Organizational Behaviour: Carol Brown and Bruce Ford's case - Essay Example

?To a larger extent, it can be said that if Carol Brown and Bruce Ford should leave the organisation, the causes of any dysfunctional conflict in thelocal government team would disappear. A critical analysis of the case study shows that Bruce has been overlooked for promotion as a result of his lower academic credentials despite the fact that he has stayed longer in the organisation. On the other hand, Carol Brown is also facing the same predicament as Bruce and this is the reason why they are bent on scuttling all the efforts to improve services offered by the department to the customers. In fact, these two people are pulling their efforts in a completely different direction from the other team members since they are in direct conflict with the perceived views of other people in the department. As such, this essay seeks to critically analyse different aspects of conflicts using the conflict model in a bid to establish their impact on group or team performance. In order to get a clear understanding of the whole concept, it is imperative to begin by defining what a conflict is. According to Robbins (1993, p. 45), “is defined as a process that begins when one party perceives that another party has negatively affected, or is about to negatively affect something that the first party cares about.” A conflict must be perceived by the parties to it otherwise it may not exist if no one is aware of it. It can be noted that conflicts are inevitable in an organisation as they play a significant role in its operations. However, Kleynhans (2007) posits to the effect that dysfunctional conflict that hinders group performance becomes undesirable to the organisation hence the need to find an amicable solution to such type of a conflict. There have been different schools of thought with regards to roles of conflicts in groups and organisations. The traditional view of conflict argues that conflict must be avoided since it shows that there is a malfunction within a particular group (Wener et al , 2007). The human relations view states that conflict is natural and it is inevitable in a group since it has the potential to be a positive force in determining group performance. On the other hand, the interactionist perspective proposes that conflict is absolutely necessary for the group to perform effectively (Werner et al , 2007). From these schools of thought with regards to conflicts, this paper shall take the perspective of the interactionist view which proposes that not all conflicts are good, some support the goals of the group and improve its performance and these are regarded as functional conflicts. On the other hand, some conflicts hinder group performance and these are regarded as dysfunctional conflicts (Robbins et al, 2004). It is therefore important for the group to tell whether a conflict is functional or dysfunctional for the benefit of the group. In this particular case, emphasis will be put on the impact of conflict on group performance. In an organisation, the objectives, values and needs of groups and individuals are not always uniform and this is the reason why there are conflicts (Armstrong, 1994). Whilst it is generally accepted that there should be clashes of ideas in a group so as to enhance improved performance of that particular group, some conflicts become counter-productive when they are mainly based on personality clashes. In the given case study, it can be noted that the conflicts that exist are purely based on personality clashes and these have an impact on the performance of the group to a certain extent. It can be noted that both Carol Brown and Bruce Ford are fighting their own wars which have nothing to do with organisational goals. They are mainly concerned with issues of personal interest such as promotion since they have failed to satisfy the criteria for earning a promotion ahead of their juniors who have better qualifications. As such, they have declared that they will work against everyone in the team in order to register their discontent about lack of promotion. Theoretically, this type of conflict has nothing to do with goals and objectives of the group as it is meant to fulfil personal goals. To a larger extent, it can be noted that this type of conflict is dysfunctional as it is causing disharmony among other members of the group. Some members of the group have clearly stated that they dislike the personalities of Carol Brown and Bruce Ford. Carol’s dislike for new team members is more apparent and is so personalised to such an extent that she disagrees with every new member. She is not a team player at all and this has a bearing on the performance of the group as there is no unanimity in their operations towards the attainment of the goals and objectives of the department. It can also be seen that Bruce tries to be a team member but his efforts fall short of the general expectations of the group in order to optimise its performance. The other three members of the group have expressed that they dislike the personalised conflicts by Bruce and Carol as they are calculated to derail productivity in that group. The conflict is regarded as destructive and they are failing to push for change within an organisation which has resulted in the reduction of production. According to Amos et al (2008), the conflict process can be seen as comprising of five stages namely: potential opposition or incompatibility, cognition and personalisation, intentions, behaviour and outcomes. The first step in conflict process is the condition that is responsible for creating opportunities for conflicts to arise. These conditions include communication, structure and personal variables. Though they may not directly lead to conflicts, one of these elements is necessary in order for a conflict to arise. Poor communication in an organisation often leads to conflicts in some instances though it is certainly not responsible for all conflicts (Robbins, 1993). The structure of the organisation is also responsible for conflicts such as the use of authoritarian rule by the leaders and research has shown that the level of specialisation is responsible for stimulating conflict. On the other hand, it can be observed that personal variables which include individual value systems that each person has and personality characteristics are responsible for causing conflicts. In this particular case of IT Elegance, it can be noted that the personal characteristics of Carol Brown and Bruce Ford are incompatible with the method used for promoting the workers. They are disgruntled as a result of the fact that people straight from universities occupy higher positions than them despite the fact that they have been in the organisation since its inception which is a major cause of conflict. The second stage in the conflict process is cognition and personalisation where the parties become aware of the conditions that that create opportunities for a conflict (Robbins, 1993). It is at this stage that the individuals become emotionally involved and they experience frustration as well as hostility. In this case, both Brown and Ford have developed negative emotions about the criteria used for promoting the members of staff and this is the major source of conflict. To a larger extent, it can be seen that these two members of the team are not in a position to compromise their position as they are greatly influenced by their emotions. The third stage in a conflict process is related to intentions which are viewed as decisions to act in a certain way (Amos et al, 2008). A lot of conflicts are heightened by the other party attributing wrong intentions to the other party. In this case, it is the new policy of the organisation that people can only get promotion on the basis of their academic qualifications in conjunction with performance and merit. However, this is in direct conflict with Bruce and Carol’s view such that they vent their frustration at other team members which is a wrong intention given that these are not the ones who implemented this policy framework. Stage four in the conflict process is related to the aspect of behaviour (Robbins, 1993). The conflicts become more visible and each party tries to implement his or her own intentions. In this case, both Bruce and Carol display a particular behaviour of overt challenging others and they always threaten them in everything they do. Their behaviour is aggressive and they have made their intentions known that they are bent on destroying the other party. At this stage, it can be seen that the conflict has become dysfunctional as it is now impacting negatively on the performance of the group. As such, conflict management becomes a virtue in order rectify the situation that has gone out of control. Problem solving which is specifically concerned with finding amicable solutions to the conflict is a better technique that can be implemented (Werner et al, 2007). Failure to control the situation may require the removal of Bruce and Carol from the department as they are major obstacles hampering its performance. The fifth stage in the conflict process is outcomes. There are certain consequences likely to take place between conflicting parties. There is likely to be increased group performance or decreased group performance as a result of conflicts. In this case, it can be noted that this particular conflict at IT Elegance is regarded as dysfunctional conflict as other parties are bent on destroying the efforts of other parties in the group. This has resulted in poor group performance as the members are not pulling their efforts in the same direction. However, there are different conflict intentions that can be taken in order to deal with such scenarios. The conflict handling intention is comprised of five different categories discussed below. Competing is when one seeks to satisfy his or her own interest regardless of the impact on the other parties to the conflict (Robbins, 1993). This applicable to this situation where Brown and Carol are concerned with fulfilling their selfish interests at the expense of other employees who have been promoted on merit. Regardless of the fact that they have lower academic qualifications, they still want to be promoted to higher positions. The other conflict handling intention is collaborating where the parties to a conflict are in a position to satisfy the interests of people concerned. Whilst other team members are willing to solve the conflict, Bruce and Carol are not interested which calls for them to be removed from the group. The third intention is avoiding where the other party shows the desire to withdraw from the conflict (Robbins, 1993). However, in a conflict of this particular type, this is not an option since the sources of the conflict are not willing to shift their intentions. The other intention is accommodating where the other party may be willing to prioritise the interests of the other party in a conflict. Whilst the other team members are willing to accommodate these two warring parties, it can be seen that they are not interested. The fifth intention is compromising where one party is willing to give up something. However, this may not be feasible given that the promotions of the other members were done legally and are in compliance with the organisation’s policies. Over and above, it can be observed that conflicts which exist at IT Elegance show that they are driven by personal agendas and they are counterproductive as they are negatively impacting on the performance of the group. To a larger extent, it can be concluded that the removal of Carol Brown and Bruce Ford from the department would improve its performance as they are the sources of dysfunctional conflict within it. Their efforts are intentionally directed at destroying the efforts of the other team members. Whilst conflicts are inevitable and necessary in an organisation, some of them are destructive like this one hence there is need to get rid of them. References Amos, TL et al 2008, Human Resources Management, 3rd Edition, JUTA: CT. Armstrong, M 1994, Improving organisational effectiveness, Kogan Page: London. Kleynhans, R et al 2007, Human Resource Management: fresh perspectives, Prentice Hall: CT. Robins, SP et al 2004, Organisational Behaviour, Pearson Education: CT. Robbins, SP 1993, Organisational behaviour: Concepts, controversies and Applications, 6th Edition, Prentice Hall: NJ. Werner, A et al 2007, Organisational behaviour2nd Edition, Van Schaik Publishers: CT. Read More