United Nations Disaster Management Training Program - Case Study Example

? Leadership and Management Leadership and Management Scenario James is a senior manager at a dynamic firm but is constantly in conflict with one of the junior staff, Irene, who is apparently a very clever employee and has often offered ideas, which are conflicting with James point of view. James has recognized this problem and has tried various approaches but the spar still frequently occurs. As, a result, James has resulted to disciplinary measures against Irene, who has in return reported the matter to the human resources manager. The two employees are dedicated to their work and are highly valued by the company but their constant conflict has greatly impeded effective coordination and overall performance of the department. It appears neither is aware of how to move beyond the conflict. The firm has assigned an important project o a team lead by James and Irene a key member. James knows that Irene has important skills and energy to make important contribution to the teamwork but is worried their continued conflict is likely to derail the team performance. It is therefore important to resolve the conflict, first, to avoid negative impact on the project, which is very critical to the company strategic goals. Problem Analysis As human resource manager, James requested intervention in resolving the conflict with Irene for the benefit of the company. Structured meeting is one of the initial processes of bringing conflicting individuals together to identify the underlying problem, and is an opportunity for active participation in indentifying problem and proposing possible approaches for resolution (Gottlieb, 1997). In such scenario, it is important to recognize the importance of make the meeting a conducive opportunity for the two individuals engaged in a conflict to interact without reservations. Hence, the first task as a mediator in the conflict is identifying a venue that is convenient two the both conflicting parties. The venue selected by the mediator and mutual accepted by both parties. To achieve that, the mediator ensured that the selected venue was convenient to both parties in terms of time spent to get there, the social status outlook is neither demeaning nor intimidating to both parties, is devoid of unnecessary interruptions and distractions and that the scheduling of the meeting allowed relatively unlimited time for conversation. Once, the venue mutually accepted, it was important to undertake a thorough background check of the history of conflict between the two individuals, reported to the human resource department. This involved a critical analysis of the possible causes of the conflicts, their resolution and the implication of the human resources decision on both parties. According to Cortina et al (2001), checking the background of the conflict allows identification of uncivilized behavior or abuses involved in the interpersonal conflict. The result of this process indentified several factors, which were significant to the ensuing conflict between the two parties. First, it is apparent that the difference in opinion and the mode of expressing them was a major source of friction between James and Irene. Secondly, the nature of organizational structure required some power distance between senior managers and the junior staff. Accordingly, Irene felt that James was misusing these organizational characteristics to suppress brilliant ideas, which would improve work performance and at the same time ease the difficult of performing tasks. On the other hand, James noted that Irene has tendency to overlook organizational procedures, and even though this produces desired outcomes, the pose great danger to organizational policy. Further analysis f the two employees showed that their education background is different. James been much older is a student of the traditional management school of thought while Irene is much younger and exposed to modern management approaches. It was also apparent that although James had far much working experiences and in job training, Irene was far had far much academic competence but with limited work experience having joined the company just several years back. Thus, it is possible that she felt that James was not up to date with the current information on management and work execution methods. Therefore, there was the possibility of misunderstanding based on experience and academic competence, which combine define an individual experience with respect to occupation. According to Ohbuchi & Fukushima (1997), differences professional experience and academic achievement are possible sources of workplace interpersonal conflicts. The next step was stating the rules of engagement for both parties. This involves listing down the issues that each party identifies priorities, which must be resolved in order to resolve the conflict. According to James, It was necessary for Irene to respect his authority and follow laid down procedures in the performance of duty. Furthermore, he noted that in case of the need to propose better methods and procedure of performing duties, it would be more appropriate if she let him know well in advance in and in privacy rather than raising those issues during departmental in a manner that is apparently combatant than engaging. Irene noted her priorities were that James detest from confronting her using his rank to apply disciplinary measures as a means of suppressing her progressive ideas. In addition, she request that James agreed to disagree with her based on the merit of ideas proposed rather than taking reactionary stances. These issues made up the agenda of the meeting. During the meeting, James insisted on the obedience by the Irene. He noted, “There is no way that this department can function effectively if we do not respect the hierarchy of authority as outlined by the organizational policy. Furthermore, it is not acceptable for every individual to devise his or her own means of doing work. The laid down procedure must be followed others we could be encourage chaos that result from untested methods of duty performance.” It is apparent from the conversation that James was not willing to encourage innovative ideas and he was much concerned of retaining authority. Irene on her part said’ “ it is very frustrating to keep using age old methods when the current state of technology and information systems allow more efficient means of working. What are the benefits of refusing progressive ideas without considering their merits, or is it because they are proposed by junior staff?” This is just a part of the conservation that went on during the meeting. It suffices that that they reflected the issues identified during the problem analysis stage. The mediator then participated in finding solution to the conflict. The human resource manager outlined the importance of the organizational hierarchy and the attendant power relations. This included, notifying the involved parties that organizational powers are not be used to pursue personal gratifications. More importantly, organizational policy be adhered to but there are various channels for presenting grievances as well as suggestions on how to improve work procedures and processes. The two parties agreed to uphold these guideline in an engagement, In addition, James explained, that his objection to Irene suggestion and mode of duty performance is not motivated by personal interest of fears but rather by the responsibility accorded to him as a departmental manager. More so, it human resource manager made it clear that any disciplinary measure is applied after wide consultation; hence, James has no personal vendetta against her. Furthermore, it was understood that Irene suggestions were not intended at undermining James authority or academic competence but rather promote efficiency in work performance. Recommendation The above analysis indicates there is personal conflict between James and Irene, which may impede work place performance. According to Moberg (1998), a person’s behavior is a function of the context and individual’s traits. Therefore, it is important to consider the context of interpersonal conflict as well as the relevant characteristic of the parties involved. Conflicts in workplace situation provide an excellent opportunity of identifying the particular situational aspects, which, influences the participants. The unfolding situation in a conflict makes manifests aspects of the social cognition of the individuals, which in turn helps, identify the underlying triggers of friction between the parties involved in the conflict. In resolving conflict, the destructive patterns transformation, by the engaged parties into constructive patterns, to create a positive and satisfying outcome for both parties. Therefore, the aim of the conflict intervention should be achieving transcendence outcome. Transcendence outcome, are beyond withdrawal from conflict, win-lose outcome or compromise (Galtung, 2000). Several approaches achieve outcomes that transcend the interest of the conflicting parties. These include Dialogue, non-violent communication and the Onion model of conflict resolution. The major task in pursuit of transcendent outcome to a conflict is identifying a common ground for the involved parties. This mainly involves identifying the main concerns and aspirations of he parties to the conflict. Dialogue helps achieve transcendent outcome through redefinition of the situation to transform conflicting interest and goals into compatible aspirations. According to Galtung (2002), facilitated dialogue helps conflicting parties to engage in constructive brainstorming that promote empathy with each other’s concerns. The task of the mediator is to encourage the parties to engage in a constructive and creative conversation that leads to the acceptance of the need to have a share goal, the common ground. This process helps individual avoid judgmental stances, which hinder conflict resolution. Nonviolent communication mainly aims at facilitating engagement of the conflicting parties without escalating the conflict. According to Leung (2008), it involves objective observation of the conflict, description of the feelings resulting from the conflict, identification of the needs that produce the prevalent feeling and requesting for fulfillment of the needs. The nonviolent approach by large extent employed in the dialogue processes. According to Fisher et al (2007), the Onion model is an effective tool of directing dialogue towards identification of a common ground in conflict resolution. References Cortina, L. M., Margley, V. J., Williams, J. H., & Loughout, R. D. (2001) Incivility in workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, vol. 6, no. 1, 64-80. Fisher, S., Ludin, J., Williams, S., Abdi, D.I., Smith, R. & Williams, S. (2000) Working with Conflict: Skills and Strategies for action. London, Zed Books. Galtung, J. (2000) Conflict Transformation by Peaceful Means (The Transcend Method). United Nations Disaster Management Training Programme [Online] Available from www.transcend.org/pctrcluj2004/TRANSCEND_manual.pdf [Accessed: 26 November 2012] Gottlieb, R. M. (2003) Managing group Processes. Connecticut, Greenwood Publishing Group. Leung, A.S.M. (2008) Interpersonal conflict and resolution strategies.” In Team Performance Management. vol.14, Emerald Publishing. Moberg, P. J. (1998) Predicting conflict strategy with personality traits: Incremental validity and the five-factor model. The international Journal of Conflict Management. vol.9, no. 3, 258-285 Ohbuchi, K & Fukushi, O. (1997) Personality and interpersonal conflict: Aggressive, self-monitoring, and situational variables. International Journal of Conflict Management, vol.8, 99-133 Read More