Types of Large-Group Methods for Dealing with Change and Conflict - Essay Example

Analyzing Groups In Chapter 38 of your Coleman, Deutsch & Marcus text, The Handbook of Conflict Resolution Theory and Practice, there is a discussion of three (3) types of large-group methods for dealing with change and conflict.  For each area or type, select one (1) model that is of interest to you and conduct further research on it.  -Write a 1-page summary on EACH of the theorists, detailing the key points of the model, what you found most interesting, and what could be useful to you in your role as a leader.  -You must use at least two (2) outside resources for each theorist selected. Future search theory Future search theory by Weisbord and Janoff, (1995) holds special interest for me. The creators of Future Search have designed certain activities such as self-disclosure, imagining, analyzing and planning (Coleman, Deutsch & Marcus, 2014, p. 926). These phases represent major steps of any open system planning process. I can relate the effectiveness of the system as it was introduced to IKEA furniture in 2003. Tomas Oxelman, the human resource manager of the company introduced this theory (Weisbord & Janoff, 2010). The company embraced it because it was so effective that they could see the entire global operation from the perspective of a single product. To me, this holds crucial importance because the way this theory envelops the whole process is extremely useful. It fits perfectly well with the scenario I am facing at my company (the theater). The collaboration is truly diverse in this theory as the people from the inside as well as outside get to share their views. Future search refers to the generic design that spans over five segments, and each takes about 2 to 4 hours (Weisbord, Weisbord, & Janoff, 2000). The whole session is only three days long. Considering the context our group needs to focus on the past while attending to the demands of the present. This phase will develop actions and later ideal future scenarios can be identified and then an action plan can be made. The gradual buildup also ensures that irregularities or hurdles are removed as people come together on common grounds. Participative design theory Participative design theory by Fred and Merrelyn Emery (Coleman, Deutsch & Marcus, 2014, 930) is extremely useful for its bottom-up approach. It is an organizational principle that offers a coherent strategy and a toolkit for restoring dignity in organization and community settings (Baillie, 2006). It really involves people in the decision-making process. Emphasis of course is on effective participation or bringing democracy in the organizational decision-making process. Under the circumstances that the theater is going through it is probably one of the best models to follow. The change scenario needs to be implemented as soon as possible. People are habitable of status quo and it will most probably create difficulties for them in adjusting. When this model will be applied it will involve the people in the decision-making process and give them the sense of empowerment. This is crucial in implementing the change because I need people to want what I want and not make them do what I want. It should be noted that it might be democratic but there are minimum critical specifications set by the management (Coleman, Deutsch & Marcus, 2014, 930). For the theater there are specific minimum compliance standards such as abolition of volunteer-like behavior, and keeping proper legal documentation of the theaters business. Participative design aims to build a self-managing organization (Vogelsang, 2012, p. 297). Ultimately this is my goal that the theater should be self-regulatory without stringent central control. However, restructuring the workplace must be done within the confines of the minimum critical set standards by the management. SIMU-REAL SIMU-REAL (Coleman, Deutsch & Marcus, 2014, 930) is a very practical approach to introducing organizational change that does real-time work on the current issues, while at the same time testing future designs and learning about systems. I am particularly interested in this theory because of its proactive nature to issues. For instance, the organization selects the issues for work and the practicality is that the arrangement of the room reflects the organizational structure. And all the participants are expected to contribute according to the organizational roles. To keep the transparency, the decision process is agreed in advance therefore, there can be no objection regarding the fairness of the decision. The process is relatively quick as it takes only 24 hours. We need this kind of swift organizational change mechanism in our theater. There are many irregularities in bringing change with system that also keeps the decorum of the company intact. This methodology makes the organization more visible and aware of the issues. It brings together the key members of the organizations to work in collaboration on issues and at the same time also trains them regarding the organizational dynamics (Klein, 1992). It is a relatively fast method. There are three action periods followed by one analysis period (Justice & Jamieson, 1998). This method suits the theater because the action gets evaluated almost in real time. This gives a very forward-looking approach and makes it relatively less time-consuming to adapt to the change. After completing the research: -Select the model that you believe would be most beneficial for use with your change scenario.  SIMU-REAL is probably the best model suited for the change scenario. With the mismanagement we have already wasted a lot of precious time. We need to get things up and running as soon as possible. Spending too much time in consultation, resolving issues identifying problems and collaborating will not be good for the theater when it comes to generating profits. This model will help identify issues in a very short time. Also, the participation of people is realistic as the model upholds the organizational hierarchy. The group size is ideal as 50 to 150 people participate. When the action periods commence the participants work on the tasks for which the session is called. This offers a more hands-on approach to deal with difficult situations. And immediately after that there is analysis period where evaluation is performed. The participant look how that things have worked out in the action period. As the CEO of the company this is extremely important for me as I have to evaluate more than anyone else to see the dynamics of the organization. It is offering me an insight into the organization from a very realistic angle. It is also highly rewarding for my team because they will be able to know how they can work together in a better way. A relatively small design group plans the whole event in advance. The planning process of the event is not done in isolation as conductor or the facilitator of the event is the supervisor during the planning process (Justice and Jamieson, 1998). Before the event the members get to decide the core issues set for the event. They also set the home-based groups where the different participants will be assigned in the three action periods. This classification almost mimics the actual groups in the organization. It offers a highly realistic model for the organizational dynamics. CEO can use a hawk’s eye approach to look at the whole scenario from the issues to the people. One of the major problems I might face for introducing the change is the resilience in accepting it. The SIMU-REAL model brings everyone together in a large open space, where the home-based groups sit at separate tables. This would also test my abilities and judgments because it will give the opportunity to the team members to play their strengths and test my opinions. There are always limits in place to keep the interactions according to the ground rules. These rules are pre-established to ensure a smooth conduct. Such a system is a must for the theater. The decision-making process offers choices. It is probably the best part of the model as it brings forth the democratic system and rules out any chance of dictatorial influence. It offers three decision-making choices (Justice & Jamieson, 1998, p. 558). executive decision-making ad hoc decision-making the decision-making table The executive decision-making refers to the extent management team is held responsible for core procedures. I might hold the seat of the chairman but the management team is ultimately responsible for the decision-making process. The first choice will be preferred in the case of my theater. -Using the Case Example in Chapter 34 of your Deutsch text as a guide,  -Outline a simple (4) four-phase plan for helping with conflict that you anticipate facing as a result of potential changes (see Summary, p. 799). The problem that I might face is resistance to change. Discipline is being introduced in the administration of theater, and emphasis is on appropriate financial reporting. Stage 1: Preparation The objective of the negotiation is to achieve mutual agreement in such a way so that neither any board member nor an employee should feel disempowered. Defining Interest As the chairman of the board I am well aware that the board members and employees have biases. They were having a lot of slack time in the absence of proper by regular enrollment and lack of performance matric. Now everyone has to contribute according to their job title. The focus will remain on understanding the cause of objections. If they want to keep contributing like volunteers, what is the reason behind that? I want to take the theater and turn it into a profitable business that adds value to people’s lives by entertaining. Defining BATNA As the chairman I am aware that there will be some hurdles that will not dissolve. I have a vision for the theater and achieving it exactly would be an exaggeration. However, there are alternatives such as the objection against replacing the treasurer can be dissipated by honoring the opinion of the board members. If we hire a new treasurer the final approval of the candidate will be on mutual basis and not on my sole discretion. Defining Issues theater is not contributing in terms of quality arts and entertainment board members lack discipline IT expert failed to update the website treasurer failed to file proper tax forms Defining targets and walkways Proper financial and tax reporting User friendly website interface Discipline among the board members and employees Frequent quality shows at the theater anticipating major turn out of the crowd Understanding the other party Board members and employees are the other party No one can argue against the best interest of the theater The agenda (improving the theater administration) will be exchanged in advance Be prepared for the negotiation to take more time and effort It is a given that negotiations usually take time and a lot of effort. But the changes are necessary therefore, as the chairman, I am aware of these challenges Stage 2: Building a Relationship with the Other Party I cannot see the people working at the theater as part of the problem, not even the treasurer. Through integrative negotiations even complex matters can be resolved. Through frequent communication and developing trust the hope is to resolve the matters in a friendly manner. Stage 3 Exchanging Information It is a joint-problem solving endeavor. The chairman might have the vision but a better solution can come from the employees or other board members. The rules for the negotiation will be laid out before commencing the process. I will also ask the participants to explicitly state their respective interests. As with any normal negotiation, at the start each party would state their opening offers. The expectation is that the conclusion will be somewhere in the middle. When I will share information, it is expected that the other party will be willing to reciprocate. Stage 4: Inventing and Exploring Options When all the issues are laid out on the table it would be easier for everyone to see where they agree and where they disagree. When certain issues get resolved in a relatively short time, they can be crossed off the list. It will leave only those issues that must be hard. In the previous steps, through the exchange of information, it can be expected that the board members must have suggested a few options. The ones that seam feasible will be accepted and implemented accordingly. References Baillie, C. (2006). Engineers within a local and global society. Synthesis Lectures on Engineering, Technology and Society, 1(1), 1-76. Coleman, P., Deutsch, M., & Marcus, E. (2014). The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Justice, T., & Jamieson, D. (1998). The complete guide to facilitation. Human Resource Development. Klein, D. C. (1992). Simu-real: A simulation approach to organizational change. The Journal of applied behavioral science, 28(4), 566-578. Patton, C. (2010). 10 tips for managing employee conflict effectively. Optometry Times, 2(2), 36. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database. Vogelsang, J. (Ed.). (2012). Handbook for Strategic HR: Best Practices in Organizational Development from the OD Network. AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn. Weisbord, M. R., and Janoff, S. (1995).Future Search: An Action Guide to Finding Common Ground in Organizations and Communities, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA. Weisbord, M. R., Weisbord, M., & Janoff, S. (2000). Future search: An action guide to finding common ground in organizations and communities. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Weisbord, M., & Janoff, S. (2010). Future search: Getting the whole system in the room for vision, commitment, and action. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Read More