes an illustrative approach to explain the process of group conflicts. It describes how disagreements about task distribution, varying perceptions around work ethics, and breakdown of communication manifest in academic group settings. Group conflicts may also emerge from several other sources, including different student expectations and unclear roles within the student groups. However, despite the disruptive nature of the group conflicts, they may serve as significant learning experiences for students, providing opportunities for personal growth and development of conflict resolution skills.

The chapter concludes with a discussion on suggestions for improving the structure of group assignments and providing an efficient support system to help students prevent and manage conflicts constructively. By fostering a classroom environment that encourages open communication and offers clear role definitions, educators can effectively transform group conflict into a catalyst for students’ growth and collaborative learning.

Keywords

Conflict, conflict management, group work, student conflict, team dynamics, teaching and learning, qualitative report

Introduction

Collaborative learning, such as group work, is a primary pedagogical approach in tertiary education systems, inspiring teamwork, effective communication, and critical thinking among students (Barkley et al., 2014). However, group work based on collaborative learning often turns into a platform for conflict, as students from diverse cultural backgrounds, personalities, and work ethics may find it challenging to cooperate and coordinate their efforts to meet expectations and share equal contributions (Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001). The conflict in student groups may range from minor issues, including disagreements and distribution of tasks, to more critical challenges, for example, social loafing (i.e. when people invest less effort in groups compared to when they are working individually on a task), or the control exerted by one or more student/s in the group that may lead to dominance, bullying, and cultural misunderstandings (Frash et al., 2004; Hendry et al., 2003; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001).

The chapter reports on the findings of an evaluation project that was conducted as part of several institutional measures at a New Zealand university to investigate the efficacy of teaching and learning strategies, such as assessment tasks, methods to promote students’ collaboration, and strategies to attain learning objectives. Such measures and their associated investigative studies are a standard part of the strategic evaluation at the institution, which broadly helps the institution to design its future strategy as well as give an in-depth knowledge of the status and effectiveness of the steps in place for enhancing students’ involvement and engagement in their group learning. The chapter illustrates some critical aspects of what hinders or improves group work and collaboration. During this project, I was employed on a contractual basis as a team member in a paid position. I was tasked with investigating the issue of group conflict, which was reported to inhibit the effectiveness of assessments requiring engagement, collaboration, and group work among students. The initial process started with a multimethod approach of reviewing the students’ feedback and informal complaints, followed by exploring staff responses to the informal complaints. Based on these steps, it became more apparent that further exploration could be advantageous for teaching and learning outcomes. The next step was to investigate the issue with students so their perceptions of challenges within group work could be explored. The thematically analysed findings could provide recommendations for improving group assessments and support strategies. The findings of this investigation could also help inform the current strategy to improve outcomes for students’ learning during group work. I offered my services as a team member to further examine the topic of conflicts with students, drawing on my interest in the subject, which stems from my teaching undergraduate students and observing the complexities of collaboration and group work firsthand. Group conflict inhibited the effectiveness of the assessments that required engagement, collaboration, and group work among students. As an educator supporting undergraduate and postgraduate students, I was frequently challenged by recurring issues within student groups. The group work was required for assignments, aiming to foster collaborative learning, teamwork, and communication skills. At the institution, the student groups were allocated rather than self-selected, which helped ensure diversity and proportional distribution of skills. Self-selected groups may have greater cohesion initially due to already established relationships, but they may lack diverse perspectives, while allocated groups may enhance collaboration and present a range of abilities, though early-stage conflict may emerge, emphasising a focus on trust and communication (Chapman et al., 2006; Oakley et al., 2004).

At this university, for the undergraduate and postgraduate management courses, students were expected to navigate group work independently, with information provided at the start of the trimester in class about establishing group norms, collaborating efficiently, and communicating effectively. Teachers provided support to students in the form of verbal and written instructions in lectures and Moodle (the learning management system), respectively: around expectations of the group work, for example, clear guidelines on the roles of group members, and the ways of creating open communication, mutual respect and trust. Because efficient collaboration was expected for both in-class and assessment-related activities, teachers clearly indicated to students that several support channels were available if any issues emerged during group work. For example, the convenors, lecturers, or tutors encouraged students to reach out to them if they had any problems. They also provided instructions to consult with the other student bodies, such as the association of class representatives through their class representative, the graduate and post-graduate students’ associations, and even the students’ union if they thought they needed a third party to hear their concerns. Regardless, some students in undergraduate courses across management disciplines continued to experience difficulties. Initially, these issues appeared to be minor disruptions caused by misunderstandings. However, over time, it became apparent that unaddressed problems – emerging from variations in students’ backgrounds and workstyles – often escalated into severe conflicts. Some students frequently reported troubles caused by non-contributing peers, leading to delays in submissions. There were frequent extension requests and compromised academic outcomes for these students.

The nature and magnitude of conflicts among members of a student group have severe implications for tertiary student learners. If they remain unaddressed, these issues can interfere with group cohesion, cause stress and anxiety among students, and negatively impact the quality of assignments and students’ academic performance (Curşeu, 2011; Othman et al., 2019; Tekleab et al., 2009). Such impacts emphasise the need to not only recognise the challenges of collaborative group work but also necessitate a focus on strategies that ‘tame the beast’ of conflict, finding ways to transform the disruptive aspects of academic group work into opportunities for growth and development, problem-solving, and effective collaboration.

Given the emphasis on teams and group work in academic settings, understanding the process and dynamics of group conflicts among students is crucial for enhancing the efficacy of student groups and group-based learning. Grasping the sources, nature, and processes of group conflicts could provide effective conflict prevention and management strategies, ensuring a cooperative learning environment where students feel safe and confident about their learning. My study, therefore, aimed to examine undergraduate students’ perceptions of group conflicts, identify challenges in collaborative work, and ascertain approaches for effective conflict prevention and management that the institution could draw upon to improve its student collaboration and group engagement strategies during teaching and learning. Curiosity led me to two questions: first, what are the causes, nature, and processes of conflicts among student groups? Second, how can the prevention and management of conflicts be approached?

This chapter describes students’ perceptions about common causes, nature, and process of conflicts among students’ groups. As I present the insights from students’ experiences, I will also draw on how group conflict is seen in the literature and prevention and management proposed by the participants, identifying strategies for addressing group conflicts and some practices that the institution and educators can adopt to avoid adverse outcomes associated with conflicts in students’ groups in tertiary institutions. A literature review on the nature, sources, and process of conflicts and general prevention and management is presented in the next section, followed by the methodology and method that facilitated this report. Findings and discussion are then presented, indicating the sources, nature, and process of conflict, with strategies to prevent and manage conflicts. In the final section, I address the conclusion and directions for future theorising.

Literature review

Conflict is defined as a natural and unavoidable reflection of group interactions that emerges when people perceive that their interests, values, or goals are not aligned (Deutsch et al., 2011). Conflict among student groups can be in the form of clashes, disagreements, or tensions that may arise from cultural and social differences (Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001). Conflicts among students in groups in educational institutions have a deep-rooted history, often indicating wider societal divisions in terms of ideological struggles and belief systems (Lipset, 1971). Lipset argues that educational platforms can become microcosms for societal tensions. Different cultural backgrounds may yield diverse opinions, conflicting political views and value systems, reflecting broader social discourses and attitudes toward power disparities. Differences in nationalities, languages, traditions and customs, as well as access to resources and basic rights, may lead to conflicts escalating into extreme situations (Lipset, 1971). In recent years, the classroom has mirrored the wider historical, cultural, and societal struggles encountered by university students, reflecting a ‘miniature revolution’ in student activism, ideologies, and political and cultural beliefs (Giroux, 2014; Luescher-Mamashela, 2015). Conflict is often observed in group settings, such as classrooms. Classrooms have become arenas of struggle for learners due to differences in personalities, gender, culture, and social ideologies – with the potential to trigger conflict and confrontations with fellow students and even with educators (Brookfield, 2006; Hooks, 1994).

Several theoretical frameworks help explain conflicts in group settings (Evans et al., 2009; Gallo, 2013; Rahim, 2023; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001). Social interdependence theory posits that interactions in a group are shaped by individuals’ perceptions of their relationships – cooperative or competitive – in the group (Johnson & Johnson, 1998). Interactions based on individual perceptions then impact cooperative learning among group members (Johnson & Johnson, 1998, 2005). Attribution theory discusses how individuals handle and assign blame during conflicts, attributing failures to external factors and holding themselves less accountable than others (Kelley & Michela, 1980). A conflict management model called the Thomas-Kilmann Model is also identified in the literature (Thomas, 2008). The model explains how conflicts are approached and addressed in group settings and can be applied to enhance classroom learning (Brown, 2012; Watt, 1994). It outlines conflict management styles including competing, collaborating, compromising, avoiding, and accommodating (Thomas, 2008). In terms of students’ group work, conflicts can be categorised into task-related conflicts, which result from different viewpoints on goals and work processes, and relationship conflicts, which may emerge from interpersonal tensions and emotional frictions (Jehn, 1995). In addition, conflicts and disputes over the distribution of tasks, work timelines, and leadership roles, are also common in academic scenarios (Jehn & Mannix, 2001).

Several sources in the literature have identified the basis of conflicts in tertiary student groups. Personality differences, cultural diversity, and varying levels of academic preparedness often create friction (Oetzel et al., 2008; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001). Unequal participation, commonly referred to as social loafing, can lead to resentment and frustration among group members (Clark & Baker, 2011; Le et al., 2018). Additionally, poor communication skills of students – whether due to their cultural differences, a lack of clarity around communication or tasks, or due to a misinterpreted message – along with impaired conflict resolution skills, can trigger tensions and conflicts within the groups (Thomas, 1992). The literature on group dynamics in educational settings also highlights several other key factors contributing to conflicts. Differences in communication styles of individuals are often described as significant sources of tension (Strauss & U, 2007). Scholars also discuss the impact of leadership and role ambiguity on group performance and conflicts (Chang & Lee, 2013; Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2007). In addition, students’ approach toward group work and tasks, and free riding or social loafing, have also been indicated as a source of frustration leading to group issues and conflicts (Hall & Buzwell, 2013).

Conflict has a dynamic process of escalation. It advances through several stages of emotional reactions, starting with untapped tensions as a result of power struggles among the members of the group, immediately followed by disputes and perceived and noticeable disagreements eventually manifesting as conflict (Pondy, 1989). If the disputes and disagreements remain unaddressed within the group, they can potentially escalate into control, dominance and bullying of others by some individuals (Pondy, 1989, 1992). If there is a resolution phase in the process of conflict, it can indicate whether the conflict process will result in constructive or destructive consequences. Thus, during the resolution phase, if conflicts are managed efficiently, they present opportunities for group harmony and improved decision-making (Tjosvold, 2008). While conflicts can be destructive to group cohesion, individual performance, and goal attainment, they can be constructive as well, leading to effective learning and the attainment of shared goals (Deutsch & Brickman, 1994; Johnson & Johnson, 1985).

Several conflict management strategies are identified in the literature to address conflicts. For example, negotiation and mediation can play critical roles in resolving disputes (Barkley et al., 2014; Rahim, 2023). Educators can facilitate constructive outcomes by implementing conflict resolution techniques based on reflective conversations, such as coaching and encouraging the use of collaborative technological platforms that promote respectful and effective use of digital communication tools (Bolton, 1999; Schrage & Giacomini, 2023; Rahmat, 2020). By equipping students with essential conflict resolution skills, higher education institutions can tackle conflicts among student groups in classes, enhance group work experiences, and promote more effective teamwork (Rahmat, 2020).

Method

An interpretive, qualitative study approach was adopted because it could provide an in depth understanding of the students’ perceptions about the topic. A whole class of 35 students was invited to participate in an in-depth, individual, face-to-face interview or five focus groups conducted over five weeks, with a frequency of one each week. This means that the invitation addressed all students in the class, rather than a specific subset of only those who might have been involved in conflicts. This approach could offer meaningful perspectives as all students could be aware of group conflicts as instigators (or those who started conflicts), bystanders (those who were not directly involved but observed them happening to other students), and victims or those who were falsely accused of being troublemakers. Students may be unaware of their position or they may not self-identify with labels like ‘instigator’ due to the negative connotations associated with these terms. These roles were instead interpreted through the accounts provided by students, suggesting that self-awareness and social positioning may influence how students perceive and illustrate their involvement in conflict. Of the 35 students in the class, 27 initially agreed to take part in the study, with 24 students participating in the study.

Individual, face-to-face, in-depth interviews were offered as an option, considering the sensitive nature of the research topic that could potentially result in some participants feeling discomfort while sharing their views openly in front of others in focus groups. Most students opted for focus groups. Four students opted for interviews. The sample was gender and culturally diverse with 12 identifying as female, 10 as male and 2 students choosing not to declare their gender. Participants belonged to various ethnicities ranging from Asian, African, Indian, New Zealand Māori, European, Russian, to Middle Eastern.

Participants in both focus groups and face-to-face individual interviews were asked questions in a semi-structured interview format. They were encouraged to share their perspectives on the causes of conflicts, the processes and challenges faced during group work due to these conflicts, and their thoughts on conflict resolution, prevention, and management strategies. Ethical considerations,^[1] including voluntary participation, confidentiality, and privacy, were rigorously upheld in accordance with the institution’s standard ethical policies. During the data collection process, I remained aware of the need to ensure participants’ safety and their right to support. Before the interview, students were informed about the voluntary nature of participation and their right to withdraw from the study. I made it clear to them that if they felt anxious at any stage, whether discussing group issues or due to discussion about any perceived negative behaviours, such as bullying, they could withdraw from the interview.

They were also briefed on the counselling support available at the university if they believed they had been impacted by the severity of group issues or experienced any negative behaviours. Some students mentioned controlling and bullying behaviours in their interviews. I provided them with details about the violence prevention programme at the university and the counselling services available at the Student Health Centre.

I also informed students that if they felt that conflict was potentially escalating into a serious issue, such as bullying, they could report negative behaviour to the discipline committee and seek further assistance through the students’ services department. Students were assured that support was available to them if they needed it, even after the interview. After completing the individual interviews and focus groups, the recorded data were transcribed verbatim and subsequently analysed using thematic analysis techniques to identify similar patterns, revealing answers to the two research questions.

Findings and discussion

The findings and discussions of Research Question 1 (RQ1) about sources, the nature, and process of conflicts are presented below, followed by Research Question 2 (RQ2), exploring how effective prevention and management of group conflicts can be approached.

RQ1: Sources, Nature, and Process of conflicts

Sources of Conflicts

Influence of cultural differences

Cultural differences contributed to misunderstandings among students, leading to conflicts. Students from diverse cultural backgrounds behaved differently, resulting in misunderstandings, tensions, and conflicts. One participant stated that the real issue was a lack of understanding regarding the cultural aspects of the group members, which led them to perceive that another group member was not interested in working and was making excuses. However, the other group member was merely preoccupied with preparations to celebrate a cultural festival. Similarly, another participant described how not comprehending non-verbal cues specific to certain cultures also created issues. On one occasion, they asked another group member whether a recheck of their assignment was required before submission, and the other member nodded their head, giving a ‘yes’ response. However, they interpreted the other member’s reaction as a straightforward ‘no’ response because the meaning of this non-verbal gesture varied in their culture.

Different cultural values made students approach communication and collaboration during group work differently. Communication was more challenging because students preferred their personal styles of communication. These findings are consistent with studies which suggest that different cultural values of group members can initiate conflicts (Oetzel et al., 2008; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001). Some cultures have direct and more verbal communication (low-context communication) while others prefer more indirect or nonverbal communication (high-context communication) (Croucher et al., 2012; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001). Thus, a lack of understanding of culture and cultural values can influence communication, cause confusion and misunderstandings, and trigger situations of conflict (Kimmel, 2006; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001).

The role of personality in causing conflicts

A significant theme from the findings was the impact of students’ personalities on conflicts disrupting group collaboration. Personality traits such as assertiveness, introversion, and adaptability impacted students’ attitudes toward group collaboration. Assertive students often dominated group discussions, causing frustration among quieter peers. Similarly, introverted students found it challenging to voice their opinions, which fostered disengagement and conflicts. One participant, who considered themselves a quieter student, recalled that their more assertive group members often dominated conversations and led conversations forcefully, leaving other students no opportunity to contribute. If other students spoke, there were repeated interruptions and impatient tones from more outspoken students, which made the quieter students withdraw from collaboration. As a result, conflict within the team was refuelled.

The differences in students’ personalities frequently led to a lack of collaboration and engagement. Similarly, some students who had perfectionist tendencies and less adaptability imposed rigid standards that sparked tensions and conflicts. A participant, who called themselves an ‘easy-going’ student, shared that working with highly perfectionist group members was challenging, as they were often uncooperative and dismissive of others’ suggestions. According to them, the intense micromanagement and lack of consideration from these individuals increased pressure, which eventually led to conflict, retaliation, and withdrawn group members.

Students perceived that the dominant personalities with traits such as a lack of adaptability, less agreeableness, and more perfectionism pressured some students in the group, and the pressure manifested as retaliation and conflict. Several studies have explored the impacts of individual personalities in group work, with extroverted personalities found to be more collaborative during group work than introverted personalities (Forrester & Tashchian, 2010; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001). However, micromanaging, perfectionism, and dominant personalities may introduce conflict due to a power imbalance within the group, and cause challenges and troubles for some students. Students exhibiting challenging personalities, including those with a more assertive and controlling nature, may attempt to exert control by establishing rigid standards for completing tasks.

While students need a common platform for collaboration, rigid standards around performance and the stress of additional expectations related to completion of group work have the potential to cause conflict (Lewis & Smith, 2008; Lykourentzou et al., 2016).

Nature of conflict

The nature of the conflicts was captured under three subthemes. Participants indicated that conflicts are characterised by an emotional and psychological toll on individuals. In addition, digital collaboration regarding group work and the dual nature of conflicts were also discussed by the participants as aspects that highlighted the nature of the conflicts within groups.

The emotional and psychological toll

Unresolved conflicts took a psychological and emotional toll on students. Students suggested that conflict situations resulted in stress and tensions, prompting disengagement and impacting the learning process. One participant shared that an argument over group work left them feeling stressed, unmotivated, undervalued, and as though nothing was working out for them. Another participant had similar feelings. They expressed that their group members did not intend to address the issues, which made them emotionally upset and unable to complete their work, so they asked their lecturer to move them to another group.

Stress and lack of motivation are manifestations of group conflicts (Jehn, 1995; De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Some scholars note that unresolved disputes result in frustrations, stress, and anxiety, and minor issues over work can emerge as conflicts and divisions within the group (Curşeu, 2011; Tekleab et al., 2009). Although situations of conflict and emotional and psychological impacts are linked, some scholars also find that students may be anxious due to the erosion of psychological safety (i.e. the perception that people can share their ideas without judgement, rejection, and punishment), and they may feel unsafe in groups before the situation of conflict arises (Huerta et al., 2024). Such emotional and psychological challenges faced by students during their studies or work manifest as negative behaviours, impacting other group members and causing conflicts (Abbasi et al., 2017).

Group conflicts and effects of digital collaboration

Participants indicated that they used social media platforms, such as Facebook Messenger, Instagram, and Snapchat, for digital communication and as collaboration tools to discuss group-related tasks. Conflicts over these social media platforms took a new dimension. While online digital tools, shared documents, and messaging apps offered communication opportunities, they also posed challenges for students. One participant expressed their frustration and mentioned that when they messaged several times on the messaging app or asked questions regarding group work, their peers blocked them, saying they were being annoying. This was due to the fact that, even though other group members agreed to call or text via messaging apps to collaborate on assignment tasks, some students did not respond, leading to frustration among those who did anticipate a response.

Misinterpreted texts caused confusion. A lack of responsiveness to phone calls was described as encouraging cyberbullying and digital exclusion. One participant was digitally abused and excluded from the group because other members labelled them as a pushover for sending multiple texts in a row. They clarified that they sent so many texts because they were confused about group work, but their group members called them names when they approached them. When they responded in the same tone, they were kicked out of Messenger. A participant who was a bystander and witnessed a conflict on their group’s social media platform reported a similar incident, explaining that their friend experienced verbal abuse when they could not join the group meeting to discuss the assignment on Zoom because the timing clashed with their work. The other group members labelled them as lazy and irresponsible, and they were blocked.

Students reported that online disagreements and disputes were linked to conflicts and digital exclusion. They perceived these behaviours as cyberbullying, emerging as an outcome of frustration over the failure of digital collaboration. Studies support that disagreements in groups or disputes may initiate abuse and bullying (Pondy, 1989, 1992). Social media as a communication or collaboration platform amplifies disputes because members are unable to sit down and address the issues face-to-face, fuelling online harassment and bullying and impacting the success of the learning process (Burton et al., 2015; Sarwar et al., 2019).

The dual nature of conflict: Hindrance or opportunity?

Although the participants viewed conflicts as obstacles to productivity, they also believed that these conflict situations served as valuable learning experiences. Groups that effectively navigated disputes developed stronger problem-solving skills and good communication, traits essential for professional success. One participant stated that misunderstandings arose when the trimester began, but eventually everyone learnt to work through the issues, managed the challenging situations, and communicated openly.

Conflict, when addressed constructively, enables students to refine their communication, appreciate diverse perspectives, and develop problem-solving strategies. A participant noted that a group member devised a method to inform everyone about an issue, and all other group members respected their views on the matter. A solution was proposed, and the problem was resolved.

Despite being challenging, sometimes situations of conflict can turn into opportunities for growth and learning (Johnson et al., 1986). If tackled effectively, conflicts may act as significant opportunities for growth, enhanced learning and problem-solving abilities, improved negotiation skills, and increased resilience (Donahue, 2023; Johnson et al., 1986; Zhang, 1994). Tjosvold (2008) notes that conflict management has several stages. During the resolution stage, rather than competing against one another, students learn to collaborate and coordinate, which provides a basis for problem-solving and good communication skills.

In summary, differences in individuals’ cultural values and personalities can act as sources of conflict. Emotional and psychological aspects of group dynamics and digital collaboration may also indicate the nature of conflicts. The following section presents findings and discussions on the process of conflict and its escalation.

Process of conflict escalation

The participants explained the process of conflict through the following subthemes.

Varying understanding of work ethics

Varying understandings of work ethics and time management were often seen by the students as fuelling tensions and advancing the process of conflict. Some students preferred to complete tasks well in advance, while others procrastinated, causing frustration among peers. A participant reported an incident where their friend misunderstood the group’s assigned deadline as the actual submission deadline, and a fellow group member demanded to see everyone’s completed work two days before the real deadline. Since the official deadline for submitting the work was the next day, and the friend, who was still working on their part, asked for more time, the other group member called her a pain to deal with and said she had no work ethic.

Students had their own values around work ethics and ideas about what was considered a good work ethic when it came to group work. If their work ethics contradicted other group members’, this caused situations of conflict. Scholars have also identified that individuals’ morals and values regarding how to approach work (or work ethic) can provide insight into team efficacy and are a predictor of task completion and performance (Mason & Mudrack, 1997; Meriac et al., 2015). Individuals with complex ethical standards, shaped by their personal values and their own past experiences, may hold specific expectations regarding collaboration and task completion. They may view their interpretation of work ethic as non-negotiable when working with others. For example, when others in the group do not share their moral standards about task completion and performance, a no-compromise situation may arise in groups regarding task performance. This is because varying work ethics among individuals may pose issues for some group members and they eventually quit their team due to concerns about performance and engagement (Mason & Mudrack, 1997; Meriac, 2012). This may also impact group cohesiveness and trigger conflict at the group, team, or even at the organisational levels (Mason & Mudrack, 1997; Robinson-White, 2022). A noncohesive, noncompromising team with no intention of conflict resolution, where conflicting values of individuals around work ethics are in play, may also lead to conflict (Robinson-White, 2022; Thomas, 2008).

Disagreements about task distribution and unclear role definition

Participants stated that conflict was exacerbated by disagreement over task distribution. Some students felt that workloads were unfairly assigned, with certain members doing more work and contributing a larger portion of group assignments compared to others. A participant described that in their group, nobody knew who was supposed to do what, and some group members always ended up doing more work than others. When the participant complained about their heavier workload regarding additional research and drafting, nobody offered to share their tasks. Instead, there was a lot of drama and friction in the group because everyone believed they had more work to do than others.

The participants characterised the disagreements regarding task distribution as arising from a lack of clear role definitions at the start of the group project. One participant expressed some frustration over this issue and further elucidated the situation, stating that the student was unaware of who the researcher was, who the writer was, and who would proofread. Students perceived only a massive workload and conflicts over task allocation. Another participant noted that not knowing what they needed to do confused them, and when students became confused, they tended to ignore one another, leading to the group’s collapse.

These findings are supported by the literature (Frash et al., 2004; Hendry et al., 2003). Some scholars argue that task distribution enhances conflict among students as students may feel overburdened by the work, perceiving they are given more work compared to their peers (Elenurm & Fabritius, 2023). How team members distribute work in a group, or their role definition, can significantly impact members’ collaborative relationships (Van Woerkom & Van Engen, 2009). A lack of clarity around task distribution compromises team relationships, causes frustration, and exacerbates the process of conflicts (Chang & Kang, 2016; Sinha et al., 2016).

Leadership dynamics

The leadership and dynamics of leadership were perceived as linked to the process of conflicts. Conflicts escalated when leadership was absent. One participant stated that their team leader was efficient. When this leader left the group due to personal reasons, the entire group struggled with decision-making and faced internal issues because there was no consensus on matters and no guidance regarding goals and tasks; thus, conflicts persisted.

Furthermore, participants discussed power struggles among students that escalated into conflicts. Students voiced concerns about the repercussions of selecting their group leader. A participant explained that there was a covert battle within their group over who would take the lead. They said that when two students simultaneously express their interest in being the group leader, it can create significant issues for everyone, as choosing one member would leave the other feeling discontent. This situation may result in a team conflict.

A lack of leadership can cause situations where members of a group feel lost. Not only can the absence of a leader disrupt group harmony, but group members’ perceptions of their leaders can also determine how members attain their goals (Chen et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2025). Scholars argue that leadership impacts the efficacy and collaboration in teams (Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001). If people perceive someone as an effective leader, they may feel confident about their group attaining their goals because they see the leader as having the ability to help the group in challenging situations (Faugoo & Khoosye, 2024). In contrast, issues regarding leadership have been reported to impact group efficacy and attainment of goals and to create issues within the teams, which may harbour conflicts and disputes among members (Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001; Zhang et al., 2025).

RQ2: Prevention and Management of Conflicts

The findings of the second RQ covered two themes: the role of educators and academic institutions, and the role of students.

The role of educators and academic institutions

Educators were described as playing a significant role in preventing and managing conflicts. The guidelines regarding group operations and structured work provided by the teachers were reported and perceived by the participants as effective in eliminating misunderstandings and minimising the potential for conflicts. One participant pointed out that if more detailed guidelines are provided by staff and lecturers on how the group can operate and the work structure, misunderstandings and conflicts within the group can be prevented. Participants also suggested that defined roles and systematic check-ins were beneficial for averting disputes and conflicts before they escalated. Another participant further emphasised that if the lecturer and tutor clarify students’ roles in the group, along with the importance of teamwork, communication, and conflict resolution, the situation can improve for students.

Most students explained that a more supportive learning environment was linked to proactive interventions such as coaching and mediation provided by educators. A participant expressed appreciation for the clear expectations and coaching they received from their teacher, which fostered a supportive class environment, enhanced awareness of necessary actions to take, assisted in completing assessments while collaborating in teams, and helped to prevent conflicts.

The findings also emphasised the role of academic institutions in conflict resolution. Training and mental health support from the university were viewed as effective measures for preventing and managing group conflicts. Two participants praised the role of regular reflection sessions and mental health counselling offered by the university’s student support services, which assisted several students in addressing group challenges. One participant further suggested that the university could arrange cultural competency training for students to help them recognise and address conflicts, noting that while students currently lack this training, it could be beneficial in mitigating conflicts.

Academic literature supports these findings on conflict management (Sim et al., 2020). Several scholars have identified that educators must provide structured guidelines to students for group work to be effective for enhanced learning of students (Barkley et al., 2014; Sim et al., 2020). Further, literature emphasises that the guidelines for students around structured work must fulfil certain conditions, including instructions about practical interpersonal skills, healthy interdependence, collaboration to complete tasks, and understanding the importance of collaboration for completing group work (Colbeck et al., 2000).

Additionally, conversation-based reflections, for example coaching and mediation, have been reported as beneficial interventions because they can provide students with platforms to reflect on their experiences and become more aware of their own and other people’s behaviours; this can help them build resilience and adopt skills to manage conflicts (Bolton, 1999; Schrage & Giacomini, 2023; Rahmat, 2020).

The role of students

The role of students was explained as a crucial factor in preventing and managing conflicts. Students indicated that reporting unmanaged conflicts was the responsibility of all students, including the student leaders. One participant emphasised that it is the responsibility of students to inform staff if there is an issue, as doing so prevents matters from escalating into significant conflicts. They shared a story about when their group leader approached the tutor to discuss a problem, and the tutor referred them to academic services, which helped resolve the issue. Another participant stated that students need to be actively involved in the prevention and management of conflicts by taking care of their emotional and mental health, ensuring that their behaviour does not impact others in the group. Students reached a consensus that conflicts can escalate when they remain within the group, and no one is aware of what is happening regarding students’ mental health. They emphasised that if issues are addressed first through self-reflection and then by seeking help, larger problems can be prevented.

Several scholars have emphasised that reporting unaddressed group conflicts to student administration, teachers, and institutions can help manage conflict and prevent its further escalation (Deutsch et al., 2011; Meyers, 2003; Rahim, 2023). Students can suffer serious consequences if conflicts remain unresolved. Thus, reporting the issue to their tertiary institution and concerned authorities is critical so they can take effective preventive and management measures (Meyers, 2003; Rahim, 2023). Also, students must be willing to seek help where needed and in any form, such as counselling, therapy, coaching, or mediation, so that they can be safe from the negative impacts of the issue (Johnson et al., 1986; Meyers, 2003). In summary, prevention and management require both educators and students to play their roles in preventing conflict progression.

Future directions, limitations, and conclusion

Current theories have offered some explanations of the conflicts among students in a group, such as cultural, interpersonal, and communication factors (Hall & Buzwell, 2013; Ting-Toomey & Oetzel, 2001; Oetzel et al., 2008). However, future research directions must focus on finding meaningful explanations of the conflict process to propose efficient and effective preventive strategies that involve students and educator-facilitated interventions. Fragmented explanations can offer partial descriptions of the process related to conflict and its progression, but a broader view of the problem remains missing. The current study has highlighted some aspects in terms of the sources, nature, and process of conflict, but the study is limited to a group of students in a single tertiary institution. The findings, therefore, may not be generalisable and are limited to the context where this research was conducted.

The chapter reports on the findings of an investigative project that was conducted as part of several institutional measures at a New Zealand university to evaluate the efficacy of teaching and learning strategies. The chapter took an illustrative approach to explain the process of group conflicts. The research discussed the complexities of group conflicts among undergraduate students, emphasising both the challenges and benefits of group conflicts. While differences in cultural values and personalities of students may cause conflicts, conflicts can serve as learning opportunities. By understanding the influence of individual personalities, students’ cultural backgrounds, and leadership dynamics, teachers and educators can implement effective strategies that foster effective collaboration. A proactive strategy involving both the educators and the students, including more explicit role definitions, structured support, and open communication, can turn group conflicts into learning opportunities. Coaching, counselling, and effective reporting of the issues can help mitigate group conflicts. Overall, acknowledging group conflict as a multifaceted phenomenon can shift the focus from reactive responses to more integrated and collaborative learning environments that support both academic goals and personal development for students.

References

Abbasi, N., Mills, A., & Tucker, R. (2017). Conflict resolution in student teams: An exploration in the context of design education. In Collaboration and student engagement in design education (pp. 105–124). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0726-0.ch005

Barkley, E. F., Major, C. H., & Cross, K. P. (2014). Collaborative learning techniques: A handbook for college faculty. John Wiley & Sons.

Bolton, M. K. (1999). The role of coaching in student teams: A “just-in-time” approach to learning. Journal of Management Education, 23(3), 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256299902300302

Brookfield, S. D. (2006). The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in the classroom. Jossey-Bass.

Brown, J. G. (2012). Empowering students to create and claim value through the Thomas–Kilmann conflict mode instrument. Negotiation Journal, 28(1), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1571-9979.2011.00327.x

Burton, B., Lepp, M., Morrison, M., & O’Toole, J. (2015). Acting to manage conflict and bullying through evidence-based strategies. Springer.

Chang, B., & Kang, H. (2016). Challenges facing group work online. Distance Education, 37(1), 73–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2016.1154781

Chang, W. L., & Lee, C. Y. (2013). Virtual team e‐leadership: The effects of leadership style and conflict management mode on the online learning performance of students in a business‐planning course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(6), 986–999. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12037

Chapman, K. J., Meuter, M., Toy, D., & Wright, L. (2006). Can’t we pick our own groups? The influence of group selection method on group dynamics and outcomes. Journal of Management Education, 30(4), 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562905284872

Chen, C. C., Ünal, A. F., Leung, K., & Xin, K. R. (2016). Group harmony in the workplace: Conception, measurement, and validation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 33, 903–934. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-016-9457-0

Clark, J., & Baker, T. (2011). “It’s Not Fair!” Cultural attitudes to social loafing in ethnically diverse groups. Intercultural Communication Studies, 20(1).

Colbeck, C. L., Campbell, S. E., & Bjorklund, S. A. (2000). Grouping in the dark: What college students learn from group projects. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(1), 60–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2000.11780816

Croucher, S. M., Bruno, A., McGrath, P., Adams, C., McGahan, C., Suits, A., & Huckins, A. (2012). Conflict styles and high–low context cultures: A cross-cultural extension. Communication Research Reports, 29(1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2011.640093

Curşeu, P. L. (2011). Intra-group conflict and teamwork quality: The moderating role of leadership styles. Administrative Sciences, 1(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci1010003

De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4). https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741

Deutsch, M., & Brickman, E. (1994). Conflict resolution. Pediatrics in Review, 15(1), 16–22. https://doi.org/10.1542/pir.15-1-16

Deutsch, M., Coleman, P. T., & Marcus, E. C. (2011). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice. John Wiley & Sons.

Donahue, D. M. (2023). Democratic dilemmas of teaching service-learning. Routledge.

Elenurm, T., & Fabritius, J. (2023). Managing task and relationship conflicts in international online team learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 60(3), 426–435. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2022.2040566

Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2009). Student Development in College: Theory, Research, and Practice. John Wiley & Sons.

Faugoo, D., & Khoosye, P. (2024). Managers harnessing emotional intelligence with transformational leadership: Creating team harmony and resolving conflicts for business success. International Journal of Business and Technology Management, 6(3), 719–729.

Forrester, W. R., & Tashchian, A. (2010). Effects of Personality on Attitudes Toward Academic Group Work. American Journal of Business Education, 3(3), 39–46.

Frash, R. E., Kline, S., & Stahura, J. M. (2004). Mitigating Social Loafing in Team-Based Learning. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 3(4), 57–77. https://doi.org/10.1300/J172v03n04_04

Gallo, G. (2013). Conflict theory, complexity and systems approach. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 30(2), 156–175.

Schrage, J. M., & Giacomini, N. G. (Eds.). (2023). Reframing campus conflict: Student conduct practice through the lens of inclusive excellence. Taylor & Francis.

Giroux, H. A. (2014). Neoliberalism’s war on higher education. Haymarket Books.

Hall, D., & Buzwell, S. (2013). The problem of free-riding in group projects: Looking beyond social loafing as reason for non-contribution. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(1), 37–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412467123

Hendry, G. D., Ryan, G., & Harris, J. (2003). Group problems in problem-based learning. Medical Teacher, 25(6), 609–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159031000137427

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. Routledge.

Huerta, M. V., Sajadi, S., Schibelius, L., Ryan, O. J., & Fisher, M. (2024). An exploration of psychological safety and conflict in first‐year engineering student teams. Journal of Engineering Education, 113(3), 635–666. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20608

Jehn, K. A. (1995). A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup Conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), 256–282. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393638

Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The Dynamic Nature of Conflict: A Longitudinal Study of Intragroup Conflict and Group Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–251. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069453

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1985). Classroom Conflict: Controversy Versus Debate in Learning Groups. American Educational Research Journal, 22(2), 237–256. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312022002237

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1998). Cooperative learning and social interdependence theory. In R. S. Tindale, L. Heath, J. Edwards, E. J. Posavac, F. B. Bryant, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, E. Henderson-King, & J. Myers (Eds.), Theory and research on small groups (pp. 9–35). Springer.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). New developments in social interdependence theory. Genetic, social, and general psychology monographs, 131(4), 285–358. https://doi.org/10.3200/MONO.131.4.285-358

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1986). The Social Psychology of Education: Current Research and Theory. Cambridge University Press.

Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution Theory and Research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31(1), 457–501. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.002325

Kimmel, P. R. (2006). Culture and conflict. In M. Deutsch, P. T. Coleman, & E. C. Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 625–648). Jossey-Bass.

Kozlowski, S. W., & Ilgen, D. R. (2007). The science of team success. Scientific American Mind, 18(3), 54–61. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24939646

Le, H., Janssen, J., & Wubbels, T. (2018). Collaborative learning practices: Teacher and student perceived obstacles to effective student collaboration. Cambridge Journal of Education, 48(1), 103–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2016.1259389

Lewis, T. L., & Smith, W. J. (2008). Building software engineering teams that work: The impact of dominance on group conflict and performance outcomes. 2008 38th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, USA, 2008, S3H-1-S3H-6. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2008.4720498

Lipset, S. M. (1971). Rebellion in the University. Transaction Publishers.

Luescher-Mamashela, T. M. (2015). Student activism in the contemporary South African higher education system: The case of the University of Cape Town. In L. M. Ndawo, L. M. Masinga, & L. L. Ntombela (Eds.), Reflections of South African student affairs: Past, present and future (pp. 55–76). DUT Press.

Lykourentzou, I., Antoniou, A., Naudet, Y., & Dow, S. P. (2016). Personality matters: Balancing for personality types leads to better outcomes for crowd teams. Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, CSCW 2016, 27, 260–273. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819979

Mason, E. S., & Mudrack, P. E. (1997). Do complex moral reasoners experience greater ethical work conflict? Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 1311–1318.

Meriac, J. P. (2012). Work ethic and academic performance: Predicting citizenship and counterproductive behavior. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(4), 549–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.03.015

Meriac, J. P., Thomas, A. L., & Milunski, M. (2015). Work ethic as a predictor of task persistence and intensity. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 249–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.006

Meyers, S. A. (2003). Strategies to Prevent and Reduce Conflict in College Classrooms. College Teaching, 51(3), 94–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550309596419

Oakley, B., Felder, R. M., Brent, R., & Elhajj, I. (2004). Turning student groups into effective teams. Journal of Student Centered Learning, 2(1), 9–34.

Oetzel, J., Garcia, A. J., & Ting‐Toomey, S. (2008). An analysis of the relationships among face concerns and facework behaviors in perceived conflict situations: A four‐culture investigation. International Journal of Conflict Management, 19(4), 382–403. https://doi.org/10.1108/10444060810909310

Othman, N., Ahmad, F., El Morr, C., & Ritvo, P. (2019). Perceived impact of contextual determinants on depression, anxiety and stress: A survey with university students. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 13, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13033-019-0275-x

Pondy, L. R. (1989). Reflections on Organizational Conflict. Journal of Organizational Chane Management, 2(2), 94–98. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000001185

Pondy, L. R. (1992). Reflections on Organizational Conflict. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), 257–261. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2488470

Rahim, M. A. (2023). Managing Conflict in Organizations. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003285861

Rahmat, N. H. (2020). Conflict resolution strategies in class discussions. International Journal of Education, 12(3), 49–66. https://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v12i3.16914

Robinson-White, E. C. (2022). Factors that influence team cohesion: A study of work style behaviors among campus instructional leadership team members (Publication No. 30690403) [Doctoral dissertation, Dallas Baptist University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Sarwar, B., Zulfiqar, S., Aziz, S., & Ejaz Chandia, K. (2019). Usage of Social Media Tools for Collaborative Learning: The Effect on Learning Success with the Moderating Role of Cyberbullying. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(1), 246–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117748415

Sim, M. S., Sukimin, I. S., Abidin, N. S. Z., Hanim, N., Rahmat, E. A., & Varma, S. B. (2020). Conflicts in Group Work: Are they all bad? Social Sciences, 11(11), 331–341. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v11-i11/11246

Sinha, R., Janardhanan, N. S., Greer, L. L., Conlon, D. E., & Edwards, J. R. (2016). Skewed task conflicts in teams: What happens when a few members see more conflict than the rest? Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(7), 1045–1055. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000059

Strauss, P., & U, A. (2007). Group assessments: Dilemmas facing lecturers in multicultural tertiary classrooms. High Education Research & Development, 26(2), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701310789

Tekleab, A. G., Quigley, N. R., & Tesluk, P. E. (2009). A Longitudinal Study of Team Conflict, Conflict Management, Cohesion, and Team Effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 34(2), 170–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601108331218

Thomas, K. W. (1992). Conflict and Conflict Management: Reflections and Update. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(3), 265–274. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2488472

Thomas, K. W. (2008). Thomas-Kilmann conflict mode. TKI Profile and Interpretive Report, 1(11).

Ting-Toomey, S., & Oetzel, J. G. (2001). Managing Intercultural Conflict Effectively (Vol. 5). Sage.

Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict‐positive organization: It depends upon us. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.473

Van Woerkom, M., & Van Engen, M. L. (2009). Learning from conflicts? The relations between task and relationship conflicts, team learning and team performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18(4), 381–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320802569514

Watt, W. M. (1994, November). Conflict management: Using the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument to assess levels of learning in the classroom. Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, New Orleans, LA, United States.

Zhang, I. D., Lam, L. W., Zhu, J. N., & Lee, J. (2025). Why Do Employees Perform Better Under Paradoxical Leaders? The Mediating Role of Group Harmony. Journal of Business and Psychology, 40(1), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-024-09942-x

Zhang, Q. (1994). An intervention model of constructive conflict resolution and cooperative learning. Journal of Social Issues, 50(1), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02400.x