| Course | IOP 470 Group Dynamics (IOP/470) |
|---|---|
| Week | 3 |
| Paper type | Group communication and conflict paper |
| Length | about 1,001 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | BS in Psychology |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for IOP 470 Week 3
Shelter Beds and Hurt Feelings: Task and Relationship Conflict on a City Heat Task Force
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
IOP/470: Group Dynamics
Week 3 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The task force, its members and its disputes are composites written for a model paper; research findings come from the sources listed.
Groups need disagreement to make good decisions, but disagreements can turn personal and damage the group. How members communicate shapes which happens. This paper examines a conflict in the Phoenix heat task force from earlier weeks.
The Conflict
One recommendation, joint outreach by fire crews and homeless services workers, left a gap: where would people go at night, when many heat deaths occur in tents and unshaded camps? Dana Whitfield, director of a homeless services nonprofit, proposed overnight cooling shelters in three city buildings. Marcus Lee, the city's housing official, objected: staffing overnight shelters would be costly, liability was unclear and existing shelters were already full. The debate grew sharper over two meetings. Whitfield described clients found dead in the morning. Lee replied, "This isn't a charity drive; I have to answer for the budget." Whitfield left the room. At the next meeting, the two did not speak to each other, and other members carefully avoided the topic for the full two hours that followed.
Kinds of Conflict
Researchers separate arguments over what the group should decide from friction between the people deciding it, and both from quarrels over who does which job and how. The cooling shelter debate began as task conflict about a policy option. Lee's remark and Whitfield's departure turned it into relationship conflict.
When Conflict Helps and When It Hurts
Jehn (1995) studied work groups in a freight company through surveys, interviews and observation. Groups with personal friction were less satisfied and did worse work. Arguing about the work hurt crews doing repetitive jobs, yet helped crews facing unfamiliar problems, provided the arguments stayed impersonal and the group treated open disagreement as normal.
The task force's work is nonroutine: no one knows the best way to prevent heat deaths in Phoenix. Debate about overnight shelters was potentially valuable. It became harmful when it turned personal and when the group lacked norms for disagreeing respectfully, as Week 2 showed in its turf-protecting habits.
A Broader View From Meta-Analysis
De Dreu and Weingart (2003) pooled team conflict studies and found that arguing over the work, not just clashing personally, tended to lower both results and morale, and that teams with one kind of conflict usually had the other as well. Task conflict was less harmful when relationship conflict was low. The authors cautioned against assuming that task conflict reliably improves performance.
This research tempers optimism about the shelter debate. Task conflict tends to spill into relationship conflict, as it did here, and the combined effect usually hurts. The goal is not to encourage conflict for its own sake but to structure disagreement so that it stays on the issue.
Lee was arguing about a line in the budget; Whitfield heard him arguing about whether her clients' lives were worth it.
How the Group Talks
Woolley et al. (2010) had small groups tackle puzzles, brainstorming, negotiation and judgment tasks and found that a group's success on one kind of task predicted its success on the others, as if groups had a general intelligence of their own. This factor was only weakly related to the average or maximum intelligence of members. What predicted it better was how well members read one another's feelings, how evenly they shared airtime and how many women were in the group, a link that ran largely through skill at reading feelings.
The task force's conversation is unequal. As Week 2 showed, a few members speak most. In the shelter debate, Lee and Whitfield spoke for most of two meetings while others stayed silent, so the group never heard the fire captain's knowledge of overnight emergency calls or the utility representative's data on power shutoffs, which might have reframed the question.
Avoidance Is Also a Choice
After the walkout, the rest of the group chose avoidance: the topic dropped off the agenda, and members chatted about other items. Avoidance felt safe, but it left the most dangerous gap in the plan, nighttime heat exposure, unaddressed, and it signaled that conflict would be buried rather than worked through. Approaches to conflict range from avoiding and accommodating to competing, compromising and collaborating; collaborating takes more time but fits issues, like this one, where the stakes are high and both sides hold information the solution needs.
Underlying Interests
The conflict also reflects real interests. Lee answers to a director who must balance shelter budgets against other housing programs; Whitfield answers to clients and a board. These interests will not disappear through better communication, however skilled the chair or however sincere the apology. They can, however, be put on the table and negotiated.
Recommendations
Repair the relationship first. Dr. Villanueva meets separately with Lee and Whitfield, then together, to acknowledge the hurt and restate the shared goal. Lee apologizes plainly for the remark, and Whitfield in turn acknowledges the budget pressures he faces.
Separate the issue from the people. At the next meeting, the group lists options for overnight safety, including shelters, extended hours at existing centers and outreach checks, before anyone evaluates them.
Structure turn-taking. Each member speaks once on the question before open discussion, and the chair invites the fire and utility representatives to share relevant data.
Agree on norms for disagreement, such as "Challenge ideas, not motives" and "Ask a question before making a counterargument."
Address interests. Ask the housing office to cost a pilot of one overnight center for the hottest twenty nights, with liability reviewed by the city attorney and Whitfield's staff helping design intake so the pilot reflects what clients will actually use.
Conclusion
A valuable task conflict over overnight shelters turned into relationship conflict through a hurtful remark and a group with no norms for disagreement. Research shows that task conflict can help nonroutine work only when it stays impersonal, that conflicts tend to spill over and that groups with equal turn-taking perform better. Repairing the relationship, structuring discussion and negotiating interests can return the debate to the problem.
References
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4), 741-749. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
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
Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330(6004), 686-688. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193147
What the IOP 470 Week 3 instructions ask
The third IOP 470 assignment usually addresses communication and conflict in groups. Students commonly describe communication patterns and networks, explain how conversational turn-taking, listening and information sharing affect performance, distinguish task, relationship and process conflict, evaluate their effects and compare conflict management approaches such as collaborating, compromising, accommodating, avoiding and competing. Certain sections want a conflict the writer lived through or watched on a team. Identify the type of conflict precisely, trace how communication patterns contributed and recommend responses grounded in evidence about what actually helps. Back the analysis with the assigned chapters and journal research in APA format, quoting the statements that turned the conflict.
How this IOP 470 Week 3 example is built
Our worked paper follows the task force's most heated meeting. Marcus Lee, the city housing official, argues that overnight cooling shelters would strain staff and invite liability; Dana Whitfield, director of the homeless services nonprofit, counters with stories of clients who died in their sleep. When Lee says, "This isn't a charity drive," Whitfield walks out. A multimethod study shows that debate about the task can help groups doing nonroutine work, while personal friction harms them. A meta-analysis finds that both kinds of conflict generally hurt team performance, with task conflict less harmful when trust is high. A study of collective intelligence shows that groups with more equal turn-taking perform better.
IOP 470 Week 3 grading rubric: where the points go
Conflict and communication papers are scored on precise distinctions, accurate use of research and practical recommendations. Instructors look for task, relationship and process conflict to be identified in the case, for research findings to be reported carefully, including the mixed evidence on task conflict, and for communication patterns to be analyzed with specifics. Credit goes to recommendations that address both the issue and the relationship, to structured discussion techniques and to realistic expectations. APA formatting, labeled sections and quoted examples from the group are expected. Strong papers also recognize that some conflict reflects real differences in agency interests that will not disappear through better communication alone.
IOP 470 Week 3 help: mistakes to avoid
A common error is treating all conflict as either good or bad, when research distinguishes conflict about the work from conflict between people and finds different effects under different conditions. Another is labeling a dispute a personality clash without examining the underlying disagreement about the task or about agency interests. Students also recommend generic advice, such as "communicate better," without specifying techniques such as structured turn-taking or separating idea generation from evaluation. Some papers ignore power differences that shape who can speak frankly. Classify the conflict, trace it through specific statements, cite evidence and propose concrete practices. Write down the exact words that turned the debate. A tutor can help you separate the issue from the relationship in a conflict.
Related IOP 470 sample papers
Other IOP 470 week samples
- IOP 470 Week 1: Group Formation and Development
- IOP 470 Week 2: Roles, Norms and Power
- IOP 470 Week 4: Group Decision Making
- IOP 470 Week 5: Team Effectiveness and Leadership
More BS in Psychology sample papers
- IOP 455 Week 3: Ethics in Assessment and Selection
- IOP 460 Week 3: Political and Symbolic Frames
- PSY 110 Week 3: Values Assessment Worksheet
- PSY 203 Week 3: Learning and Memory
IOP 470 Week 3 questions, answered
What does IOP 470 Week 3 usually cover?
It usually covers group communication patterns, types of conflict, their effects on performance and conflict management approaches.
Where can I find a free IOP 470 Week 3 sample paper?
Read the whole IOP 470 Week 3 paper on the overnight shelter dispute above at no cost.
What is the difference between task and relationship conflict?
Task conflict concerns disagreements about the work itself; relationship conflict involves personal friction, tension and dislike.
Is task conflict good for teams?
Evidence is mixed; it can help on complex, nonroutine tasks when trust is high, but often harms performance overall.
What makes some groups collectively smarter?
Research points to more equal conversational turn-taking and members' ability to read others' social cues.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Request this one custom, free · All IOP 470 week samples · All courses