Conflicting Situation at Work - Term Paper Example

 Conflicting Situation at Work A conflicting situation at work does arise every now and then. However, what methodologies are used to avoid the same are deemed as significant within the related settings. A conflicting situation could be anything from a sexual harassment case to a fight, a personal animosity between two colleagues or even a rift of expounding proportions. This conflicting situation therefore marks the basis of problem that an organization can see happening within its fore. The need is to understand where it has crept up from and what related measures could be taken to avoid it in the first place (Boles, 2011). One such conflicting situation came about when recently one of the employees had a rift with his boss. This problem caused the entire department to lose focus for quite a while. Indeed this was getting into something big until the top management realized the gravity of the situation and intervened to bring to an end the entire issue. The amicable solution was found through understanding and logic which prevailed in entirety. The need was to discern where the two employees were doing just too much pushing and pulling, which was unthinkable on the part of the other employees and the management in essence. There was an air of suspicion which existed within the realms of these two employees who were not even on the same level. The conflicting situation came about when the boss ordered his subordinate to comply with his orders time and again. The subordinate did not agree with what the boss had to suggest and carried on with his own undertakings and tasks in the office. The result was very serious as it turned out to be. The two of them got into an argument and started to abuse one another of doing nothing all day long. The boss was surprised that the subordinate had the guts in him to get up to him and speak out loud and that too in front of just about everyone in the office. The actions that the management took under such settings were of dire consequence as it had to intercept within this quagmire which had developed with the passage of time. The senior bosses called these two employees who were essentially boss and subordinate, and thus worked in the same department. They were asked to give their side of the story and thus tell who of the two was wrong amongst them. It was obvious that both of them hurled claims on the other party to be labeled as the guilty one. This ended up in stalemate and both were ordered to leave the office within the shortest time since they were sentenced to two weeks suspensions. The problem was made bigger than it was in the beginning. The subordinate was very abusive and used to hurl slang language and jokes on the boss and the boss had found this out through other employees. The boss was also adamant that since he was senior to the subordinate, his say should have been more important. My perception was that this situation was not handled properly right from the onset. It meant that the employees were not being managed adequately well by the management domains. The need of the hour was such that the employees should have been apprised of the consequences before they indulged into one such rift. Their attitudes would have been better had they known what was in store for them and how they had to handle things in a proper manner. Sadly, this did not come about as such and there were problems for both of them as well as the employees who worked with them or around them in one or the other capacity. I believe that the boss would have let the human resource management department handle things on their own since this would have been the better thing to do in such a scenario. It would have served the cause of the two and taken into consideration the abuse factor which was raised by the subordinate that was simply unwanted and uncalled for (Harrison, 2006). Also the boss should have made it a point not to revert back with abuses of his own because that made the entire situation very adverse and unpleasant. It made him look ugly at the end of the day because he was in a position of superiority and thus was being hurled all forms of abuses in front of the people for whom he was the father figure. This is my perception and I hold it close to what I think and feel should have been the case from the beginning. One of my other colleagues believes that the case was handled very amicably by the management since they ended the cold war that was rampant between the boss and the subordinate. This colleague believes that it is the moral duty of the management to make sure that fights do not come about every now and then, and are minimized to a fairer extent by the incorporations from the human resource management department. He is of the opinion that the human resource management department played its role very well and reduced the extent of negativity that resulted from this tussle. His perception is therefore opposite to what I believe is my case at the present where I hold the human resource management department as a responsible entity within this saga (Khan, 2011). This colleague also feels that the boss was right in his stance because the subordinate was being just too much at the scenario which was built up within the office. The subordinate used harsh words against the boss and made a scene out of a thing that could have been managed properly. The colleague holds the view that the rules and policies within the office are not being promulgated well and hence the reason that there are immense issues and tussles that are happening every now and then. He is also of the opinion that the organizational fabric is such that the employees would get into rifts and have cold wars because there was not a single platform where the employees could come together and remove their differences and the things that made their personal and professional interactions smoother. A better alternative solution to this conflicting situation would be that the human resource management department gets its act straight and makes the rules tougher within the organization so that similar happenings do not make the rounds of the office. Also it would mean that the employees know that they are being watched by the higher management domains consistently and that they need to get their act straight to avoid any rifts, clashes and fights from taking place. In addition, it is element of trust that came down within the office over one another because employees started to alienate themselves from indulging in little meetings that they had with each other (Kincaid, 2008). They segregated themselves from much interaction and relied more on doing their own work. This rift made lives difficult for the employees and the employers were least helpful until they thought that the situation had become absolutely worse and something or the other needed to be done to bring up some sanity. I would do my best to avoid such a situation from cropping up in the first place by making sure that the rules are stringent enough to begin with. This would mean serious understanding for the conflicting situation which has thus come about within this office. References Boles, J., 2011. Reducing emotional exhaustion and increasing organizational support. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 26(1) Harrison, T., 2006. Competitive and cooperative conflict communication climates: The influence of ombuds processes on trust and commitment to the organization. International Journal of Conflict Management, 17(2) Khan, R., 2011. The dual responsibility of the HR specialist: … for people issues and strategic management. Human Resource Management International Digest, 19(6) Kincaid, J., 2008. Conflict, facilitation, and individual coping styles across the work and family domains. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 23(5) Read More