Managing Conflict & the Negotiation Process - Assignment Example

Managing Conflict & the Negotiation Process Conflicts may come in various nature and in differing levels and time. They may be big or small, intermittent, or chronic, or simply trivial. But conflicts are conflicts and each one is unique - just as are the approaches used to manage them. The most logical approach in managing conflicts is to frame it first, in order to understand what the conflict is all about and how it is going to be addressed. For example, is the conflict about interests, about needs, or about fairness Is it about trying to project a win-win solution These approaches serving as strategies may include accepting rather than challenging, sharing power, and clarifying goals. These are as far as determining what the conflict is all about. In managing conflict, it is important to determine who are involved, what they think, andthe context or the environment of the conflict. One would best map out the conflict to determine its scope and all basic information so that one can match an effective response to it. Part of this is determining the options available and the costs and benefits accruing from them. Often, a great deal can be learned from similar experiences of the past which can also yield ideas about what things are likely to happen. Efforts must be made to look into who would be affected by the conflict especially those that are silent and have not yet become vocal. Disputes often times have histories which may explain the feelings of others on the issue. When people speak, they may be able to give hints on how the current situation can be resolved. At times, disputes may be related to others disputes and this deserves some attention as they may affect the outcome of the earlier conflict. In the 'Artic survival project' (The plane drifted away in Artic and the group had to decide what to do). The goal of the game is to survive. (1) Describe what happened to you (and to your team, if appropriate) during the exercise. As supposed survivors, we were faced with a common enemy [the possibility of not being able to survive] and so we were one. What each one of us were, was quickly forgotten as we had to be united to get us out of the problem. We had to work as a team and explore an uncharted territory. As time went on, thoughts were turned to our individual selves as dwindling supplies and security from the unknown stared us in the face. We had to think of strategies, yet have our personal needs met. In trying to communicate with each other, there was the trend wherein some members preferred to direct communication first to one's buddy in the group, then eventually to the emergent leader. In the process, the quiet one seemed not to be included with the team. Communication was bridged only with the emergent leader shifting back and forth between the non-talking parties. I can see that one needs to be alert, to be on top of their game, and agile enough to respond quickly and effectively to changes. Exercises like this can be very helpful for the mind. Where before, I had only myself to dictate how I moved, here, I was forced to act from a perspective wider and bigger than myself. It seemed that I had taken on a personality bigger than that of my old self. (2) Describe how the events that happened relate to our studies. I am amazed to see that the mix of different personalities and levels are counted critical to the success of the activity. First, we do not have the same experiences and the same capacity for understanding concepts involved in the exercise. Second, we didn't know each other that close until after the exercises. Third, we were forced to think quickly. A common problem bound us all: the need to survive. The mind maps had encouraged equal participation from each one of us. The game actually begins when we, as strangers, are left in a rough terrain. There is no opportunity for planning before the game begins. We scramble to gather whatever supplies we can grab. We trek across rugged terrain in search of a campsite. Exhausted, hungry and in the middle of no where, we work together to construct some make shift dwellings, get a fire going (without matches) and figure out what we were going to eat. The inevitable jockeying for position and politicking begins. I think this is an instinct among human beings - to often arrange ourselves over a hierarchy - as though we cannot live on the same level that someone must be ahead and lead. We were met with a series of survival challenges. In understanding the conflicts that happen here, a Needs-Based Framing appears in order. This approach frames the conflict as a collective effort to fulfil the fundamental human needs of all the 5 members of our team. By eliminating the tensions that arise when these needs go unmet, the level of conflict was reduced. Here we were a mixing of different personalities, with different needs, and with different concepts of survival. On the level of finding out what the members of the group think and the context of the conflict, we had to find out all basic information needed in responding to our survival problem. (3) Derive "lessons learned" from the events, and apply them to a potential situation that you have faced (or that you might face in the future) in the school or work world. Based on the survivor team building simulation we had, we learned that we should forge stronger links between geographically dispersed teams. The foremost way to do this is through communication; otherwise when that is cut, connectivity is next to impossible over a wide roaming area. From the exercise, one also sees the need to look for strategies to improve what processes were carried out. For example, with the experience behind, one can be thriftier this time with time and motion and anticipate possible recurrences and then readily know how to react. This now calls for fine-tuning strategies in approaching what needs to be done. The experience has also taught us to eliminate all possible barriers to communication. There is the need for dialogic listening in situations like this. Where survival is of the essence, there is no need for VIPS and heroes. We were all on equal footing and nobody was important or rich or boss, and nobody was insignificant. In the open field of danger, we were all equals. In communication activities, most often, one listens only to himself, what he has said, what he is saying, and what next he is going to say without giving an earnest ear to the other. Herein lies the difficulty because there is wide latitude for misunderstanding the other. There is much that exercises like this can teach us - as to approaches or strategies in open fields of the unknown. Obviously, more and more of these can train the mind to be mentally alert and receptive to challenges. Read More