Workplace Situation Conflicts - Coursework Example

Organizational Conflict Task This paper seeks to discuss conflicts that are magnificently categorized as workplace situations. Conflicts are defined as discord states within organizations and are caused by perceived or actual opposition of values, needs or interests between workmates working within the margins of given organizational institutions. These conflicts occur and take various forms in the organizations that they take place. There exists the clash between the established formal levels of authority and command and the individuals working under such levels of authority and power. There exist clashes that are rooted in disagreements on how business revenues are distributed and how the entities’ work should be meted. There emanates jurisdictional differences among persons, departments/divisions, and between established union/associations and their overseeing management. There also exist subtler conflict varieties that involve enmity, jealousies, individuality collusions and position definitions (Bodtker and Jameson, 2001). Struggles for power/influence and favor are also rampant in organizations. There exists occupational divergence within persons — between contending desires and hassles — to which persons act in response in diverse ways and methods. The selected organization that will form the basis of this discussion is a cement manufacturing company that has a clear cut organizational structure that encompasses both the organizational heads and the individuals that work under them. There are departments that work in unison to facilitate a wholly operational company and these departments include the marketing department, sales department, and the procurement department. Others include the finance and accounts department, customer care/public relations department, the IT department, logistics, legal department, planning and research, maintenance/operations, human resource and the product development department. The selected situation that can be sourced from the organization regards people’s conflicts within selected departments working in the entity. We establish that organizational conflicts that occur between individuals in organizational work groups like boards/committees, and other managerial group forms are unavoidable (Bodtker and Jameson, 2001). These variances may be disparaging or in some limited cases, constructive. Conflicts within organizational groups arise in rejoinder to the deemed insufficiency of liberties, positions, and resources. Persons who rate independence highly happen to resist the call for interdependence and, to various degrees, compliance within a specified group. Individuals seeking power/influence therefore compete with their work colleagues for positions or statuses that are deemed to be powerful and influential inside the institution and in some instances, outside the organization. Rewards and acknowledgment are perceived as inadequate and indecently disseminated, and organizational workers tend to contend within themselves for these rewards and acknowledgement statuses (Hatch, 1997). In many organizational cultures, competition is widespread than teamwork, and this tends to deepen intragroup conflicts. Specifically, there exist many conflicts in the human resource and finance/accounts departments that serve the company/organization. This has to do with the nature of the tasks carried out in these departments and the impact of their contribution to the organization is immense. The big job positions in these departments are therefore prone to constant accusations and counter-accusations on the basis of the many employees jostling to outdo each other to access these positions. Furthermore, other staff members working in these departments tend to be organized in cliques where one clique supports one member who occupies a certain senior position in the department and another clique inclines to support a rival senior personality within the department. Conflicts also occur when junior members compete immensely to gain favors from their seniors. This is a serious phenomenon that has taken root in the company and some conflicts have reached alarming levels, often implicating senior departmental personalities in the mix-ups (Hatch, 1997). Motivational Theories There exist a number of motivational theories that could be employed in this organizational scenario to stress the need for positive conflicts that could be beneficial to the cement company. As stated before, conflicts can either run down a company or strengthen it to higher heights. To achieve a stronger and profitable company, positive conflicts would be beneficial (Jung, 2003). This way, positive working conditions will be enhanced and team work will be perfected where different arms/departments of the company will work in unison for the growth and betterment of the institution. Motivation is a rather multifaceted phenomenon. A number of theories attempt to break-down how motivation works in different situations. In the organizational management world, the most common motivational explanations are based on the individual needs (Hatch, 1997). For instance, the basic needs approach, oftenly referred to as the content model of motivation, encapsulates the detailed factors/features that encourage individuals. Though these highlighted factors are created within persons, external factors can as well affect/influence him/her. All persons within an organization possess needs that need satisfaction. Some are categorized exclusively as primary needs, such as food, clothing, and affordable housing and have the characteristic of being the needs that involve behavioral physical aspects and are seen as unlearned. Their manipulation on individual behavior is apparent and consequently easily identified. Secondary needs are mental, meaning that they are acquired through learning from experience. Secondary needs contrast radically by organizational cultures and by organizational persons (Jung, 2003). They consist of inner states, for instance, power desires, triumphs/accomplishments, and love. Spotting and making empirical interpretations of secondary needs is complex and difficult because appear in numerous and varied ways. Secondary desires are accountable for much of the behavioral traits that organizational managers are concerned about, and the expected rewards that individuals seek in organizations. This motivational theory is appropriate in explaining the conflict situation in the company. The equity motivational theory can be used to explain the motivation of given teams or groups of people that comprise the departments that constitute the cement company. According to this theory, individuals working in any institution or organization compare the reward potential to the group effort they ought to apply. Equity in these departments exists when workers identify that their combined efforts are equal to their group rewards. Organizational workers dont give the impression of only looking at their latent organizational rewards; they also significantly take time to look at the latent rewards of other persons (Hatch, 1997). Inequalities crop up when persons develop the notion that their anticipated organizational rewards are second-rate to the organizational rewards meted to other personalities who are considered to share similar occupational workloads within the organization. Disgruntled employees who harbor such sentiments of inequality may exhibit certain behavioral traits that include: Putting limited occupational efforts into their job positions, asking for improved treatment/rewards, finding means of making their work within the organization look better in comparison and also, request for job transfers or ultimately quit their job positions (Bodtker and Jameson, 2001). The equity motivation model emphasizes that persons tend to adopt behavioral traits that conform to their perceptions within their organizations. Every organizational manager should ensure that negative penalties from equality assessments are utterly avoided, or significantly minimized, when organizational rewards and acknowledgements are allocated to employees. Informed leaders/managers in any organizational setting should also anticipate frequent occurrences of negative perceptions whenever perceived inequities in reward allocations take place. They should not wait for the equity concerns boil over and should therefore embrace effective communication with their subordinates about the intended value classifications being rewarded and more so, clarify the appraisals for performance instead of letting equity distresses get out of hand, these managers communicate the intended values of rewards being given, clarify the performance appraisals that support the rewards and thereafter, raise viable comparison benchmarks (Jung, 2003). Role of the Organizational/Company Leadership The role of the organizational/company leadership is vital in the mitigation of these conflicts that entirely emanate from individuals working in the company. The company leadership structure ought to look indepth at the existing behavioral traits and the consequences that emanate from the conflicts. They leadership structure should focus on formulating ways of modifying the worker’s behavior through appropriate employment of some stipulated techniques such as positive reinforcement, which aims at rewarding appropriate and desirable behavior within the company’s workforce. Positive reinforcement measures such as promotions or pay rises is a mitigating factor that rewards appropriate and justifiable work-related behavior with the candid intention of magnifying probable chances that the appropriate behavioral traits will be repeated in the future for the betterment of the departments and the company in general. Avoidance measure is also an attempt that seeks to show the conflicting parties what the repercussions of inappropriate behavior will be, meaning, if the conflicting parties cease to engage in inappropriate behavior, the laid down repercussions will not catch up with them. The extinction technique basically ignores the behavioral traits of subordinates and not creating either negative or positive reinforcements. In such a company scenario, the leadership structure should employ this technique to ignore subordinates who “act out” to attract attention from their counterparts or from those in authority. This technique however, should be used only when the supervising authorities within the company perceive the behavioral traits as not serious or are temporary and not typical of the subordinates in question. Punishing dissenting subordinates who fuel conflicts within the institution is also a viable technique that attempts to diminish the chances of conflict-fueling behavioral traits recurring by enforcing negative repercussions (Jung, 2003). These repercussions include issuing job-related but professional threats and administering suspensions. Role of Power and Influence Power and influence in the organization play a vital role in streamlining employees to conform to the established rules and procedures. The leadership structure is therefore entitled to professional influence and power failure to which the unemployment of influence and power will run down the company. Conflicts can be countered through the leadership structure’s commitment to deal appropriately with dissenting subordinates who fuel conflicts and other unwarranted scenarios to achieve personal whims. The managers in charge of various departments in the company ought to motivate their subordinates by subjecting them to learning the appropriate behavior acceptable to the organization and the leadership structure. This will inculcate positive thinking and more so, influence positive behavioral traits. The managers should also know that through their influence and power, failure to appropriately reward appropriate behavior in the work place can modify the subordinates’ behavior to negative levels. Employees in the company who harbor the notion that they deserve rewards for their appropriate behavior and end up not receiving any rewards often grow disenchanted with the company’s leadership hierarchy and the company in general. References Bodtker, A. M. and Jameson, J. K. (2001). Emotion in Conflict Formation and Its Transformation: Applications to Organizational Conflict Management. International Journal of Conflict Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 259-75. Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organizational Theory. Oxford. Oxford University Press. Jung, S. (2003). The Effects of Organizational Culture On Conflict Resolution In Marketing. Journal of American Academy of Business, Vol. 3, pp. 242-46. Read More