Resolving Leadership Conflicts: Lessons from Kaliamman SHG

Leadership conflicts are not rare in small community groups – they are, in fact, one of the most common reasons such groups stagnate or fall apart. The story of the Kaliamman Self-Help Group (SHG) in Pachalur is a telling example of how unchecked personal dominance within leadership can quietly erode the collective purpose of a group, and how the right intervention at the right time can put things back on track. This case study offers practical lessons not just for SHG facilitators, but for anyone navigating leadership disputes in a team or organizational setting.

What are self-help groups and why does leadership matter in them? 🔗

Before diving into the conflict itself, it helps to understand what is at stake in an SHG. Self-help groups in India are small, voluntary associations – typically of 10 to 20 members – that pool savings, access credit, and work toward shared social and economic goals. They operate on the foundational principle of collective decision-making, where every member has an equal voice. SHGs resolve conflicts through mutual discussion and collective leadership, which means the group’s functioning is deeply tied to the quality of relationships within it.

Because these groups are built on trust and shared ownership, leadership dynamics carry outsized weight. When one person begins to dominate – sidelining others, monopolizing decisions, or refusing to compromise – the group’s core structure is threatened. This is exactly what happened in the Kaliamman SHG in Pachalur.

Background of the conflict in Kaliamman SHG 🔗

The Kaliamman SHG was a women’s self-help group functioning in the Pachalur area. Like many such groups, it started with shared goals – financial inclusion, mutual support, and community empowerment. But over time, a leadership conflict emerged that would bring the group to a standstill.

At the center of the dispute was a situation of personal dominance by a group leader. Rather than facilitating shared decision-making, this individual began making unilateral decisions, disregarding the opinions and concerns of other members. Other members felt sidelined and undervalued. Attempts to raise issues were either dismissed or met with resistance, and the group atmosphere shifted from collaborative to adversarial.

What made this conflict particularly damaging was the lack of compromise on the leader’s part. Research on leadership and conflict resolution consistently shows that dominant leaders who refuse to collaborate tend to create toxic group environments – one where members feel undermined, lose confidence, and gradually disengage. In the Kaliamman SHG, this dynamic led to exactly that outcome: group activities slowed, attendance at meetings dropped, savings goals were disrupted, and the group’s shared momentum was lost. The group had reached a point of stagnation.

This stagnation was not simply about two people disagreeing. It reflected a deeper structural problem: a group built on democratic principles was being run in an autocratic manner. Poor group dynamics, including internal conflicts and unequal participation, can disrupt the functioning of the group – and without intervention, can lead to dissolution entirely.

Conflict resolution steps taken 🔗

The turnaround in the Kaliamman SHG came through deliberate, structured intervention. The process unfolded in several interconnected steps that together form a model worth studying carefully.

Step 1: Facilitator intervention 🔗

The first and most critical step was the involvement of an external facilitator. Recognizing that the group was unable to resolve the conflict from within – because the power imbalance had already undermined internal communication channels – a facilitator stepped in to create a neutral space for dialogue.

The facilitator’s role was not to impose a solution, but to guide the process. This is consistent with what research on SHG interventions has found: some interventions provide an external facilitator who trains group members in functioning and facilitation, while others focus more narrowly on the intended outcome. In this case, the facilitator focused on opening up communication – helping each member feel safe enough to voice their perspective without fear of retribution or dismissal.

The facilitator also served as what conflict resolution literature calls a neutral third party – someone who could hear all sides without being aligned with any one of them. Harvard’s Program on Negotiation describes this approach as starting from a “third story” – one that acknowledges what each party is experiencing without validating blame on either side. This reframing reduced defensiveness and opened the door for genuine conversation.

Step 2: Gathering perspectives from all members 🔗

Once the facilitator had established a safe space, the next step involved listening to every member’s perspective – not just the parties most visibly in conflict. This is a crucial distinction. Many conflict resolution efforts focus only on the two or three people directly involved and overlook the impact on the wider group.

In the Kaliamman SHG, the facilitator made sure that all members – including those who had been quietly withdrawing – had the opportunity to speak. This served two purposes: it gave the facilitator a full picture of how the conflict had developed, and it signaled to marginalized members that their voices mattered. Active listening is the cornerstone of effective conflict resolution – it involves paying full attention, responding, and remembering what people are saying, not just hearing the surface details of a problem.

Crucially, this step also revealed that the conflict was not purely personal – it was rooted in differing expectations about leadership roles, decision-making authority, and how the group’s resources should be managed. Understanding these root causes made it possible to address them structurally, not just interpersonally.

Step 3: Collective decision-making as the resolution mechanism 🔗

The actual resolution did not come from a single negotiated agreement between the leader and dissenting members. Instead, the facilitator guided the group toward a collectively determined solution – one where the entire membership participated in deciding how leadership would function going forward.

This included revisiting the group’s rules around decision-making, clarifying what decisions could be made by an individual leader versus those that required group consensus, and establishing clearer accountability mechanisms. In SHG facilitation, good practice involves establishing clear roles and responsibilities for each member and ensuring these are upheld through regular monitoring and transparent rules for conduct.

By involving every member in designing the new norms, the facilitator transformed the resolution process itself into an act of empowerment. Members who had felt excluded from decision-making were now co-authoring the group’s governance framework. The dominant leader, for their part, was not removed or publicly shamed – they were brought back into a structure that redistributed authority more equitably.

This approach aligns with what organizational behavior research identifies as the most effective conflict management technique in group settings: collaborative problem-solving, where all parties work together to find a solution rather than one side forcing compliance on the other.

Key takeaways for conflict resolution in leadership 🔗

The Kaliamman SHG case study is valuable precisely because it is not exceptional – versions of this conflict happen in workplaces, community groups, and organizations of all kinds. The lessons it offers are broadly applicable.

Early intervention prevents escalation 🔗

One of the clearest lessons from the Kaliamman case is that the conflict was allowed to fester before anyone stepped in. By the time the facilitator arrived, group stagnation had already set in. Early intervention is crucial in resolving conflicts before they escalate – addressing issues as soon as they arise, rather than hoping they resolve themselves, makes resolution significantly less complex and less damaging to group cohesion.

In SHGs and similar community organizations, regular communication, conflict resolution training, and leadership development programs can help strengthen internal cohesion. Groups that build these practices in from the start are far better positioned to catch and address tensions before they become entrenched.

Gathering all perspectives, not just the loudest ones 🔗

A common failure in conflict resolution is centering only the most vocal or powerful parties. In the Kaliamman SHG, the quieter members – those who had simply withdrawn – were just as important to understanding the full scope of the conflict as the individuals directly at odds. Any resolution that didn’t account for their experience would have been incomplete and likely temporary.

This principle applies broadly: effective conflict resolution requires mapping the full human landscape of the dispute, not just responding to whoever is loudest. It means actively seeking out those who have disengaged, since their silence often signals the deepest alienation.

Collective solutions create durable change 🔗

Perhaps the most significant lesson from this case study is about the nature of the solution itself. The Kaliamman SHG did not resolve its conflict by replacing one leader with another or by asking the dominant member to simply “behave better.” It resolved it by redesigning its governance so that the structural conditions that enabled dominance in the first place were changed.

Research on SHGs as development platforms consistently points to the importance of social capital – the trust and reciprocity built through regular group interactions – as the foundation of sustainable collective action. When a conflict resolution process itself becomes a vehicle for rebuilding that social capital, rather than just ending an immediate dispute, it creates something far more lasting.

The Kaliamman SHG’s experience demonstrates that the process of resolution matters as much as the outcome. A solution handed down from outside – or imposed by one party on another – rarely holds. A solution built together by the group is one the group has ownership over, and is therefore far more likely to stick.

The facilitator’s role: guide, not judge 🔗

It is worth isolating the facilitator’s specific contribution in this case. The facilitator did not arbitrate, assign blame, or dictate terms. They created conditions – safety, structure, and process – within which the group could do the work of resolving its own conflict. This is a model of facilitation that Harvard’s negotiation experts describe as open collaboration: confronting difficult emotions while encouraging joint problem-solving, rather than diagnosing and labeling conflict styles.

This kind of facilitation requires both skill and restraint. The temptation when mediating a conflict – especially one involving visible power imbalance – is to take a side. But doing so undermines the neutrality that makes the facilitator’s role effective. The Kaliamman case shows what becomes possible when that neutrality is maintained: a group that walked into a facilitated session divided walked out with a shared framework for moving forward.

Why this case still matters 🔗

The Kaliamman SHG in Pachalur is a small group in a specific geographic and social context, but the dynamics it illustrates are universal. Leadership conflicts rooted in personal dominance, lack of compromise, and the silencing of dissenting voices occur at every level of organization – from grassroots community groups to corporate boards. What this case study offers is a clear-eyed account of how such conflicts develop, why they are damaging, and what a structured, participatory resolution process looks like in practice.

For anyone working in facilitation, community development, organizational leadership, or gender studies, the Kaliamman case is a reminder that the social capital generated through regular group interactions is the most valuable asset any collective organization has – and that it is both fragile and recoverable, depending on how conflicts within it are handled.

What do you think? When a single leader’s dominance begins to stall a group’s progress, at what point does intervention become necessary – and who should be responsible for initiating it? And if collective decision-making is the foundation of groups like SHGs, what structures can be built in from the start to prevent power from concentrating in one person’s hands?

References

1. https://www.nextias.com/blog/self-help-groups-shgs/
2. https://byjus.com/free-ias-prep/self-help-group/
3. https://the-conflictexpert.com/2025/01/28/breaking-leadership-stereotypes-dominance-vs-flexibility/
4. https://uppcsmagazine.com/challenges-before-self-help-groups-shgs-and-measures-to-make-them-effective-and-beneficial/
5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7269175/
6. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/conflict-resolution/telling-the-third-story/
7. https://www.goodwin.edu/enews/conflict-resolution-strategies-for-leaders/
8. https://opentext.wsu.edu/organizational-behavior/chapter/10-4-conflict-management/
9. https://www.proalt.com/mastering-workplace-conflict-essential-strategies-for-early-resolution/
10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8350316/
11. https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/conflict-resolution/conflict-management-styles-pitfalls-and-best-practices/
12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8350313/