Teachers and Their Ego in the Workplace - Literature review Example

Table of Contents Introduction 02 2. Problem ment 04 3. Literature Review 05 4. Conclusion 12 5. Recommendations 14 6. References 16 Introduction Conflict is a process in which one party perceives as its interests may be depressingly divergent to other party. It arises when the divergent goals of more than a party get a collision (Robbins, 2000). Conflict can be categorized in two types basically one is socio emotional conflict whereas the other may be referred to as task related conflict (Schooley, 1994). The task related conflict is also known as constructive conflict (McShane and Glinow, 2003). Many researchers have revealed that the socio emotional conflict is most common type of the conflict manifest. It is communicated through any non verbal or verbal behavior through which other person takes it on ego or self respect. Getting something on personal grounds while working or communicating for a purpose is a most general description of socio emotional conflict (George and Jones, 1999). The type of conflict we are going to generalize in the underlying study is socio emotional conflict. First it could arise in result of task related conflict but later it is manifested in the form of socio emotional conflict (McShane and Glinow, 2003). It is a common phenomenon that people face this sort of conflict at numerous stages while working and communicating (Schooley, 1994). As a workplace conflict, teacher student conflict is a most common and frequently observable category of the conflict (McShane and Glinow, 2003). If we observe the general phenomenon that describes a conflict at a school or at higher educational institution, we can deduce that this is very common because of several reasons. First it is started as a work related conflict but because of divergent behavior of any of the party; it is converted into socio emotional conflict very easily (George and Jones, 1999). Further we will try to explore the relationship between teacher’s ego at schools and role of students in galvanizing this behavior. We are also concerned here with the conflict resolution process. In general the process in which conflict is resolved is known as negotiation. As a result of negotiation process, it is expected that the conflict will be resolved among the parties. However it depends upon how it was handled and carried out till the end (Schooley, 1994). Problem Statement: “Teachers and their ego in the workplace” Problem which we are trying to explore is more specific and real time. As the potential problems backed by the underlying study may be revealed as follows: Teachers and use of legitimate power that make them feel more powerful compared to the students Teacher student workplace relationship: the recent transformations Use of coercion by teachers while resolving the conflict The power makes the teachers more egoist Teachers get more support by the stakeholders that makes them more egoist Teachers do not want to resolve the conflict through collaborative conflict management styles rather than using forcing styles Literature Review Conflict is a bilateral term which refers a quarrel that is rooted through disagreement on a nominal level. Started through a nominal level, it goes up with the passage of time (McShane and Glinow, 2003). There are a number of sources that are associated to the conflicting situations. The sources of conflict may be incompatible goals, divergent values, tasks related interdependence, limited resources, vague and unclear rules and communication problems. However many approaches are suggested by behaviorists to resolve workplace conflicts (George and Jones, 1999). If we specifically talk about teachers and students related conflicts, we may come to know that the conflict process is a cyclical process that practically demonstrate that how the conflict is started and how it is ended leaving its effects (McShane and Glinow, 2003). Source: McShane, Steven Lattimore, and Mary Ann Young Glinow. Organizational behavior: emerging realities for the workplace revolution (2003). The above conflict process defines the possible evaluations for what a conflict may arise among a teacher and a student at a work place (Robbins, 2000). It is consisted of numerous stages which are directly involved in conflict process. If you tend to critically examine the overall conflict process which has been incorporated in the light of a specific conflict of teacher and students (McShane and Glinow, 2003). At workplace, conflicts are aroused due to emotional attacks. The main reason for that conflict is reported as a task related conflict in the beginning but afterwards, it transforms as a socio emotional conflict (George and Jones, 2000). The outcomes of the conflict may be constructive as well as distressing. The constructive outcomes are yielding for individual as well as group purposes whereas distressing outcomes further escalate the conflict cycle (Rahim, 1990). Source: Robbins, Stephen P.. Organizational behavior. 9th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2001. The counter foils of conflict are stress and organizational politics associated to power use. The power is legitimate in the under discussion case. It has been a clear idea, for what teachers are more egoists at institutions. The conflict perceptions and emotions are manifested in front of the other party deliberately but most of the time these are unintentional as well (McShane and Glinow, 2003). The problems associated with conflict emotions are very weird because people perceive in their own mind. They do not consider the prior situations in a concrete way rather it is perceived which may create halo effect as well horning effect (George and Jones, 1999). The task related conflicts are transformed in to socio emotional conflicts because of perceptions and non verbal emotions (Rahim, 1990). The horning effect plays a vital role in conflict escalation cycle. It is because the previous experience with any other party creates a prior image in the person’s mind (Harvard Business Review, 2000). For example if a rotten student comes in front of teacher, teacher would first evaluate the student in the same way he or she had presented his or her personality previously. Teachers are authorized with certain grounds of legitimate power that make them superior in anyway. They are stronger party in case of any conflict (Atzeni and Maurizio, 2010). The famous teacher student conflict may be observed, well known as John and McMellon school conflict. Sometimes students take the teachers’ opinion as personal attack which further turns into adverse and divergent kind of conflict. Here we have several structural approaches to minimize the conflict (Miles, Glenn, and Josephine Wright, 2003). Creating Goal Compatibility: the goals of subordinates must be compatible and matching to the organizational goals (Sikljovan and Dara, 2003). If it is not taken in the view in a complete way, it may create an adverse situation so far. If a student is working for some project which is non credit and taking his or her time plenty near exams, he or she will definitely be dissatisfied because it is creating a potential incompatibility among the goals (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2004). If it is on the teacher’s demand and if the student realizes that it would go to teacher’s credit, it would create more distress and dissatisfaction. This sort of situations must be preceded in a convergent way such that all of the parties remain satisfied with each other (George and Jones, 1999). Value Matching Approach: it is more observed in diverse work force situations. The work force diversification is only handled when values are matched accordingly (McShane and Glinow, 2003). If the values of both parties are divergent in anyway then it is clearly defined that the collaborative environment is difficult to create (George and Jones, 1999). It is about perceiving as your yes my no, you are up my down or your white my black. It is as similar as the values of individuals in Asia are entirely different from the values of people in western cultures. If the values of each party are divergent, it is a strong chance that parties feel dissatisfaction from each other (Robbins, 2001). Reduction in task interdependence: Tasks must be on the least level of interdependent between and among the parties. There are three levels of task interdependence which ultimately cause the conflict(Sikljovan and Dara, 2003). The least level among all is pooled interdependence. It suggested in the organizational settings to employ pooled interdependence of tasks. Through this strategy, it is feasible for the people to stay away from the conflicts (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2004). If the conflicts are at minimal level, they can be resolved through other soft strategies. However the conflicts are also reported while implementing the corporate level changes which are also known as organizational transformations (McShane and Glinow, 2003). Justified Resource Allocation: the allocation of scarce or limited resources must be justified. If the allocation process is guilty or faulty, it is stronger probability to get indulged in conflicts (McShane and Glinow, 2003). The conflicts are resolved through providing equal opportunities of usage of fixed resources or providing equal portion of shareable resources. It can also be specified through pay and reward system. If the organizational culture settings are following strong settings. Strong culture although does not permit flexibility and innovation but sharing system satisfaction may be employed better in strong cultures (Miles, Glenn, and Josephine Wright, 2003). Implementing Clear Rules: Teacher student conflicts may be observed more when the rules of conduct are vague. It may employ several contingencies such as the rule sheet is so long or the probability of following some of the rules is almost zero. If the targets are very hard and it is intended not to let anybody reach near those, it is a great deal when pupil feels dissatisfaction as well as conflict with teachers (Kreitner and Kinicki, 2004). Teachers sometimes transform the rules according to the situation. Rules must be concrete and solid enough and there must not be any ambiguity in the understanding. Another thing, rules must be made for all and the punish reward system must be based on the equality (McShane and Glinow, 2003). The organizational stories must not be in negation with the current settings. It will tend to start a higher level of conflict and uncertainty and that ultimately makes the situation worse. Better Communication: if the situation can be handled through dialogue and soft approaches, it must not be turned in to coercion or hard approaches to resolve the conflicts (Miles, Glenn, and Josephine Wright, 2003). It is highly discouraging situation if the super ordinate does not communicate to the people and just simply employ the orders of punishment or decisions. The communication between teachers and students must be improved in the similar way like they communicate with peers in clarity without hindrances. Communication improvement must be on the superior grounds that may be able to permit flexibility and decentralized environment within the organization (McShane and Glinow, 2003). Apart from the above stated structural approaches to resolve the conflicts. There are many other approaches as well. The conflict management styles other than structural approaches tend to employ the following outcomes preferably. Win- Win Orientation: In this approach both parties try to find out a solution which is mutually beneficial for both of them. It is specified to use this situation in most of the business situations. In educational institutional settings, it is not that much sufficiently observed (McShane and Glinow, 2003). Win- Lose Orientation: In this approach, one of the parties wins the situation and gets yielded while the other loses their potential and the due right. It is happened when one party is more powerful while the other is lesser powerful. It is a risky situation because nobody knows at what extent one has to lose (Miles, Glenn, and Josephine Wright, 2003). The styles include the following (McShane and Glinow, 2003): Competing: It is about win lose situation. Collaborating Avoiding Accommodating Compromising Source: McShane, Steven Lattimore, and Mary Ann Young Glinow. Organizational behavior: emerging realities for the workplace revolution (2003). The conflict management styles in educational settings are more concerned to the power and its use. In the setting of teacher and student, the teacher is more powerful. It is more inclined towards usage of competing strategy (Sikljovan and Dara, 2003). One party is more powerful while the other has lesser power. Teachers have realization of their power such that they know how and when to impose the decisions. In real time surroundings of educational institutions, teachers show more ego and power. The ego of teachers is observed in peer to peer settings as well. It is based upon authoritative power with respect to hierarchy (Miles, Glenn, and Josephine Wright, 2003). Forcing or competing strategy is more observable when it is to resolve the conflict among the teachers and students. When in peer to peer settings, the environment is entirely different. Another factor of referent power is more concerned in the meanwhile. Compromising and collaborating strategies are in practice generally (McShane and Glinow, 2003). Conclusion The conflict resolution among teachers and students is a unilateral setting where teachers are usually more powerful and egoistic party. Because of legitimate power and single authoritative party with least level of answerableness, teachers impose their settings over the students. While in colleagues setting is different. The sources of conflict in the organization are same all around with a little bit of change or transformation. The sources of conflict include goals incompatibility, value mismatch, task interdependence, resource allocation problem, rules ambiguity and communication barriers and other associated issues (McShane and Glinow, 2003). The implementation of conflict management and negotiation process is a right way directional phenomenon which is directed by arbitrators or negotiators. Here it depends upon several factors which are directly affected by the conflict and its causes. The basic reasons of conflicts are more important in order to resolve the conflict. The negotiator may perform better in a way if all of the directions are provided completely and concretely. The structural conflict management approaches are better if the conflict is straightforwardly linked to the sources of the conflicts. Whereas the other conflict management styles are substantial when the win or lose orientations are more important for any of the parties. Orientation based conflict management styles are more favorable when the situation is a little bit adverse beyond the sources of conflicts orientation. There is a wide range of conflicts and its management orientation (Miles, Glenn, and Josephine Wright, 2003). The ego of teachers is hence associated with the power and ultimately it is directed toward students’ dissatisfaction. Conflicts among teachers and students arise when any one of the parties perceive that the other party is becoming hinder in the way of one party’s interests divergently. It is a management orientation for what we can avoid more conflicts. The greater probability of the conflict shows the incompatibility of management and organization stakeholders’ interests. This is an indication of weak organizational culture. The strong organizational culture does not employ long term conflicts. But once if conflicts arise in such organizations, it is a big deal to resolve these conflicts (Harvard Business Review, 2000). Recommendations Resolving and preventing teacher student conflicts seems to be a simple phenomenon. But it relates to a very special kind of conflict known as hidden conflict. In other words, no party confesses whether if it is a conflict but internally it is an adverse conflict. It further tends to a situation like cold war. The parties if do not confess the situation of conflict, then it is quite understood that they will not be even agreed over the conflict resolution (Miles, Glenn, and Josephine Wright, 2003). The organizational culture must be strong where the rules are clear and are expected to be followed strictly by everyone alike. Punish and reward system is equally attainable for everyone in a same manner. However this phenomenon is good for large organizations where room of flexibility is narrow and number of employees is more. With holding to the organizational core values, ethical values must be introduced time to time and it must be expected from the employees to follow and implement those in daily operations. However it is a little bit difficult but such expectation must be put in front of employees straight forwardly. The insider strategy for educational institutions is cross sectional and contingent. Through this hard tactic, people inside the organization are more inclined towards conflict avoiding attitude (Miles, Glenn, and Josephine Wright, 2003). If teachers are more egoistic in an undue manner, a full fledge teachers’ feedback system should be introduced. A complete 360 (three sixty) degree feedback may help the management to resolve and evaluate the nature of reported conflicts. It can better be identified whether the student is claiming a real conflict or it is for the sake of conflict or defame of the teacher (Harvard Business Review, 2000). Student politics and alliances must be highly discouraged. Same should be in the case of teachers. In this way, everyone will be accountable individually and no one will be standing in front of the other individual to secure him. Again it is the matter of management that how does it manages and handles the situations efficiently and effectively. A mentoring system should be employed in the organizations which could transmit a transparent report to the higher authorities related to the performance and biases in the educational institutions. Because of this system, the organizations may be able to provide better outcomes and a higher level of satisfaction to the students in a more effective manner. References Robbins, S. P. (2001). Organizational behavior (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. McShane, S. L., & Glinow, M. A. (2000). Organizational behavior. Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill. George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1999). Understanding and managing organizational behavior (2nd ed.). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. Rahim, M. A. (1990). Theory and research in conflict management. New York: Praeger. Harvard business review on negotiation and conflict resolution. (2000). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Schooley, S. A. (1994). Conflict management. Birmingham, Ala.: New Hope. Atzeni, M. (2010). Workplace conflict. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Miles, G., & Wright, J. (2003). Celebrating children: equipping people working with children and young people living in difficult circumstances around the world. Carlisle: Paternoster. Sikljovan, D. (2004). Maternal mending of joint action with aggressive and nonaggressive preschool children during a social-competence interaction task. new york: willey. Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (1998). Organizational behavior (4th ed.). Boston, Mass.: Irwin/McGraw-Hill. Read More